1979-02-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the statement in the February edition of Reader's Digest by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) that-
-four-fifths of the Parti Quebecois program ... can be implemented within the federal system and the remaining fifth can be negotiated-
-and in view of the claims by the PQ government to a large part of the territory of Newfoundland as spelled out in article 6 of the PQ manifesto, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House rejects the claim of the PQ government of Quebec to any part of the territory of the province of Newfoundland and, furthermore, that it is the opinion of this House that the boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec as established by the Privy Council decision of 1927 and as set out in the BNA Act is not negotiable.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the federal government released today its response to the recommendations of the labour-business Overview Committee reviewing the industry sector task force reports in which 500 Canadians participated, and in view of the fact that the economic ministers of the Crown responsible for these matters are not here, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House condemns the government for its mishandling of this matter and in particular for its responding in a manner which appears to be more political than factual, leading the CLC to call the response a self-serving pre-election document which amounts to a breach of faith with private sector participants and to suggest the possibility that the CLC might withdraw from the whole process.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be put at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order.
In view of the report on the CBC news last night, and the confirmation today of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) that the squandering of taxpayers' money as a result of mismanagement in Loto Canada has increased from $800,000 in early December to a now scandalous $8 million, and since in this House on December 5 in reference to the issue the minister stated, "I am only an $800,000 woman," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That this House requests the Auditor General to investigate the financial calamity of Loto Canada and to report on what has happened in two months to change the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) from an $800,000 woman to an $8 million woman.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 21, 1979


FINANCE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Last Monday the President of the Treasury Board tabled the 1979-80 estimates in the House of Commons. Those estimates reveal that the government expects to pay $8.35 billion in interest on the total debt, which represents a rise of 18.9 per cent over the previous year. Since those interest charges on the debt account for 16.5 cents of every dollar spent by the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House request the establishment of a public financial organization responsible for issuing and circulating all currency and credit necessary for a satisfactory operation of the Canadian economy; that no interest be levied on the issuance of any new credit so as to free Canadians from the burden of public borrowings abroad and excessive interest charges on those loans.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the notable lack of applause from the other side, I still hope there will be some suitable disposition in respect of this issue.
Under the same Standing Order, 1 should like to propose this motion. In light of the unanimous decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal setting aside the conviction of Peter Treu and the circumstances of that decision, I move:
That this House requests the government to forthwith indicate the decision will not be appealed and to consider what action can be taken to make compensation to Mr. Treu for the personal, professional and financial damage he has sustained over the last few years as the tragic result of the investigation, trial and appeal during that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity pertaining to the fingerprinting of public servants in numerous departments, including recent activities in the Department of External Affairs and, in particular, fingerprinting that took place in the past two weeks at the Bourque Building, 305 Rideau Street, of certain members of the national headquarters' staff of the Canada Employment and Immigration Department.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
Whereas question No. 9 on the order paper, asking for details of the massive fingerprinting being surreptitiously conducted by the government of public servants in non-security positions, has remained unanswered for two years, and in view of these latest serious incidents, the Prime Minister be required to issue a statement of government policy on the fingerprinting of public servants which appears to constitute a horrendous governmental invasion of privacy and resembles undemocratic procedures practised by fascist and communist police states.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST HOUSE GIVE MORAL SUPPORT TO MR. SPEAKER IN IMPROVING HEALTH CONDITIONS OF &quot;HANSARD&quot; OFFICES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I make the following proposal:
As the physical and ambient environment influence both the quality and the amount of work produced, as small, unhealthy and polluted offices are harmful to the health of workers, and as the Abbott Commission on Parliamentary Accommodation recommended, as a priority, a marked improvement in the offices of the employees of the House of Commons assigned to

Hansard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House grant its moral support to the Speaker of the House of Commons in order that during the coming election period those offices be enlarged or the Hansard staff relocated with a view to respecting at least the minimal standards for a healthy work environment that usually apply in the private sector.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and it concerns the government's abortive attempt to set up a computerized lottery last year.
Can the minister confirm the report which was on the CBC national news last night, that the waste as a result of the government's mishandling of the Loto Select program will total some $13 million, with almost $8 million being put up by the federal government and over $5 million being paid by the provinces?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the report. I have said I would table it in the House of Commons and it is my intention to do so today. For once the CBC got the correct figures, so I can say that it is a total of $13.2 million of a committed contract of $60 million.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Iona Campagnolo: The provinces of Ontario and Quebec will pay $5.15 million and Loto Canada will pay $7.97 million. The hon. member should think about his comment with regard to wastage, because this $8 million has purchased a profit for Loto Canada and, therefore, for all the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, surely this is the first minister of the Crown in the history of Canada who would brag about wasting $13 million belonging to the people of Canada. The minister has so far refused to tell the House whether or not, knowing that the Loto Select program might never get off the ground, she at least had the common sense to insert into
Oral Questions
contracts with suppliers a cancellation clause that would allow her to escape.
On December 6 and December 7, the minister gave a firm undertaking to the House that she would table those contracts in the House upon termination of the contracts. Will the minister now table those contracts and, further, will she tell the House specifically if she at least had the common sense, when dealing with millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money, to include cancellation clauses in the contracts and, particularly, in the multimillion dollar contract with General Instruments Ltd.?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I think that I am the first cabinet minister who has ever made profits like $200 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Ho, ho. The $200 million woman.


Iona Campagnolo: A sexist remark from the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister of fun and games.


Iona Campagnolo: As to the question, the signed document is a commercial document for General Instruments, and even though it is cancelled it still retains its commercial proprietary confidentiality. Therefore, the people, who are the taxpayers, might be liable for damages if I were to make this particular contract public at this time.
As to the hon. member's second question with regard to the commitment by Ontario and Quebec, it is in like space: the commitment will be met on March 5 after which, and with their concurrence, I would consider tabling it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we are told that the cover-up will continue for at least several more weeks. In the four months which elapsed between the time the minister announced the birth of this abortive Loto Select program in June, and the date in October when she announced its death, she managed to squander public funds, of which she was the trustee, at a rate of more than $75 a minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In view of this fact, is the minister now prepared to take the only honourable course of action open to her and submit her resignation from the cabinet?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford.


GRANTS TO SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the minister refused to answer that last question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House should know that the question was clearly argumentative and that I did not permit the minister to answer.

February 21, 1979
Oral Questions


Bruce Halliday: My question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Since the $13 million of public funds which the minister squandered on behalf of the federal government and two provincial governments is almost one-half of her total budget for this coming year, does this gross error account for the fact that she had to completely withdraw support for six provincial organizations responsible for sport and recreation for the disabled?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, it accounts for the fact that beginning January 1, 1980, there will probably be $40 million for sport at the national level and $40 million for the arts at the national level. If we had listened to the hon. member's colleagues or, in fact, to some of the lottery ministers of the Conservative provinces, there would be no Loto Canada today.
Let us get the facts straight. Each of the two parties gave up two items. The provinces surrendered the principle which they had been maintaining, that the provincial lottery should be exclusive in this country. They gave that up to allow Loto Canada to continue in an agreement of which the hon. member has a copy. In addition, they gave up $5.15 million. Loto Canada, on its side, surrendered the $1 lottery and we gave up $7.97 million to ensure that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who in Vancouver last week said that he would end Loto Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Iona Campagnolo: That would have cost the people of Canada, as a national purpose, $72 million this year. Therefore, I say the absent Leader of the Opposition would have cost national purposes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Now we know what a non-answer is.


Bruce Halliday: A supplementary question to the minister, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) seems to be implying that the new policy of the government, in order to reach agreements with the provinces, is to waste a considerable amount of public funds.
May I ask the minister if she now concedes that she made an error of decision in entering into the ill-fated contracts for Loto Select, when at the very same time she was announcing reductions in grants to many worth-while national organizations such as the Red Cross, the YM-YWCA, the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat to the hon. opposition critic that the money has been spent as an investment to keep Loto Canada at the national level. I think hon. members opposite know that their leader is determined to become the eleventh premier of this country by getting rid of

national enterprises such as Loto Canada, Petro-Canada and probably anything else of national import.
To answer the hon. gentleman's question in which he said that the YM-YWCA, water safety courses and other things, have not received funding from me this year, I must say he is quite correct. That is the result of a federal-provincial conference where the provinces asked for the right to have these things under provincial purview. We did yield to that request, but we did maintain our purview in fitness and sport and at the national level.


MINISTER'S CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING LOTTERIES-REQUEST FOR AUDITOR GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION OF LOTO CANADA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct some questions to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). I should like to take her back to the source of the loss. A loss is a loss, no matter what she says.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Not all the way back. My question deals with the consultations the minister had with her provincial counterparts with regard to Loto Canada. There were several meetings, some in June and some later, which dealt with the question of Loto Select. Can the minister advise whether she had any agreement from the provincial governments before she went into this scheme which has squandered some $13 million of federal tax money?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, if I had any proper co-operation with the provinces, I doubt very much that we would have had to go to these lengths of competition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. member who is from British Columbia should know that it was our province of British Columbia that refused to attend the conference; our province that refused and broke the conference that was scheduled for September, 1977. I am quite sure that if that conference had taken place, the $1 lotteries would never have been undertaken as they were.
I do not know what the hon. gentleman intends with the rest of his question. He knows very well that the meeting in June was one where the federal government, through Loto Canada, offered the provinces 50 per cent of our profits. The provinces did not want 50 per cent of our profits; they wanted 100 per cent, which we were not willing to give. Eventually, after bilateral discussions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Iona Campagnolo: -with the provinces, we gave them 50 per cent of our product. I think that is a fair and equitable arrangement in the circumstances.
February 21, 1979


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister should have been perfectly aware that the refusal to attend that conference was a clear indication the provinces would have nothing to do with her scheme, and yet she proceeded to squander public money. Those are the facts.
My question is this. Given the admitted loss that has been confirmed of $8 million at the federal level, has the minister recommended, or is she recommending to cabinet that there be a specific reference to the Auditor General so that he can have a clear, intensive investigation into where this public money has been squandered and why it is so much?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member realizes that only one province refused to attend the conference and the other nine provinces were in favour of attending the conference in September of 1977-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Fraser:: Did you waste the money, or did you not?


Iona Campagnolo: -which I think would have made it possible for this to go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I do hope that I have the floor for a few moments to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Obviously, the hon. member for New Westminster is concerned that this amount of money has been invested to retain Loto Canada. He seems to believe it should have been given over to the provinces. It was not; it has been shared. The province of Ontario and the province of Quebec are partners with us in this, and the other provinces in this country do not have any competition in the $1 lottery, which is part of the agreement.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister should also be aware that her scheme is drying up numerous private lottery, charitable schemes in the country.
My final supplementary question is this. Perhaps the minister could be specific in terms of the waste in the city of Vancouver of the $160,000 lease for the useless office space in Vancouver and the $300,000 for mothballed furniture. Has that now been marketed, or is it still sitting there as an albatross around the neck of the taxpayers in downtown Vancouver?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the facts are all contained in the report that I will table today. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that all those matters have been dealt with and are successfully settled.
Oral Questions
I do wish, Mr. Speaker, that he would not fight his campaign for the British Columbia election on the floor of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. This morning I read an article in an English newspaper which said that I had prevented the minister from introducing a bill decriminalizing the possession of marijuana, a bill which would have changed the approach taken about this drug in the Criminal Code. Could the minister tell us whether he meant that all of a sudden I was influential enough to stop him or whether he was trying to convince the media that I should have voted for a bill I had not even read?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: The hon. member will recall that in a conversation with him, I asked him if his party would be willing to support an amendment to the Criminal Code which would have the effect of reducing the penalties for possession of marijuana and more particularly of eliminating criminal records for that offence. The hon. member will recall he indicated then that his party preferred to keep the law as is it now without changing it. Therefore, when journalists asked me about that, I told them that unfortunately there was not general agreement in the House to proceed expeditiously with the consideration of amendments which could have been proposed. I think that I reflected very accurately the conversation I had with the hon. member and, as I see his colleagues nodding, 1 think that is indeed the policy of his party.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am somewhat distressed by the fact that we have not had the opportunity to look into the amendments the minister has been advocating and I suggest we should have had the opportunity to do so before coming to a decision. If he means that they wanted to maintain criminal files on all young people involved in drug taking, I think it would have been possible to demonstrate some open-mindedness. On the other hand, I resent the fact that newspaper articles do not reflect the discussion.

February 21, 1979
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member is now saying that he is prepared to have the legislation amended, although he had indicated during our discussions that he was in favour of maintaining the legislation as it now exists, I shall be pleased to discuss this issue further with him. If he now wants a similar legislation to which he can refer, I suggest to him Bill S-9 which I tabled in the House about two years ago. It had been introduced in the Senate, and perhaps the hon. member might direct his remarks to me in light of that bill.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question. I suggest that the minister wants to mislead the House, for I have never said that I did not want to read it and I did not mean that we did not want to look into it; what I said was that we were not prepared to rush this bill through but that we were willing to discuss it. It is quite the contrary.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I suddenly realize that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find out whether the hon. member's party is for or against the proposed amendments to this legislation. When I met him he simply indicated that his party would rather keep the Criminal Code as it now stands. Now, if the hon. is saying that his party is willing to change its position, I shall be pleased to discuss further this issue with him.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of nine of the ten members of the Board of Economic Development Ministers of this country who just gave a 46-numbered response to the recommendations of the Overview Committee dealing with industrial sector studies in this country, my question will be to the Deputy Prime Minister who happens to be the tenth member of that board.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that a meaningful comment of the Overview Committee was with regard to the urgency of having full employment in this country and the suggestion that the government should work to a full employment policy, and that notwithstanding that recommendation there was no response from the federal government with respect to this urgent matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the response of the government to the proposals, recommendations or views of the Overview Committee. I realize that not all of the recommendations that have been made by the Overview Committee have been accepted by the government. Most of them have been accepted. Some of the recommendations must

be responded to by provincial governments because they are under provincial authority.
Maybe the hon. member can indicate precisely what recommendation has not been responded to and I will attempt to explain to him the reason for that. I would say, however, that as one looks at the table of contents, almost each and every one of the subjects has either a direct or an indirect bearing upon the pursuit of full employment. Of course, the whole purpose of the exercise was to promote economic growth in Canada as recommended by the committee and supported by the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to the Overview report on manpower, where it states that "manpower policy should be, in the view of the committee, a full employment policy". There was no response by the federal government to that recommendation. Will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether the government in truth believes in full employment in this country and yet does not have a policy to deliver full employment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it seems rather curious that the hon. member would ask the Government of Canada whether it believes in a full employment policy. One of the main objectives of the financial and fiscal policy of the government is to promote increasing employment in Canada, as witnessed by the rather remarkable performance of the economy in the past year in producing additional jobs. However, I would say to the hon. member that on page 15 of the report, continuing the dialogue on industrial growth, there is a very extensive commentary on the part of the government to the recommendations of the Overview Committee on the question of manpower and labour relations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the Canadian Labour Congress took great exception, in a press release released at eleven o'clock this morning, to the government's response with regard to their Overview recommendations, stating that the government's response is a "pre-election document that amounts to a breach of faith with private sector participants," and are even suggesting that the Congress may reconsider its participation in future exercises of this type?
If the minister is aware of that comment by the CLC, can he explain his earlier remarks to the House? Second, is he going to take any steps to try to ensure that the CLC does not pull out of the process, as it is suggesting it might do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the attitude of the CLC to this response of the Government of Canada until the hon. member for York-Simcoe drew it to the attention of the House. Indeed, it would be a matter of regret if the Canadian Labour Congress withdrew from this consultative process, which was novel, imaginative and useful and which involved not only the Congress but representatives from the academic community and industry.
I believe that any fair-minded citizen who reads this report would be stretching his imagination to conclude that it in any way represented a pre-election document. It was a government
February 21, 1979

response to the views that were expressed by the Overview Committee. I can imagine the howls of protest we would hear from the hon. member if the government failed to make a considered response to the recommendations of the Overview Committee. This is a very serious response and ought to be regarded as such. I am surprised that it could or would be interpreted in any way as a pre-election document.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice with regard to the Peter Treu case. While I assume the minister has not yet had a chance to obtain and read the full record of the reasons for judgment, I imagine that as a good minister he at least telephoned and knows some of the reasons for judgment.
While the minister did not have the chance to hear the appeal, as I did, I would ask if he would, under the conditions that exist, make a clear statement that it is not the intention of this government to appeal that decision, and that the government will give very serious consideration to the question of making reparation for the very tragic and serious damage which has been sustained by Dr. Treu as a result of the experiences which, from my observation in reading the evidence, appear to result from bureaucratic bungling and ineptitude.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that we obtained a copy of the judgment at noon today. I instructed the law officers of the Crown to examine this judgment immediately and to report to me as expeditiously as possible. I expect to be able to answer the hon. member very soon indeed.
As to the second part of his question, I would indicate to him, as I am sure he knows, that in that instance, as in many other instances of prosecutions before the courts, there was a preliminary inquiry at which a prima facie case was found with regard to the possibility of an offence having been committed. Second, there was a judgment at the trial division convicting of an offence. This judgment has now been reversed by the Court of Appeal. That is where the matter stands at this time. This is the way the rule of law applies in this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before making a decision in that regard, I trust the minister will bear in mind that investigations were launched and took place over a year and a half, costing several hundred thousand dollars. The government was prepared to spend that much money in this case.
My supplementary question is this. Bearing in mind that this decision follows several decisions of courts in the United Kingdom dealing with the Official Secrets Act, and that in both countries the courts have universally taken exception to
Oral Questions
the rather heavy-handed and frequently intimidating and discriminatory use of the Official Secrets Act by governments in both countries in using this act, will the minister agree with the words of one British justice that it is about time parts of this act should be pensioned off?
Would he also agree that a committee should be appointed to examine these decisions and this act and recommend to the House that this medieval legislation be brought into conformity with modern ideas of equity and justice?


Marc Lalonde: As the hon. member has indicated, the Official Secrets Act goes back many years in both countries. At the present time, a committee of officials is at work reviewing the Official Secrets Act. It has been engaged in this work for the last few months. I hope its review will be concluded in the next while and that it will lead to proposed amendments which would be brought before the House for study and improvement if possible.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the fact that Soviet-made Lada automobiles are selling on the Canadian market for approximately $4,000 each, and that apparently the retail price in the Soviet Union is approximately $10,000, would the hon. gentleman have this matter investigated and, if the price gap is confirmed, take the necessary steps leading to the imposition of anti-dumping duties on these cars?
[ Translation]


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member that there has been no formal investigation to determine if there is dumping of these vehicles. This type of investigation under the Antidumping Act would normally be undertaken at the request of Canadian vehicle manufacturers. To date, there has been no such request.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return, if I may, to the subject of the

February 21, 1979
Oral Questions
Tier II report and direct a further question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Surely he would agree that the 500 men and women from the private sector and the labour sector who participated in this review are fair-minded men and women of considerable judgment.
I ask the minister whether, in response to the very serious charges made, he is not at least prepared to admit that the principal recommendations in the report have been treated somewhat lightly and that by agreeing in principle, or in part, and then going on to say that steps are already in place to achieve the goal sought by the recommendations, the government has jeopardized the services of people of some distinction in the two sectors concerned?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I readily agree with the hon. member that the 500 persons who took part in the examination of the 23 sectoral studies were serious and that they made a very good contribution. Their recommendations were considered and the government has made a careful response to each of them.
I believe that if the hon. member examines the situation, he will find that in many instances recommendations or views put forward by the Overview Committee were accepted by the government either in whole or in part. In other instances it was found that ideas put forward by the committee were already in effect or were capable of implementation through current programs. I, personally, do not find any basis for complaint against the government for making a careful and serious response to the Overview Committee. We believe the recommendations were important but we believe the consultative process is equally important.
We shall do everything possible to remove any misunderstanding which may have accounted for some of the reports which have been made to the House today, because I believe only a misunderstanding could be the basis for the kind of criticism we have heard.


J. Michael Forrestall: Surely the members of the Overview Committee were aware, for example, of the existence of the document "Energy Strategy for Canada-A Policy for Self-Reliance" when they recommended that a national energy policy be developed by the federal government in consultation with the provinces and the industry concerned. Surely the minister will accept that the ladies and gentlemen connected with those sectors of our economy were fully aware of that document and yet, believing it was not sufficient to meet present Canadian requirements, put forward recommendations calling for the development of an energy policy.
Why would the government shoot it down? Why does the government persist in terming it a misunderstanding, if it accepts the proposition that the Overview Committee is composed of well-informed men and women and that its opinions are important?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have never attempted in my answers to escape from the fact that in certain instances there is a

difference of opinion between the views of the Overview Committee and the view of the government. The Overview Committee stated its belief that the government ought to develop what it called an energy policy. We have countered and replied by saying that there are in place the elements of an energy policy as set out in "Energy Strategy for Canada-A Policy for Self-Reliance."
We have also pointed out that in certain areas of the proposals made by the Overview Committee, there are strong differences of opinion among the provinces as to which policies ought to be followed, for example, with regard to pricing, and that it is not possible in certain instances for the government to move forward with the unanimous support of the provinces. Only yesterday we noted how difficult it was for members of the opposition to put together an energy policy on pricing as we heard from western and eastern members who were taking somewhat different views.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. An hour ago Statistics Canada reported that industrial corporate profits in the final quarter of last year, 1978, went up by an astounding 39 per cent, based on increased sales of only 13.6 per cent.
In light of the fact that the cost of living went up by 8.9 per cent and that the average wage increase was only about 6 per cent, and bearing in mind the desire of the Prime Minister that all Canadians restrain their incomes, I should like to ask the minister whether he will now urge the large corporations of this country to rescind price increases which result in large, usury-type profits?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I do not know what report the hon. member is referring to, but I received a report at noon put out by the Anti-Inflation Board, entitled "A Study of Profits and Profit Margins in the Food Industry." It does not say what the hon. member says. It is an update of the report the AIB made last fall. It says that over-all food processing industry sample profit margins remained unchanged at 3.3 per cent for the nine-month period ending September, 1978.
With respect to food distribution, it says the profit margin for the first nine months of 1978 averaged 1.30 per cent, up from 1.21 per cent in 1977. This compares to 1.67 per cent over the period 1971-1977. There are increases, but not of the kind mentioned by the hon. member. Further to his question, we do intend to hold meetings with people in the food industry to discuss some of these problems.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: At one time the minister used to say he would look into things. Now, he cannot even hear. My question
February 21, 1979

related to a report from Statistics Canada which came to me at about one o'clock. It reported that industrial corporate profits in general had risen by 39 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. Will the minister now urge the corporations to rescind price increases which have led to profits of this type which can be described as usurious?


William Warren Allmand: I apologize to the hon. member, I thought he was referring to profits in the food industry. Sometimes it is difficult to hear in the House. I have not yet seen the report to which he referred. I would like to read it before making any statement on it.


REPORT OF OVERVIEW COMMITTEE-REASON FOR ABSENCE OF MINISTERS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister who in responses to questions by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and others has demonstrated his lack of knowledge with respect to the report and therefore demonstrated a lack of seriousness in the government's response to the report.
My question to him is this. In a matter as serious as this, dealing with the economics and future of this country and supposedly continuing the dialogue, as the government has put it, would the minister explain why the House of Commons, on the date when this document is released, is faced with the absence of nine economic ministers plus the Prime Minister? If there is a reason why those nine economic ministers are missing, I certainly would like to hear it and so would the country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I accept any criticism the hon. member might make about my lack of knowledge on this or any other subject, but I would point out to him that my responses were based on the report itself, unlike the questions that were asked by his colleagues which were based totally on the press release of the Canadian Labour Congress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe if the opposition had any knowledge of this subject, they might be able to develop independent questions instead of relying on what might be construed by some people as a not entirely non-partisan document.
The Prime Minister and nine economic ministers are in the city of Toronto today on public business-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -meeting, today and tomorrow, with quite a large number of public interest groups. Of course, the President of the Board of Economic Ministers made this
Oral Questions
particular report public today, which I hope will be a matter of broad public discussion.


Walter David Baker: The economic life of this country is extremely important and I would think the government would await the presence of these economic ministers in the House so they could be questioned on the day the report is released.
There is another matter, however. Has the government, in this report, conspired to mislead the people in this country with respect to the work of this government; and I deal with the whole question of the commodity tax revenue? The government in its response has implied, at page 25, that this committee has a reference to deal with the commodity tax review. In fact, we have tried to get the government to put in a reference, and they have said, "After the committee has finished its review." The government has attempted to imply that the commodity tax review is before parliament. That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter David Baker: When does the government intend to move on that review?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the hon. member, I would like to say that my reading of the report controverts entirely the implication which the hon. member has drawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
I should like to know whether the Minister of Transport is aware of the serious problem which has been created by the VIA Rail schedule for those people in northern Ontario who live along the CNR main line west of Capreol. Access by rail to Toronto, the political and commercial capital of the province, has become difficult and at times nearly impossible because of inadequate transfer arrangements. What action is the Minister of Transport able or willing to take to help restore an essential rail link between northern and southern Ontario?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been made aware of the situation and has requested VIA Rail to look into it. VIA officials, I have been told, are studying the problem now and any change which would be requested would be referred to the CTC for approval.

February 21, 1979
Oral Questions


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
It has to do with a minor mathematical problem. The minister will enlighten the House. Yesterday the minister answered questions asked by my leader and by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I think I saw the article published in the Reader's Digest which mentioned four-fifths of the program of the Parti Quebecois and another fifth, which equals 100 per cent, in my view. To that the minister answered that it is out of the question to negotiate sovereignty. So I would ask him today-because he certainly had time to read that article-whether he can tell us if the newsman reported his statement accurately and, if not, I would let him answer my question?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and I gave notice to the House that I would raise a question of privilege at 3 p.m. on that matter.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
When the minister says the answer is no, does that mean that the newsman did not accurately report his statements?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall demonstrate that at three o'clock.

(English]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister who in answer to one of my colleagues earlier today with respect to the Overview Committee report on labour and business said that a careful and serious response has been given to that report. The Deputy Prime Minister went on to talk about the consultative process.
In view of the fact that the CLC stated today that the federal government never gave the Overview Committee the opportunity to have a detailed dialogue on its report in the long discussions that went into the construction of its recommendations, is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that there was a careful and serious response through the consultative process, or is he saying that the CLC statement is false?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the debate would be about what constitutes a detailed examination or a detailed dialogue, but the hon. member should

recall the nature of this process. It began with 23 sectoral studies which were launched by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers. These sectoral studies were then examined by the Overview Committee, which made recommendations on the sectoral studies. They were presented to the government, and it is at this time that the government has prepared its response to the recommendations.
If the hon. member reads the report, he will understand that it is a careful, well developed response to these serious recommendations. This is but one step in the dialogue. The hon. member should look at the title of this document, which is "Action for Industrial Growth-Continuing the Dialogue". The dialogue has not ceased and it is hoped that those who participated in the Overview Committee will continue the dialogue by making their response to what is contained in this document.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister said that this is just one step in the dialogue. For a number of years we have been hearing from the government about steps in the dialogue with labour, the result of which has been the withdrawal of labour from the Economic Council of Canada and from the Canada Labour Relations Council, and now the warning that the Congress, as is stated in its press release, is forced to reconsider its participation in future exercises of this type.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to make a commitment, now, to meet again with the labour and business side to reconsider what is clearly, on the basis of the allegations that have been made today, a shallow and inconsiderate response to the Overview Committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the hon. member's description of this particular report. It is the very opposite of a shallow and superficial document. If it had been regarded as such by the Canadian Labour Congress, the Congress would not have reacted so strongly and politically by describing it as a pre-election document. One does not describe a document as being shallow and superficial unless one finds something very worth-while in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that certain of our armed forces personnel posted overseas have free mailing privileges, will the minister advise the House whether he has had any discussions with the Postmaster General with a view to offering all armed forces personnel posted overseas free mailing privileges?
February 21, 1979


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of free mailing privileges which are available to the armed forces. Armed forces personnel are treated in the same way as any other citizen of Canada abroad. I would be happy to look into this matter to see the import of the hon. member's question, but I do not think this is a step which would be recommended at this time.
The armed forces are paid well. They are paid at the same level as the public service of Canada. We want to make certain that they continue to be paid well and that they keep up with the cost of living, but I have no intention of extending free mailing privileges to the armed forces, or even requesting it.


ABSENCE OF MINISTERS-PROPOSED MOTION TO ADJOURN
Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point. In view of the fact that every economic minister is absent from this House, I move that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Peter Elzinga: I move that this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Walter David Baker: There is a motion on the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will know that I recognized him during the course of the question period. A motion to adjourn is always in order, according to the Standing Orders of the House. However, such a motion must be put forward, as I have ruled on more than one occasion in the past, at a time when a member has the floor for the purpose of putting a motion, which is not done during the question period. When a member has the floor at a time at which motions are received, then that motion is always receivable.


PRIVILEGE
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday in this House I was asked questions by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) concerning an article which attributed a certain statement to me. I read that article overnight. I would like to say that to my knowledge I have never been interviewed by the journalist for Reader's Digest who wrote this article.
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
I checked my public statements over the last six months, and the only possible source of anything approaching such a statement as the one read in this House by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would have been on the occasion of a well attended press conference in Montreal on October 6 last. That press conference was well reported at the time. I indicated repeatedly during that press conference that there could be no question of negotiating sovereignty-association in any way, shape or form, and one piece of evidence of this is the Ottawa Citizen of October 7. This was only one among several other quotations in the newspapers at the time. The Ottawa Citizen said, and I quote:
Lalonde reaffirmed that an administration under Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau would not enter into negotiations on sovereignty-association if the province chose that option in a referendum expected late next year or early in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The article continues:
"-We will not negotiate sovereignty-association," Lalonde said. "We do not believe it's a workable solution."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I read the transcript of the whole press conference and found no trace of the statement attributed to me. I can only conclude that the statement was not made. In fact, the section of the article in Reader's Digest where one finds the statement attributed to me talks about the flexibility of federalism, not about possible negotiations about sovereignty-association. Everybody present at the conference understood that what was referred to were the specific policy proposals of the PQ in various fields of government activity. I indicated that out of these 85 per cent could be implemented under the BNA Act as it stands at the present time.
As to the other 15 per cent, amendments like those we have been discussing with all the provinces over the last few months would be required; for example, amendments dealing with resources, marriage and divorce, communications, indirect taxation, etc., or there could be implementation by the federal government after consultation with the provinces.
In order to make the record perfectly clear and beyond any doubt on this subject I would like to read into the record an excerpt of what I actually said at that conference. The first statement was in French:

Finally, to deal with the federal system, is it true that it has been so bad for Quebec in 1867?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to restrict the minister's right to do what he is doing. We have traditionally permitted members of the House of Commons to rise in their place to complain that they had been inaccurately reported to the point of privilege or perhaps contempt of the House. In this particular case, however, I think the hon. minister is going another step. He is indicating, first, that he did not give the interview which was allegedly reported by Reader's Digest,
80050 - 5

February 21, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
and that is the main point. The second point is that Reader's Digest may have used some other conference-which is not certain, obviously-as the source of its material, and the minister now seeks to put on the record the contents of that conference. I think the House has to take the minister's word as to what he said at that time, but I think it would be extending procedures too much to permit him now to read into the record his statements at that time.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the statement which has been attributed to me made specific reference to certain percentages which I did refer to during the press conference. I have with me the actual text of what was said, and I submit, with respect, that in order to make sure that the House will have the full story, that I can make my question of privilege quite clear and that there will be no doubt later on about what was said, I should be allowed to put on the record a short excerpt of what I actually said. I want there to be no doubt about what was said on this particular subject. I think it is very relevant to the point of this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we were dealing with a situation in which the source had been identified in the newspaper or magazine article-for example, a statement by the minister-I think the minister would be entitled to read that statement into the record. However, that is not in fact the case. It is a slightly different case. The minister is saying, in the first place, that he gave no interview to the magazine and, in the second place, that the only source, therefore, must have been some press conference. The minister therefore wishes to read his comments at that press conference into the record. 1 think the minister is entitled-as he has done or may wish to do-to give to the House a precis of what he said at that time, but I do not think he is entitled to read now the record of that press conference.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated quite clearly was that four-fifths of what the Parti Quebecois was proposing could be implemented under the existing constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the rest was concerned, it could be implemented via discussions with the federal government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -and in no case could there be negotiations about sovereignty-association. I therefore regret that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has been unable to find bedfellows for the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the Leader of the Opposition, who have been saying that they would negotiate sovereignty-association and that they would rather negotiate with Mr. Levesque than with Mr. Ryan. We on this side of the House will leave flimflamming and flip-flopping to the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, having listened to the minister's explanation of the quotation I gave in the House yesterday, I can only confirm that he, indeed, is confirming the very words I used.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to point out to the minister, sir, that the reason I raised it, and the reason I know he is now presenting it as a question of privilege, is that when he used the terms "four-fifths of the Parti Quebecois program" and "one-fifth of the Parti Quebecois program"-in fact, the document issued by the Parti Quebecois, which means the Parti Quebecois program is called "Programme Officiel du Parti Quebecois"-the program of the Parti Quebecois includes a great many things which I hope the minister, indeed, would never negotiate or would never want to see implemented.
That program, in effect, says, according to him, that the Government of Canada would agree to the admission of the province of Quebec to the United Nations; that the Government of Canada, according to the minister, would agree to have all the fiscal policies and all the taxes paid to the Government of Canada transferred to the government of Quebec. That program of which he says four-fifths would be implemented under federalism and one-fifth he could negotiate would include the transfer of all Arctic lands above Quebec to the province of Quebec.
That is the reason, sir, I raised the question. I wanted to give the minister an opportunity to deny it. He did not deny it yesterday and he has not denied it today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In terms of the procedural disposition of the matter raised by the minister, it is a common aspect of our practice here that members who feel themselves aggrieved in this way by an inaccurate or improper reporting have the opportunity to rise and say so in the House. Those involved have been given a brief opportunity to do that. It is not within the classical definition of privilege unless the reporting is contemptuous of a member or contemptuous of the House. The hon. minister has indicated that the article which was referred to was not as a result of an interview with him. I think that is a very serious aspect of the matter which ought not to be overlooked.
If it was reported in such a way as to indicate that it was as a result of an interview, that would be a matter of a rather serious grievance. Nevertheless, whether it goes that route or beyond it, it still does not in my view constitute a contempt of the House or a contempt of the member. Therefore, on strict procedural grounds the matter does not fall within a question of privilege, and I think is concluded from that point of view.
February 21, 1979

I have two other notices of questions of privilege. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has given me notice of a question of privilege which relates to proceedings in the committee. I have given him the benefit of whatever research we have developed since receiving his notice. This raises a fundamental problem in respect of proceedings in committee, or difficulties regarding procedural rulings in a committee, which are not generally within the purview of the Chair. However, I will give the hon. member an opportunity to try to persuade me otherwise.
The second notice of a question of privilege I have received relates to a grievance by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) in respect of an inability to obtain documents, a matter which is also generally handled by way of an application for documents. I will also give him a chance to persuade me otherwise.


MR. CROUSE-CONDUCT OF CHAIRMAN OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I know you will appreciate that during my 22 years in the House this is the first time I have asked for the privilege of raising a matter of this type. I do so because I feel that my privileges have been infringed upon even though, albeit, in a committee.
I rise, therefore, on this matter because of the conduct last evening of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. His interpretation of relevancy in respect of questioning on Bill C-35, which is a government omnibus bill on government reorganization, was so restrictive as to inhibit me and members of the committee in our understanding of the purpose and implementation of the bill.
While I appreciate that all debate must be relevant, it is possible to enforce the rule to a point where debate is throttled and there is infringement on freedom of speech. Beauchesne, and I have checked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member goes any further into the details of the difficulties he had in the standing committee, let me say that my difficulty from a procedural viewpoint is this. Let us suppose I accept the statement he just made, that the chairman of a standing committee was so restrictive that it was an infringement almost upon freedom of speech, or however the hon. member wants to put that. My difficulty is, from a procedural point of view how do 1 have anything to do with that from this chair? Is it not clearly established on the precedents I have provided the hon. membef that his recourse or remedy has to be exhausted first in the committee, and that when the report of the committee, one way or another, comes to this House I can then deal with it, but not until then?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your difficulty and I am not trying to be obstinate. We spent an hour and a half trying to resolve the problem in the committee last evening without arriving at any conclusion. I relate my request to Beauchesne's new fifth edition which states:
Privilege-Mr. Crouse
299(1) Relevancy is not easy to define. For borderline cases, the member should be given the benefit of the doubt.
I submit, sir, that this benefit of the doubt was not granted to the five members of the opposition, or even government members, last evening by the chairman of that committee. I look to you, sir, for guidance in this matter.
We were dealing with Bill C-35, which establishes a whole new fisheries department. It sets out its powers, and alludes to jurisdictional conflicts with other departments. It provides for negotiations with the provinces. It requires an annual report, it revamps the fisheries research board, details the qualifications for members and sets out the board's purpose. It is impossible to determine the possible effects of this bill without setting it in the context of departmental policies. This is what we were trying to do last evening, and I refer to all members of the committee, not just members of the official opposition.
The second reading debate in this House was wide open. It is up to a committee chairman, I submit, to enforce strict relevance on amendments but not during the general exploratory, investigative phase of a committee's hearings. Committee members ought to be able to discuss anything which might form the basis of an amendment, and the scope for amendment of a bill defining the structure or scope of a department is fairly wide.
This bill is similar in purpose, although wider in terms, to the government reorganization bill of 1971 which originally set up the Department of the Environment. That bill was debated in committee of the whole and members had no difficulty making statements and asking questions to place the bill in its proper context. The chairman did enforce relevancy, but not in as ridiculous a manner as at present in the standing committee.
If it can be ruled that actions by persons outside this House can inhibit members from doing their duty, surely the House cannot go on forever holding the view that no degree of manipulation of the rules or the silencing of members can ever be considered improper. At some point there must be a need to rule that misuse of the rules is so grotesque that it is lifted from the context of procedural disagreement and can be fairly seen as a direct interference with the ability of members to speak freely to the question before them.
This is such a case and, therefore, I would ask that the use of the rules of relevance to throttle legitimate questioning and discussion on Bill C-35 by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize on reflection that essentially what he is asking the Chair to do-and this, of course, is the reason it wisely has never been attempted in the past-is sit on an appeal of a decision of a chairman of a standing committee, without hearing any of the evidence or being in any way able to hear any of the testimony or examine the problem.
I can only tell the hon. member that, in conformity with the precedents I have supplied him, I really have no other choice

February 21, 1979
Privilege-Mr. McKenzie
except to tell him and other members involved that they must pursue and exhaust the remedy in committee and in some way initiate a report to this House before this Chair can deal with it. Procedurally, I am in no position to accept and, therefore, in no position to comment, either for or against, on the proposition he has put forward this afternoon.


MR. McKENZIE-FAILURE OF MINISTER OF TRANSPORT TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION TO HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this second opportunity to present my case. Yesterday I pointed out to the House that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has refused to give me complete documentation on the crash of a Beech 95A aircraft in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, in March, 1978. I pointed out that the minister had submitted full documentation on the crash to the coroner's inquest in Saskatoon but that he has refused to make the same information available to the House of Commons.
The minister gave a long answer yesterday, but it did not pertain to the particular point I raised. At page 3409 of yesterday's Hansard he said:
There are certain things of a confidential nature which come before the Minister of Transport and which cannot be made public.
I have not asked for anything of that nature. I have merely asked for the full documentation on this particular crash. If the minister can make this documentation available to a coroner's inquiry, the report of which is made public, then he can make it available to the House of Commons.
Therefore, I would like to submit the following motion:
That the conduct of the Minister of Transport in providing to a coroner's inquest documentation which he will not provide to the House of Commons be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, the committee to have the power to call for persons, papers and documents and to report back to the House.
Your Honour has mentioned that there are other methods of obtaining information from ministers. We have tried all of them. I have been trying to obtain information from this minister on other air crashes since last October, but it is most difficult to obtain any information on any type of matter from the Minister of Transport. I would like you, sir, to entertain my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have given the matter of the documents referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) careful consideration since receiving his notice. Of course, I was familiar with some of the background because of the question of privilege which he raised yesterday on what was essentially the same subject.
The matter raised yesterday was different in that the hon. member was raising the point that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had in a previous answer indicated that basically all documentation was on file or could be obtained, and the hon. member took issue with that answer. That point was disposed of yesterday when the hon. minister returned to that answer and defended it in this House, thereby, in my opinion, putting it into the area of a disagreement or argument between

the two members and thus taking it out of the area of privilege.
As a result of that answer yesterday the hon. member now says that the minister confirmed that a document had been surrendered to a coroner's inquest, but that this document has not been made available to him, thus putting the hon. member in a position where his privileges are affected thereby.
The situation with respect to the acquisition of documents, as the hon. member will know, is that first of all in the House of Commons members may make application by way of a notice of motion for the production of documents. This is done on a regular basis and ministers, I am sure to the chagrin of opposition members, stand in their place and indicate that they are not going to produce their documents for various reasons.
If I were to grant that that matter were to become a question of privilege because the minister was refusing on some grounds to produce that document to a member, I think that I would be stretching the limit of the definition of privilege beyond recognition. If I were to decide that a prima facie refusal by a minister to produce a document became privilege, I would be altering the law or privilege considerably.
The hon. member does not actually say that he has made an application pursuant to motions for the production of documents and that the minister subsequently has refused to produce them. He does say in his argument that the minister has refused his other request for information, but he does not identify this particular one.
In addition, the hon. member supports his argument by referring to the fact that, if the document can be produced in a coroner's court, then it ought to be produced to the hon. member. That may very well be so, but it certainly does not follow that because the court has the power to subpoena a document, or have it produced to it or call as a witness the person who prepared the document, and thereby have access to the information, that that power necessarily lies in the hands of every member of parliament in the discharge of his obligations. Again, I think that it would be a considerable alteration of privilege to grant the hon. member's request.
If the hon. member has not already exhausted the other available devices open to him in securing this report, by way of a motion to produce the document, questions to the minister during question period and so on, I suggest that he ought to do so and perhaps in due time there may be more light shed on this argument. But on the basis of the arguments put forward today by the hon. member, I cannot bring it within the ambit of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order which I direct to the government House leader, on February 14 I asked him if, in view of the fact that the House had
February 21, 1979

unanimously passed the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, he would present expanded terms of reference to that committee so as to reactivate the subcommittee on penitentiaries and permit it to travel to the major institutions in the country in an effort to head off what is shaping up to be a major series of disturbances in the system again. He said that he would take the matter up with the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) as to what the next step ought to be.
Could the House leader now inform the House whether he has reached a conclusion to bring in expanded terms of reference in the interest of peace within the system?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there may be a misunderstanding between the hon. member and myself. I had assumed that the matter had been attended to or was capable of resolution under the report that had been submitted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If I am mistaken in that which was my understanding, I will review the matter again.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the minister that the second report was unanimously concurred in by the House and that it called for an expansion of the terms of reference so that the subcommittee could be reactivated. This is what I am asking about.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: There is another unfinished matter of privilege before the House on which we reserved the right of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) to make a contribution.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on that question of privilege which I raised last Wednesday concerning conflicting answers which I received to questions in the House. At that time the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) made a short reply and you, sir, gave the minister additional time to prepare a contribution on this question. Later that day I advised the Clerk of the House that I would not be here last Thursday or Friday, but would be here on Monday, February 19, and days following. I was rather surprised on my return on Saturday to learn that the minister had seen Fit to ignore the usual courtesy and had risen in his place and delivered his reply in my absence on Thursday last. The bright side is that I have had ample time to read his reply carefully.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker I had hoped that the minister might be able to clarify the situation, perhaps by stating that one of the replies had been an honest mistake. Instead, he chose to muddy the situation by quoting a plethora of selected dates about extraneous happenings which had little to do with the central issue.
Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
That issue can be encapsulated into a very few words. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on November 14 that Chancellor Schmidt and others in mid-July had asked for a few more months and that the government felt it would be willing to give them a few more months. The minister said in Hansard at page 867 on November 7, 1978:
The vendors asked for additional time to submit.
It should be noted that both of these remarks were made in November, some four months after Chancellor Schmidt asked for an extension and, incidentally, if we accept the minister's reply of last Thursday, we must believe that Chancellor Schmidt was asking for this indulgence two weeks after it was granted-a most unlikely happening.
Now we get the opposite answer. The question was on the order paper and asked:
Did Chancellor Schmidt personally or some of the other bidders ask for a few more months beyond the August 1 deadline?
The answer was no. I have avoided, in the interests of simplicity, mentioning all the other doubts and questions raised by the rambling dissertation of the minister last Thursday. My case remains the same now as then. Wherein does the truth lie? Did Chancellor Schmidt ask for and receive a few more months, question No. 1, or did he not, which is question No. 2?
The likelihood of his asking for additional time in July, which he had already been granted in June, and such time to last for only two weeks, as posited by the minister in his reply, cannot be taken seriously. I presume, sir, that you will consider the question of privilege as seriously as I do, noting that the minister did not deny any of the statements. If you decide there is a prima facie case, I will be prepared to move the motion I read last Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Over the period of time this question has endured before the House, I have heard the hon. member twice, I think, so I believe I should hear the minister a second time and then make a decision.
It seems to me, before finalizing the matter, that the question I have to decide is a simple one. The hon. member has cited two answers which he says are in conflict with each other. The question that I have to decide, therefore, is whether one of those answers was a misleading answer, and, if so, whether it was a deliberately misleading answer. Those are the two questions I have to decide.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the lengthy preamble of the hon. member with reference to his absence from the House. I thought I explained that with the courtesy which I think one member should show to another in this House. I think that courtesy should be mutual.
I had not been made aware that the hon. member would not be present. Indeed, I made a commitment to his House leader, so I suggest that they should get together. Obviously on that

February 21, 1979
Loto Canada Report
side of the House they do not get together on very many things. They should be known as the "Variety club".
I did, as committed, give my answer the next day, being well aware that there are very good reasons for members not being present in the House all the time. I would have hoped that the hon. member would have extented the same courtesy in replying that I have extended and that I think all hon. members should extend.
I still fail to see where there is conflict. I stand by the answer I gave on February 15, at page 3258 of Hansard. I know the hon. member has difficulty understanding these things and adding up dates, and has taken a long time to get around to doing this. If there is anything wrong, there was no intent to be misleading. I do not think it was misleading. I think my answer was accurate and speaks for itself. I think my answer of February 15 should be quite clear. If it is not, I would be very happy to clarify it. We could get our staffs together and arrange a date when we are both in the House so that there would be absolutely no question in the hon. member's mind.


Mr. Speaker:: As is so frequently the case, the minister has at least put a procedural point to rest for the moment by saying that if there has been any misleading in respect of these two answers-that is the contention of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), and I do not make a judgment on that-which he says are not in conflict with one another, it was not intentional on his part. I have to accept that. It is a long-standing tradition of this House that it has always accepted the word given by any member of the House and that, if there has been a misleading of the House, such misleading is argued or is in dispute; but regardless of the dispute, that if such a misleading has taken place, it has not been intentional and that takes it out of the area of privilege. Therefore, I think it closes the matter from the point of view of the Chair.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Huntington.

Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) in both official languages the report of the president of Loto Canada into the Loto Select project.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Gerald William Baldwin: that the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on February 16, 1979, be concurred in.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as requested yesterday by the hon. member, we will agree to this motion without debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there was a document released today involving the economic life of this country and that nine economic ministers plus the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) chose not to be here, and the government chose to issue that document on a date when they would not be here, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, questions Nos. 292, 293, 294, 583, 665, 777, 980 and 1,099 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and job designations of all persons concerned with granting funds to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in connection with the programme "Open House Canada"?
2.	(a) What are the names of the persons signing contracts pertaining to the Programme on behalf of the (i) government (ii) Canadian Council of Christians and Jews (b) what are all the details of any such contracts?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, how many written inquiries were received by the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews from the public in connection with the Programme?
4.	Has the government received any written inquiries from the public in regard to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in connection with the Programme?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1. The people concerned with granting funds to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in connection with the Open House Canada Program are:
The head, project support and planning, Open House Canada
The chief, social communications
The director, citizens' participation
The associate director, citizens' participation
The assistant under secretary of state, citizenship and bilingualism development
The assistant under secretary of state, cultural affairs The senior assistant under secretary of state
These officials are involved at various stages of the grants consideration process; approval of grants rests with the Secretary of State.
2.	(a) (i) One contract was signed with the CCCJ during the fiscal year 1977-78 under the Open House Canada program for the provision of field support services. The senior assistant under secretary of state signed this contract on behalf of Her Majesty after approval had been given by the Secretary of State.
(ii) The president, signed on behalf of the council.
Rooney
Roy
(Laval)
Sauv6 (Mrs.)


Mr. Speaker:: February 21, 1979
Order Paper Questions
(b)	The contract called for the operation by CCCJ of a 24-hour, 365-day "on-call" service to provide assistance as required to Open House Canada participants. This would include provision of information, re-routing or accommodation of participants encountering travel problems in transit, and other crisis intervention as appropriate.
For the operation of this service, it was agreed that CCCJ would receive a professional fee of $44,000 and actual documented expenses not to exceed $72,000. In fact, CCCJ waived payment of a portion of its fee so that the total amounts paid were:
Professional fee	$29,000
Expenses	6,774.49
Total	$35,774.49
3.	According to the final report of the council on its performance of the contract, some 60 written inquiries, 100 telephone inquiries and 25 visits from prospective participants were received.
4.	The Department of the Secretary of State has no record of having received any such inquiries.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were funds given by the Department of the Secretary of State to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews between the years 1974 and 1978 and, if so, what was the amount involved in each year?
2.	What was the name of the program and the amount to which such funds were dispersed?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1.
Calendar		
Year	Grants	Contract
1974	$ 61,250	
1975	56,940	
1976	23,051	
1977	304,460	$35,774
Amount


[Stage Direction]
See list below for detail by year.

1978 (Nov 9/78)	767,013
2.
Programs
Travel and Exchange Open House Canada (Grants)
Open House Canada (Contract) Multiculturalism
Group Understanding & Human Rights Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations Official Language Minority Groups Student Community Services
Canadian Council of Christians and Jews Funds Provided 1974-1978 (November 9, 1978)
Grants	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	TotalTravel & Exchange	$45,000	$51,640	$1,000	$97,640Open House Canada	-	-	-	$248,004	$566,118	814,122Multiculturalism	7,200	2,400	3,500	24,410	18,060	55,570Group Understanding & Human Rights	_	13,000	13,000Citizens Participation	Voluntary Organizations	_	_	22,000	22,000Official Language Minority Groups Student Community	-	2,900	15,000	18,000	90,000	125,900Services Program	9,050	-	3,551	14,046	57,835	84,482$61,250	$56,940	$23,051	$304,460	$767,013 $1,212,714	Contract	Open House Canada	-	-	-	$35,774	-
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the government carry out an audit of the funds given to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews in regard to the Program "Open House Canada" and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were the results or recommendations of such audit?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, in what Canadian cities does the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews maintain offices?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. The government has received a full and detailed accounting of the expenditures of grants provided by Open House Canada to the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. A formal government audit has not been carried out as such audits are not required for grants funding. The accounts of the CCCJ are, of course, audited annually by the Council's own auditors, and copies of its most recent financial statement have been made available to the department. Regarding its 1977-78 service contract, CCCJ has agreed to make all relevant records and supporting documentation available to the department for audit at any time.
2.	To our knowledge, as of October 25, 1978, the Council maintains offices in: Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Vancouver.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Did the Minister of State for Multiculturalism make a statement on June 15, 1978, to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, to the effect that the budget of the Multiculturalism Directorate for the fiscal year 1978-79 would be $7,544 million and, if so, has the government subsequently made the decision to decrease this proposed budget?
2.	If it is the government's intention to decrease the overall budget of the Directorate, which programmes will be affected and by what amounts?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1. Yes, the minister made the above statement. There is no decrease in the directorate's budget for the fiscal year 1978-79 and none is intended.
2. Not applicable.
February 21, 1979


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	To the knowledge of the government, for each (a) province (b) municipality as a whole, in each province, what was their share of the National Debt on March 31 (i) 1967 (ii) 1978?
2.	On March 31 (a) 1967 (b) 1978, what was the total debt of the government, provinces and the municipalities?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Data on provincial and municipal debt, by province, for the fiscal years 1970-71 to 1975-76 are available in the Statistics Canada publication Consolidated Government Finance, catalogue 68-202. Data on total debt outstanding of provinces and municipalities (no provincial detail) for calendar years 1961 to 1976 are available in Financial Flow Accounts, volume II, catalogue 13-563, data for 1976 (revised) and 1977 and available in catalogue 13-002.
2.
Fiscal Year Ending	Public Debt of the	Net Debt of theMarch 31	Federal Government^	Federal Government^per cent	per cent$Millions<c)	of GNP(d)	$Millions<c>
ofGNP<d>1967	28,471	46.0	15,535 25.11978	80,048	38.1	39,622 18.9
([DOT]>
The public debt of the federal government consists of all liabilities which appear on the government's statement of assets and liabilities.
The net debt of the federal government is represented by the excess of recorded liabilities over net recorded assets.
Amounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967 have been calculated on a basis consistent with the presentation of assets and liabilities introduced in the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977. Calculations are based on the preceeding calendar year gross national product (GNP) figures, i.e. debt for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978 is expressed as a percentage of GNP for calendar year 1977, etc.
With respect to provincial and municipal debt see answer to question 1.


Mr. Howie: Are there plans by the CBC to expand English language television programming and facilities at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, what are they?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The CBC has tentative plans for the expansion of English language television facilities at Fredericton, but their extent is dependent upon the outcome of negotiations now in progress with the New Brunswick Broadcasting Company.


Mr. Epp: Is Mr. Robert Rempel working for Sport Canada and, if so, what is his (a) job description (b) annual salary?
Order Paper Questions


Iona Campagnolo: In so far as the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) is concerned: Mr. Robert Rempel is not working for Sport Canada.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of equipment in the Public Service Staff Relations Board detailed at page 9.60, Volume 1 of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, did the Board take steps to ascertain the present whereabouts of the missing electric typewriters and, if so (a) what were they (b) what was the result of the steps taken?
2.	Was the thief apprehended?
3.	On what date, in what locations and under what circumstances were the machines stolen?
4.	Did the Board undertake procedural changes to ensure that such an incident does not recur and, if so, what were they?


Yvon Pinard: 1. (a)
The Public Service Staff Relations Board reported the thefts to the Ottawa Police for investigation as to the whereabouts of the missing electric typewriters.
(b) The result of the investigation was negative.
2.	The thief was not apprehended.
3.	Two electric typewriters were stolen from the fifth floor of L'Esplanade Laurier during silent hours (1600 September 13, 1977 to 0730 September 14, 1977). Two electric typewriters were stolen from the fifth floor of L'Esplanade Laurier during silent hours 1600 September 15, 1977 to 0730 September 16, 1977).
4.	The following procedural changes were implemented to prevent recurrences:
(a)	A security committee was established to review and implement improved security measures;
(b)	the installation of dead-bolt locks in addition to existing locks on all access doors was undertaken to prevent recurrences;
(c)	additional security guards were employed pending the implementation of improved security measures; and
(d)	special doors were installed in stairwells to prevent unauthorized access to government occupied floors.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 625 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall question No. 625 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
3466

February 21, 1979


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
National Housing Act


Mr. Rynard: For each year 1970-77, what was the total amount of imports in (a) raw resources (b) semi-processed goods (c) manufactured goods from (i) the United States (ii) the United Kingdom (iii) West Germany (iv) France (v) the Peoples Republic of China (vi) the U.S.S.R. (vii) Japan?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this bill and-explain how it will help Canadians-find better housing at a more reasonable price. [English]
I am ashamed to have witnessed the attitude displayed by the loyal opposition in taking up the precious time of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister will know that he is forbidden by the rules of this House to reflect upon the votes of this House, but is the minister four-fifths ashamed or only one-fifth ashamed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no way in which I can pass judgment because I have not heard a thing.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: He didn't say anything. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously acting like a little kid.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on a point of order, and I hope hon. members will at least give me a chance to hear what he has to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has two parts. The first is to draw to the attention of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) the very clear rule of this House which prevents him from reflecting upon the vote which has just been cast.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Breau:: He was just reflecting on your stupidity.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will wait until hon. members opposite become a little more tranquil.


An hon. Member:: You may have to wait.


Mr. Harquail:: You are wasting Canadian money.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will wait until they become quiet, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The second part of my point-


An hon. Member:: What a shameful performance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure why they are trying to shout us down so much, Mr. Speaker, but the second part of my point of order is to ask if the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs in what he said is four-fifths ashamed or simply one-fifth ashamed?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 21, 1979


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to see that you have recognized that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) really has no point of order in his intervention. Indeed, what he has just said is that he does not want me to reflect on the vote that has just been cast. Indeed, I do not want to reflect on it. They lost the time of the House this afternoon and they lost the vote too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: What is important is that the House was supposed to start discussing an important measure that will allow the possibility of having more housing for the low income people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: It is a piece of legislation that will allow the hundreds and hundreds of municipalities across Canada to have appropriate financing under a federal-provincial scheme that has been agreed upon. They are waiting for the Conservative party to finally allow this bill to be approved by parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I was observing what was going on in the House this afternoon at 4.30 before the vote. I want to tell the people who are watching us on television, and who obviously could not see which members were in the House during the call of the bell, that the Liberals were ready to vote from the start.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister is really getting away from the topic and that his remarks deal with the vote, which cannot be debated, just as I thought the issue raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition a bit premature since the minister had perhaps not gone so far as the Leader of the Opposition maintained. Also, his remarks do not concern the bill before us, and I would like him to go back to the issue at hand.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that in its most important aspects this bill implements the new orientation the Canadian government intends to give housing. That orientation is being adopted as a result of the meetings I have held with my provincial colleagues; together, as ministers responsible for housing in Canada, we formulated this new policy. However, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that we should have failed to get from the Opposition, and in particular the Progressive Conservative party, more co-operation and collaboration in adopting this bill posthaste.


An hon. Member:: They wasted the time of the House.


André Ouellet: Naturally, we should have liked to have passed this bill in a single day, to have seen it through all its stages; because of the urgency of implementing the program, the bill should have been passed in one day. We were unable to get the
National Housing Act
co-operation of the Progressive Conservative party in order to do so; in addition they insisted today on wasting the time of the House of Commons, which is another example of the lack co-operation, the irresponsibility of the Tories.
This afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) behaved like a kid bent on playing hooky. It is obvious he does not have the sense of responsibility one needs to take on the heaviest responsibilities in the land.


An hon. Member:: He lacks leadership!


André Ouellet: That man has neither the maturity nor the training to hope to become Prime Minister, and his attitude in the House today proved it clearly.
The provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, address specifically great national objectives, the first of which is probably the most important, namely a considerable increase in the number of housing units that meet the needs of Canadians with the lowest incomes.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you call a judge?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard the unpleasant innuendo made towards me by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). That is a typical example of the rubbish he constantly mouths and it clearly reveals the baseness of that member who periodically in the House shows his spite towards other members of the House. To me, he appears to be someone who is totally lacking in parliamentary manners, who behaves in a deplorable manner; I regret this sort of allusion and, Mr. Speaker, I find it is simply disgusting.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue my remarks on this bill because I think that beyond the partisan spite of some of the members of the Conservative opposition, there are some objectives and important ideals which enable us to continue our work as parliamentarians and allow us above all to hope that we can settle important problems, particularly those in the field of housing. Our present housing programs, which are undertaken in conjunction with the provincial governments, hardly provide at the moment 19,000 units a year; it is not enough to meet the needs of the country. It is obvious that we must build each year a greater number of units for old and low income people.
That is why the government of Canada undertook to go ahead with a program to speed up housing construction by asking for the co-operation of the provinces, the co-operation of municipal authorities and also the co-operation of all private and public organizations involved in public housing. We set a target of 30,000 housing units a year and I am convinced the new measures proposed in this bill will enable us to reach that target rapidly.

February 21, 1979
National Housing Act
The people who will benefit from the new non-profit housing program are low-income people, women on their own, raising families on their own, old and disabled people. That is in fact our first priority. They are the people we want to help and they are the people to whom we want to give more adequate and more decent housing facilities in Canada.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians are well housed. Whatever yardsticks one may use, they are among the best housed people in the world. In fact, housing production in Canada in recent years has been the highest in our history. During the last four years housing starts in Canada reached an average of nearly 250,000 units. Hon. members who want to compare our accomplishments with a specific standard only have to look at the United States. The Progressive Conservative party tried to take a formula in use in the United States, use it as a political football and come up with some kind of magic formula to meet housing needs in Canada.
Obviously when one compares our accomplishments with that specific norm which exists in the United States, we find that between 1967 and 1977, for example, we built in Canada an average of 10 new housing units per 1,000 people, while for the same period in the United States the proportion was only 6.8 units for the same number of people. Mr. Speaker, not only did our rate of production exceed that of the United States, but it had greater stability and less pronounced year to year variations.
I would like to look at the proposal which was put forward recently by the Conservative party. It has tried to copy a policy which has existed in the United States for years.


Mrs. Pigott:: Successfully.


André Ouellet: Not successfully, but with great difficulty. This policy is being copied by the Conservative party in the hope that it will be more successful in Canada than in the United States. People in Canada realize that the Liberal party has been helping to produce better housing and a greater number of homes and that the terrible scheme which the Conservative party proposes will be regressive.
We are getting short of time, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to discuss further this matter when the debate continues, unless the Conservative party again tries to prevent the House from proceeding in the normal way with its business. There is no doubt that the House leader for the Conservative party will try other tricks to block the normal activities of the House to prevent it from proceeding normally. We cannot have confidence in him. He is obviously trying to prevent the government from proceeding in an effective manner.


Mr. Crombie:: How about the bill?


André Ouellet: Before we adjourn at six o'clock, I would like to say that if one looks at the performance of this government in housing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is shouting at the Chair from his seat. If he would like to address himself to the Chair, he should seek the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very much concerned that the government, which has delayed the bringing of this bill forward for one year, is now using its debating time for personal attacks on members of the opposition. I am not the least bit concerned about the personal attacks from the minister, because I consider the source from which they come. I am anxious, however, to get on with the legislation.


André Ouellet: If the House leader for the Conservative party is so anxious to have this bill pass, I hope that he will agree to a specific timetable to pass it before the end of the week or early next week; in other words, that the bill will be dealt with in all its stages and approved. I am sure that he knows that this bill is important to a large number of municipalities across the country. The hon. member also knows that in order to have an appropriate program for the rehabilitation of housing, this bill should be approved. If the opposition House leader is speaking honestly, he should be prepared to tell us now that he is ready to agree to having this bill approved in all its stages within one or two days.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for the minister, who is so beside himself with synthetic rage that he had difficulty doing his bargaining on the floor of the House.


Yvon Pinard: He has the right to speak in English.


Walter David Baker: When I became the House leader of this party-


Yvon Pinard: What is wrong, just because he speaks slowly in English?


Walter David Baker: -I indicated that we did not feel it was our duty as the opposition inordinately to hold up legislation which was important. I will undertake to the House that that will be the attitude of this party as long as it is in opposition, which I hope will not be too long.
I want to give the minister that reassurance. I would also like to say in the course of this debate that I am always concerned when the atmosphere of the House of Commons breaks down into unreasoning partisanship. I hope that the minister will get on with the legislation which he has brought forward. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) is ready to follow him and to put forward a proposition. In fact, she has been waiting two months for the minister to bring in this legislation.
February 21, 1979


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is almost six o'clock, but I have not yet received an assurance from the hon. member that he will co-operate and do his best to speed up the passage of this bill. I hope that we will get his support.
I would like to say something which will point out quite clearly the great performance of the current government in dealing with housing in Canada. A Gallup poll which was taken 11 years ago, in 1968, asked Canadians across the country whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the housing situation. That poll indicated at that time that 60 per cent of the people were satisfied, 34 per cent were dissatisfied and 6 per cent did not know.
At the end of 1978 another Gallup poll was taken and the same questions were asked. The results of that poll were: 85.5 per cent of Canadians were satisfied with the housing situation, and 13 per cent were dissatisfied. I think this clearly illustrates the good performance of the Liberal party in terms of housing.
I will continue my remarks when this debate continues. 1 would call it six o'clock.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would just like to know what the business will be for tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that tomorrow the House will be dealing with a motion introduced by the Progressive Conservative party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is fine. It is Friday I was looking for. I knew tomorrow was our opposition day.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood, Friday we will continue the consideration of Bill C-29 and in the event of any change, we will try to advise the hon. member before the beginning of the sitting on Friday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned untill two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 22, 1979