1979-11-12

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT 29 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from the Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9, at 50 cents per copy or $65 per year
for corporations; $25 per year for individuals and institutions.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 12, 1979


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, at 11.45 Saturday evening, November 10, 1979, a CP train derailed. This train was carrying a number of jumbo cars containing propane, butane, caustic soda, other petrochemicals and, most dangerous of all, chlorine.
As a result of the derailment, there were a number of explosions and severe fires, and these fires are still burning at the present time. The Peel regional police force and the Ontario provincial police, assisted by police officers from metropolitan Toronto and other neighbouring municipalities, together with the Red Cross and other emergency measures' people, including the Mississauga fire department, took command of the situation. Because of the danger of leakage of chlorine gas and the possible rupture of the chlorine tanker, all of the citizens from my riding and the neighbouring ridings of Mississauga North, to a large extent Oakville and Etobicoke-Lakeshore, were evacuated in a peaceful and well organized fashion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since this emergency has been handled with such dispatch and confidence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp) and the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House does extend its commendation to all those directly involved in attending to the emergency arising from a CP Rail train derailment at Mississauga, Ontario, particularly since as a result of their actions, there has been to date no loss of life, and that this House does direct the Minister of Transport to assure this House and the people of Canada that a full and impartial investigation will be held concerning this accident and concerning the transportation of dangerous goods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It can be put to the House for discussion at this time only with unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I trust that perhaps the consent that was provided before will be provided to my motion. The House was astounded last Thursday to hear the President of the Treasury Board announce his intention to privatize dc Havilland and Canadair without consultation with Parliament.
In view of the fact that "Sine the Slasher" is preparing a further list of potential targets-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):
That this House condemn the minister's wanton disregard of Parliament, and that a reference be given to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to review in depth this government's policy on the sale of Crown corporations.


Mr. Speaker:: is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Pope John Paul II appealed to Argentina and Chile recently to make good on their promise to clarify the situation of those in prison, and since Amnesty International has documented the seriousness of the so-called "drama of the missing persons," as well as the thousands of political prisoners in these countries, 1 move,

November 12, 1979
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the external affairs minister make known to her Argentinian and Chilean counterparts our country's great concern for this form of violence to the human person perpetrated by these regimes.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Roberval has known the highest rate of unemployment in the area, and considering that the funds obtained under the Canada Works program for 1979-80 have hardly paid for 30 per cent of the proposed projects, and before the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) completes the preparation of his budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the minister provide in his budget a substantial increase in funds earmarked for the Canada Works program to lessen the effect of unemployment announced for next winter throughout the province and elsewhere.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that budget cuts have greatly reduced the supply and development of new postal services in Canada, which has resulted in serious deficiencies in the services pro-

vided to all Canadians, but more specifically to the people of Rock Forest within my constituency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance):
That the House recommend that the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) carry out a full and complete reassessment of the postal service in Canada, giving special attention to boom towns where quick development has resulted in rapid deterioration of the postal service, and to announce as soon as possible to the House the appropriate corrective measures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. It arises out of the fact that several prominent Conservatives, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), are reported as saying that the Crow rate should be scrapped or else changed. In light of that, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House expresses its disapproval that the government is bypassing the central recommendation of the Hall report, namely, that the Crow rate be guaranteed for the farmer.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be introduced for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Superintendent of Insurance told the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs last Thursday night that the federal Small Loans Act was creating serious problems for non-bank financial intermediaries such as credit unions and caisses populaires, and that in its present form the act had no redeeming virtues, and in view of the fact that information has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Consumer and
November 12, 1979

Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips):
That the government act immediately to repeal the federal Small Loans Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Even with the greatest sympathy for the hon. member's position, I can scarcely find an element of emergency which is at least minimally required pursuant to Standing Order 43.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the emergency created by the derailment of a train in Mississauga, Ontario, carrying propane, chlorine and other dangerous substances, in view of the fact that over 200,000 people have had to be evacuated from their homes, and in view of the continuing danger posed by this accident to the health and safety of tens of thousands of citizens in the Toronto area, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House calls upon the government to launch an immediate investigation into the causes and consequences of this derailment and to introduce immediately legislation concerning the transportation of dangerous goods which would provide for full and complete labelling of the dangerous substances, a program of special safety and precautionary measures and provision for the protection of the population from the transportation of these substances.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a close similarity, of course, but not necessarily identity, with the earlier motion. The decision whether to receive and debate the motion ought to rest with the House. The motion can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the disastrous derailment which occurred in Mississauga this past weekend, in this instance can the minister advise the House what additional precautionary methods were taken in view of the fact the railroad was transporting combustible products and poisonous gases.
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: In
response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I think he and other hon. members know that the Canadian Transport Commission has announced that a formal public inquiry will be held to investigate all matters concerning this unfortunate incident. I think we shall have to await the outcome of that inquiry to determine whether or not all rules and regulations were complied with in relation to this unfortunate incident.


Edward C. Lumley: I am not concerned about what happened after the fact; 1 am concerned about what happened before the fact.
I should like to know from the minister what his officials have advised him with respect to additional precautionary measures taken in all cases where transportation of hazardous products takes place.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the hon. member knows, responsibility for the surveillance of safety with respect to railways lies with the Canadian Transport Commission. Following their announcement of the inquiry, 1 have asked the CTC to focus particularly on the question of adequate safety standards, the ensurance of an appropriate level of maintenance and the adequacy of the inspection system: the suggestion was made in committee that the number of inspectors was insufficient. Evidence of this was adduced in the committee and provided by the president of the CTC.
1 might say, as well, that we are in a position to introduce legislation with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods. This was announced in the House by the President of the Privy Council on October 11,1 believe. The bill is in the final stages of preparation and could be introduced within the next week or ten days.


Edward C. Lumley: In view of the fact that the government has not seen fit, to date, to introduce the legislation regarding the transportation of dangerous goods-


An hon. Member:: Whose fault is that?


Edward C. Lumley: -can the minister advise what objections he had, and still has, with regard to the previous legislation, the bill introduced by the former government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting we have not acted on that legislation. The former government introduced the legislation, but did not have the determination to bring it forward for debate other than one late Friday afternoon as "filler" legislation. We have examined that bill; we have had extensive consultation with the provinces and with the industry because there were some areas where there was less than agreement.
I am in a position, now, to state to the House that there has been general agreement on all elements of that piece of legislation; it is in its final drafting stages. I am pleased the hon. member wants this legislation brought forward, and 1 hope he will be disposed to deal with it in expeditious fashion when it is introduced.

November 12, 1979
Oral Questions EMERGENCY MEASURES


MISSISSAUGA DISASTER-EMERGENCY MEASURES UNDERTAKEN BY NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I do not know who will answer in his absence. The calamitous derailment of the train in Mississauga could have led to many people losing their lives.
Could the minister please advise the House and the thousands of Mississaugans still sleeping in plazas, schools and community centres, why emergency measures and Department of National Defence facilities were not mobilized to expedite the evacuation of residents of this area?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: One of the smoothest evacuations ever.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Acting Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs):: I should like to tell the hon. member that the Department of National Defence has been co-operating throughout this whole weekend to alleviate the difficulties caused to so many thousand individuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They have supplied much in the way of material support-sleeping bags, blankets, and so on. They had gasmasks ready to be used if necessary, and some 250 military personnel have been on standby ready to assist at the request of the government of Ontario. No request for assistance was made of them, and they do not go into this sort of situation on their own. But the supplies which have been requested were made available and were used throughout.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: My supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. Will the federal government agree to assist the province of Ontario and the city of Mississauga with the emergency funding which they are sure to request so as to pay for the evacuation of the 250,000 people and, possibly, millions of dollars for ambulance, fire, police and other emergency services resulting from this disastrous mishap?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, there is a formula for this kind of emergency situation between the government of any province and the Government of Canada, and I am satisfied that upon receipt of the appropriate request, and in the appropriate

circumstances having regard to that formula, the government would be very pleased to act.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a question for the Minister of Transport arising from the serious threat to human life and health caused by the CPR wreck in Mississauga. One month ago today I was assured in this House by the Minister of the Environment that a bill concerning the transportation of dangerous goods would be introduced, and I quote, "soon". Not soon enough, it appears.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that on Thursday of last week the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission indicated to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that the CTC budget was insufficient? It was not a question of maybe there were not enough rail inspectors; there were not enough inspectors for the proper carrying out of the CTC's responsibility for rail safety in Canada. In the words of the commissioner himself, there are only some 78 rail inspectors, when there should be 178.


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Is the minister aware of that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the evidence which was presented to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. As a result of this incident and the inquiry which has been ordered by the CTC, and as 1 indicated to the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, 1 have asked the CTC to pay particular attention to the adequacy of safety standards, the level of safety standards, the adequacy of maintenance standards and frequency of maintenance, as well as the adequacy in the number of inspectors to carry out this job. That is certainly part and parcel of this inquiry. We will await the outcome of the inquiry and the government will act on the basis of the forthcoming recommendations.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, hopefully the minister will indicate to the President of the Treasury Board that restraint ought to be lifted in this vital area. My second question is with regard to the fact that restraint with regard to rail safety is not the sole prerogative of government. Is the minister aware of the cutbacks in the area of rail safety initiated by the railroads themselves?
Will the minister tell the House what his department is doing about this in the ordinary course of its responsibilities, and has the minister indicated to the railroads the unacceptability of these cutbacks which have taken place, for instance, in the area of track and car inspection and maintenance?
November 12, 1979


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be in the interests of this House and all hon. members to await the outcome of this inquiry, to establish whether there have been sufficient levels of safety and whether we have had adequate numbers of people engaged in safety surveillance. Simply because we have had an incident does not necessarily mean that the whole system has broken down. There has been an indication by the committee; we are acting on its recommendations and will continue to act pending the recommendations which will flow from the inquiry which will be undertaken very soon.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that in the absence of the event in Mississauga this past weekend, nothing would have happened in the Department of Transport with regard to these things?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: My final question, Mr. Speaker, and it is a very serious question, is: Will the minister consider broadening the emphasis of the suggested legislation in this area to include provision in the transport of dangerous goods legislation for the eventual rerouting of dangerous goods around residential areas, where that is possible, so that we do not have to face the kind of risk the people of Mississauga faced this past weekend?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the hon. member says he is going to be serious. 1 am not sure whether his suggestion is serious. 1 am sure this is a matter which naturally will be dealt with by the inquiry.
In so far as the government's position with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods is concerned, I indicated earlier that the legislation is in its final drafting stage. It will probably be introduced within the next week or ten days. Because of the complexity of the application of laws with respect to the movement of dangerous goods, this legislation will require the co-operation and concurrence of provinces, municipalities and the industry. We have undertaken to ensure that this bill will not only be supported by but also abided with by all components of the industry.
When the bill comes in, I can assure the hon. member that it will be acceptable to the provinces and to the industry. We hope the hon. member will support the legislation and co-operate so that it can be passed in an expeditious fashion.


MISSISSAUGA DISASTER-INSPECTION OF CARS BEFORE LEAVING LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, but first I would like to tell him, "1 told you it was going to happen."
Can the minister inform the members of this House if the car department carmen on the CPR inspected the train and the cars before leaving London, Ontario, and whether the train was given a running inspection by any operator or by the train
Oral Questions
crew at any point between London, Ontario, and the place of derailment; and, if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that all members of the House respect the hon. member who has just posed that question and 1 want to address it in as serious a fashion as I can. 1 think you will understand that because the CTC has called for an inquiry, it would be prejudicial for me to comment on the point that the hon. member has raised. 1 think he will have to wait until the inquiry concludes its findings and he should let them determine whether, in fact, adequate precautionary measures and safety inspections had been conducted prior to the incident.


Charles Robert Turner: The crews told me they are not willing to wait for an inquiry; they want more rail inspectors now, before more accidents occur.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can only assure the hon. member that-as he knows, 1 am sure-I have always taken his representations seriously and 1 will accept that one as a serious representation as well.


MISSISSAUGA DISASTER-ACTION TO AVOID SIMILAR ACCIDENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, while the inquiry to which the minister referred is going on, and while he is busy consulting with municipalities, provinces and shippers, the kinds of trains involved in the Mississauga derailment are running through some city or town in Canada every day. I ask him to make a commitment, and more than a commitment, to take action now to make sure that this kind of situation is not going to repeat itself. Why is he not willing to do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have made a commitment. I have said that legislation pertaining to the transportation of dangerous goods will be introduced in this House within the next week or ten days. That is a more firm commitment than we got from the previous administration which used this bill simply as "filler" legislation and never brought it forth for debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask the minister if he has forgotten, when he was replying, that during the introduction of this bill on second reading and speaking on behalf of the official opposition, he said:
-in our view, we should proceed with the amendments to the National Transportation Act before we proceed with this bill-
Is that a priority? It is just the opposite. I also want to ask him if he recalls that when he said, in speaking on second reading of the bill, that he approves of the objectives of the bill, he said:
-I must say that we insist that these objectives be met without imposing excessive costs or hardships, and with the minimum of restraint put upon the operations of the carriers and the shippers.
1182

November 12, 1979
Oral Questions
That is not consistent with priority. Why is he putting the interest of shippers ahead of the safety of people in areas like Mississauga?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply reiterating the fact that the bill proposed by the former administration was a weak bill. We have undertaken to make amendments and to improve the bill, and it will be much better than the last edition; I can assure the hon. member of that. It will be a much better bill and it will be respected and honoured by all components of the industry, and by governments and municipalities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDS TO DEVELOP RAILWAY CARS THAT ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Considering the fact that everybody on every side of the House believes that prevention is the best answer, would the minister be prepared to direct his department to provide the necessary funds to design, develop and produce railway cars which will be environmentally safe; in other words, a container that would be more effective in preventing damage to the environment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I want to assure the hon. member that such steps are taking place. As a matter of fact, some 10,000 cars are now being retrofitted to comply with the necessary safety precautions outlined by the hon. member.


Mr. Caccia:: Also, in view of the fact that dangerous material is being shipped across the U.S. border, would the Minister of Transport consider initiating an agreement detailing preventive measures and improved standards of transportation techniques with his counterpart in the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is through that collaboration that these steps have been taken. They have been undertaken in consultation with the United States and we have the same rules and standards pertaining to the improvement of such railway cars.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister consulted with his provincial counterpart regarding the situation in Mississauga and, if so, what steps are being taken to protect the people of Mississauga and

of neighbouring communities from the dangers of chlorine vapours?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the ministry has been involved in discussions with municipalities and the hospital administrators. I should like to take the opportunity to advise the member that the evacuation of the two hospitals, in particular in Mississauga, was carried out extremely well-with the aid of the Red Cross and the Ontario provincial police. There were absolutely no difficulties with respect to either elderly patients or those otherwise disabled.
Also, in relation to the expansion or possible expansion of any activity of the chlorine gas, of course we are monitoring, along with the Department of the Environment, the provincial municipalities, health and environment.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister for some specifics as to what plans are being made to protect the people from possible chlorine vapours. I gather there is already a leak in the tank, so therefore the possibility is not too remote.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would not want to give any comfort to the suggestion of a rumour that there is a leak, because 1 have no such knowledge of that. I think that anyone who wants to suggest that ought to be very sure of the facts.
The fact of the matter is that, indeed, all of the resources of the Department of National Health and Welfare, as well as the ministry of health and the ministry of the environment for the province of Ontario, are at the disposal of the municipality of Mississauga and the emergency forces engaged in the activity. Every force that it is possible to offer, and every aid that it is possible to offer, is currently at their disposal.


CONSTRUCTION OF AIR-SEA EMERGENCY HOSPITAL FACILITIES-UNIVERSALITY OF MEDICARE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well. It arises from a concern expressed to me last Friday by the mayor of Marystown, Newfoundland.
Considering that the government has not indicated that it will implement the previous government's commitment to build a badly needed air-sea emergency hospital facility at Marystown, will the minister now make such a commitment? Also, will he urge his provincial counterpart to live up to the provincial government's five-year old promise to build a hospital on the Burin Peninsula which at present has only 80 cottage-type hospital beds spread throughout the region where more than 30,000 people live?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. member that 1 would be pleased to take the representation. 1 will be in touch with my provincial counterpart and be able to report back to him.
November 12, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister and I look forward to an early response to the question. As the minister knows, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that the first principle of medicare is implemented nationally, namely, the question of universal accessibility. Is he aware, quite apart from the Marystown example, that in the province of Newfoundland as a whole, health care delivery now is being jeopardized by a complete freeze on the construction of hospitals and the existence of deterrent fees charged to hospital patients? If he is aware of this activity by the present government in the province of Newfoundland, what does the minister plan to do now to ensure that the principle of universal accessibility is as available to the people of Newfoundland as it is to other Canadians?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hospital construction, I am aware of the problem the hon. member raises. 1 have had some discussions with respect to the principle of universality in Newfoundland. I should like to assure the hon. member that the government of Newfoundland respects that principle as well. As the hon. member is probably aware, in fact they have joined with me in supporting the Hall commission report which will be making recommendations with respect to user charges in April.


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns another subject. To follow up on my motion, I would like to ask the minister to advise the House whether additional funds will be allocated to Canada Works projects in the next budget.


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the moneys for Canada Works for 19791980 have already been allocated. The deadline for applications was September 28-long passed. So the short answer to the hon. member's question is, no, there will not be additional moneys.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in previous years we have always received additional funds because of our high rate of unemployment. The rate of unemployment in my region this year is even higher than before and everybody is expecting the minister to grant additional funds. In my opinion, it is more profitable to make people work than to pay them unemployment benefits to do nothing. That is why I am pressing the minister for a definite answer.
Oral Questions


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it is far preferable to have people work than to have them on unemployment. I would ask the hon. member to wait patiently for the employment strategy of the new government, the details of which will be indicated in the course of the budget speech. The debate on the budget, hopefully, will be in the near future.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-EXPECTED APPROVAL OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. In view of his statement just now that the deadline for applications for Canada Works grants was September 28, I would ask when we can expect his approval of the many worth-while applications which have been sitting in his office for six or seven weeks?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the approval process has taken some time.
I can assure the hon. member that it will be very shortly when the announcements as to the successful applications will be announced in each area of Canada and in particular the province of New Brunswick.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one group took only two days because it involved an area in which a provincial byelection was concerned, will the minister tell us when the political laundry process will end and when he will get these applications out and get people to work?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I am wondering if he could tell the House anything with regard to recent RCMP investigations into the activities of Laval University Professor Hugh George Hambleton, reportedly stemming over a period of ten years, including his connections with Russian citizen Lijana Galeva, of New York city, and why within the last few days the RCMP has seized Professor Hambleton's bank accounts and certain documents?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in most RCMP investigations, but certainly with regard to a security matter such as this, I am inhibited from what I can inform the

November 12, 1979
Oral Questions
House other than to say that an investigation is proceeding. Under those circumstances, I am sure members of the House can well appreciate that at this stage in the investigation, in any event, no further comment should be made than that.


POWERS OF RCMP IN MATTERS CONCERNING NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last week, he assured the House unequivocally that it was his policy to maintain the paramountcy of the rule of law. On Thursday night, he told the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that it was his understanding that the Prime Minister's position was the same as his own. However, in his press conference on Friday morning, the Prime Minister reasserted his campaign view that the RCMP ought to be given extraordinary powers in national security matters.
In light of this statement by the Prime Minister, may I ask the minister what his understanding now is of his government's policy, or is he having as much trouble as the rest of us in understanding what it is?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has some difficulty understanding these matters, 1 can assure him that I do not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I think the views of the Prime Minister and mine are exactly the same, namely, that at all times the police and everyone else should act under the law and pay close attention to the law.


Mr. Lalonde:: Careful.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly, those whom we all expect to uphold the law should be the very ones who should pay as much attention if not more attention to it than anyone else. I think, as well, the Prime Minister's views are exactly the same as mine, that under certain circumstances the law should be changed to permit the proper fulfilment of the duties and responsibilities we expect of law enforcement agencies in this country.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knows, or ought to know, that his answer is entirely irrelevant because what the Prime Minister is talking about is not a change in the substance of the criminal law which might maintain the rule of law; it is a change in the procedure on an ad hoc basis. That is what the Prime Minister said.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mark R. MacGuigan: He said so. Will the Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs not join the hon. member for Peace River in upholding the rule of law?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think I know what the hon. member for Peace River believes, and I think what he believes is exactly the same as 1 believe and exactly the same as the Prime Minister believes, that in certain instances the present law that we have suffered under the previous administration should be changed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the hon. gentleman on Wednesday elicited what I felt was a commendable reply for a former attorney general of the province of Ontario, and one of great repute. When the question was asked, it was specifically with reference to the well publicized position of the Prime Minister to the effect that he would agree to a minister of the Crown authorizing illegal activity on an ad hoc basis. The reply of the hon. gentleman in this House to that question was that he was not considering that, and he was in fact respectful of the rule of law and would seek to have it implemented and protected.
My question to the hon. gentleman is, in view of the dispute there is between himself and the Prime Minister, what measures is he contemplating now in order to protect the rule of law, which is in dire need of protection now, having heard what the Prime Minister has said? Is he considering going to the ultimate position of resigning his position in order to protect that principle?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If I was considering resigning my position, believe me, it would not be because of a dispute of that nature between the Prime Minister and myself, because basically we believe the same thing.
There is no question in my mind that the law, as it is written today, should be obeyed by everyone. There is also no question in my mind, and I believe no question in the Prime Minister's mind, that the law should be changed in certain instances so that law enforcement agencies of this country, not just the RCMP, would have better means and better armament legally to do some of the things they should be permitted to do.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, 1 would just like the hon. gentleman to review what has been said. If he will understand that what the Prime Minister is advancing is not really the rule of law or activity under the rule of law, but basically arbitrary decisions being made by a politician in a political context without any guidelines being enacted and identified in a given statute-and that is exactly what the Prime Minister was referring to-surely he will know that is not a position a man with the hon. gentleman's experience is able to support.
November 12, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Ten o'clock.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for International Trade. 1 should like to ask why, with our present trade deficit and with our huge surplus of potash-sufficient to supply the world for hundreds of years-and with Premier Blakeney touring the world to promote the sale of potash, it was that when Taiwan needed potash we did not submit a tender?
Was it because of our transportation system; was it because of the Saskatchewan government takeover resulting in curtailed production; or was it because of the political question- and I hope not-that Canada did not want to supply Taiwan and offend mainland China?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. It is not the position of the Government of Canada to respond to a tender call with respect to this particular product. We are not in that business. As the hon. member knows, we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan and that does inhibit us in some way from responding, however, our companies can respond to tender calls.
I should also say that in the area of potash, Canada has been a major supplier to Taiwan over the years, supplying something like three-quarters of their requirements. As far as I am concerned, 1 hope that we will continue to do so. I have attempted to get in touch with the Canpotex people to find out whether there are any other reasons. I have not yet received an answer, but I will continue to seek one.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eonse Faour (Humber-Port-Au-Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the ferry service between Newfoundland and the mainland, which has been the subject of quite a few complaints for some time, both in letters to myself and to other members of Parliament, having regard to crowded vessels, poor and uncomfortable facilities for passengers.
Since the federal government has a responsibility under the Terms of Union with Canada to provide a good ferry service to the province, I should like to ask the minister why the government and CN Marine have not custom-built a ship for the service since the mid-1950s; and, further, why consideration has not been given, or why there has not been implementation
Oral Questions
in the service of new technology such as hydrofoils or hovercraft.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. This is something that has been considered by my office, myself personally and by the president of CN Marine. We did have occasion to meet a week or ten days ago, when we discussed those very points the hon. member has raised. The hon. member has raised them in personal letters to me, and I want to assure him that the representations he has advanced in his letters and in the House here today will be treated accordingly.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's remarks and I hope that the future service reflects his concern today. The area manager for CN Marine has stated, as one of the reasons for not providing better facilities on the new ferries to be constructed, that the company is not in the hotel business.
Does the minister accept this statement as justification for providing an inferior service in the Gulf and, if he does not, what steps is he prepared to take to ensure comfortable facilities for travellers on long night crossings or on potentially long winter crossings when ice can cause undue delays?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is those kinds of questions which we have been discussing with the president of CN Marine. He has given me a commitment to respond to representations such as those the hon. member has made. Perhaps at some appropriate time I might have an occasion to respond specifically to the questions raised when I receive a response from the president of CN Marine with regard to these very important matters.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he say whether it is correct that he is going to cabinet shortly-and I have heard November 19 mentioned-with proposals affecting the COPE aboriginal claim settlement? If that is correct, is he going to ask cabinet to approve the agreement in principle as signed by the previous minister, or will he be proposing changes to that claim?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the COPE agreement, the hon. member will recognize that an agreement in principle was signed approximately a year ago-in October last-with a target date having been established to have a final agreement settled by October 31 of this year.
1 have received a number of representations from various native groups in the Northwest Territories, as well as representations from members of this House requesting me to review the COPE agreement. Having regard, specifically, to the hon. member's question as to whether I will present this to cabinet

November 12, 1979
Oral Questions
at this stage, I would say that the cabinet is reviewing the comprehensive land claim.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the minister met with COPE officials in August and July and promised them he wanted to resolve any differences with respect to the claim they or the government had, and would be willing to meet with them again. Why will he not meet with COPE officials before he proposes any changes, or proposes an indefinite delay in respect of their claim? Does he know that they are presently in Ottawa and would like to meet with him to discuss any changes he might have in mind?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know they are in Ottawa. We have scheduled a meeting for November 14.


William Warren Allmand: That is not correct.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As the Canadian Transport Commission authorized, last summer, the discontinuance of an interregional service between northwestern New Brunswick and Quebec City-that is, the passenger service-while authorizing passenger service between Sherbrooke and Saint John, N.B., by way of the state of Maine, thus depriving the citizens of northwestern New Brunswick of any passenger service at all in that part of central Canada, can the minister tell the House whether or not he will ask the cabinet to overrule that decision, since it has the power to do so, and as soon as possible put an end to the relative isolation of the people of northwestern New Brunswick?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this matter is going to be reconsidered by the Railway Transport Committee of the CTC; in other words, that decision is going to be reviewed.
[Mr. Epp.)


AIRPORTS
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the question will be reviewed since, if I understand correctly, the Canadian Transport Commission has exhausted all possibility of review as a result of the energetic protests of the citizens of that area and the matter now rests with cabinet. Still, Mr. Speaker, in view of the relative and serious isolation of the people of that area, compared with other parts of the country, can the Minister of Transport tell me on what date funds will be authorized so that work can continue on the construction of a 6,000-foot landing-strip at the regional airport of Saint-Leonard, with a view to giving that area the possibility of developing economically like all other parts of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants the government to reverse a decision which has not finally been taken by the CTC. The Railway Transport Committee has undertaken to review the decision, so I think we will have to await that outcome. As far as the other question is concerned, that matter is under review, Mr. Speaker.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Given the introduction of Bill C-15 and the dedication of this government to free access by the public to hitherto secreted information, and in light of recent efforts by the opposition to terminate the existence of this House without the passage of Bill C-15, will the minister file forthwith in this House the Taschereau papers and that series of documents which has been given the code name of "Featherbed File"?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is a little confused.


An hon. Member:: Naturally, he's a Tory.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The "Featherbed File" of documents is something quite apart from the Taschereau royal commission documents. 1 have been attempting since early July to find the legal and statutory authorization for the rather arbitrary decision of the previous government that the Taschereau royal commission documents should be resealed and kept in the Archives for another 20 years.
November 12, 1979

I was getting evasive answers from officials at all levels of government, early in the game. I think I have finally got some people pinned up against the wall where they are either going to have to produce the documents themselves or at least give the statutory authority for keeping them.
1 have as yet been unable to resolve the matter finally and to my satisfaction.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it relates to the development side of his portfolio. In a recent press release, the minister indicated that one-half of the concentrates from the Polaris mine on little Cornwallis Island would be carried by a Canadian flagship, the m.v. Arctic. The minister said that preference for the other 50 per cent would be given by Cominco to Canadian ships if available and competitive.
I should like the minister to tell the House exactly what he had in mind that would make it possible for the Canadian shipbuilding industry to bid competitively on this project.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I want to indicate to the hon. member that the first 50 per cent of the concentrates from the Arvik mine will be carried by Canarctic. 1 want also to indicate to him that through the strong co-operation of the Minister of Transport steps have been taken and agreements reached with Cominco that, on the second 50 per cent as well, an attempt will be made to put Canadian shipping into place.
The point that has to be made is that this government is interested in developing further ice technology and shipping capability in Canada's north. We are a country with a great potential in the north and, therefore, I believe we should be leaders in northern ice technology. The Minister of Transport has agreed with that and he and I are working co-operatively to attempt to develop further merchant marine in order that our northern development can take place under Canadian flagships.


HOUSING
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There have been several questions from hon. members who are concerned about the lay-offs in the plywood and other parts of the B.C. forest industry,
Oral Questions
relating to what I think everyone now clearly recognizes as a collapse in the housing industry. I think what we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg.
In view of the fact that the mortgage interest deductibility plan has not had the effect the government expected, of stimulating a great increase in housing starts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Already.


Arthur Phillips: -what additional means-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Phillips: Remember that the mere promise of it was to do this.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


An hon. Member:: You are not on television now.


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


Arthur Phillips: Mr. Speaker, yes, man!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Phillips: I should not address the Chair as "Master", should I? What additional measures, other than the proposed one-year mortgages that the minister has mentioned, is he planning for Canada Mortgage and Housing to relieve what may well be a crisis in the residential construction industry?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, all hon. members will realize that the present time, with the current interest rates, is not a good and feasible proposition for development to take place. We are studying methods that might alleviate the situation slightly but, frankly, as long as interest rates remain at their present high levels I cannot see any great improvement that would be possible to stimulate construction.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the junior Minister of State for Transport. In the Speech from the Throne, and during the election campaign, the Conservative party spoke in terms of building a strong Canadian shipbuilding presence. In the first five months of this year, the number of foreign-built ships brought into this country increased from 14 to 28. A spokesman for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated two months ago that it would be financially disastrous to build fishing boats in Canada.

November 12, 1979
Oral Questions
In light of those facts, would the minister explain to the House the immediate measures he would take to increase the shipbuilding capacity in Canada?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the role of shipbuilding is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the role of transport is the development of a policy for a deep sea fleet for Canada. These are two somewhat related roles and are part of our attempt to move Canada forward again. I suggest, however, that the questions could best be put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Internationa] Trade and concerns the development of the aeronautical industry in Canada. I recently directed a question to the Prime Minister about the sale of Canadair to the private sector and the Prime Minister indicated that it would eventually be sold to a Canadian corporation. My question is this: Could the minister inform the House whether this private corporation would be Canadian-controlled, as defined by the Income Tax Act, or whether it would be a corporation made up of Canadian residents creating a Canadian association precisely in order to buy Canadair?


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the privatization of Canadair is under consideration by cabinet.


Mr. Chretien:: For the last five years!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If you do not mind, I will just try to answer the question. It has been under consideration by cabinet and all aspects of it are being considered. It will not be sold other than to the benefit of Canada and Canadians: that can be assured. Whether it is in a condition at the moment to be privatized is still under consideration. It is in the process of developing substantial forward movement in certain aeronautical markets; we are all well aware of that. In the privatization process there will be no downside to it, as far as this government is concerned.

t Translation]
INQUIRY WHETHER PROVINCES COULD PURCHASE DE HAVILLAND AND/OR CANADAIR


Marcel-Claude Roy: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House whether a provincial government could be considered as a potential buyer of Canadair, and also whether the same treatment is kept in store for de Havilland?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, that is a hypothetical question. There is not much point in privatizing something if it is then turned over to another level of government.


TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) may have advertently or inadvertently left the impression with the House that 1 and my party were not supportive of the principle surrounding the transportation of dangerous goods. In the process of a question he quoted passages from a speech that I delivered in the House on February 16, 1979, as recorded in Hansard at pages 3330 and 3331.
In quoting those passages, he dealt with a section of my speech which concerned what 1 considered to be a deficiency in the transportation policy of the former government as well as deficiencies in the legislation.
Perhaps I might be allowed to put the position of my party, myself and the government-


Mr. Speaker:: The minister, I am sure, will realize that he is entering into a disagreement with the questioner.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, there was an interpretation that did not accurately reflect my position-


Mr. Speaker:: In one line, that is my description of a disagreement.
I am sure the minister will want to check words I addressed to the House only two days ago in which I indicated that at the conclusion of question period there has been a temptation on the part of members to raise matters of privilege of which notices have been sent to the Chair on the basis of disagreements that arise during question period. There has been a tendency on my part to take a rather generous attitude in allowing this kind of procedural intervention at the end of the question period, during which a member on either side of the House seeks to correct a disagreement or an inaccurate
November 12, 1979

appraisal by the opposite side of a position taken by that particular member.
In the interests of the House, I feel that if we do that we would be extending question period every day by invitation. I am saying to the minister that what he is expressing is a disagreement with the opinion or the description of his position or that of his party; whether it touches him or his party, it is still only a disagreement and not a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in answering a question that I put to him today during question period, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) said that he was going to meet with COPE this week. That is not correct. This morning 1 met with officials of the Committee for Original People's Entitlement, and they told me the minister had refused to meet with them and that he had further instructed his officials not to meet them.


Walter David Baker: Order. Try the adjournment debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely we cannot now get into the situation of a minister or a member misleading the House as to a future event. The minister tells the House that he intends to do something in the future. Surely under privilege we cannot suggest that somebody could get up and make an argument out of that. If I were to allow that, I would have to allow the last intervention by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding an answer given in this House today to a supplementary question.
With your permission, I would like to be recognized tomorrow on a question of privilege, by which time I will have had a chance to check the records to see exactly what was said.


PRIVILEGE
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the practice which has been established and acknowledged by yourself in recognizing speakers in the House during question period, and also the practice that has developed in allowing supplementaries.
It is my view that compliance with Standing Order 5 for all members to attend the service of the House is surely not
Privilege-Mr. Gamble
sufficient. In order to discharge their duties, members of the House must not only be seen but also be heard.
On Thursday last the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on two separate occasions when commenting upon an approval which had emanated from this side of the House of some comments he had made used the expression "backbencher" in designating certain members of the House, myself included, since I was involved in the commendation of some of his remarks.
I believe that designation carried with it a concept of a lesser or a greater degree of right to participate in proceedings. In the month that 1 have sat in this House I have recognized that there is most certainly a distinction between those who sit in the front benches and are recognized during question period and those who sit in the rear benches and stand without recognition. 1 consider that it is absolutely vital for all members in discharging their obligations in this House to be dealt with in a similar manner.
My comments most assuredly are not directed at Your Honour in the exercise of your judgment. I realize that this issue comes close to the issue of the order of the House. However, it is fundamental to my rights as a member in discharging my obligations to my constituents and to breaking down any distinction between those members of this House who may be first class and recognized speedily and those who may be second class and may or may not be recognized at all or at some future or remote time. That is why I draw this matter to the attention of this House.
It cannot be reasonably suggested that because I happen to sit as a member of the government the questions I intend to pose are cream-puff ones for ministers of the Crown. I submit that I am entitled to pose those questions which 1 believe are urgent, to the same extent as members who pose questions from the other side of the House.
I would urgently request that the issue of recognition be a matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for determination.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, 1 cannot let this go further. The hon. member gave me notice that he would raise a question of privilege. He will realize at once that he has no question of privilege, and I cannot hear further contributions to a nonquestion of privilege.
The hon. member will have to realize that the discretion of the Chair is entire in the matter of recognition of members. There is, of course, a fundamental difference, not so much in rank or importance, because all members have equal importance, but in the nature of members who support the government and members who are in opposition to the government when it comes to the functioning of question period. There is a completely different process involved, one of a very fundamental nature, when those who are putting questions are in opposition to the government compared with when those same questions are put by members in support of the government. That has long been recognized, not only by this Parliament but by every Parliament, in terms of their fundamental difference. To suggest that the time during question period ought in any

November 12, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Gamble
way to be equally divided among all members of the House- except those in cabinet who are therefore charged with the responsibility of answering the questions-is a suggestion that is not in keeping with the fundamental difference between those in opposition and those in government.
I have recognized as a matter of principle from the very first day that government members equally have a right to ask questions. However, I have never granted supplementaries to government members because to grant a supplementary is, in my opinion, to recognize that the question contains in it an attack on a minister that has not been completed and that deserves further clarification. It is fundamentally erroneous to suggest that government members in putting questions are attacking in the same way as opposition members. There is a difference of very fundamental nature.
The hon. member put a question today which I think the member and the minister involved will agree, as he says, was certainly not handed to the minister as any "cream puff', to use his description. That, if he will examine the record, is the exception rather than the rule in our experience in the last four weeks, and not only in the last four weeks but during the last five years. There is no fundamental change between one Parliament and another.
I have from the very first day always recognized a government questioner during question period as an acceptance of that right, which lies with members like himself as of right, to participate in the question period. Today when the proportion of opposition members ready to ask questions was not as high as it has been on other days, I recognized three members from the government side, which is a recognition that in certain circumstances the proportion from the hon. member's side of the House can be increased. His question was one of them, because he tried two or three days ago.
I hope the hon. member will realize he prevailed over some of his colleagues today because a couple of days ago he was trying to get recognized and failed. That is precisely the same criteria applied to the other side of the House. Members who got up today were those who have been trying for a day or two without success and therefore ought to be favoured today. I follow the same practice for both sides of the House.
The hon. member will also realize there are very severe limitations on all of us in this exercise and we have to do the best we can with the time available.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House who strove to make my position clear for me on this very important issue. I want to say that my view with regard to the question of breach of law is very simple, that no person be he ever so great shall be above

the law. I am glad that the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) seem to agree with that.
I would vigorously oppose any attempt to change that particular rule. It is a position I took some years ago when the then prime minister and members of his cabinet were in breach of the law in that they broke the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I took very strong measures to try and have them impeached at that time. Unfortunately I was unsuccessful. That was a previous Speaker. Who knows, Your Honour may have different ideas about impeachment.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning Standing Order 43 and ask for clarification from the Chair with regard to a certain aspect of that Standing Order.
I have always assumed, rightly or wrongly, and I assume many other members have as well, that Standing Order 43 existed for the purpose of enabling any member, regardless whether he was in government, official opposition or whatever party, to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity either pertaining to his constituency or to the country as a whole, and that therefore as many people in the government as in the official opposition, the NDP and so on could be recognized. I raise this point to gain clarification from the Chair as to whether there is a quota system of any kind with regard to the right of any member to raise a matter that concerns him and which he feels is of urgent necessity.
Today there were only two members in the House from the Social Credit group and they were recognized for a motion under Standing Order 43. There are over 130 on the government side.


Mr. Knowles:: They were not all here.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: There were more government members present in the House than there were in the official opposition, but there were not as many chances given to this side to raise matters. I stress the fact that I say this with all due respect to the Chair; I am not in any way being critical because I realize you must have good reasons for the procedures being followed. I simply ask that the matter be clarified for the benefit of all members, especially for those on this side.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a point I am sure the House will want to hear about. The matter of Standing Order 43 poses to a certain extent a problem similar to the one just raised by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) concerning questions, although not to the same extent. Therefore, I would perhaps not be as strict in trying to maintain a different ratio with the members on Standing Order 43 motions that I would with questions.
November 12, 1979

Today the hon. member's colleague was given the floor first over any other member of the House in order to move his rather important motion related to the recent train derailment. He was, and I think the record might clarify this, given a pretty generous share of the time allotted to Standing Order 43. In turn, because the motion carried, it took a bit more time, all of which was quite appropriate.
It would therefore not be my tendency to go back to the same side of the floor the second time until I assured pretty generous treatment to the opposite side. That was the factor that influenced me today. Had it been another kind of day in which perhaps the hon. member's colleague had put a more routine question which was set aside by the House and not received, the likelihood of two or perhaps even three members from that side being recognized for applications under Standing Order 43 would not be out of the way. I do not say that is assured, but it is more likely.
The fact that it was put today had more to do with the single motion in which preferential treatment was quite properly given to the hon. member's colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) with respect to the very urgent and serious matter that happened there rather than to any long standing policy to receive perhaps only one such application from the government side on any given day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Erik Nielsen (for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, to amend an act to amend the Criminal Code.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions
will be answered today: Nos. 34, 36, 38, 44, 50, 186, 294, 342, 346, 361 and 400.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of Teleglobe Canada?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Mr. Scott Fennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as Teleglobe Canada is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows:
1. (a) Jean-Claude Delorme	2. Range:	$55,600-$72,400
(b) Norman T. Byrne	$50,000-$55,000
Yves Langlois Andre Lapointe
Robert Seguin	$45,000-$50,000
John S. Crispin
Marcel Perras
Atherton Wallace
David Pilley
Donat J. Levesque


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Pacific Pilotage Authority?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


J. Robert Howie: 1.
(a)	Mr. P. V. O. Evans; (b) Position not filled.
2.	(a) $30,000-$35,000; (b) No salary attached to the position.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


J. Robert Howie: 1.
(a)	Mr. A. D. Latter; (b) Position not filled.
2.	(a) $35,000-$40,000; (b) No salary attached to the position.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Fisheries Prices Support Board?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	(a) Mr. A. Maloney, Chairman
(b)	Mr. K. F. Harding, Vice Chairman

November 12, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) Mr. A. Maloney is a senior officer of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and as such his salary range is $38,300 to $52,100. Mr. Maloney's duties include chairmanship of the Fisheries Prices Support Board in addition to other duties for the department.
(b)	Mr. K. F. Harding receives a per diem allowance of $75.00 while on board's business.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Science Council of Canada?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. Heward Graffley (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Science Council of Canada is concerned, our reply to question No. 50 by Mr. Orlikow is as follows:
1.	(a) Dr. Claude Fortier, Chairman (b) Vacant-One position.
2.	Chairman-Vi time-$48,500-$65,500 per annum: Vice Chairman-16 time-$48,500-$65,500 per annum.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Communications* payroll on March 31, 1979?


Thomas Scott Fennell: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the above answer to the above question is as follows: (a) permanent 2,028 employees; (b) term 191 employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government intend to discontinue allowable taxable capital losses on Canadian companies?
2.	Will such losses continue to be deductible for foreign holdings?


Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1.	One of the objectives of the tax system is to encourage equity investments by Canadians in Canadian companies. In this context, a review is underway of possible measures that would make such investments more attractive to more Canadians. The treatment of capital losses is an integral part of our capital gains system and the discontinuance of a deduction for allowable capital losses would reduce rather than enhance the attractiveness of investments in Canadian companies. Accordingly, so long as gains are taxable, losses should remain deductible.
2.	The recognition of capital gains and losses on foreign property is an integral part of the capital gains tax system.
Since the gains on foreign property are taxable, it would be inequitable to deny the deduction for losses. There is no intention to restrict the existing deduction of capital losses on any property from the gain on any other property, domestic or foreign.


Mr. Cossitt: Docs the Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs have a Department of National Revenue taxation number permitting persons to claim a donation to the organization as an income tax deduction and, if so (a) on what date was the number granted and who granted it (b) what are the names of the persons applying for a deduction and on what grounds was it granted?


Walter David Baker: The Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs was granted the status of a registered charity effective January 15, 1976, and it is therefore entitled to issue receipts for income tax purposes to its donors. Its registration was granted by officials of the department acting on behalf of the then minister, in accordance with the Income Tax Act and Regulations.
Registration was granted to the institute because, on the basis of information available, it qualified as a charity in accordance with common law principles and met the requirements of the Income Tax Act for registration as a charity. An officer of the institute signed the application for registration. The secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent me from supplying the name of that officer.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the vesting period in the pension plan for employees of the Bank of Canada?
2.	Is the automatic annual escalation of pensions paid to retired employees in an amount equal to the rise in the cost of living?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: I am advised by the Bank of Canada as follows:
1.	Full vesting is granted from the date of the employee's entry into the plan i.e. there is no qualifying period. A contributor to the plan whose service terminates for any reason other than death, normal retirement on pension, or retirement on account of disability is entitled to a deferred annual pension commencing at age sixty computed in accordance with the normal retirement benefit formula. Such a contributor may elect to receive instead a refund of his contributions with interest (4 per cent compounded), if he has not attained age forty-five with ten years of service.
2.	Pensions paid to retired employees are escalated annually in accordance with a pension index calculated, with respect to a year, as the per cent by which the average of the monthly consumer price index figures for Canada for the twelve-month period ending on the thirtieth of September in the immediately preceding year, exceeds the average of the monthly index

November 12, 1979

figures for the previous twelve-month period ending on the thirtieth of September.


Mr. Herbert: How many corporations were allowed exemptions by order of the governor in council under the November 1978 budget provision that disallowed the tax-free status of certain types of preferred shares and what was the value in terms of lost tax revenue to the government of all exemptions granted?


Walter David Baker: None.


Mr. Dick: 1.	How many Class B Highway Sufferance Warehouses were there in Canada in each of the following years (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) 1974 (e) 1975 (f) 1976 (g) 1977 (h) 1978 (i) 1979?
2.	What are the names and municipal locations of sufferance warehouses which first received their permits allowing them to open for operation in each of the following years (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979?


Walter David Baker: 1.	(a) 143
(b)	148
(c)	155
(d)	156
(e)	158
(0 161
(g)	164
(h)	166
(i)	168
2.	(a) 1975 Archibald Truck Sufferance Warehouse
Amherst, Nova Scotia.
Newfoundland Transport Limited
Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
(b)	1976 Day & Ross (Nfld) Ltd.
Grand Falls, Newfoundland.
Veillette Transport Co. Ltd.
La Tuque, Quebec.
Canada Packers Limited
Moncton, New Brunswick.
(Fruit and Vegetables only).
(c)	1977 Tyee Moving & Storage Co. Ltd.
Courtenay, British Columbia.
Doc's Cartage & Storage Co. Ltd.
Kitimat, British Columbia.
Atlantic Wholesalers Ltd.
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
(Fruit and Vegetables only).
British North America Acts
(d)	1978 Burge Brothers Transfer & Storage Ltd.
New Glasgow, Nova Scotia.
Winders Storage and Distributors Ltd.
North Battleford, Saskatchewan.
(e)	1979 Transport d'Anjou Inc.
Edmundston, New Brunswick.
Renfrew Sufferance Warehouse Renfrew, Ontario.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Walter David Baker: That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized pursuant to section 7, chapter 13. Statues of Canada. 1974-75-76, to review the rules provided by subsection 51(1) of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1974, as amended by the British North America Act (No, 2), 1974, and to make recommendations with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the reason I am rising today to move this motion is the existence of a provision in the Representation Act of 1974 which obliges me to propose to the House, not later than the twenty-fifth sitting day after Parliament has been summoned, that an order be made along the lines of the motion Your Honour has just read.
1 would emphasize that this does not involve the boundaries of particular constituencies but it is, nevertheless, of fundamental importance to members of the House of Commons because it would affect the number of seats in the chamber. 1 was interested today, as we moved toward this point in our proceedings, to notice that hon. members do raise questions as to their ability to catch the eye of the Chair; I am talking about the period of time in which members, under our rules, can question ministers. We are now up to 282 members in the House of Commons and one of the fundamental questions a committee would have to consider is whether or not membership has grown to the extent to which it ought to grow, whether, indeed, it has already gone beyond that point, and

November 12, 1979
British North America Acts
whether there ought to be some limit placed upon the size of the membership. Considerations of this kind could have a profound effect on the lives of members in terms of the question period, their ability to take part in debates, the staffing of committees, their ability to deal with the public and handle the ombudsman role which they play, and so on.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the British North America Act of 1867 gave Canada its present legislature. The upper House was to consist of 24 non-elected members for each region, Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes, and this representation was to remain constant regardless of changes in the population. The House of Commons, on the other hand, was established on the basis of representation by population and there have, from time to time, been changes in the size of the House as statutes have been amended. Another change was considered necessary when the 1971 census became available, mainly because several provinces would once again return fewer members. That seems to be part of the history of the debates on this subject that take place from time to time.
Under the Representation Act of 1974, Parliament adopted a new set of rules which attempted to compromise between conflicting goals by letting the House grow while setting different rates of increase in the representation of small, intermediate and large provinces. The 1974 rules were applied in the last general election and resulted in a House of 282 seats. Even at the time the rules were being adopted in 1974 there was concern that, depending on the way in which Canada's population grew, the new rules might cause a very rapid increase in the number of seats in the House, and a provision was therefore inserted into the act calling for the referral of the rules to a committee of the House in 1979 in order to permit the examination of the effects of the changes as they would be applied to the 1981 census.
I do not intend to say any more about this motion than 1 already have, Mr. Speaker. I know there are other members who wish to speak with regard to this proposal. Today will not be the only day upon which this matter can be considered, there will be other occasions. But by rising today and proposing this motion 1 have complied with the law and begun the discussion of what I believe to be a fundamental question for every one of us here, that is, whether or not the House is to grow continually, as it has in the past, or whether there is a limit to its size that we ought to consider in terms of its function, the work of its membership and the ability of the membership to carry on their duties in this chamber.
With those few words 1 will subside and allow others to take part in the debate to the extent that it is possible this afternoon.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker). The bill he spoke of was one of those I worked on when 1 was parliamentary secretary to the then president of the privy council, the hon. member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) and, later, to the former member for Eglinton, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp.
We had serious difficulty in arriving at formulas that would be acceptable to the House of Commons because of the dilemma we face in this country posed by the distribution of population between provinces. There are ten provinces and two territories with tremendous differentials in terms of population, and tremendous differentials in terms of embedded rules. The oldest and perhaps the most important in some respects is the Senate rule which provides Prince Edward Island, for example, with four seats because the rule states that a province cannot have fewer parliamentary seats than it has senators. Consequently, what has happened is that some provinces have maintained their populations while others have grown to the extent that, had a system been in place with a set number of seats, there would need to be a net transfer of seats from some provinces and regions to others.
Consequently, when the first series of proposals was brought down, beginning with one in 1971, the House determined that this was not the best way in which to proceed to the redistribution of parliamentary seats between provinces because those original proposals would have meant certain provinces losing seats. After considerable debate a decision was taken to suspend the operation and new proposals were advanced by the then president of the privy council, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, which resulted in the present situation.
As I said earlier, we have a problem in that there are parts of the country which are not growing and parts which are growing rapidly. Moreover, we must face the fact that certain implied guarantees have been given to the regions of this country as to the number of parliamentary seats they would have and as to the influence of those seats. While representation according to population has always been the battle cry of certain groups, it has never been a principle which was fully accepted as being unalterable.
If one goes over the history of the distribution of parliamentary seats in Canada one discovers that the formula of representation by population has never been followed precisely. It has always been the feeling that those areas with large geographic areas and small populations ought to be given more representation in order to compensate. If one goes back over history, one will find that that in fact is what has happened, and that has been carried on with a fair amount of non-partisanship by the members of the political parties in the House of Commons and also with a certain degree of concern as to what happens to those areas which are not growing as fast as other areas.
Since these proposals were developed-the so-called amalgam method-we have had a substantial shift in demographic population development which had been taking place at that time. In those days of 1974-75 it was the province of Ontario which was growing the quickest and, according to what we knew then and to what all the data indicated, it would continue to grow most rapidly. We now know that growth in Ontario has levelled off and that growth in the province of

November 12, 1979

Alberta particularly, but also British Columbia and Saskatchewan, has increased at an extraordinarily rapid rate. We know that growth in Quebec has levelled off, as it has in the province of Ontario.
We know also that if we do not look at the amalgam method, we will have a substantial increase in the number of members of Parliament in the Parliament after this one, and we have to look at what that means to this particular chamber. In comparison with the other place and in comparison with the House of Commons in Great Britain, our chamber is virtually a barn, and it may well be that one of the things we should examine in any event, whether we increase the number of members of the House of Commons or not, is whether this chamber is appropriate to the kind of performance we now put on. I speak of performance because one cannot overcome the feeling in walking on to the floor of this House that we are walking on to a brightly lit theatrical stage, and I think to some extent that brings out the worst in all of us. The fact is that the kind of image that is transmitted by the television cameras is not the kind of image that those of us who practice our magic on the floor of the House of Commons have. There is a discrepancy between what goes on here and what goes out.
I look at it from the point of view that perhaps we should go and look at the way the British have organized their chamber with a view to getting rid of these desks and moving to a more sensible approach-going on to benches and allowing for the fact that we do not need to have space for all the members of the House of Commons, although we do have to have space here for those who want to participate in the debates. If we would like to go to a cosier system than the kind of system where we are spread all over this large barn, I think that is one of the aspects we would have to examine regarding the expansion in the number of members of the House of Commons.
We have absorbed, through the amalgam method, an additional number of members, and if my recollection is correct, after the next redistribution of parliamentary seats as between the provinces we will end up with a total of seats slightly under or slightly over the 300 mark. That would mean a substantial increase in the number of people absorbed into this system in a very brief period of time.
I am not certain that that kind of change would deal adequately with the problems of those of us who represent very large constituencies. In my own case, my constituency was already large before the last redistribution of parliamentary seats, encompassing some 55,000 square miles, but it suddenly blossomed into a monster of 150,000 square miles. What we have seen taking place has been the movement of population from rural areas into cities. We have seen substantial growth in the physical size of rural constituencies, and members of Parliament have extreme difficulty in providing adequate representation to people who in many respects are receiving less representation now than they did before, even though the Canadian public as a whole may in fact be receiving more and better representation as a result of the expansion of the numbers in this place.
British North America Acts
So I agree with the President of the Privy Council that the question of numbers is very important. But not only is the question of numbers important; so is the question of the quality of representation for individual Canadians which will flow out of changes we make to this formula. I think that point has to be our bottom line. What kind of a system of representation do we want for the Canadian people?
The second point I want to make deals with changes in the system we have developed. Whenever we bring in a new system of any nature, some kind of examination is required to discover what in fact happened, and one of the things about the remarks made by the President of the Privy Council which disappointed me was that he did not indicate whether the government would be prepared to provide the committee with the necessary data and breakdown as to the results of what actually happened. We are not interested here in the results of an election. What we are interested in are what the results in terms of the representation of Canadians in general are going to be.
I do not know whether the government has yet appointed a representation commissioner, but I believe that office is still vacant. I think it is one which the government should give some consideration to filling before this investigation goes on, because it strikes me that the committee will be in need of the advice and research capability which that office has. That office has been vacant for about a year, but it does strike me that the committee should undertake to examine whether we should proceed until in fact there is a representation commissioner. 1 urge upon the President of the Privy Council that consideration be given to that aspect.
The last point I want to make is contained in the presentation which was made by the previous president of the privy council when he made a statement to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on April 9, 1974. I should refer this document to the President of the Privy Council because it was a cabinet document, and cabinet documents often were released in the form of ministerial speeches and papers released to committees and what not; it is not as if they were always kept secret. The fact is that by and large the bulk of the advice and data contained in these papers were made available to members of Parliament and the general public, although not in the form of a cabinet paper. I think many people's concept that they should have access to cabinet papers is that they would like to get into their hot little hands papers stamped "top secret-for the eyes of cabinet ministers only".
1 want to refer to this paper, and I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that it be duplicated and made available to the members of the committee. The reason for that is that the paper not only goes into the historical development of how we got to where we are in terms of the redistribution of parliamentary seats as between provinces, but it also suggests a variety of formulae-in fact, another four formulae in some detail-along with calculations as to what the end result will be in terms of the number of members of this chamber and in terms of what would happen to the various provinces in terms of their representation. I think it would be useful for members

November 12, 1979
British North America Acts
of Parliament to have the advantage of those formulae in their contemplation of our existing one to give them an idea of what the consequences of almost any formula man can devise are.
It is not clear, when we look at the formulae, as to the results we will reap. The fundamental difference I have with those formulae is that they are all based on projections by Statistics Canada as to population trends. We know what has happened in the last five years. Those population trends have been completely thrown out of any match with reality today. The reasons are simple enough. Population is flowing westward, Canadians are not having babies and we have slowed down our intake of immigration. The consequence of that has been to throw into the ashcan all of the Statistics Canada demographic projections. This is not to be critical in any way of Statistics Canada; it is simply an indication of the way in which what appeared to be at the time rather fixed demographic characteristics of a country or region can be changed overnight, and that is what has happened.
The last point 1 want to raise is the question of what happens after we go through this process. We will have to deal at some point with the redistribution of parliamentary seats within provinces. I think we have had a general agreement that the formula which we had developed and accepted, the amalgam method of redistribution of parliamentary seats among provinces, was a broadly accepted formula the last time, but what was not accepted by a large number of Canadians and a large number of members of Parliament then and now was what happened when we redistributed those seats within provinces. What happened then was the grossest kind of distortion, the grossest kind of misappropriation of parliamentary seats that 1 have ever seen. No account or little account was taken of communities and of interests, no account was taken of the sheer geographical size of constituencies, and no account was taken of like interests.
Having gone through the very painful experience of having been one of those whose constituency was changed out of all recognition, sacrificed on the altar of a principle almost as repugnant to most of us as proportional representation-but this one is called equality of representation within a province- I feel most strongly about that. What is so bothersome about it is that when that original act was passed in 1964-65, a formula was inserted to allow the redistribution commission in each province a lot of latitude. There was the possibility of a 50 per cent differential between an urban constituency and a rural constituency, and if you look at the map of Ontario you will find that in almost no case at all was the formula utilized.
One of the biggest mistakes I personally made was when I combined with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to pass a private member's bill through the House of Commons-I point that out to the President of the Privy Council-in which we asked the commissioners to give reasons for their decisions so that we could have an opportunity at the public hearings to dispute them, because if we did not have that right there would be no opportunity to challenge their

findings. The bill was passed and my good friend, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner), who was then member for Thunder Bay and whose riding was destroyed by the commissioners, tried to take the matter to court on this point. The result was that because the commissioners had put in a one sentence reason, which in effect said "In our best judgment, this is the best thing with which we can come up", the courts refused to hear the case. It seems to me that we have to do something to ensure that the commissioners carry out the will of Parliament, not what their own interpretation of that will is.
1 would ask the President of the Privy Council if he would be prepared to accept an amendment to this motion to ensure that we do not deal with the issue of redistribution of parliamentary seats by only taking half of it but that we deal with the whole bag, that we deal with the redistribution of parliamentary seats among provinces and that we deal with it also within provinces. Because it is as important to ensure fair representation to the public of Canada as it is to ensure that the workload of members of Parliament with respect to their constituencies is as equalized as it can be. I can tell the President of the Privy Council and the House that right now those members who represent larger constituencies carry a heavier burden than those who represent smaller, more compact interest groups and constituencies, and this is simply not fair.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) mentions that there are other factors, and of course there are, but I say that the system under which we operate forces many of us into courses that are not desirable or healthy for the people we represent.
So I want to make that plea to the President of the Privy Council and ask him if he would accept an amendment at this stage to include the other act, or if he would give us a guarantee that, at a later time, he would bring down a motion to refer the other act to the standing committee. 1 think it would be healthy, if we must examine one half of the problem, to examine all of the problem. As I said, 1 do not think we should go at it in a half-baked way. 1 think we should look at the whole problem, because we cannot escape the reality of the dimensions of the problem. The two are intertwined and therefore must be examined on that basis.
I think we must examine also one other factor, which is the question of how we should determine in the future what kind of a formula will be most apt. The dilemma that we have when we undertake this examination is that if we should decide to change it, it means that the basis of the representation in the House will have been changed very substantially within a five-year period of time. This means that the continuity which has been built up in constituencies and in areas can be destroyed because in many cases constituencies become used to being referred to as a constituency and they work within the boundaries that the provincial constituency imposes upon them.
What concerns me is that while I welcome the opportunity to re-examine the formulas, 1 have some concern about what we might bring forward as alternative. We might destroy that
November 12, 1979

kind of continuity which, in a political sense, I believe is a very important thing. What makes a political system acceptable and workable and what gives it credibility with the electorate is the fact that people know what to expect. What happened in the last redistribution is that people did not know what to expect, and a great deal of concern was expressed in that sense. I recognize the dilemma we are imposing on ourselves, but 1 belive it is worth exploring this point in second reading debate.
So on that basis I would like to see the President of the Privy Council proceed with the search to find a representation commissioner; that the government produce a fairly substantive paper, perhaps much along the lines of the paper which was produced by his predecessor on April 9, 1974; that consideration be given to expanding the role of the committee to deal with the redistribution of parliamentary seats within provinces; and lastly, that the committee itself give some consideration to the need for continuity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for only a minute or two. I say that because there have been discussions about this debate and I believe a measure of agreement has been reached that instead of carrying it on at great length today, we might adjourn it and resume it on another day. I say quite openly that I made that request on behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), who finds it impossible to be here this afternoon and yet would like to take part in this debate.
1 saw a couple of other hon. members rising, and if there were a consensus to delay the adjournment until they have spoken 1 would have no quarrel with that, but 1 propose to make the motion which I suggested to the government House leader I would make. But before I do that, may 1 say that I feel 1 must not pass up the opportunity to congratulate my friend, the government House leader, for keeping the law. This is a red letter day. The British North America Act, in section 7, chapter 13 of the Statutes of Canada for 1974-75-76, says that not later than the twenty-fifth day of this session the President of the Privy Council shall propose to the House this reference. This is the twenty-fifth sitting day, so he is doing what the law requires him to do. So often we complain about the errors made over there. 1 think we should applaud this strict observance of the law.
Borrowing Authority Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Stanley was here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, I am sorry, 1 was here in this life but 1 was not in Parliament.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were born here, Stanley!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are comments that 1 am not getting, but at any rate 1 do not mind them.
The only other comment I want to make is to the effect that for all the changes and corrections we might make, I still want to confirm my belief that we did the right thing in this Parliament when we took the drawing of the boundaries out of the hands of parliamentary committees and put it into the hands of independent commissions. There may be times when certain members are dissatisfied with what those commissions do, but if I may again draw upon my experience, having been around here for a while, I can tell hon. members that the sorriest experiences we used to have were with the drawing of constituency boundaries by parliamentary committees.
As for the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that the motion before us might be amended to include a broader reference, it seems to me that it is pretty wide as it is. The committee has the power to make recommendations with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto which appear to the committee to be necessary or desirable. It strikes me that that goes pretty far.
1 indicated that it was not my intention to make a speech, and falling in line with what 1 think is the general understanding, that we move on to something else today, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Knowles) agreed to.
*
* *


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1979-80
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another comment I should like to make is to my friend, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). 1 always enjoy his discussions of these matters and his references to history, but there is one little point of history which I think he should check. He said early in his remarks today that one of the oldest rules respecting redistribution is the rule which says that no province shall have fewer seats than it has senators. I remind the hon. member that that rule did not come into effect until 1915. I suppose that for a young man of his age 1915 is just as far back as 1815, but this country was 48 years old before that change was made.


SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING AUTHORITY FOR 1979-80
Walter David Baker: that Bill C-10, to provide supplementary authority for the fiscal year 1979-80, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter David Baker: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to raise a couple of points briefly with reference to this bill. First

November 12, 1979
Borrowing Authority Act
I want to raise a matter which perhaps 1 could have raised as a point of order, but which I think could well be brought forward in the course of my general remarks at this time. It is my understanding that it is customary, before the House proceeds to report stage and third reading of a bill, that there be available to members the printed proceedings of the committee hearings on that measure. As far as I am aware, this is not the case with respect to Bill C-10. When I did not see the printed proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in my office, I checked with the clerk of the committee and she informed me that the proceedings setting out the verbatim transcript of the discussions in committee on Bill C-10 have not yet been printed. This information from the clerk of the committee came to my attention approximately half an hour ago.
I am not certain that the rules of the House, or the interpretation of the rules of the House, are so precise that a bill cannot be proceeded with if the printed proceedings of a committee, once it has held hearings on a bill, are not available. However, I think one could agree that certainly it is difficult for members of the House generally to give proper attention to a bill at report stage or third reading without the benefit of the final version of the proceedings of the bill. There may well be members of the House who would like to speak on a bill and who would like to address their minds to the full picture regarding the bill, before making up their minds as to where they stand on it, yet they may not have been members of the standing committee which considered the bill, or even if they were members, they may not have been able to be present to take part in its deliberations.
Frankly I do not think it is consistent with the pledges of the new government in the Speech from the Throne, namely that it would show greater respect for Parliament and enhance the role of Parliament, in particular through increasing the role of parliamentary committees, to proceed as it is doing with respect to Bill C-10. At the very least it shows some degree of contradiction of the high-minded words of the Speech from the Throne, with respect to enhancing the authority of Parliament, to ask the House to proceed to take a final decision on Bill C-10 without members of the House having before them the printed proceedings, the only complete transcript generally available to members of the discussions on Bill C-10 before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
There were some very interesting and useful exchanges in committee between members of the committee, particularly those on the official opposition side, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) with respect to the purpose of the bill and the justification for it. It does not make it easy to debate the bill at this time when one does not have the actual transcript in the form of the final written proceedings. While I am not going to interrupt the proceedings of the House on this bill by raising a formal point of order, 1 want to say that I and members of the official opposition disagree most strongly with this course of conduct. In my view, it flies in the face of the alleged commitment of the new government to enhance the role of Parliament. If a similar occasion arises, speaking for
myself, I can say that I will object most strongly in terms of a formal point of order.
I should like to speak briefly on some of the considerations connected with this bill. In my view at least, and again speaking from my general recollection rather than from the printed transcript of the committee proceedings, the Minister of Finance was not able to give a more convincing justification before the committee for the amount of the borrowing authority he is seeking in this bill than he was able to give in winding up debate on second reading. As the House knows, the bill calls for borrowing authority in the amount of $7 billion. However, in his economic statement of last July, the Minister of Finance said that cash requirements for the period to which this bill relates would be in the amount of $10 billion. The figures given by the minister, both at the end of second reading debate and, more particularly, in committee hearings on this bill, indicate that he is asking for anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion more than he needs to achieve the borrowing authority necessary to meet the cash requirements he predicted for the current fiscal year.
We pressed the Minister of Finance in committee as to why he needed the very sizeable amount of anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion more than what appeared to be required. Of course, it depends on how one adds it up-that is, the existing borrowing authority and the new borrowing authority being sought-but he said only that he would need something for contingencies. Those are pretty wide-ranging contingencies, especially coming from a government and a minister which say that they have embarked upon a course of providing more information to Parliament about financial requirements than the previous government, and of being more definite and open with the public and Parliament about the manner in which they handle the financial affairs of the country.
1 want to say to the House that I recall nothing from the committee proceedings which would cause me to change my mind in respect of the conclusion 1 reached on second reading, that there were several billion dollars worth of what I call padding in this borrowing authority bill-moneys being sought for which there was no adequate or convincing explanation.
Of course, one can speculate on what the Minister of Finance had in mind when he spoke of contingencies. One possibility is that his department's own most recent forecast recognized that the economy is going to slow down to such an extent during and before the end of this fiscal year that government revenues will decline sharply, so that additional borrowing authority will be required for the government to borrow in order to meet the gap between revenues and expenses for the current fiscal year.
Another possible explanation for the reference by the Minister of Finance to contingencies is that the government may feel that at some point in the period covered by Bill C-10 it will have to go to international financial markets to borrow extensively to support the dollar. The government may have a view on the value of the dollar. After all, the previous minister of

November 12, 1979

finance said in the House of Commons, if I am not mistaken, that he thought the Canadian dollar should be worth 90 cents. It could be that the minister under the guise of squirrelling money aside, putting it away for contingencies, has in mind some substantial borrowing effort required to support the dollar.
Another possible explanation for the substantial sum the Minister of Finance is seeking to cover contingencies is that if the government proceeds with its misguided intention of breaking up Petro-Canada, our national oil company, giving the money-raising or profitable parts to the public while at the same time keeping not only the money-losing but necessary national interest parts in government hands, and having the government assume the present debt, this would in effect mean, in a technical sense at least, a borrowing by the federal government of the amount of some $2.5 billion, the existing debt of Petro-Canada. This is an additional burden on the taxpayer, for which the taxpayer is getting nothing in return, which would have to be covered by additional borrowing authority.
I would also bring to the attention of the House still another possible explanation for the additional borrowing authority which the Minister of Finance spoke about as being required to cover contingencies which he declined to identify or explain. Because of the high interest rate policy supported, believed in and agreed to by this present government, a policy which has raised interest rates in Canada since May 22 to record high levels, the government itself will have to pay more money to people from whom it has borrowed money in the past, and from whom it is borrowing money now, in the form of increased interest on those borrowings. This would obviously be a lot more than might have been foreseen a year or so ago, and this also has to be covered by the borrowing authority. What is involved in the payment of additional amounts for interest on the government's debt is an additional burden on the Canadian taxpayer. The interest burden is already unfortunately, in my view at least, too high on the Canadian taxpayer in view of the taxpayer's capacity as a consumer, farmer or small business person.
This additional burden will have to be paid in due course by the taxpayer through his or her taxes to cover additional interest expense on government borrowing. There may have to be borrowing to cover this interest in the short run, and this also will have to be covered by the additional borrowing authority sought by Bill C-10.
Even though, as I have said, the Minister of Finance both at second reading and at the committee stage on this bill failed to give a completely convincing response to my questions as to exactly why this borrowing authority is required, particularly the portion that seems to be anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion more than the cash requirements he said would be required for the current fiscal year, we do not intend to prolong unduly the taking of a final decision on this bill.
I presume the government takes the view that it knows what it is doing. We do not think that is the case. If we let more time go by, this will be demonstrated to the public even more
Borrowing Authority Act
fully than the mistakes, the flip-flops and the lack of action we have seen from this new government in the almost half a year it has been in office to this point in time.
As a result, it is our intention, as I say, not to prolong the debate on this bill unduly, but we do want first of all to protest again that this government, which claimed to be committed to showing greater respect for Parliament and, in particular, for the work of its committees, is asking us to proceed without having available to all members of this House the complete official transcript of the committee proceedings on this bill. This means, as 1 have said, that those members who were not on the committee, or who perhaps do not have a form of recollection at the level or to the extent they would like, are not in the position they should be in order to direct their minds to the issues in connection with this bill. Some of us who were there and were very interested in this bill feel ready to discuss the issues and the gaps in the government's approach to it. However, certainly what the government has done in respect of this bill is not consistent with the way its members say they want Parliament to be treated.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we have put enough on the record to indicate that this government, when it was in opposition, complained strongly that the previous government was asking for authority for which it had given no detailed explanation, yet this government is proceeding along the same course of action it criticized in the past. In fact, in my view it is going further in some ways, and I think it should be on the record that there are serious gaps in the justification attempted for this bill by the Minister of Finance.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat bemused when I listen to a speech by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on matters of finance. I think the only question the Canadian people should ask themselves when they listen to that hon. member is, would things have been any different had there not been a change as a result of the election of May 22? If that hon. member can honestly go before the Canadian people and say they would have done anything different in respect of Bill C-10 or in respect of interest rates, I suggest he would be asking the Canadian people to buy a bill of goods they are not prepared to accept.
Be that as it may, the hon. member did make one particular point toward the end of his remarks which I think is absolutely true, and that was when he said this government is proceeding in the same direction as the previous government. I am glad he has finally come around to that point of view as that is precisely what we have been saying since the election. There is no difference in the policies followed by the two governments, either from the point of view of the way in which this bill was presented, or in terms of the substance of the government's economic policy which this bill gave us an opportunity to discuss on second reading and again in the committee, albeit during a one-day sitting of that committee.
From the point of view of the way in which this bill was presented, I think the best criticisms were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in a speech he made on October 25,

November 12, 1979
Borrowing Authority Act
1978 when he was leader of the opposition. He was most critical of the government at that time for coming before Parliament asking for authority to borrow billions of dollars before the minister of finance of that day had presented a budget. We are now presented with exactly the same situation and exactly the same problem, as an opposition, of looking at a supplemental borrowing authority bill without, at the same time, having the opportunity to discuss the reasons and the objectives of the government's spending program and the reasons and objectives of the government's revenue collecting program.
1 think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) knows full well our concern with respect to tax spending. We have made that clear over a period of months and years. We are looking forward to the budget in which something will be done about that.
We also look forward, Mr. Speaker, to seeing the government's economic intentions outlined in the budget. When the government brings in a bill requesting supplemental authority to borrow substantial sums of money, I think it should done in conjunction with a budget and not before a budget. That would give us the opportunity to look at the economic situation as a whole.
There is a discrepancy between the good intentions of the government, as expressed from time to time, on freedom of information and the answers we get to some of our questions. The Minister of Finance, for example, was not willing to commit himself to changing the practice with respect to a bill of this nature. When we raised with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) the other day the question concerning privatization and the selling off of certain Crown corporations, we did not get from him a ringing declaration that Parliament would reign supreme in this matter. We did not get a statement from him that he would be glad to debate his objectives with any other member of Parliament in a committee, so that the matter would be discussed. He did not give us an opportunity to bring members of the industry before a committee of the whole Flouse or a committee of the House. No such commitments came from the President of the Treasury Board. All we got was the kind of evasive, arrogant answer that we got from the previous Liberal administration.
It is quite understandable that the President of the Treasury Board is frustrated. Finally he is in government after so many years, but now he says to us, "Why do you expect from us a different standard of behaviour than you got from the Liberals?" That is really what he was telling the people of Canada on Thursday. "Why do you expect anything better from us?"
As a member of the New Democratic Party, I can only nod and ask, "Why indeed?" We do not really expect a diffrent standard of behaviour. It is only that they told us they were going to give us a diffrent standard of behaviour. I suggest to those members of the Conservative party who are present that they might care to bring their alleged desires with respect to the authority of Parliament in matters of this nature in line
with their conduct, which still has a long way to go. Of course, it is difficult to do this. It demands a change in government and a change in attitude on the part of the civil service, but I think we expect a little more indication from ministers of the Crown at this time of the direction they intend to take.
Two or three other interesting things were said during debate on second reading and the committee discussions which I think are worth commenting upon. For the first time, we had in that committee a new language coined by the Minister of Finance. For example, he said that the Conservative party does not have a high interest policy; that the Conservative party inherited a high interest condition for which it accepts no responsibility. That was an interesting, rhetorical attempt by the minister to avoid taking responsibility, a natural psychological move on his part. It was a very clever, rhetorical trick.
Then he tried something else. He told us that previously a stimulative deficit, temporary or not, had meant a larger deficit and that he was now defining a stimulative deficit as meaning a smaller deficit. That is a very interesting idea. It was an effort to ignore the albatross which had hung around his neck since the election. One can only admire the minister's efforts to get around the difficulties created for him by his colleagues.
In this party, however, we are not going to allow the Minister of Finance to invent this new language in order that he and the Government of Canada can avoid responsibility for the economic policies now being followed. 1 think we have seen an interesting, psychological game being played since the recall of Parliament. On the one hand, we have an official opposition which has yet to accept its role as an opposition. Psychologically it still sees itself as the government. It cannot get used to the fact that other people are acting as ministers, going to cabinet meetings and taking responsibility for the direction of the country. After 16 years of power you get used to it, so there is a certain complacency built into the arteries of members of the Liberal party. One can understand their withdrawal symptoms, which are expressed in various forms.
The hon. member for Windsor West, for example, expresses his withdrawal symptoms by acting as if he were not a member of the Liberal party prior to May 22. According to him, the Liberal party sprang immaculate from his loins on May 23, and everything in place before then was out of some movie in which he played no part.


Mr. Breau:: Where did you come from?


Bob Rae: My origins are a matter of history.


Herb Breau: Where is all the Max Saltsman philosophy?


An hon. Member:: He is a test tube baby.


Bob Rae: 1 do not think it will wash with the people of Canada. They remember seeing the hon. member for Windsor West on television when he was minister of consumer and corporate affairs. They remember him very well when he was minister of national revenue and they vividly remember his role as chairman of the finance committee in the dark days of

November 12, 1979

1969-70. The hon. member for Windsor West has a history. He cannot pretend he came here on May 23 and invented the Liberal party, it has a history too, and that history is precisely the condition out of which we are trying to emerge with the new government which sits across the way.
if the Liberal party has its psychological problems, I suggest to members of the Conservative party, and particularly to the Minister of Finance who is not here this afternoon, that they, too, have their psychological problem. They still do not see themselves as a government. Every time the Minister of Finance gets up to answer a question, all he can say is "We cannot do 'X', we canot do *Y\ we cannot do 'Z' because of the Liberal party, because of the Liberal party, because of the Liberal party." He will not even admit that when he raises interest rates, that is a policy; he says it is a condition. When he does something it is a condition; when anybody else does it, it is a policy. It is interesting blarney, interesting rhetoric, but 1 suggest it will not wash. It just is not good enough.
We are waiting eagerly for the budget, Mr. Speaker. We are waiting eagerly for the time when we no longer have "Cros-bie's complaint" or "Crosbie's lament", but when we have "Crosbie's budget". He has indicated that this week he will announce the date of the budget. At that point the Conservative party will no longer be able blindly to blame somebody else for the problems of the country. They have to take some responsibility for what happens. They are slowly building themselves a record-in my view an uneven record-and at some stage the Minister of Finance is going to have to take responsibility and recognize that he cannot blame high interest rates on somebody else forever. Neither can he blame large deficits on somebody else forever. The Minister of Finance will have to recognize that he has the ability to cancel or change whatever government program he wants, that he has full authority to raise whatever money he wants to deal with whatever budgetary deficit he sees. The Minister of Finance has that power. We in Parliament have that power.
Just as the whole of "Portnoy's Complaint" was a prelude to serious analysis and rebirth, I suggest that "Crosbie's complaint" and all the falderal that we have heard from the government with respect to high interest rates and economic policies is merely a prelude to what we hope will be the government's coming to accept responsibility and to recognize that it has the reins of power. It is up to the government to act in the way they want, to do the things they want and to address themselves to the problems of the country.
With respect to Bill C-10, 1 suggest that this demands two things. First, that we no longer have requests for borrowing which are completely unrelated to any existing government program. We do not know what the government intends to do with Petro-Canada. We do not know what the debt will be that the government will assume when it sells off the profitable parts of PetroCan. We had no indication from the minister at that time. He said that it was hypothetical and purely speculative.
Borrowing Authority Act
We know the government intends to go ahead with the mortgage interest plan. We know how much that will cost, or what the government thinks it will cost, but again we do not know what other measures the government intends to enact, so how can I say yea or nay to a bill requesting $7 billion?
If debate on this bill has seemed rather empty, shallow and short as it has gone on, there is a simple reason for it. We do not have the material, the economic planning or effort from the government telling us in which direction to move.
On the substantive side as opposed to the procedural side, we hope the government will take some responsibility also. As I said before in all sincerity, there is a contrast-and I will put it no higher than that because this is a young government, and governments and ministers can learn and respond to criticism which I am sure they are getting from members of their own party and from us. It is no longer good enough to come into this House and say that something that was good enough for the Liberal party is good enough for them. If the Liberals did the same thing, we on this side of the House have no right to complain.
1 simply point out to the President of the Treasury Board that we complained along with him, when the Liberals were in power. We intend to do exactly the same thing with respect to information, debate, the fundamental authority of parliament and its committees for questions of supply and economic policy, just as we did then. We look forward to working with the government. We look forward to the budget when it comes, and we look forward to providing the government with constructive criticism, which I hope its members will agree we have attempted to give since the beginning of Parliament. We have set high standards. We have standards which were set in a sense by the Conservative party and by members such as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) when in opposition. Those standards are: that a government minister will answer questions directly when asked, that he will not attempt to slough them off and that before we are asked to approve billions of dollars of borrowing authority we will have greater financial information on which to base our assent or dissent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is
the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

November 12, 1979
Supply


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens-Mr. Scott (Vic-toria-Haliburton) in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday, November 9, 1979, schedule D of the bill was under consideration. Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive, schedules A, B and C, were allowed to stand.
On schedule D-


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, we agreed today that we would discuss regional development policy with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. 1 believe this is the first opportunity that the minister has had to be here, apart from the standing committee, although I am not sure of that. The Minister of Finance has participated and he was, of course, a most competent replacement. However, we welcome the opportunity of being able to discuss regional development and the matter of DREE with the minister.
We are very happy that a member from Nova Scotia was appointed minister of DREE. Our only regret is that he is not a member of the inner cabinet. As he knows, we sympathize with him in that respect. As a matter of fact, I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 not long ago in that regard. I am sure he would have agreed with my motion, but someone on his side disagreed. Therefore, he cannot be a part of the inner cabinet. Nevertheless, we are sure he will be a good member of the economic development committee or whatever it is called.
My speech will not be long because other colleagues want to speak before five o'clock, after eight o'clock tonight, tomorrow and possibly the day after.
There are a few questions I would like to raise with the minister having to do with my own area. My colleague, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, on another occasion will speak on behalf of our party.
Can the minister tell us whether his department has initiated discussions with the province of New Brunswick on a highways agreement to continue the work started by the previous government and the province of New Brunswick? When I say with the province of New Brunswick, I must mention that the province has not done that much. It was mostly federal money that went on routes 11, 8 and 17 in northeastern New Brunswick. To sum up my first question, it is this: Have discussions been initiated on a new highways agreement with the province of New Brunswick covering routes 11,8 and 17?
Second, regarding the DREE northeast New Brunswick agreement, if the minister does not have the figures with him, could he give us a commitment to give the House a report as to the disbursement of funds under that DREE northeast agreement? Up to July or August of this year funds were not being
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton).]
spent as fast as contemplated. There were goods reasons at the time for that. Some had to do with problems regarding the shipping and marine museum. That was delayed for reasons outside policy decisions of both governments. Another reason was major projects by municipal and industrial infrastructures in Bathurst. Again there were delays because of engineering on the part of the city and so on.
I would like the minister to attempt to give an assessment now and for the rest of this fiscal year as to whether there will be a catch-up in the spending of funds that has been agreed to by both governments, because the government will end in 1982. That means there are two full fiscal years after this year. I am concerned. I would not want any projects foreseen in the agreement to be abandoned.
I know it will be said that Treasury Boards, federal and provincial, could agree to extend the agreement so that the funds can be disbursed. 1 remind the minister that because of inflation, if something is not gone ahead with before the end of the agreement in 1982, unless it is for ongoing projects, tenders called or projects already under construction, it would be difficult to get an extension of the agreement. They would not approve enough money to cover all the projects. That concerns me.
I will wait for the minister's assessment. 1 want his assurance that he will do all he can to approve projects as quickly as possible. 1 hope he will press the New Brunswick government to go forward with projects and ensure that this money will be spent. Before continuing, I would like the minister to answer those two questions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to make myself available to the hon. member and do the best I can to respond to his questions. According to my information, the highway subagreement to which he refers expires March 31, 1980. We have been talking to the province of New Brunswick about extending it. Implicit in this is an additional $5 million or $6 million to be advanced, as I understand it.
I should tell the hon. member that I had an opportunity during the summer to meet with Premier Hatfield and his cabinet and to discuss a number of matters, including the vital forest industry which is important for the entire province of New Brunswick. 1 believe there is approximately half a billion dollars directly or indirectly involved in the New Brunswick economy with the forest industry.
The New Brunswick minister, Mr. Merrithew, was recently here and I met with him outside the chamber. They are still evaluating the various considerations that will eventually, and I think soon, enable them to come forward with some precise proposals so that we can use our pulp and paper agreement to help them rationalize and modernize some of the facilities there.
Another project the hon. member asked about was the shipping and marine centre. That was mentioned in his first question. He knows that a New Brunswick firm, A. C. Mallet
November 12, 1979

& Sons, were awarded a contract. It came in over cost. Negotiations are going on to see how we can best handle it in view of the fact it is a good project. However, the project may require some modifications because of the cost variations between what was envisioned and the tenders.
Something else the hon. member was referring to in northern New Brunswick was the possible zinc reduction plant at Belledune. As he knows, there is an agreement involving this with, as 1 remember, DREE paying $1.6 million, the New Brunswick Mining and Smelting paying approximately the same amount and the New Brunswick government contributing a percentage as well.
As the hon. member knows, the various subagreements in New Brunswick are extensive. They are all under negotiation. We hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to extend the mandate and rationalize the basis of regional development. We will be bringing legislation forward. At the present time, the province of New Brunswick is showing a great deal of interest in all of these subagreements. I am not aware of any serious problems in disbursing funds. There may be.
As the hon. member knows, under the general development concept of DREE which his government brought forward in 1974 there is a fair amount of flexibility with regard to priorities under the general umbrella agreement. We certainly would not object to the province changing some of its priorities if it felt it would be best to expend some of the funds on one subagreement as distinct from another. I want to assure the hon. member that I am not aware of any problem with funds lapsing or not being properly utilized. If there were, I would be concerned about it. 1 would want to get more information and to ensure that the funds were spent as envisaged.


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to two projects under the DREE northeast agreement. Under the northeast subsidiary agreement, funds are not being disbursed as was foreseen. 1 can well understand that the minister would not be aware of every detail in these matters. After all, it is administrative and he is still relatively new to the department. 1 assure him that has not been a problem up until now in the sense that no projects that were foreseen have been abandoned. However, it will become a problem. As of last July, 1 received an assessment from officials of his department to the effect that if the trend continues and there is not a speed up of the administration of the agreement, projects that were foreseen could not begin and be completed by March 1982 or July 1982 when the agreement expires. That is the DREE northeast agreement which is different from the highways agreement.
1 would like the minister to inquire from his officials as to the present status and to provide me with a report. 1 do not expect that report in this debate, but I would like it on record that he will ask for it.
[ Translation]
Mr. Chairman, the minister stated that there was now a subsidiary agreement with respect to New Brunswick roads under which major projects have been undertaken on highway
Supply
11, highway 17, and highway 8. In addition, funds have been made available for other secondary roads. This agreement, as the minister said, will be ending on March 31, 1980.
1 would like to ask the minister to make sure in his discussions with New Brunswick that priorities for federal funds will be highway 11, highway 17 and highway 8 for the simple reason that the entire economy of northern New Brunswick from the northwest, the link between Maine, northwest New Brunswick and northeast New Brunswick and the link between the northeast and the Fredericton area, that is highway 8 and the link between the northeast and the Moncton area, for the economy of northeast of New Brunswick, it is extremely important because highway 17, as I said a while ago, provided a link between Maine and the northeast for the tourist industry but it also helps make more effective the transport of our goods coming from central Canada.
As for highway 8 which links northeastern New Brunswick from Fredericton with the whole northeastern part of the United States, that is the Boston area, our lumber especially, our fish and our peat all travel on it by truck. That highway is in terrible shape at this time, which makes the transportation of our goods less efficient than that in other parts of the country which sell the same products.
So I should like to ask the minister to ensure first of all that additional credits are authorized, as he mentioned a while ago, to supplement the present agreement and project, because it is extremely important for the economy of northeastern New Brunswick, the Miramichi area and that part of New Brunswick, to have an adequate network of highways, because we cannot bank on the province to supply the funds required; it simply does not have the financial capacity to supply the $200 million required in 1979. In addition, and my colleague for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) will have more to say about this later on this evening, the province of New Brunswick does not give any priority to road building in that area.
We find that they are building a bridge in the city of Fredericton at a cost of some $25 million to $30 million, who knows? That is more than the province spent on building highways 11, 17 and 8 together. So we cannot expect the province of New Brunswick to do that work. I therefore urge the minister to see to it that the federal government signs another agreement after March 31, 1980, for the construction of roads in that part of the province, making sure that, in its negotiations with the province of New Brunswick, highways 11,8 and 17 are given some priority in the allocation of federal funds.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I can assure the hon. member that I shall get an updated report on the northeastern agreement and send him a full reply to the questions he has raised particularly, in

November 12, 1979
Supply
addition, with regard to highways 11,17 and 8, which he finds in such need of repair.
I wonder whether he or his colleagues might wish to comment, in the context of regional development and the benefits for New Brunswick-or the lack thereof-on a matter which has interested me and other hon. members in the past, namely, the advantages or otherwise of a corridor road through the state of Maine. I realize there are various opinions held on the subject and I would welcome contributions from New Brunswick members.


Eymard G. Corbin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not intend to express my views right now on the remarks just made by the minister regarding a corridor road through the state of Maine. Eventually 1 would like to discuss this question, but I have other major concerns which in my opinion should be given priority. 1 will discuss later the question of the corridor road through Maine.
Today, I had the opportunity, when putting a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), to complain about the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission will subsidize the VIA Rail to provide a passenger train service through the state of Maine at the very time when they are taking away what was left to us in terms of passenger trains between Edmundston and central Canada via Quebec City. There is something wrong there.
So I will deal with the matter of the corridor road later on. For the time being, 1 would like to congratulate the minister. First, I wish to congratulate him on the honour bestowed on him by being appointed Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I appreciate that honour because, like him, 1 come from the Atlantic region. My first loyalty is to Canada and then to the area I represent in the House. I wish him every success in his heavy responsibilities which, I am sure, he has already tackled resolutely.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the specific matter I wish to raise with the minister is that of the developing regions sub-agreement entered into by his predecessor, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), and the premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Richard Hatfield. Some last minute changes were made to that agreement to comply with certain requirements,- which 1 find excessive, made by the president of the treasury board of New Brunswick who is also the member for the city of Edmundston which I represent in this House. It was understood that the federal government would provide some funds, namely an amount of $1 million, within the framework of that developing regions subagreement, to further upgrade and extend the regional airport landing strip which has been under construction for the past few years in St. Leonard in northwestern New Brunswick. The provincial premier replied that if the agreement did not include moneys for a parking lot in the city of Edmundston in relation to the development of a downtown complex including government offices, a hotel and a
shopping centre, he would not let the province share on a 20 per cent basis the ongoing development of the St. Leonard airport. Faced with that situation, the former minister, the present member for Lac-Saint-Jean, had to agree with the province that if the amount of $1 million could not be allocated to extend the airport it would not be spent either on a parking lot related to the development of the downtown complex. Such was the situation during the election. But I want to remind the minister that the agreement was indeed signed some ten days before the election was held.
You know what happened, and the minister's party is now in power. However, the municipalities in the area which were to be the first to benefit from this agreement, an agreement which provided large amounts of money mainly for water and sewage systems, suffered throughout the summer, because during that period they were told that it was not possible to implement the agreement. It was alleged that the necessary funds were not available this year. I therefore ask the minister to confirm whether this is the case, although I have been told that over $1 million could be spent this year to implement the agreement.
Of course, the northwestern area of Madawaska-Victoria was not the only one which was to benefit from this development agreement, because the Northumberland-Miramichi constituency of the hon. member who is listening to me now was supposed to benefit also from the economic windfalls provided under this agreement.
As far as I know, in spite of the urge of Mr. Simard, president of the treasury board for the province of New Brunswick, to sign this agreement right away and sooner if possible, for all practical purposes it has been shelved for the five or six months since it has been signed. And now 1 am told that some deals were made to withdraw from the agreement the $1 million provided for accelerated construction of the airport and that this sum will be allocated to other projects. Of course, it is quite an embarrassing situation for a minister who inherits a portfolio whose problems were not specifically caused by his own lack of goodwill. My second question to the minister deals with the remarks he has just made in answering my colleague for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). He said that he would not object if the province changed its priorities. I agree with that because certainly the province has the right to modify its priorities and as much as possible the federal government should respect them. But I wonder, Mr. Chairman, what is more important in the global approach of a regional plan concerned with the well-being of a population and its economic progress.
Is it more important for this region to have a city parking lot or the airport facilities it has been requesting since time immemorial? That is where the province's priorities have gone. Since the minister's predecessor had clearly established that the airport was more important than a parking lot it seems to me that any minister should feel compelled to intervene and remind the province that we also have initiating powers. We

November 12, 1979

have the right to initiate projects, the right to say that in our view one project has priority over another which the province might want to sell us. If we do not reserve this prerogative, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we are completely distorting the very meaning of federal-provincial negotiations. It is the very spirit of development agreements which is at stake here and which could disintegrate. 1 would like the minister to say whether he agrees with me that the federal government has initiating powers. If not, Mr. Chairman, 1 think that a number of us have wasted our time over the last few years. I believe the minister will say that in many cases we do have not only the right to inspect but also the right to criticize. But since we bear 75 per cent or 80 per cent if not more, if not 100 per cent of the cost of those agreements, at some point we must reserve the right to close the gate and say that is our final decision, we want you, our provincial partners, to accept our priority this time, since we are asking you to contribute only 20 per cent.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to deal briefly with another development sub-agreement, this one on agriculture. 1 was happy to see the recent opening of an agricultural information centre in the riding south of mine. Mr. Chairman, that will doubtless be very beneficial to agriculture, but in my view, it will not solve a vast number of basic agriculture-related problems in New Brunswick. That agreement provided for the development-funds were even allocated to that effect-for the creation of an agricultural school for the French-speaking people of New Brunswick.
Though new studies have been made on that matter, as far as I know nothing, absolutely nothing, has been decided so far and I understand that if the whole project seems to be in limbo it is because there seems to be disagreement on the specific nature and the site of that training school for young Frenchspeaking farmers.
Well, I for one want not only to express my view in favour of that school for young French-speaking farmers but also to urge the minister to consider that matter as soon as possible, provided he has had no occasion to do it yet, in order to hasten the development of that institution. If that is not done, if the implementation of the project is further postponed, then it is the over-all agricultural sector of New Brunswick which is going to suffer from such failure. Agriculture is not exclusive to the southern part of the province. It is a trade on which hundreds of people in New Brunswick depend, no matter which region they live in.
So I must insist now on the extremely urgent nature of that problem, given the difficult situation in which potato farming has been plunged in recent years, a situation which has not been caused only by the potato industry itself but also by external factors. 1 have talked enough for the moment, Mr. Chairman, and I will give the minister an opportunity to answer my questions.
Supply


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to respond to these questions and to assure the hon. member that I will have extensive inquiries made and give him more information later.
On the point regarding the airport to which he refers at St. Leonard, if my memory is not playing tricks on me, I remember having a discussion with Premier Hatfield about this earlier this summer. As I recall, the premier was concerned as a matter of principle about the use of DREE funds to construct or help construct an airport of this type. I remember that he made the proposition that this perhaps would be more appropriate for the portfolio of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, which has in it a fund which is designed to help construct small airports.


Herb Breau: Have you seen how much he has left?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have not asked him, but I do not think there are enough funds set aside to make a worth-while contribution for projects. That is the problem. 1 believe there were only $5 million or $6 million in the fund, and I remember that DREE funds were used in the Strait of Canso area to upgrade and improve an airport. So there is no problem with the precedent involved, but 1 think it was a philosophical problem the premier had, who wanted these funds to come font the Department of Transport rather than DREE.
I will look into this matter and see what can be done. I gather the premier's concern was that if the Department of Transport could do it, there would be more funds left for DREE to do other things which he felt would be more closely related to regional development. As the hon. member knows, there is always a philosophical debate at a certain point as to how much good funds do in building certain types of roads or parking facilities as opposed to projects which are oriented more toward the direct creation of jobs. I agree with him that since the federal government pays the lion's share of the DREE projects, the federal government should certainly have a considerable amount of power to initiate or change some of the objectives.
What I was trying to say-perhaps in a clumsy way-is that with respect to the options available to change priorities within the umbrella of general development agreements in my own province of Nova Scotia I know of one subagreement which was put together without very much input from that sector and that department of the province, and as a result it has not been too satisfactory and perhaps ought to be renegotiated.
In the meantime, some of the funds might best be used in-


Fred Alward McCain: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.
1206

November 12, 1979
Parliamentary Representation



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the Elouse that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand)- National Unity-Government policy on sovereignty-association with Quebec; the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-The Environment-Agreement with U.S. on reduction of air pollution; the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)-Unemployment Insurance-New Brunswick- Inquiry whether minister will conduct investigation into suspension of certain benefits.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is well known that we are going to be discussing notice of motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin).
Could notices of motions Nos. 3 and 5 be stood by unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The parliamentary secretary has asked for unanimous consent to stand motions Nos. 3 and 5 to proceed immediately to motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE TO STUDY PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider proposals which would have the effect of allocating a [The Deputy Chairman.]
number of additional members of Parliament at large to each party on the basis of the total number of votes received;
That 15 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members on the part of this House on the Special Joint Committee;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the quorum of the committee be 12 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 7 members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the pleasure it gives me to rise in this House for the first time in a pitched debate since my return after an absence of seven years is all the greater as this subject is closely related to my previous occupation of co-chairman of the Task Force on Canadian Unity.
On November 5, in reply to my question about the approach to constitutional reform and the action needed to define and achieve a renewed federalism, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) said:
I hope he-
-the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton-
-intends to release-
-he meant "to make"-
-positive and concrete proposals during the coming months, as he has done in the past-
That was very nice of him. As a matter of fact, the proposal I am making today aims at achieving greater unity among Canadians. It is therefore at the request of the right hon. Prime Minister himself that I rise today, and I would like to warn his Progressive Conservative colleagues that he will be furious if he learns that my motion was rejected.
As hon. members will know, this is not a new idea. It even appears among the recommendations made by the Task Force on Canadian Unity in its first report entitled A Future Together, Se retrouver. Several concrete formulas have been submitted in the last ten years by well known political experts like Fox, Cairns, Irvine and others, and by at least one politician, the present leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).
November 12, 1979

The whole philosophy and mechanics have just been combined in a most useful small book by William P. Irvine under the title: "Does Canada Need A New Electoral System"? I would like to quote the first sentence in the foreword to that book:

Canada's central institutions face a crisis of representation. This has led to a marked loss of legitimacy and hence authority of the federal cabinet, the federal Parliament and the federal judiciary. They are less able to carry through the kinds of accommodation necessary if the country is to survive.
[ Translation]
This is proof enough of the importance of the issue. 1 also note with pleasure that the press is increasingly interested in the issue, which indeed is now more or less in. I shall not insist on the details of the formula for selecting members of Parliament over and above those now .elected under the majority rule, one per constituency. The subject is more complex. I would simply like to indicate my preference, and in my view the detailed work, the discussion and research should be made in committee, where I suggest we should be guided by experts. 1 have no intention either to bore the House with statistics. Everything is in Irvine's book, including a preliminary analysis of the 1979 elections in terms of the effects of the current act. 1 shall mainly and mostly limit myself to a review of the implications of the current electoral system for this country's unity, and the advantages of the measure I am proposing.
1 do not feel, Mr. Speaker, there is any need to recall at this point the importance of political parties in the process of arriving at a consensus over a country's objectives and the major ways of attaining them. I mention this because I would like to put on record some comments by my friend Ron Watts, principal of Queen's University and my colleague on the Task Force on Canadian Unity, one of Canada's leading experts on federal institutions. Dr. Watts stated in an article and I quote:

- in those federations where a parliamentary executive has been adopted, as in Canada, the major responsibility for generating a consensus among the diverse linguistic and cultural groups falls upon the political parties. It is true that in other federations political parties play a fundamental role in aggregating the varied internal interests but, in such federations as the United States and Switzerland, the separation of powers between different central institutions provides a framework of checks and balances which require the majority to take account of minority viewpoints. In the parliamentary system, however, all central power is concentrated in the majority which commands both the legislature and the executive. It is within the parties themselves, therefore, that minority viewpoints must make an impression if they are to have any impact on central policy at all. Apart from the desire to capture the majority of seats in the popular house, there is little in the parliamentary framework of the institutions that forces politicians to look for compromises.
Mr. Watts gives an illustration of federations where this role of the parties has failed. He mentions a number of them, such as Nigeria, Rhodesia and Nyasaland as well as the West Indies. He gives a number of countries where, in his opinion, it has been a success, namely, India and Malaysia. But the importance of the point he is making should be obviously, namely, that in a parliamentary system in a federation, political parties have a tremendous role to play in fostering and
Parliamentary Representation
massaging the consensus that is essential to the unity of these countries.
[ Translation]
It is therefore incumbent upon Canada's political parties to create, as 1 said, the necessary compromises on duality, and regionalism in particular. Do they do this? Does the electoral system help or hinder them? Such is the theme I would like to deal with this afternoon. It is still too early in my view to conclude that Canadian political parties have failed to look for and invent these compromises. Personally this is not my belief. Irvine has this to say, and I quote:

It is not the case, in Canada, that conflicts of interest between English and French Canadians are so intense that parties cannot get votes from both camps.

And I think that the same conclusion applies to regionalism. There still is regional representation in the larger parties, in the three parties 1 have in mind. The two larger parties still have a Pan-Canadian basis and the third is making progress at the regional level. However, and I call on the patriotism of my colleagues and their intelligence, this dualistic and regional representation basis has shrunk in the last election at least in the case of the two main parties. And particularly the result of the last election in terms of the geographic location of the seats gained by the political parties implies a significant polarization of the vote according to regions and languages.
Yet, it is not the vote which is polarized as much as the distribution of seats.
Those are the facts. 1 do not have time to quote everything but the situation of every party is very well analysed by Mr. Irvine. However, the blunt fact of which my colleagues are perfectly aware is that with 14 per cent of votes the Progressive Conservative Party obtained only two seats in Quebec which is only 2.3 per cent of the representation. In 1974, with 19.5 per cent of the vote in Quebec it obtained three seats which is 4 per cent of representation. This is an abnormal, regrettable and dangerous situation. At the same time in 1979, the Liberal party obtained only three seats west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, which is 4 per cent of the seats, even though it got 22.6 per cent of the vote.
Consequently, a part of the public believes that our political parties have already lost their national dimension and you often find those words in newspapers and on the lips of otherwise very intelligent people. And the concerned public fears that the process has already started. Then, Mr. Speaker, maybe this is becoming true or at least this is an impression that should be corrected as soon as possible for the sake of our survival as a nation as impressions are extremely important in that area.
Then, whatever the importance of the other aspects of the constitutional reform-the distribution of powers, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the amending formula, the repatriation,

November 12, 1979
Parliamentary Representation
the protection of basic rights and so on-the reform of our election legislation might be even more urgent than all the other aspects 1 have just mentioned.
What is this reform? What is this notice of motion which 1 am introducing today? People know that our plurality single member system, our "winner in each riding takes all" system which has obvious advantages, particularly in terms of executive stability, tends to over-represent the largest party in each province and countrywide. We all know that this system tends to under-represent the second party and seriously under-represent third parties with dispersed popular support. That does not apply to our friends in le parti Credit Social du Canada.
1 have already indicated in national unity terms how dangerous this was, but the task force on unity said it in so many words. At page 105 the first report reads as follows:
The simple fact is that our elections produce a distorted image of the country, making provinces appear more unanimous in their support of one federal party or another than they really are.
It continues, a few lines later:
Under our current electoral system, which gives the leading party in popular votes a disproportionate share of parliamentary scats in a province, the regional concentration in the representation of political parties is sharply accentuated. This makes it more difficult for a party's representation in the House of Commons to be broadly representative of all the major regions.
In a country as diverse as Canada, this sort of situation leads to a sense of alienation and exclusion from power.
Adequate representation for some provinces, some regions, or one of the two main cultural groups is denied to some political parties-that should be deplored strongly-in spite of the fact that these parties attracted substantial numbers of votes in these provinces, regions or cultural groups. The whole thing downgrades the representative capacity of caucuses and the whole process of party policy formulation. Also it downgrades the representative capacity of cabinet for the party which is in power, and the legitimacy and credibility of the central government itself. In my view it might lead to an over-decentralization of federation which otherwise might have been avoided. With respect to cabinet, the present situation forces the government in some ways to use means to correct this system which puts most parliamentarians ill at ease. Of course, I am referring to inter-party transfers and to appointment to cabinet from the Senate. More generally, parties with truncated caucuses are prevented from doing their jobs as consensus developers, and to me that is tragic.
What is the remedy? The perfect system does not exist. Irvine said it very well, that no system is perfectly even-handed to all parties. The best system is the one that best suits the particular needs of a country at a particular time in its development, as Aristotle would say. At this particular moment national unity is a major preoccupation. Among academics in particular and some politicians, it is generally believed that a mix of the single member plurality system which has the advantages of simplicity, tradition and, as Irvine stated, "cements the link between constituent and representa-

tive" and produces a more effective government, with a proportional representation list system which would ensure fairer representation to regions and minorities, is what Canada needs. I repeat, it would be a combination of constituency members of the House of Commons and at-large members, or national or provincial members. That is what is referred to as "dual representation".
Various proposals have been made. Some add at-large members to the present composition of the House. Other propositions reduce the present number, in order to make room for a greater number of at-large members. The at-large membership would have a great number of advantages. As I said, it would ensure a more adequate representation from all regions and the two main cultural groups in party caucuses and cabinet. Consequently it would increase the sensitivity of parties to regional and minority views. It could help parties develop links with interest groups which are important provincially and nationally. It could encourage parties to campaign everywhere, instead of concentrating on some ridings in order to obtain more seats with fewer votes, which is done sometimes.
Also it could improve the diversity, the specialization and the stability of political personnel and help develop a cadre of experienced politicians. It could help to broaden leadership professionally and geographically. It could contribute to the efficiency and the morale of party organization. It could ensure a better control of bureaucracy. I could go on; the advantages are quite numerous.
There is friendly opposition to my motion; they will oppose it. I expect that. Generally speaking, the arguments invoked will be those against proportional representation, encouragement of ideological dispersion, multiplication of parties, formation of regional parties, more power to third parties, formation of minority governments or that sort of thing. That is what I expect. For those of you who will, would you kindly allow me to recommend that you think about this further and that you also read Irvine, because these consequences are not necessarily so-"they ain't necessarily so", as the song goes.
I want to emphasize also that my recommendation would be for a rather small number of at-large members. As you may know, the task force on unity recommended 60. When members attack the proposition in the motion I hope they will not feel too pleased with themselves because it may be that a further reading, and some of my colleagues have admitted this, will convince them that my motion "ain't" that crazy.
Professor Irvine mentions four conditions that would bring members of this House to change their minds, and this is going to be my last paragraph. They would shock them into it, as he suggests. These four elements are: a sustained period of minority government, and we have had that; the NDP holding the balance of power; substantial erosion of the Liberal vote in Quebec by third parties; and a heightening of the English-French polarization in the House of Commons. I suggest that we have already experienced conditions one and four at least.
November 12, 1979

May I also suggest that we do not wait until we have experienced all four because it might then be too late.
Mr. Irvine suggested it is possible that the situation might require political parties to rise above self-interest. 1 will end on that note, Mr. Speaker, because that is a good quotation. I hope my colleagues will do that. 1 offer now the possibility of sending the matter to the committee where these matters would be discussed and experts heard. It seems to me that the motion is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice that other members would like to get into this debate, so may I say to them at the outset that my remarks will be very brief.
One of the reasons for my brevity, but also for my wanting to say what is on my mind, is that my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), supports very strongly the principle placed before this House this afternoon by the Hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), and on an appropriate occasion will present the case as he sees it.
Indeed, as my friend the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton will recall, my leader appeared before the Pepin-Robarts task force and presented this very idea, namely, that we should have in this House of Commons a mix of the single member plurality system and a dose of proportional representation. As I say, my leader will develop this on a later occasion, so it is not necessary for me to do more now than say to the sponsor of this motion that his idea is not as crazy as some of its opponents may suggest.
We in this country quite frankly do have quite a problem in achieving a balance among the regions and the various groups. We have a very difficult problem in connection with proportional representation as among the provinces where we have two, three or four provinces that are large and growing, the other six or seven provinces being smaller. As the hon. member has pointed out, every election produces a result in which the party that gets the largest number of seats has a percentage of the seats in the House much larger than its percentage of the votes. It works down so that the second party may come out fairly close to its percentage, though even it can be short, and the third party and the fourth party can be way down. As a matter of fact, to put it in precise terms, if we had the number of seats in this House that our percentage of votes in the last election warranted, we would be about twice as many as we are. I hope that does not put it into the minds of some members that they should oppose this motion. Certainly we support the general idea that neither a House completely on the basis of single member plurality nor a House completely on the basis of proportional representation would work in Canada. What we need is a mix of the two.
There are many countries, especially in western Europe, that have mixes of this kind. We have experimented at times with this a bit in provincial terms, both in Manitoba and in Alberta.
I strongly support the suggestion of the mover of this motion that this should be studied very carefully and very thoroughly.
Parliamentary Representation
As 1 say, I am going to sit down now so that other members can speak, but I did want to remind my friend that this idea was proposed, no doubt by others, but certainly to the Pepin-Robarts task force by the hon. member for Oshawa. He also proposed it in this House in the context last session of the debate about the Senate. In fact, it was his suggestion that instead of replacing the Senate we have now with the kind of "House of the Federation'' proposed by the former government, it might be better to abolish that place and bring in to this House a number selected on a regional and proportional basis. At any rate, that case will be made later by my leader. In the meantime, I indicate our support of the principle of this resolution and I express the hope that the hon. member has the support of his own party as well.


Mr. Alex Jupp (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by mentioning that the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), was kind enough to send me a monograph of the book "Does Canada Need a New Electoral System?" by Professor Irvine. I have taken the opportunity of reading through it and of considering the arguments that Professor Irvine puts forward. As the hon. member will know, he sets out as well some of the traditional arguments that have been posited against his eventual recommendation, and I want to address some of those during my time today.
1 also appreciate that as one reviews the various motions and bills which have been put before this House, one will see that very few of them are designed to improve and have the purpose of improving Parliament as an institution. 1 think that is a shame because I am persuaded that Canada's institution of Parliament very much needs improvement in terms of representation, in terms of effectiveness and in terms of efficiency. I am not so sure this motion addresses those particular shortcomings of this Parliament, but I want to mention a little more about that as I go on.
In addition, I have been distressed in this House at the exceedingly high degree of partisanship which is exhibited, no matter what issue is under discussion, and I have a feeling that the effect of the motion could be to exacerbate the degree of partisanship which prevails from time to time. Many members I think are more interested in scoring political points than addressing the issues at hand.
When we consider Parliament, we must, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed out, and whether we like it or not, include the Senate, which is an integral part of the parliamentary system in this country.
While the motion addresses the House of Commons alone, I want to say a word about the other place as a part of the parliamentary process. It seems strange to me that no one ever seems to be very happy with the situation of the other place. As one looks over historical documents, it seems strange as well that no one, other than, maybe, the incumbents of the other place, has been happy with it. Throughout the 11 years of the previous administration the then prime minister, now

November 12, 1979
Parliamentary Representation
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), spent a considerable amount of time talking about ways and means of reforming the Senate. Despite all the discussions, all the papers and all the propositions put forward, the position at the end of his tenure was the same as it was in 1968 when he became prime minister.
Prior to the last election, the various parties presented papers on the question. This party, now the government, presented a paper entitled "The House of the Provinces", the Liberal party presented a paper entitled "The House of Federation", and, of course, the New Democratic Party called for the abolition of the other place and proposed that it be replaced by adding 100 members to this House.
On October 25 The Citizen published an interview with Professor John Crispo, an expert in economics, politics, business, journalism and parliamentary procedure, if you accept his word for it. In his new book entitled "Mandate for Canada" Professor Crispo proposes to reform the political process and Parliament. He proposes to do it in much the same way as has been advocated by the New Democratic Party. New members of Parliament would come from party lists made up of candidates selected by their party and elected on the basis of proportional representation. He said that the party-list members would campaign nationally, along with the party leaders, to free them from parochial constituency concerns. He said that this means "you wouldn't have only one Liberal member west of Winnipeg."
In his book Professor Crispo goes on to say that if he were prime minister he would take steps to increase the salaries of federal members to $100,000 per year. I assume that while there may be some things about his book that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might support, he certainly would not support that proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are absolutely right about that.


George Alexander (Alex) Jupp: Professor Crispo went on to say that higher salaries would attract better people, and parliament would become more effective. I would share the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that Professor Crispo is not any more accurate in that assessment than he is in any other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Alexander (Alex) Jupp: In fact I would say that when one considers the various recommendations that had been made to improve the other place, they cannot help but make the Senate look good. Unfortunately, this has led us back to the status quo-to say that the other place does not really need to be reformed because all the proposals of the various political parties seem to have more disadvantages than advantages when subjected to the scrutiny of public opinion.
We need to ask ourselves if there is room, in a democracy, for an appointed upper house. If the answer is yes, then we must address the system of appointment. Many distinguished men and women who have made great contributions in busi-

ness, in the trade unions, in agriculture, education, and the social services, are presently excluded from the political process, primarily because they are not actively partisan.
Let me return to the motion, Mr. Speaker. 1 think motion No. 4 provides hon. members with an opportunity, to pursue the matter when it is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The motion deals with the need for redressing the regional imbalance in the House of Commons. That seems to be the essential point of the rationale and the essential basis for the suggested changes.
Two major parties have been referred to, but I would suggest that we now have three national parties in Canada. I consider the New Democratic Party a national party. All three parties are represented in Canada from coast to coast and, in five provinces, all three parties are represented. It is true they are variously weak in different parts of Canada and I appreciate that the motion is intended to redress that imbalance.
There is little argument with the contention that a more balanced representation would lend a more national focus to national party perspectives. I agree it would give the government an improved perspective on the problems and issues in Quebec if we had more representation from that province. As well, it would give the official opposition a better perspective if they had more representation from western Canada.
Not too long ago the Leader of the Opposition went to Calgary and Edmonton to put the cause of his party and his position before audiences there. It is interesting that just after this, The Globe and Mail ran an article with the headline "Trudeau Just Doesn't Get the Message". In the 11 years he was prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition never understood western Canada and that was the main reason for the poor showing of the Liberal party there, the party that once had such a solid hold in the west that it was almost unchallengeable. I speak as one who was born and raised in western Canada, Mr. Speaker. At different times in my life I have lived in the maritimes, British Columbia, Quebec, and now I live in Ontario.
The question is whether the problem of regional imbalance can be addressed by adding 60 or 100 members to the House of Commons, as is proposed by the New Democratic Party. I think the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) touched on some of the logistic problems today. He mentioned the frustration that members of Parliament experience through being unable to put a position forward in the House. Under the proposed solution, more problems might be created than we could ever hope to solve.
Had 60 members been added in the recent federal election on the basis of proportional representation, the breakdown would have been along the following lines: The Liberal party would have 24 more members, the Conservatives would have 22 more members, the New Democratic Party would have 11 more, and the Social Credit party would have three more. I can only point out that had those members been in their places last Tuesday night, the government would have been defeated by a vote of 173 to 165.
November 12, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Alexander (Alex) Jupp: I would interpret that differently. I would say it is one undesirable consequence of this motion.
I think there are other consequences equally undesirable, Mr. Speaker. One is that two classes of members would be created within the House of Commons-one class representing constituencies and the other representing the population at large. One thing that all members of Parliament have in common at present is that they each represent a constituency. We must keep in touch with the grass roots and be responsive to public opinion. There are other reasons as well.
I think there would be an inclination, if the motion were adopted, for the parties to draw their leadership from the lists rather than from those who seek office in a particular constituency. That would be a normal reaction. It would free the leaders of parties from having to campaign within their constituencies, but it would have undesirable consequences. It would made the leadership of the parties less responsive to public opinion. Nothing brings a member of Parliament down to earth more quickly than going back to the constituency and learning what the constituents have to say about what he or she has been doing.
Those at the top of the list would be assured of election and the system would lead to a stagnation of the political elite, as the established party leadership protects its own position at the top and frustrates the political newcomers.
It would encourage the formation of new parties. In my opinion there is no doubt about that, because their leadership would be assured of a seat in the House of Commons if the party obtained even less than 2 per cent of the national vote. This would have the consequence of creating single issue parties. We would see national political parties created across this country that would have as their purpose nothing further than the possible introduction of capital punishment. Another political party might call for the repeal of the abortion lows. Another might call for the repeal of the gun laws. And, heaven forbid, another political party might call for the restitution of prohibition. This conveys to hon. members some of the dreadful consequences of what could happen were the motion eventually followed through and accepted by the government.
Despite the lofty motivation by the mover of this motion, 1 believe that the negative consequences would outweigh the advantages to Canada's political system. We do, however, need a dialogue in the debate on how some of the advantages might be achieved within the context of our present system of direct representation.
In giving my maiden speech in the throne speech debate, I discussed the desirability of introducing changes to the elections act in order to provide for prescribed election dates, that is to say, every four years we would have an election in this country at a time ideally suited to Canada, subject to the government always maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons. In the event it did not and the government fell, and
Parliamentary Representation
a new election was called, we would then return to the four year rotating basis. This would enable all political parties to play the same rules. It would enable candidates in those provinces in which their parties are not normally in favour to be able to get into the field early enough. They would know precisely the date of the next election. They could then work hard to overcome the disadvantages which their national party might have in the particular region. Candidates could organize themselves so as to increase the likelihood of success because of the institution of prescribed election dates.
The last election which resulted in this Thirty-first Parliament was a ghastly experience for many candidates. We were geared up for an election several times. Parties lost some of their best candidates as the result of the prolongation of election periods. The proposals that I have made which I think would have the effect of mitigating some of these circumstances outlined by the mover, would be superior in terms of its consequences.
In conclusion, I commend the mover for putting forward his idea for public debate. I hope he will pursue it in the standing committee. However, 1 would argue that it does not address the real problems of parliamentary representation or effectiveness.
Members of Parliament should enter this chamber through the front door as elected members of constituencies rather than the through the back door because they have been able to get their names on the top of party lists.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Carle-ton (Mr. Pepin) for presenting this motion designed to allot to each party a number of seats proportionate to the number of votes they get. 1 regret, however, that the Liberal group that had been in power for 16 years did not find time to introduce a bill of that nature. It would certainly have received considerable support in the House.
1 shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. For a few months now the Liberals have been in opposition; they have had time to think things over and now they come with a motion to place democracy at its proper place. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, as our leader, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy), said on October 11, that the Social Credit party does not have enough members in the House to adequately represent the high percentage of votes received compared to any other party in the House of Commons. And on that matter, 1 think the previous speaker and myself do not have the same figures, because we do not obtain the same results in our calculation. At all events, we will surely have the opportunity to come back to that matter.
The hon. member for Beauce had then taken great care in his remarks on the Speech from the Throne to enlighten us as to the professional representativeness of members. Indeed, an analysis of the outcome of the last general election shows that

November 12, 1979
Parliamentary Representation
a Progressive Conservative member represents 32,000 voters; a Liberal member, 40,000 voters; a New Democrat member, 78,800 voters, and a Social Credit member, 105,000 voters. Mr. Speaker, these figures are from the report of the chief electoral officer. I am not making up anything. 1 am just looking at the results. In light of these figures, comparing the representation of Canadians who voted for the Progressive Conservatives and that of those who voted for the Socreds, we would have 15 members in the House if proportional representation did exist. If we compare ourselves with the Liberals, we should have 13 members in the House. Those are the two oldest parties in the House. They are very much alike and they would be happy if there were no other political group in the House. But I want to tell the House that if there are others, it is because those two have been running the country ever since confederation. Had they been judged satisfactory, there would be no other political party. That is democracy. We should not complain about the fact that some Canadians get together to defend the same principles and express their beliefs in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, as we can see our struggle for the protection of the rights and privileges of the Social Credit Party of Canada was fully justified. I would like to underline the words of the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who, last week, as can be seen at page 1054 of Hansard, said, and I quote:
Since the waning political party led by the member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) was not even in a position to run candidates in every Quebec constituency and had no candidate in any other Canadian province-
-while we had fielded 74 candidates out of a possible 76, it was only because of a mishap that we did not run the full 76. But we did have candidates in six Canadian provinces. The hon. member therefore had not verified his facts too closely before saying that we had fielded candidates only in the province of Quebec. As to the "waning" bit, Mr. Speaker, 1 rather like it. As a former farmer for many years, 1 used to watch the beautiful sun setting in the evening, which would encourage me to get up in the morning to make hay. Those who say that our party is waning should not forget that it has met with severe mishaps over the past few years. They should pray the Almighty to protect them against such misfortune. We were forced to get organized at the very last minute and we did the utmost to try to offer the Canadian people some other alternative to the traditional choice. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hurt the feelings of the hon. member for Papineau, but I suggest to him that, when he deals with this issue, he should make comments which are more in line with the facts. I am not asking him to be more charitable, merely to be more just, because justice and charity are two different things. But we have the obligation to practice both virtues.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give another member of the Liberal formation the chance to deal with this motion. Although I want to speak very briefly, 1 want

to say not only that I support the principle of the motion, but that 1 should like this motion to be really considered in a committee, in order to find a way to eliminate the shortcomings of our election system and thereby improve the democratic process in our country. As for me, I am all for democracy, but the real democracy I like to live by daily in the House in our discussions and our relations between Canadians. 1 want that democracy to be really in our minds. We should live by it as perfectly as possible. That is why I support the motion as does my group here in the House, like the Liberal group, and 1 do hope, as was expressed earlier by the group of the New Democratic Party, that we all agree on that and the sooner it comes the better.
Mr. Speaker, if you wonder why I am always speaking in terms of "groups", it is because in his statements in the House the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) always refers to us as the Social Credit group, whereas we form part of a party, the Social Credit Party of Canada. If they want to speak with different words, I am prepared to go along, but 1 will keep on speaking in terms of "groups" when referring to other political denominations. And 1 do hope that one day the Speaker will have his say and straighten out the record in that respect, for it will be in the best interest of democracy.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, if we were sitting down to design an electoral system for Canada, one of the things we would like to do is work out a system where one candidate in a constituency would get at least 50 per cent of the votes, that whatever combination of individuals or parlies form the government they would have at least 50 per cent of the votes in the country, and that when we come to make decisions in the House of Commons those decisions would be taken by representatives at least representing 50 per cent of the votes in the country. However, what do we have?
We have a system that permits, in a three-way race, a member with as many votes as 33.1 per cent to be elected as representing that region. It has happened. We have a situation in the House of Commons where the government was elected with 36 per cent of the votes cast by Canadians, while Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition received 40 per cent of the votes. We have a government coalition made up of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Social Credit party which represents about 41 per cent of the votes cast in the last general election.
To draw the analogy even further and to be honest about it, when we formed the last majority government elected in 1974, we only had between 43 and 44 per cent. I believe there has only been one government in Canada that has been elected with more than a majority of the votes cast, that being the government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker in 1958.
When you put on the table what logically ought to happen and what in reality happens, you get a considerable gap. When
November 12, 1979

1 was a backbencher on the government side, it used to worry me that we were the government with 42 to 44 per cent. We did not have a majority in the public at large, but we did have a majority in the House of Commons.
What we have now is a system that, in effect, elects minority governments by popular vote, even though the way those votes are allocated in a purely artificial and historical way results in a majority of seats in the House of Commons. When you examine the situation, you have to agree there there is no logic or rationale to it. Like Topsy, it is something that has "just growed." We have a system that is not satisfactory.
Why is it not satisfactory? 1 will make the argument that it is not satisfactory because it is a system with which the Canadian people are becoming less and less content. That is because the way it operates ensures that their wishes are not represented in the House of Commons. The will that they express in casting their votes is distorted. Therefore, what we have in the House of Commons is a distorted image of what the electorate has actually said.
I want to demonstrate that by using some statistics that are easily accessible. 1 will use a number of years, commening with the year 1968. I will give the percentage of votes for three provinces which I have deliberately selected to show the variations.
In the province of Quebec in 1968, the Liberals received 54 per cent of the vote but 76 per cent of the seats, a tremendous distortion. The Progressive Conservatives had 21 per cent of the vote but only 5 per cent of the seats, an even greater distortion. The NDP received 8 per cent of the vote and no seats. The Social Credit party had 16 per cent of the popular vote and received 19 per cent of the seats, a distortion. In no case was anybody remotely close in terms of their seats with respect to the percentage of votes they received.
I will give the comparable figures for Manitoba. In Manitoba the Liberals received 42 per cent of the votes and 38 per cent of the seats, not a bad fit. The Progressive Conservatives received 31 per cent of the votes but 38 per cent of the seats, a distortion. The NDP was right on, 25 per cent of the votes, 24 per cent of the seats.
Let us look at Alberta. Alberta gave the Liberal party 36 per cent of its votes, and 21 per cent of the seats, under representation. The Progressive Conservatives got 50 per cent of the votes but 79 per cent of the seats, and the NDP received 9 per cent of the votes and no seats.
Let us look at the same figures for 1972. In Quebec the Liberal vote was 49 per cent of the votes and 76 per cent of the seats, a drop of 5 per cent in the popular vote but no difference in the percentage of seats. The Conservatives received 17 per cent of the votes, 3 per cent of the seats; the NDP 6 per cent of the voles and no seats, and the Social Credit 24 per cent of the votes and 21 per cent of the seats.
In Manitoba the figures were more interesting; the Liberals 31 per cent of the votes and 15 per cent of the seats; the Progressive Conservatives 42 per cent of the votes and 62 per cent of the seats, and the NDP, 26 per cent of the votes and 23
Supply
per cent of the seats. In Alberta the Liberal party received 25 per cent of the votes and no seats; the Progressive Conservative party 58 per cent and 100 per cent of the seats; the New Democratic Party 13 per cent of the votes but no seats; and the Social Credit 5 per cent and no seats.
I think the point is clear. If you examine carefully what actually happens in elections, Canadians in Large regions of the country are being discriminated against because their votes do not show up in the political results of those elections. The distortions we have built in totally wreck any kind of valid exchange.
There are about two minutes remaining. The government wants to change private members' hour to allow votes to go through and to allow private members' hour to have an effect. 1 appeal to the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to show their good will by allowing this motion to pass.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of points 1 was hoping to make, but most have been made by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jupp). However, I would like to stress the point regarding the two classes of members, those who come through the front door and those who come through the back door. That is extremely important. We are not all equal; we do not get here the same way. The hon. member was absolutely right in that. I ask the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) why he thinks this should be a joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate? By what virtue do Senators have any right to take part in a matter of democracy in this country?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
APPROPRIATION ACT NO. 1-1979-80 The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) in the chair.
1214
[Stage Direction]
November 12, 1979
Supply
Fred Alward McCain: When the committee rose at five o'clock, schedule D was under consideration and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had the floor.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I was in the midst of replying to some pertinent questions which the hon. member for Mada-waska-Victoria had asked. The one I was about to deal with involved an agricultural institution which had been talked about and which has not yet become operative. I have had an opportunity to look into this matter over the supper break to refresh my memory about it, and I will put on record some of the data I learned.
The provincial minister of agriculture has stated his intention to put into place Francophone agricultural training by the fall of 1980. DREE agreed with the province to follow up the recommendation of the provincial agricultural study by considering ways and means of making agricultural training available to Francophones in New Brunswick, and it is my understanding that the provincial government is considering the establishment of a facility in northwest New Brunswick. I believe the province will seek federal assistance from DREE in particular for the purpose of establishing this facility, and when DREE negotiated the current agricultural subsidiary agreement with New Brunswick the possibility of such assistance was contemplated. Should it be requested 1 am certainly ready to consider additional federal aid. As I understand the hon. member's reference to $1 million-


Eymard G. Corbin: For the airport.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -I understand there was no specific basis for that proposed educational facility. I also understand that there has been a real problem, as one so often finds in connection with this type of situation, in finding the ideal place for such a facility, and that a former deputy minister of Quebec, Mr. Mercier, was brought in to help evaluate the situation, also, that there was at one point a question as to whether existing institutions might be able to provide that kind of training, which would avoid having to build a school or college for that purpose. However, as I said earlier, I understand the province intends to go ahead with it in northwestern New Brunswick, and my department is very sympathetic toward the idea of assisting in this regard.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for his replies. They will shed some light on the matters I inquired about before recess. However, I would like to come back to the issue of the airport and the comment, which he quoted, made by Premier Hatfield when they met a short time after the hon. member became Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Premier Hatfield implied that he was not in favour of using funds from a federal department concerned mostly with regional economic development for airport facilities or buildings. This is the whole essence of the question, Mr. Chairman. My constituents and myself were told by officials of the air services section, airport facilities, of the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain).]
federal Department of Transport that it was difficult, if not impossible, to justify the construction of a 6,000-foot runway for jets to link northwestern New Brunswick with the service already provided in Charlo, in the northern part of the province, and in Chatham, in the east. We were told that it was impossible to justify such an allocation of funds, and we were told this by the officials and the advisers of the then minister, the Hon. Otto Lang. We then thought that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should have a role to play in such situations when other departments do not feel justified in doing the things that need to be done. This should be the basic and the major role of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, namely, to take action when other departments cannot or will not under the law. Otherwise, who needs a Department of Regional Economic Expansion? And what does Premier Hatfield find to say about this when the federal government is paying 100 per cent and 110 per cent of his road building costs as well as legal and engineering fees? He has the gall to tell the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that his department should not involve itself with airports while we are defraying the entire cost of his roads. This is completely ridiculous! If there is one thing that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion should do, it is to intervene in such cases and to do so vigorously and energetically, Mr. Chairman. I simply can not accept this. 1 respect the minister very much and I know that he wants to promote the development of the region that we represent in the House of Commons. However, I do not accept the arguments attributed to him to the effect that his department should not get involved in such projects. This is quite inaccurate. And 1 implore the minister to re-examine this case, to consider it especially in light of the wants of the local population. I have here a letter sent to Premier Richard Hatfield on May 15, 1979, by his predecessor, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Les-sard), which says, and 1 quote:
Dear Mr. Hatfield:
I have received your telex of May 9 and your letter of May 8, 1979, concerning the proposed developing regions subagreement.

1 must emphasize at this point that the agreement had not yet been signed and that the point of contention was precisely the funding for the airport project. Minister Lessard goes on to say:

My support for the airport project was based upon the unanimous views of municipal and industrial development groups, that the airport was the number one development priority.
[ Translation]
By what right can a provincial government come by the back door and suggest to the minister that the airport development project is not the number one priority in northwestern
November 12, 1979

New Brunswick, and that a parking facility for a small downtown complex in Edmundston comes before the development of an airport and hence economic development? That is totally beyond me, Mr. Chairman. 1 therefore implore the minister tonight, 1 will not beg him on my knees, but I do urge him to re-examine this case and give justice to the people of northwestern New Brunswick. If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) wants to change his policy, he will first of all have to come before the House of Commons to tell us that he indeed has the funds necessary to expand the airstrip from its present 4,000 feet to 6,000 feet. But I have news for the Minister of Transport and for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay), news which is not very encouraging but which reflects the sorry state in which the eastern provinces find themselves when it comes to getting their share of the pie. We have a regional carrier called Eastern Provincial Airways (1963) Limited. This regional carrier which has held service rights since 1967 for the Atlantic region is interested in acquiring Nordair with other partners and yet the chances of its succeeding in a bid are virtually nil to the extent that when questioning the Eastern Provincial Airways officials at a private meeting, I was told that it is not very likely now that in the foreseeable future their company will be able to provide us with a jet passenger service as is the case for Charlo and Chatham. Worse than that, the company is considering a reduction in the level of services offered to these two other locations. I hope that officials from the Departments of Transport and Regional Economic Expansion will be able to advance arguments to justify building a 6,000-foot runway at a time when the regional carrier is no longer interested in it at least for the next few years to come. There has got to be something going wrong some place, Mr. Chairman, and I will gladly give full credit to the government members who sit across the floor, if we can extend the Saint-Leonard runway to 6,000 feet. I will be the first to congratulate the government for it but what is important is that it must be done without partisan considerations whatsoever. This was the point I wanted to make this evening, Mr. Chairman.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, last week we had a visit from the chiefs representing the bands in the Qu'Appelle Valley area of Saskatchewan who were here to voice serious grievances about the implementation of the DREE agreement respecting the Qu'Appelle Valley. This is an agreement which was, among other things, to straighten out the Qu'Appelle River, control water levels, purify the water system, and improve tourism and recreation opportunities along the Qu'Appelle River. This agreement-and I am trying to reach the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in bringing up these grievances-affects eight Indian bands representing 6,000 registered Indians and 176,000 acres of Indian land.
The difficulty is this: the authority administering this DREE agreement in Saskatchewan on the Qu'Appelle River has been operating with little consultation with these Indian bands. The
Supply
Indians get very short notice one day that parts of their lands are to be flooded and that they must remove their cattle from the land so that work can take place, and because of this what I would call very blatant disregard of individuals and peoples who are along the territory subject to the DREE agreement, they came to Ottawa to voice their grievances.
They told me that they tried to see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to explain to him how they were being treated by officers of both the Saskatchewan government and the federal government who administer this agreement, but that the minister could not or would not see them. I hear that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development saw them, but not the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. If he has seen them, that is well and good, but I hear that he did not at that particular time. If he did, what I was shocked by was not that the minister treated the Indians this way, but that the officials who implement and administer this agreement would have so little consideration for such a large group of people who have such important rights in the riparian lands along the Qu'Appelle River. What can the minister do, or what does he intend to do to make these officials more accountable to him, one of the political authorities in this agreement?
I see that the agreement is a $44 million agreement. Of that from the minister's department is a contribution of $18 million, and there are other moneys contributed by other departments of the federal government. However, the minister's department is the principal department. I would like to know what might be done by our Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to make these officials more accountable to his authority and perhaps to an authority in Saskatchewan. Further, will the minister instruct these officials to take a more enlightened approach to consultation with these eight bands, the 6,000 registered Indians in that area? Knowing the minister's approach to these matters, I am sure that if he knows about these things he would try to correct them. I would like to hear his response to these particular problems.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly pay close heed to what the hon. member has said. I want to assure him that it is my intention and that of my colleage, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to improve the situation by giving the Indian people representation on the Qu'Appelle board, which they never had before under the hon member's government.


William Warren Allmand: I never had these complaints. This is the first time they have come to Ottawa.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I respect the representation the hon. member has made, and I certainly regret that if those people wanted to see me they did not have an opportunity to do so, and I will undertake to meet with them. However, my colleague assures me that he has met with them, and we will check to see whether there is any insensitivity or any lack of regard for the legitimate rights of these people. 1 am grateful to the hon. member for bringing this to my attention.

November 12, 1979
Supply
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) who is also responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Tonight I shall dwell on the activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and I will tackle the question of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation constructing homes for elderly people when we study Bill C-20 which, although sponsored by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), is indirectly related to the activities of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Mr. Chairman, the report published by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion at the beginning of 1977 stressed the critical state of the economy in the province of Quebec, especially in greater Montreal. Following this study, the department had decided to create a special zone in Montreal to develop the economy, to develop the industry with a view to creating jobs in Montreal itself as well as in the metropolitan region.
Mr. Chairman, that agreement signed in July, 1977, covered a period of three years due to end soon. 1 would like to know from the minister what the intentions of the government are. Does it intend to continue to consider Montreal and its suburbs as a special area as a result of the many requests that have already been made by members from that area, which were also endorsed by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce at its annual meeting? Then I think it would be important that the minister say to the House how he intends to continue this program and whether he intends to amend the grant structure and selection standards.
Mr. Chairman, after two years of operation the grants that were distributed or handed out by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion totalled $47 million, which means a total investment of $275 million in the metropolitan area. But because of circumstances that might not have facilitated investment in Quebec, particularly in the Montreal area, the anticipated success was cut by nearly half, and it seemed to me that the requirements for approval of the projects that were submitted were such that we had to eliminate quite a number of industries which might have qualified, which might have contributed to the economic sector. But because of overly stringent selection standards several of these projects had to be turned down. 1 know that in the area I represent, Ville-de-Lav-al, several industrialists wanted to take advantage of this federal program of assistance to industry, but precisely because of the standards, they were unable to qualify for a grant. So I would ask the minister whether he intends to recognize the Montreal area as a special area, how much the grants would be, does he intend to increase those amounts, and what will be the selection standards for industries to qualify for those grants?

My second comment, Mr. Chairman-and I believe this is rather important in the present context-is that we received requests from certain industrialists who have already had their programs approved but who, while carrying out their projects, had to change the design or structural plans with a resulting increase in the total investment cost.
In view of the changes made in carrying out the construction, would the minister consider increasing or extending the amount of the grant which was about 15 per cent on investments, considering the projected addition as a result of those changes and adding the 15 per cent grant to the one already approved? My last remark, Mr. Chairman, is that the public is very much concerned about a project which was the subject of numerous representations in this House and in several departments, and which was discussed at the meeting of Canadian government ministers with ministers from the government of Quebec. And that is where my comments echo those of my colleague from the "Republic of Madawaska" who stated that the government should also have power to take initiatives when it comes to accepting huge amounts of federal government funds in provincial government projects.
We had a project which had been approved, a contribution from the Canadian government through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for extending highway 13A between Mirabel and Montreal, which should encourage the development of cargo in Mirabel. And we are waiting, Mr. Chairman. These funds have been approved, have been deposited for the benefit of the province of Quebec, and they have been there for two years. We do not know what will happen. We heard this money would be used for improving commuter trains in Montreal, and yet this was not the original purpose of these funds which had been approved by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for extending highway 13A. It amounted to $30 million. So, Mr. Chairman, I wish to know if the minister will wield his power of initiative in his meetings with provincial governments so that these priorities also reflect the priorities of those who made the application and not necessarily the priorities of a province. 1 also express my disappointment concerning the meeting of federal ministers. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle), who is here tonight, took part in that meeting where they discussed the priorities about the famous package of almost $100 million set aside for establishing the General Motors plant in the province of Quebec.
That amount was available for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the previous government and we urged that these funds be used to reduce the deficit at Mirabel international airport through the improvement of a rapid transit system between Montreal and Mirabel aimed at giving better ground service to passengers. If we cannot improve the service, the airlines will choose to land in Toronto or elsewhere. Because of that, the deficit is always increasing at Mirabel international airport. And I remember perfectly that
November 12, 1979

some members of the opposition questioned the deficit at Mirabel when we had the possibility to use that amount of almost $100 million set aside for the General Motors plant. You know what the result was.
I had asked the then minister of supply and services in this House if he considered as a priority the improvement of the rapid transit system between Montreal and Mirabel. The minister said that he would follow the priorities of the Quebec government. I had much reservation at the time of the adjournment when I mentioned my concern about the attitude of the ministers of the Parti Quebecois government who never showed any interest in the development of Mirabel international airport, as they always said that it was a federal project and that it was up to the Canadian government to improve its ground transportation system between Montreal and Mirabel to reduce the deficit which is increasing every year.
Mr. Chairman, 1 conclude by asking the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to use his power of initiative to study the development of the Montreal area and to discuss with his colleagues of the Department of Transport and the Department of Supply and Services not only the use of the $30 million for the extension of highway I3A but also the construction of a ground transportation system between Mirabel and Montreal.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, if I can deal with some of the important questions the hon. member for Laval raised, first of all he is quite right in saying that there has been a substantial benefit to the Montreal area by virtue of the agreement signed on July I, 1977. Also he is quite right in suggesting that this present issue as to whether we will be expanding and giving increased benefit to this area is of great current interest. Indeed, it was one of the main topics discussed when we were recently in Quebec, in the city of Montreal, meeting with some of the cabinet of Mr. Levesque.
As the hon. member and his colleagues well know, it has been suggested that the area be expanded to include three additional counties. 1 believe they are Vaudreuil, Soulange, and Huntington. Also it has been suggested that the criteria be changed in order to facilitate a more flexible approach. At the present time the categories which are eligible, just to put them on the record, are industries dealing in prepared and quick frozen food, metal fabricating, machinery, transportation equipment, electrical products, chemicals and chemical products, scientific and professional equipment, sporting goods and toys, which tend to be rather compartmentalized. Also he knows that the present criteria for the Montreal special area is for projects with a minimum investment of $100,000, that it is for capital costs, and that no other allowance is made.
I do not want to get into too great detail at the present time, because I know the hon. member will understand it would not be proper at a time when this very important subject is before the economic development committee of our cabinet. It
Supply
received a positive response on the first occasion recently when it was presented.


Herb Breau: Who is the chairman of that committee?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The chairman of the committee is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I happen to be the vice chairman. I feel very honoured in that respect.


Herb Breau: Where is he from?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The member asked some very important questions, but he knows the answers. I know he would not want to divert me from responding to a very serious question by his colleague.


Herb Breau: 1 am sorry.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The matter of improving the transportation links to Mirabel is something about which my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and I had some important discussions. Also we discussed the matter with the Minister of Supply and Services. It is a question of consultation as well with the city of Montreal, as the hon. member well knows, because a project of this nature must have a very broad understanding and co-operation from all levels of government. It is very much on our minds. We have not forgotten the necessity of improving the transportation links to Mirabel. Despite the criticism of that airport, that it is incurring substantial deficits and so on, the fact is that it is there. We must exercise the responsibility we have to improve its utilization. I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am not so certain I recall with precision the other questions which the member asked, but I want to say to him, and in partial response to the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria, that one of the things we hope to do under our cabinet structure is to try to get a greater degree of co-operation from the line departments. It is quite true, if the line departments were exercising a great ambition in recognizing all aspects of regional development, that there would not be that great need for DREE. However, now that we have this department which, as the hon. member knows, was created about ten years ago, the challenge is to make certain that the line departments do not forget their own particular interest simply because DREE is there.
1 realize it is a fine line, but we must do the best we can to maximize the kind of co-ordinated approach which will give us great leverage and expand the budgetary prowess of DREE by enlisting the resources of other departments. I am sure that is what the premier of New Brunswick had in mind. As I mentioned before, I can assure the member that a similar airstrip was completed in the Port Hawkesbury area of Nova Scotia.
These types of airstrips, if they are to be useful, and if they are to justify the money spent on them, must be utilized for the type of air carrier service to connect some of the points he has

November 12, 1979
Supply
mentioned, and indeed some of the points in Nova Scotia, with a low cost, frequent, and convenient air service which will help us in the entire maritime regions. The hon. member can be assured that 1 am interested in getting that airport built. Whether we do it with funds from the airport development fund through the Department of Transport, whether we do it from DREE funds, or whether we can persuade the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or some other department to help us, the important thing is to develop the airport. I share his dedication in that respect.


Mr. Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about DREE also. One item which irked me no end when 1 was in the provincial government, and which I believe irks other provincial governments, is the fact that DREE is applicable only in certain areas within a province. It does not matter whether the raw materials are there, whether there is housing there or the other necessities to make that industry successful; it has to be done within the boundaries of that particular area.
A year ago a matter was brought to the attention of the then minister in charge of DREE. He was sympathetic to a project in the Drumheller area where there was a need for the repair of oil well equipment. The expertise was there in the form of a farm machine company which had been selling and repairing farm machines for years. The factory was there, the old Prowler plant which had been left vacant for several years. Everything seemed to be there to make a successful and highly profitable operation, except the capital that was required. To borrow $500,000 at 13 per cent or 14 per cent made the item prohibitive. Approximately 16 to 30 people would have been employed in that particular area.
I would suggest to the minister if economic expansion is going to be real in this country, that it should be done where there is a need for that expansion; not applied to a certain part of a province only. This was only applicable in northern Alberta. There are several places. Southern Alberta had the opportunity of employing several men and women, many of whom came from other provinces in Canada. It was denied because it did not happen to be sitting in the right location. I suggest to the hon. minister that the economic expansion division should deal with expansion wherever and whenever, and particularly wherever the opportunity presents itself, and not be made applicable only to certain areas within each province.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I will take the representations of the hon. member for Bow River very seriously. But I should like to point out to him and the House that it is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. If we accede to the constant requests for expanding into other territories and making it a uniform program across the country, as laudable as that may be, we will have to take the "Regional" out and just call it the department of economic expansion, which has a certain appeal. Since it is geared at this particular point in time to provide the maximum amount of aid where it is most needed and where certain provinces have more resources than others, then I think we must be very careful in expanding the

territory to make this possible until we have the budgetary resources to do it. But I will certainly take that representation and have my officials study it.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I have been talking with the minister since the House opened, but I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him officially on his new job. All members here from Nova Scotia and, indeed, all Atlantic members, regardless of their party affiliations, are looking forward to the minister giving the leadership that is so badly needed at this time in Canada's history.
I do not think anyone at this time should be prepared, after a ten-year period, to wipe out the Department of Regional Economic Expansion until we are damned sure that we have something better with which to replace it. During the committee work I have done, along with the minister, during the last four or five years I have naturally been interested in my own area which is one of the hardest economically hit areas of the country. We have always tried during this work to keep in mind the larger picture and how we might improve the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I hope that under this minister we can give consideration to the ideas he brought to the committee as a member of it while in the official opposition.
I know that the minister is a good listener, and that he realizes there is not one definite theory regarding regional development, but rather a whole melange that has been brought from western Europe and incorporated into various aspects of the development of the institutions which we have experienced, all the way from the area development agency through to the Atlantic Development Board, and now the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
Regional development needs to be improved, and we will all be making our contributions having regard to new ideas that have been and are coming in the field of theoretical and applied development. In this way we will try to make this important department of government even better, at a time when the nation is obviously suffering great economic constraint, just as are many countries in the western world. This country is going to go through the wringer, it appears to me, to a very much greater extent than some other countries. We will need this department because those areas that suffer most from national monetary and fiscal policies are the poorer areas, including the Atlantic provinces. These are the areas that always suffer most from the application of fiscal and monetary policies designed for the central provinces and the richer provinces such as Alberta.
I am talking about the application of tight monetary policies in the fight against inflation, for example, when combined with fiscal restraints that are very severe. The Atlantic provinces have always suffered and will continue to suffer from the application of such policies unless and until the Department of Regional Economic Expansion receives help in co-ordinating the efforts by all departments involved.
November 12, 1979

I agree with the minister that even if the funding that is provided is increased, and it must be increased even in a period of restraint if the emphasis is to be on helping the poorer regions, there has to be greater co-ordination, along the lines he talked about, between certain departments, whether they be transportation, supply and services, or public works. This must be the case in order that we will have in this country a sort of new co-ordinating institution, and it will naturally involve provincial input. If we obtain that co-ordination we will be going a long way toward using the funds allocated to DREE and other institutions for the maximum benefit of those regions that require this development assistance.
These efforts should be made at a first stage in this type of co-ordinating committee. We would then see better returns for our bucks, which seems to be the obsession of the department of the treasury at this time. We do not need a great many cutbacks in order to do this type of job. What we need are more efficient spending and better uses of the money through co-ordination.
Since we have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion it seems to me that this co-ordination should be done by that department, particularly in areas such as parts of Quebec and the Atlantic region, just to mention two. This co-ordination must be done through the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Unless and until the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet bring themselves to this conviction, we will not see the greatest benefits. The Prime Minister and his cabinet must realize that there is only one way to help the Atlantic region and that is by not only making the necessary bucks available in order to improve the earned per capita income rather than just the per capita income, but by coordinating the spending of those funds.
We want jobs. We want creative jobs. We want ten-year plans. If that sounds socialistic or communistic, I do not care. We must have this if we are going to re-establish the balance in this country.
It is kind of ironic that Ontario is getting worried now because of price increases. I do not make light of that, but we in the Atlantic provinces have been suffering and have had this grievance for many, many years, as many of us have pointed out in the House. We who come here from whatever walk of life know what the game is here before us. We know about the small population we have in the Atlantic provinces. We know we do not have very much clout, and many times we have to go begging for the crumbs that come from the central provinces, and now from a rich province like Alberta.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion among representatives of all parties this evening, and I think there is general agreement to permit the Prime Minister to make a report to the House on the outcome of the first ministers' conference today. I think that is the upshot of the agreement. With the agreement that this should take place, sir, I wonder if the committee could rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day?
Energy


Fred Alward McCain: Shall I rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again later this day or at the next sitting of the House?


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, before we give our agreement, let me say that we are always happy to hear from the Prime Minister when he has anything to say. If he has something to say on energy, we would be very happy to hear him.
Progress reported.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, subject to the arrangement that has been made I wonder if it would be appropriate for the House, by unanimous consent, to revert to statements by ministers for the purpose of allowing the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to make a statement to the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed that we should revert to routine proceedings, specifically statements by ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at the beginning 1 might have the permission of the House to lay on the table two copies of "An Outline of Proposed Initial Stage of National Energy Strategy," a background paper that was published earlier today in both official languages.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to take the opportunity to express my apology to opposition spokesmen on the other side in that it was only recently that we were able to get a copy of my statement to them. This had to do with the relatively short time between the conclusion of our discussions and my desire to come and report as directly as possible to the House of Commons. I want also to indicate, sir, how much I appreciate the courtesy of members on both sides in providing unanimous consent so that I might report to Parliament on my meeting today with other first ministers.
As hon. members know, today's discussion centred on the proposals put forth by this government to achieve our goal of making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990. Those proposals previously had been the subject of extensive consultation between Ottawa and the provinces, and 1 believe the positive tone of discussions today reflected the value of frank

November 12, 1979
Energy
and extensive consultation in a federal system. Sir, that is a pattern we intend to continue.
I am pleased, for our country, to be able to report substantial agreement among first ministers on the major outlines of a comprehensive energy policy for Canada. The first ministers unanimously endorsed our central goal of energy self-sufficiency. We agreed it is dangerous to the economic future of our country to ignore a situation where so many Canadians, especially in Quebec and in Atlantic Canada, are dependent on unreliable foreign oil supplies.
The important element of price remains to be negotiated. As 1 told the conference, that is, jurisdictionally, a decision for the producing provinces and the national government, but we wanted to take the pricing decision only after we had the opportunity to hear from other parts of Canada, and know how price increases would affect those regions. I was impressed by the realism of first ministers in recognizing that, while price increases are never easy, the consequences of failing to act would be much more serious for Canada. They would expose us to supply interruptions which could devastate the economy of Canada and could leave Canada relying upon unstable foreign sources of oil-sources which simply cannot be counted on. Against that background we will be meeting representatives of the producing provinces this week to seek a pricing regime for oil and natural gas, designed to increase Canada's ability to supply our own oil and gas, to encourage conservation, and to encourage substitution of alternate fuels.
Sir, today we proposed a special tax on incremental oil company profits to help finance Canadian energy development. Officials of our government will be consulting with provinces and the industry to design the most effective tax.
We proposed a Canadian energy bank to help Canadians invest in long term and essential Canadian energy projects. Several provinces, 1 am pleased to report, have agreed to take a look at contributing equity financing to that bank. The federal government itself expects to contribute about $1.5 billion to equity, over the next four years, to help build Canada's energy potential.
Officials will also meet to identify conservation projects where work can begin immediately. I indicated our intention to propose a co-operative program to help individuals retrofit oil-burning furnaces. We would be prepared to contribute to an industrial energy conservation program in Atlantic Canada. Regarding home insulation, several provinces have indicated that local needs would be better served if the Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, were under provincial control, and we are prepared to work out arrangements under which CHIP would be transferred, together with increased federal funding. [Translation]
First ministers strongly supported the need for new initiatives to encourage increased substitution of more plentiful energy sources for oil. Particular attention was given to the opportunity for expanded natural gas markets in Ontario, Quebec and perhaps the maritime provinces, but there was also recognition of the other sources available in particular

regions, for example, greater use of wood waste in British Columbia, increased coal production in Nova Scotia, further hydro development in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, and expanded development of renewable energy sources across the country. Officials of federal and provincial governments are beginning work immediately to identify areas where substitution can start in 1980.

We have also discussed with first ministers means to help Canadians who will be least able to deal with price increases, and to deal with other specific problems. Those measures will be dealt with either in the federal budget, or in connection with the next first ministers' conference which has been rescheduled for December 17 and 18. That change in date will allow officials to conclude the work flowing from today's conference, and will allow first ministers to also deal with other matters.
[ Translation]
Leaders of 11 governments met to discuss a complex and difficult subject on which there are some legitimate differences of view. Those differences were aired honestly and openly- but without acrimony and within an over-all spirit of partnership. 1 want to express my appreciation publicly of the positive spirit in which provincial premiers came together.

As 1 said at the conference, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a choice. We can ignore realities, or we can face them.
We have before us the opportunity to provide Canadian industry with a permanent cost advantage over American competitors. We have before us the opportunity to ensure all Canadians reliable and secure energy supplies "made in Canada." We have before us the opportunity to launch a major new era of energy development and a major new commitment to energy conservation in which all Canadians can share.
On the basis of today's discussions, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe Canadians have every reason for confidence that their governments will choose to seize the energy opportunity that is ours.
We have further discussions to continue; we have further negotiations ahead of us, but 1 wanted to come directly from the conference to report to the House of Commons upon the progress that was realized today.


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


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for having forwarded us at the last minute a copy of his text even though he was unable to do so any earlier. 1 saw he had the advantage of having a French copy and 1 would have appreciated getting one too. I hope next time they will have the courtesy to give me one in French.

We have heard the Prime Minister summarize, in rather glowing terms, the discussions of today. 1 am afraid that 1 have to take a different view from what has happened today and in
November 12, 1979

the last three weeks. There is an old saying in this country that "Tory times are hard times".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: 1 must say that Canadians are getting it in spades since last June, Mr. Speaker. Not only are we facing the highest interest rates in our history, but we are going to face the highest prices for energy in our history. We are going to be faced with the highest increases in the price of energy that this country has ever known, over the next few months, if the Conservative government has its way with its present plans.
This morning 1 followed the conference with great attention and with great care, and listened to the various proposals put forward, particularly the proposal put forward by the federal government. It was clear, after reading that proposal, that the federal government was being taken care of. 1 could see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) in the background, licking his chops, as the debate was going on. If the federal government was being taken care of, the governments of the producing provinces were also reasonably well taken care of and they were reasonably happy, we have to say.
I might even add that the governments of some consuming provinces appeared to be given hope that they would be taken care of. 1 am referring particularly to some Atlantic provinces that were concerned about the price of oil for production of electricity. But, Mr. Speaker, in the Conservative policy, the average Canadian, the Canadian consumer, was being completely ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We heard some perfunctory comments about the necessity to help those in need. But nothing specific was put forward that was not already planned under the existing price agreement with the provinces. In effect, under the guise of an oil price negotiation, the government is planning a highway robbery of unprecedented magnitude on the Canadian taxpayer.
The cost to the Canadian consumers of the present government's plan has been estimated by the government of Ontario, not by us but by another Conservative government, in 1980 to be $5.4 billion. That is going to be the cost of that so-called policy. Under the federal excise tax alone that the government is planning, the federal government would get $2.8 billion. If you estimate the cost of the so-called policy, it is equivalent in 1980 to a 33 per cent increase in personal income tax to Canadian citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Marc Lalonde: The Prime Minister likes to make much of the so-called new spirit of federal-provincial co-operation. We have never seen a debate as acrimonious as the one we have seen in the last few months on this particular energy question
Energy
among the provinces, particularly between the province of Ontario and the province of Alberta.
In case the Prime Minister feels I would not be representing history properly, I would like to quote a statement that Premier Lougheed made on August 15, 1979, at Conference-La Malbaie. At page 2 of his statement he said this:
After the dispute between the federal and Alberta governments in 1973 over the federal oil export tax and other matters, the government of Canada and the government of Alberta over the next few years worked out arrangements with regard to pricing and development of energy supply that were clearly in the best interests of all Canada.
That came from the prime minister of Alberta. Tonight we are being told that there was useful discussion-everybody was for motherhood, including self-sufficiency-but on price there is no agreement. On excise tax there was no agreement this morning, and the Prime Minister certainly did not report any agreement tonight. Even on the energy bank there were a lot of queries and question marks that appeared to remain unanswered, and we have no assurance that the provinces will ail participate in the so-called energy bank.
The Prime Minister enunciated four objectives this morning for his policy. Frankly, one should not quarrel with those objectives. First, that the price of oil must be high enough to bring on new sources of supply and the price regime must provide industry enough certainty to plan ahead. Second, we must encourage more effective conservation. Third, we must accelerate the substitution of cheaper and more plentiful fuels and reduce our use of oil. Fourth, we must increase the proportion of Canadian ownership in the Canadian energy industry. That is great. Frankly, it is a mere repetition of what was in the white paper that we issued in 1976. There are a few things missing, because I could suggest that you read the white paper at page 126. What we proposed as objectives were:
1.	appropriate energy pricing
2.	energy conservation
3.	increased exploration and development
4.	increased resource information
5.	interfuel substitution
6.	new delivery systems
7.	emergency preparedness-


An hon. Member:: What did you do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I continue:
8.	increased research and development; and
9.	greater Canadian content and participation


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I hear some muttering on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I am not surprised, because it hurts.


An hon. Member:: They are laughing at you.

November 12, 1979
Energy


Marc Lalonde: They have not bothered to read and find out what had happened during those years.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We saw what happened.


Marc Lalonde: Canada was recognized internationally as having one of the most progressive and consistent energy policies in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The Prime Minister has talked about the oil self-sufficiency objective by 1990. We tried, and the Conservative members tried to get information about this subject from the minister. Today the provinces and the public did not get any more information about that objective of the Conservative government. It is a nice sounding objective, but we have been unable to get, either from the minister or from the Prime Minister, any information as to how much it will cost and how we are going to get there. As a matter of fact, in the briefings given to the members and the press by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, they indicated quite clearly that such an objective was not realistically attainable under any scenario. In effect, even with the best of scenarios we would still be short by about 200,000 barrels a day in 1990.
We would be very understanding of the concern of the Prime Minister and the government about supply if we had better assurances about supply in the short run, if we had seen this government doing more vis-a-vis the multinationals, to make sure that there would be no diversion of Canadian supply coming from Venezuela or from other countries in the face of the current threats that we see, particularly resulting from the Iranian situation. W'e would be more confident if the government had proceeded with more alacrity in its negotiations with Venezuela and Mexico. Certainly we would be more understanding of the situation in which the government finds itself if the government had created the energy supplies allocation board that we have urged them to create for months, which they have not yet created in spite of our regular pleas to proceed with it.


An hon. Member:: Despite his letter to Fabien Roy!


Marc Lalonde: What are we going to do? According to the government we are going to increase the oil price in Canada to something like 90 per cent of the Chicago composite price. It is a very complex phrase that will probably fool a few Canadians-I hope not-but, in effect, what is being said is that we will reach or at least come very close to international prices. What is the Chicago composite price? According to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources figures the Chicago price in November, 1979, was $23.71 a barrel. This compares to an international price of $25.68 and a Canadian price, in Toronto, of $15.63. Because of U.S. policy which will completely deregulate U.S. oil prices in the next few years, the Chicago price will be $43.46 in 1985.
I hear an hon. member laugh over there. It is not going to be so funny for Canadians when they have to pay that kind of price in five years' time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: At that time, if the government has its way, Canadians will be paying $41.29 or slightly below, which is about 260 per cent higher than we are paying today. In effect it is estimated that the Chicago price will be higher than the international price if current predictions forecasted are maintained as to what will happen to the international price. This is the type of "pig in a poke" that this government is trying to get us to buy. Not only do we say that it is not necessary for Canada to go to international prices, we say it is a wrong policy for this country.
The government likes to refer to the white paper of 1976 when the world price was $11.50. Again, I remind the government that we stated at that time:
It is the federal government's objective to see domestic oil prices increase to a level sufficient to bring on new Canadian supplies. To the degree that this level is lower than international oil prices, it is a differential for the benefit of Canadian consumers and Canadian producers, industrial and agricultural.
What is meant is that we should have a price that is determined in Canada for Canadians and on the basis of Canadian costs, not on the basis of the cartel price, which is the OPEC price, by whatever name you want to call it. We agree with the government of Ontario that the target for the Canadian price should be the cost of producing Canadian oil and gas, not the price determined abroad on a completely artificial basis, a basis that has no relationship to what it actually costs to produce Canadian oil and gas.
The second point is that we disagree with the way the government is going in trying to reach its goal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I remind the hon. member that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) spoke about seven or eight minutes and he has already had the floor for 15. I can scarcely let him go much longer.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister and to this government that we disagree not only with their objective but with the way they have chosen to achieve it. Increasing prices at this point at such a rapid and excessive rate is totally inappropriate, in our view. The impact on the cost of living and Canada's economic growth will be highly negative. In this period of record interest rates, we maintain this is no time for the oil price increases envisaged by the government.
Even the Ontario government is looking at a resulting 137,000 lost jobs if the government proposal is implemented. Those figures are frightening. They are equivalent to closing down or laying off whole cities likes Calgary, Hamilton, Quebec, or again Halifax and St. John's together. Under our regional circumstances, such a policy is indefensible.
There would be a number of other aspects on which we would like to question the government. We will have an
[Mr. Lalonde.)
November 12, 1979

opportunity to do so tomorrow when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is in Committee of the Whole to answer on his estimates. We will be taking this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to question the minister and try to get more complete information on the government proposal and its implications.
There is reference to regional disparities, but the government decided not to deal with or eliminate these regional disparities. It chose to charge everyone the world price, by increasing oil prices at the same rate for everybody. Everyone recognizes the need for increased conservation and the substitution and development of alternate sources of energy. But we disagree with this government when they show intellectual and moral bankruptcy by simply relying on market forces to attain such objectives. If only they were to implement the proposals introduced by the government in February on conservation and alternate sources of energy, there would be no need for the astronomical price increases they are now proposing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) need not apologize for the delay in sending an advance statement to opposition spokespersons. Given the exigencies of the day, I quite understand that he was not able to produce that in time.
I want to say that at the outset. There was simply no possibility. I want to make it clear on behalf of our party that time was a consideration, and we accept that reality. Having said that, I am not going to agree with much else that I find in the Prime Minister's statement or in that marvellous exposition we just heard from the party to my right. They are at it again. I will be very brief on that point.
The energy critic for the Liberal party has once again managed to convey to the House that they are consistent on one point, that is, they can consistently reverse themselves on every important question that comes before the people of Canada. Just a year ago this month, the then Liberal minister said, "Our policy has been and still is to move crude oil prices at the wellhead toward world levels". That was when the Liberals were on the government side. They are now concerned about interest rates, again an interesting reversal. I will leave the Liberals to the hypocrisy in which they have deeply embedded themselves, and the people of Canada have well perceived that reality.
I want to come to a matter of substance on the government side and clearly indicate that there is a major disagreement in this House and in this country about the direction in which the government is taking us. The Prime Minister indicated that the one thing on which there was no agreement was the matter of price. As everyone knows, if that is not the total issue, it certainly constitutes 90 per cent of the issue.
It is not merely platitudinous to say everyone agrees that something has to be done about conservation. Everyone agrees we should be moving toward self-sufficiency in our energy production, if we can do it. I am among those, along with the government and people in the Liberal party, who say we can
Energy
do it if we have the right programs in this country. In that respect we are very fortunate compared to many others, so there is no debate about those matters.
The real debate in this country, and it is a fundamental one that goes to the root of our prospects as an industrial nation right now, is concern about the matter of price. The Prime Minister said there was no agreement on that. I am not exactly surprised, to understate it a bit, that there was no agreement. The Prime Minister repeated in his brief statement tonight the fundamental argument the government has relied on for justifying an upward movement in price.
The fundamental argument repeated by the Prime Minister tonight is that we need it to have higher revenues to make the investment that is required to bring more energy resources on stream. If an argument could be made for that, if it were essential that we had upward mobility in prices of the kind the Prime Minister talked about to achieve that end, then one has to take it very seriously. Speaking for my colleagues, I say we would. However, I say to the Prime Minister that, frankly, the evidence is not in for that, nor has he provided it. It is simply a bald assertion.
I want to quote from a document produced a week ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I quote from the footnote on page 15:
Figure 3-
That is of the table in this document.
-indicates that the accrual to industry-
That is the oil industry.
-in the continuation of existing policy-
That is without any upward movement.
-is sufficient to cover an aggressive expenditure pattern throughout the 1980s.
In other words, with the existing pricing arrangement there is sufficient revenue there, and I would add if we pay attention to what we could be doing in this country with Petro-Canada, to get the exploration that the people of Canada need without additional increases. 1 ask the Prime Minister to pay a little more attention to the document produced by one of his minister's departments.
Second, and this is why I proposed in all seriousness on behalf of my party a couple of weeks ago the suggestion for a commission on prices and profits in the oil industry, and this is one of the things I emphasized, it is essential in this country to get an independent body that looks at pricing and profit decision-making in the context of what may be needed to bring further resources on stream.
Such a body is necessary if we are to make an objective analysis which could be presented to the opposition, to the government, and to the people of Canada, of how much was really needed, particularly, but by no means exclusively, when we have a firm like Petro-Canada, publicly owned and controlled, already in existence. The government turned it down. I repeat, we strongly need such a commission which could show

November 12, 1979
Energy
us whether we should take at face value the rhetoric of the oil companies. But 1 can say, on the basis of figures which have come in, on the basis of the document produced by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, that it is certainly our conclusion that the exorbitant profits made by the oil companies already do not entitle them to get any revenue additional to that already committed by the government. That is the evidence. If a contrary case is to be made, surely we need new evidence to support it. The government has not provided such evidence at all.
Now 1 turn to the nub of the problem. Moving prices upward in this country at the speed the government has in mind, creates a twofold problem. First, as the government knows, it hits every consumer; it hits fishermen on the east coast, it hits farmers on the prairies who have to drive tractors, it hits every consumer in Ontario and British Columbia very seriously indeed. No one disputes this. The cost of living will go right out of sight in this country in the next couple of years if we proceed with this plan.
I want, now, to shift to the industrial argument. The Prime Minister went to Tokyo last summer. I will say one thing: I think it was a fit of midsummer madness that led the Government of Canada to agree at that conference in Tokyo with other industrial countries to go to world price levels. It is not accidental. To whose advantage was it? 1 will tell you, Mr. Speaker. It was to Japan's advantage, it was to Germany's advantage, to France's advantage, to the United States' advantage. All those countries are either totally or almost totally dependent on imported oil. They do not have access, as we have in the future, to becoming self-sufficient. But they were well aware that Canada was at last beginning to compete in the industrial world, that we had in certain sectors developed a potential, at least, to cut into their markets. So it was to their advantage to convince the Canadian Prime Minister that one of the industrial nations at Tokyo, the only one there that had energy supplies, should move oil prices up to world levels. That takes away from Canadian industry a competitive advantage. I can only say that it is a disastrous course of action for this country to take. I want to place this in a serious context of national unity.
One way of looking at this country, though by no means the only way, is to see it as a regional bargain. We have the Crow rate for western Canadians. 1 said in Prince Albert just ten days ago, as a man from Ontario, that we support the Crow rate which enables Canadian farmers to ship their grain for about one quarter of the amount it costs American farmers. That subsidy for Canadian farmers in the west is justifiable and we will defend it; we don't fool around talking about getting rid of it, like some members of the Prime Minister's party have been doing publicly.
Similarly, we have provided preferential freight rates to certain areas of Atlantic Canada under DREE, and special programs, programs we would like to see expanded and developed. But we have said, also, that in the industrial heartland, which happens to be mainly in Ontario, there has been a traditional national policy, built, in part, on tariffs, to ensure

industrial development for Ontario and also for Quebec. 1 say to the Prime Minister that this bargain has to be maintained. Right now we are embarking on a course which could completely destroy the competitive advantage of industry in our industrial heartland.
1 say this; if Ontario were ten provinces, if we had smaller provinces like the Americans have states, we would be likely to see it as a region and maybe we would not witness the ganging up psychologically which seems to be taking place, in my view, in many parts of the country.
Does the Prime Minister really think the Germans in the south of Germany would embark upon a course of action which threatened the Ruhr Valley? Would the Japanese in rural areas outside of Yokohama embark upon a course of action which threatened the whole industrial base of Japan? Would the Americans in the south or the west embark on a course of action which would threaten their industrial empire which is in the northeast of the United States? To ask the question is to answer it. The Japanese would not do it; the Germans would not do it; the Americans would not do it. I am saying that Canadians ought not to do it to the province of Ontario because it would damage our whole country, and very seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 appeal to the Prime Minister, who says he has not reached a decision on price, to think about this very seriously. There is no good reason, in my mind, for raising the price of gas and oil at all at this point. There is no good argument in its favour as far as 1 can see. There is an argument that favours certain regions. Of course, if I were looking at the question from a short-range perspective, from British Columbia, say, and 1 had some gas reserves, I might say "Yes, this is advantageous to me", or if 1 were in Saskatchewan, I would be inclined to say, "Yes, an upward movement would be favourable." It is understandable. Premiers from those areas cannot be expected to be something other than provincial premiers, and 1 do not say that in any critical sense.
But 1 say to the Prime Minister that he has a responsibility to the nation as a whole, and that the nation as a whole requires a low cost energy policy so that Canadian industry can get moving-and we need to get Canadian industry moving because we need jobs for Canadians. With more than a million unemployed, in real numbers, this gives us a chance. It is a chance the Germans would seize upon; it is a chance the Japanese would seize upon; it is a chance the Americans would seize upon. It is time we came to our senses as an industrial nation and seized upon it as well, and kept those prices down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 15, provision is made for a short question period at this time. 1 do not see any hon. member rising but 1 am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who would like to
November 12, 1979

put some questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) about his statement.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that is an excellent procedure because we get answers when we ask questions and none when we make speeches.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) since he spent the day with his provincial counterparts studying a very important matter for our country, whether he could tell the House if they considered the possibility of taking special measures to urge Canadian families living in provinces where forestry resources are plentiful to use more wood for heating purposes as an economic measure rather than fuel which could be used in larger quantities in other areas of Canadian industry.
Second, if this matter was considered, could measures be immediately taken in agreement with the provincial governments to help in the transformation of heating systems to that end, that is, a return to burning wood which Canadians used for fuel during the years preceding the era of great prosperity brought about by switching from wood to oil and electricity as heating fuels?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the hon. member's questions. In fact, we did raise the matter of the use of wood. The premier of British Columbia told the others this morning about the great success achieved in his province in the use of this source of energy. We have recommended that our public servants in co-operation with those of the provinces consider all possibilities for such a change in order to bring about the conversion of heating systems on a larger scale, that is, not only in Canadian homes, but also in Canadian industries.
We want to look into the possibility of using wood and other sources of energy. We feel that is really imperative in this country because we not only need new sources of oil but we also have to learn to make better use of what other sources are available.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on the same subject of the economy, 1 had the opportunity of putting a question to a member of the Canadian government who was minister of industry, trade and commerce about the invention of a carburetor, in use on motor vehicles, that considerably reduces gas consumption. The answer was indeed very vague. Recently the matter was brought up again; I read about it in the newspapers where it was claimed that the multinationals that have interests in oil are powerful enough to prevent the marketing of that new carburetor, which would allow Canadians to get more miles per gallon of gas. Is the right hon. Prime Minister aware of that situation and can he reassure us in that regard?
Energy


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I received personally the representations the hon. member is talking about. I put the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn). The same question was asked by the minister whom the hon. member questioned. We have found no proof that the allegation made by the reporters, or by the hon. member to myself, is founded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 was trying to get some sense of the House as to whether or not questions were to be put. The only one who was on his feet was the hon. member I have just recognized, and it makes it difficult for me to assess how we should conclude the question period. However, 1 am prepared to conclude the question period with those who are seeking the floor at the present moment, that is to say, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: This is the difficulty 1 face. These question periods are in the discretion of the Chair, and 1 tried to get some indication if there was any desire to ask questions. That was in the negative. The only member who was standing was the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). I gave him the floor to ask a question.
The trouble is that 1 am supposed to exercise some discretion in the duration of this question period, if there is to be one, and frequently what happens is what is happening now, that I recognize one questioner and out of that comes a desire from other hon. members to say, "Well, if one is to put a question, we ought all to do it". 1 thought there was a sense in the House that we would return to Committee of the Whole session where the minister was being questioned, I think effectively, by a number of members. That seemed to be more the general sense of the House. I am afraid if I open it to one questioner that it seems only fair that we would likely use the rest of the time in putting questions on this, and I thought there was some sense of the House that we would return to the committee session where the minister was under questioning at that time.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will be available in the House tomorrow afternoon for Committee of the Whole, so that we would be in a position to ask questions of the minister all afternoon tomorrow. If he cannot do that, that is another story, but that is the indication we had, so we could very well wait until tomorrow and ask questions of the minister.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that has never been discussed by any of us until this moment. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) was motioning across the floor to me while the debate was going on asking about the

November 12, 1979
Energy
minister. At least 1 assume that is what he was doing. 1 can look at the list of ministers and see, but there has not been a suggestion made to me until just this moment by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) that it might be appropriate. 1 would have to look into that matter. It might well be that there are other ministers available, but in any event I will certainly look into it.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) is quite right. 1 did not speak to him about it, but the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) advised us-or through the House leader's staff-that he had a cabinet committee meeting tomorrow afternoon, and we accept that. We sent a message through the staff of the House leader asking for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Perhaps he has not received the message yet, but it was about an hour and a half ago, and the request was made through his staff.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is about the energy bank. 1 could see where it would be on the assumption that he is going to get his looked-for price increase, which I hope the Prime Minister does not get. Anyway, let us assume that he is going to get it, and we will talk about the energy fund now. For certain purposes in the Atlantic region, such as connecting the power grid from Newfoundland to the maritimes-the Fundy tidal project-it seems to me that this would be an excellent idea for financing. Before 1 came here, coming up on the plane yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder if the hon. member could understand that there is a general desire in the House to get back into the Committee of the Whole session. I am obliged to have a discretionary question period. 1 think each of the three members I have mentioned ought to put one question each, and put it very briefly and succinctly to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), so that we can get on with the other proceedings.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I hope with this energy fund which will take at least a year to set up, if it is set up, that the Donkin mine will not be included, because the people of Cape Breton are fed up and tired waiting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have one very direct question for the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). In his statement tonight he used these words: "We have also discussed means to help Canadians who will be least able to deal with price increases". Since pensioners are a group which will be hit hard by price increases, does that mean that the government is planning an increase in the incomes of old age pensioners?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that would not be an appropriate interpretation to draw from those words. The elaboration on the statement quoted by the hon. member will come in the budget.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the Canadian Home Insulation Program being handed over to the provinces. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) what role he sees the federal government playing in this area. I think it is important that there be local control and flexibility in the program, but what I am afraid of is that certain essential elements to a national home re-insulation program will be lost if you just give it to the provinces. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: will he give this House the assurance that the provinces will use the money that will be provided for home re-insulation for home re-insulation work, which they are not doing with medicare, and that CMHC will still monitor manufacturers of home insulation material, and that the National Research Council will continue to do important research work in home insulation? Will the federal government provide any leadership and play a co-ordinating role?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, those are all valuable questions. Where we are with CHIP is that today I made the formal offer to the provinces to discuss with them the possible transfer of jurisdiction over CHIP to the provinces, and indicated that there would also be a transfer of federal funding. That is where we are now. That is the stage. There will be some discussions with the provinces. I know I speak for the minister responsible in saying that if there are particular aspects which hon. member of this House think should be considered in the negotiations with the provinces, it would be helpful for us to have notice of those quite quickly. I would like to have it quickly because I think, after the agreement we reached today, we will want to proceed with some speed toward finalizing any arrangements in relation to CHIP or other conservation measures.
1 emphasize that in our judgment, while it is very important for us to bring on new supply, it is also very important for this nation to encourage conservation.


Mr. Speaker:: I will conclude questions with the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). Did I hear him say that he intends to discuss with multinational corporations the excise tax on their profits because, if I remember correctly, last year, when 1 ventured to discuss the taxing policy with the provinces, some of the members of the present government criticized me for that?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not hear me say that. What he did hear me say was that we have agreement now on the imposition of a tax which will deal with the new profits that come from the energy price increase to the companies. It will be a tax on the companies, not an excise tax of the kind with which the hon. member has had such a disagreeable experience. The reason we would discuss the form which that tax would take would be to try to draw upon the best advice available, whether it is in the industry affected, the provinces-because often the provinces have a much closer
November 12, 1979

knowledge of the industry than we or others do-or members of the House.
If there are members of the House who consider they have particular knowledge of tax matters, we would be glad to have their comments so that we can be sure that the tax we bring in will be one that does not inhibit companies from carrying out exploration activities which will add to new supply but yet yield a significant amount of revenue to the Government of Canada so that we can fund the national energy bank and get on much more quickly than would the private sector alone with the development of a significant infrastructure and other economic energy developments.


An hon. Member:: A do-it-yourself tax.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that. 1 think it is a startling enunciation of policy by the Prime Minister. I think that, as established in the House, we cannot discuss new taxing policies with individuals who are involved with it. The tradition of this Parliament has been for the government to do the research, to make proposals, to have them debated and passed, but not to discuss them with the companies beforehand. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we will debate this later on.
However, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows of any producing country in the world today which is charging to its own consumers the international price for its oil. 1 have been to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ecuador, Venezuela, and I have found that the price they charge their citizens is not the international price at all. This is the price they charge their customers abroad, but not their own citizens.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal with both those matters. First of all, we want to be sure that we have the best possible tax. We think that one of the problems with the taxing practice in the past has been that taxes have been designed all too often by people who did not understand their impact. We want to be sure we know what this tax is doing, and that is why we will be calling upon the widest possible range of advice. I say that if there are members opposite-and there is the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, the former minister of finance, and a former tax lawyer who have proposals to make-we would certainly welcome their advice as to the effectiveness of the tax.
On the other matter, we are not proposing to raise Canadian prices to international levels. What we are proposing is to end a situation where Canadadian consumers are left at the mercy of decisions that are taken by oil suppliers in unstable lands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to an order made earlier today, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose earlier this afternoon, schedule D of the bill was under consideration and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond had the floor.
On schedule D-


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, before the Prime Minister came to the House with his statement on the agreement that has been reached at the premiers' meeting today and on the oil situation, I had mentioned a couple of suggestions to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion which he might adopt in order to improve the department. Since the time is getting on, I would like to concentrate-in view of something the Prime Minister has said, and although we will be getting into it in more detail tomorrow with the Minister of DREE- on something that is desperately important to our areas. I would like to underline the word "desperately" at this time.
I have here the following telegram which was sent to the minister on November 8 by the president of District 26 United Mine Workers of America, William H. Marsh. It reads as follows:
Almost daily increases by Arabs in oil prices increasing energy prices and power prices in Canada and particularly in Nova Scotia. Federal oil subsidies to Nova Scotia rising above $70 million. Consider immediate action on opening of new mine in Donkin Morien area imperative. Please act as quickly as possible.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald considered this to be so important that in their front page editorial of their November 5 issue there is a column entitled, "Energy sufficiency: shy on performance". In spite of what we have been told by the Prime Minister tonight regarding what came out of the meeting this afternoon, that title still holds for the whole of Canada. The editorial relates to the situation in Nova Scotia about which most of you know. We are, next to Prince Edward Island, importers of the largest amounts of foreign oil of any province in this country. In tune with the title of the editorial, we in Canada have energy sufficiency but are shy on performance. The editorial reads in part:
Our best bet, say the experts, is to dig coal and convert our generating stations to thermal generation. But we are witnessing a frustrating display of foot-dragging and lack of motivation in the development of the mines needed to produce the coal.
We have plans-by the dozen. We have promises-by the hundreds. But we're shy on performance.
How many times have we been told that federal funds are forthcoming for the development of mines at Donkin? The rehabilitation of existing collieries in Cape Breton? The enlargement of coal-fired power development at Lingan? The coal exploration program to measure the potential of the coal reserves on Cape Breton Island and on the mainland of Nova Scotia?

November 12, 1979
Supply
In order to keep the Donkin mine project from falling so far behind, the provincial government has had to make the unusual step of advancing funds to a federal agency-
And it is an unusual step in relations between the federal and provincial governments. It goes on to read:
-the Cape Breton Development Corporation-on the understanding Ottawa will reimburse the province when Treasury Board loosens the purse strings.
Each day of delay means that we will be that much longer escaping the grips of the overseas oil interests, pouring more dollars into already overloaded foreign coffers, denying Nova Scotians promised jobs, and depriving ourselves of the benefits of being able to use our own resources.
This frustration with the lack of movement on the development of the mine at Donkin is strongly felt. If it were started now, by 1985 it could replace through its two million tonne capacity in its first stage eight million barrels of oil at a price which, by 1985, could well be up to the spot market prices of today. This is an enormous opportunity for the coal industry.
Again I have here an article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which has not been notable in the past for emphasizing this, but they saw the terrible foot-dragging by the previous government which carried on the feasibility study since last March 8, a study which is now being continued by this new government, while funds are not being allocated. That was the point I was trying to make to the Prime Minister.
It is all right to have an energy bank if it is for the purposes of funding, but right now we need $25 million to $30 million in order to start the tunnels in that mine, while the province is giving money to the Crown corporation to do the clearing and so on. We cannot wait another year, and it will take that long for the energy bank to get going.
Out of this frustration, again the Chronicle-Herald wrote a lead editorial on its front page. As the minister knows very well, it is not notably an NDP paper. On November 10, just the day before Remembrance Day, the following appeared:
The chief focus of this political indecision on energy matters is currently the proposal to develop the undersea Donkin mine in the vast Sydney coalfield, which contains 95 per cent of Nova Scotia's recoverable coal reserves. The economics of the mine proposal have been studied exhaustively by both levels of government, to the extent that the previous provincial government, convinced the mine was economic and would be in production by 1985, constructed a coal-fired generator at Lingan. The present provincial government, equally confident of the feasibility of Donkin, is continuing with a second Lingan unit and has begun clearing the site for the mine, hoping the federal Treasury Board will release the $220 million initial capital requirement before spring, when tunnelling is scheduled to begin.
... If Ottawa moves immediately, the mine can be producing by 1985
I want to come back to this whole energy question. I am sure the minister will agree with me. If the prices the government wants are approved, although certainly we will do our best to stop the ones that are stated-


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Come to Alberta and tell us that.


Andrew Hogan: 1 will go anywhere and tell them. I presume Albertans have television. Are you that far behind? You have the highest standard of living in Canada. Surely you have

televisions. If the hon. member wants to rise and make a silly statement such as "tell it to Alberta," let me say to him that 1 am telling it to the world. 1 am telling it to Canada here. I am not only telling it to Alberta. I am telling it to them all. The hon. member for Edmonton West can carry the message.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, if I am interrupted, I think I have the right to answer. Fair game is supposed to be operating in this place.


Charles L. Caccia: That is right.


Andrew Hogan: Where was I before 1 was interrupted?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You wonder?


Andrew Hogan: If the hon. member listens closely, he will learn things. I was dealing with the question of coal and the bank which was mentioned here today. I am sure if the minister and I talked it out privately that 1 would agree with him. If we are to go to the world oil price or the Chicago price quickly, then that type of funding and bank could be important to the Atlantic region for the two reasons I have mentioned already: bringing the power from Newfoundland into a maritime power grid, and the development of the tidal power situation in Nova Scotia and on the perimeter of New Brunswick.
The first stage at Donkin, the tunnelling and so on, must be announced now. Otherwise, we will be into another year with more imported oil and the obscenely high unemployment will continue in Cape Breton. The province of Nova Scotia is agreed, generally everybody is agreed that we must move fast in order to build the tunnels and get into the production of coal. I do not think putting it off through an energy bank for another year will do anything to help the situation. In fact it will not only create frustrations within the area there, but also great frustrations in the provincial government in Halifax, which is a Tory government. Already they have put funds through the federal Crown agency to start the site with the hope and I imagine the promise they will be given back when Treasury Board loosens things.
The minister told me that this will be going before cabinet in two or three weeks. I say to the minister: do everything in your power to make sure the moneys are allocated, the $25 million to $30 million, now. If the minister is sincere in saying that he wants sufficiency in energy and that he wants to stop oil from coming into the country, then the answer for Nova Scotia, as its government has spelled out, must be in terms of greater coal development. The key is the earliest start possible for the Donkin mine. There is no disagreement between myself and the people I talk with in the provincial government at Halifax and the officials of the energy department in Halifax.
There is no disagreement between the people 1 have known here since 1960 when I was at the University of St. Francis Xavier. I would come up here and talk with them about coal when decisions were being made by the Diefenbaker govern-
November 12, 1979

ment as to whether they would close one, two, or three mines. They tell me, "You watch it now and make sure that the Donkin mine will not be shelved for anything else, because there are people who are trying to shelve it". I know the minister does not agree with that. I am just saying that it is well known. If we have to wait for an energy bank down the road in a year, in order to get the funds, then all hell will break loose on this issue. Enough concern has been generated now.
The people of Cape Breton have been through enough frustration on this issue. Surely we can get action on this and start getting some of the unemployed people off the streets, as well as contribute to the greater good of Canada by displacing that very, very expensive imported oil, which will be much more expensive by the time the mine is finished.
1 see my time is just about up, but I should like to ask the minister to comment on the question of InterVac, a high technology industry operating out of Sydney. It produces special types of technological equipment in order to improve the fishing industry-navigational aids. They have been looking for help. 1 hope the minister will get together with the Department of Transport as they must be concerned about this. I think Mr. Currie, the head of InterVac, employs 40 people. He has brought his case either to DREE or the Minister of Transport.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, 1 will check on that last point immediately to see at what stage this project is presently being considered. I can find nothing that the hon. member has said with which I seriously disagree. There is no doubt the Donkin mine is a key element in any energy strategy, not only for the Atlantic region but indeed for a national energy strategy. There is no doubt that the longer the mine is put off, the more it will cost to develop, taking into account the forces of inflation. However, I want to say that, in my view, we are not faced with the kind of time bind which the hon. member has said. I think Nova Scotia, whether this has been true in the past or not, in working closely with us, is recognizing only its own particular interests. Certainly we will reimburse the province. Certainly we will continue to work closely with them. As far as the Donkin mine is concerned, I will be pressing very hard for a definitive decision. 1 emphasize that we are not behind schedule and that the question of timing, if it be 1985, is entirely feasible, provided matters are proceeded with in an expedient manner.
Earlier the hon. member touched on a number of interesting things. He spoke about creative jobs. I think he would agree with me that in the past, and of course in the future, if DREE can be more productive and more ingenious in delivering jobs through the creation of worth-while economic development, we will have less need for the delivery of short-term moneys through the Department of Employment and Immigration to take care of the needs which face our region, and indeed unemployed pockets all over the country. 1 would think that it has been a measure of frustration, as far as regional economic
Supply
development is concerned, that the kinds of funds which could have been diverted for this purpose have been expended on make-work projects. How we are going to get a better type of distribution of funds through DREE for more tangible and long-term benefits, is a continuing challenge. 1 think as well that fiscal and monetary policies are required.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Herb Breau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Does it concern the work of the committee or the work of the House?


Herb Breau: it concerns a committee matter, Mr. Chairman.
1 wonder if you would permit me to ask the government House leader whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion can be in attendance at the Committee of the Whole tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow evening, respectively, to conclude our examination of them. I want to say that I regret that the message to which I referred earlier did not get to the House leader. We sent a message to his office and we were given the answer that the minister for DREE could not come tomorrow afternoon. We accept the explanation that he has to be at an important cabinet meeting. We sent a message indicating that we would like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be in attendance, and I wonder if the House leader can confirm his attendance now?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I did some checking with the appropriate authorities. 1 understand that a representative of the opposition House leader's office spoke to someone at my office just before the Prime Minister made his statement. 1 was sitting here with the Prime Minister and 1 was not aware of that.
In any event, in respect of those two ministers I must report to the hon. member that we are in some difficulty in so far as having the ministers come forward. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will be with the cabinet committee in the afternoon on an important matter. Unfortunately, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will not be in attendance as he is also a member of the same cabinet committee and will be attending that meeting.
The parliamentary secretaries, following the normal practice of the House will emulate the good work of the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, when he was parliamentary secretary to the former minister of finance and sat here day after day in the House answering for his minister because his minister was tied up in something else. That is within the ordinary scope of practice. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that those parliamentary secretaries will be available. Naturally I will do my best to see if there is another minister, among the list of ministers who could also be available for questioning. I

November 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
appreciate the position in which the hon. gentleman finds himself. 1 realize he did try to get in touch with me, but did not. 1 do not fault him for that. However, there is this problem involving the work of the ministers.
1 would point out to the hon. member that we are really doing our best to accommodate what I think are legitimate requirements of the opposition in having ministers present to answer questions. We will do that on every occasion, but I want to say to the hon. member that there is no reason that he cannot continue with regard to energy matters tomorrow afternoon, if he wishes to do so, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure the hon. member will find him at least as able, and perhaps even more so, as the hon. member for Stormont-Dun-das in conducting matters of the House of Commons. I would assure him that whether he is dealing with ministers or parliamentary secretaries, the wish of the government is to answer questions in respect of those matters with the hope that we can complete consideration of this bill so that those who depend upon it will not be disappointed in any way.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on October 31, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whether his party had taken any position on the sovereignty-association proposal of the Parti Quebecois government and whether it was true that the Conservatives would be campaigning on both sides of the question during the Quebec referendum. I asked this question because on October 29 the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle) said in Montreal, as reported by the Montreal Gazette on October 30, as follows:
'The Progressive Conservative party should stay outside the (pro-federalist) umbrella committee because we have different objectives', Roch La Salle said yesterday.
'Our position is not the same as Mr. Ryan's,'-
The following day another Conservative minister from Quebec, Senator Asselin, was quoted in La Presse dated October 31, as follows:

It will not come under the "no" umbrella in the referendum campaign no matter what its leader. Prime Minister Joe Clark, says.
[Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton).J

When I put this question to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Supply and Services confirmed the news story by interjecting from his seat as follows:
Ask me the question and I will answer yes or no.
In other words, the Minister of Supply and Services wanted the House to know that he was ready to vote "Yes" or "No" on the referendum question, depending on what it was.
The Prime Minister never answered my question. He merely said, as he says so often, that the Conservative party, "is determined to work toward the strengthening of the federal system". That is a brave generality. By this he explained that he meant a new attitude toward the division of powers. He gave as examples the dismantling of Loto Canada and the granting of offshore mineral rights to Newfoundland and British Columbia. He went on to say, as reported at page 804 of Hansard:
It is my expectation that the question-
That is, the referendum question.
-will be phrased in such a way that members of the Progressive Conservative Party will want to vote against that question. That is my expectation of what will happen-but I have not seen the question proposed by Mr. Levesque: perhaps the hon. member has.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, he left the situation just as vague. He did not say clearly that the Conservative party would campaign for the "No" option and that they would participate with the umbrella committee campaigning against the "No" option on the referendum.
At that point in time the Parti Quebecois had not published their white paper on the referendum. Mr. Speaker, how could anyone be so naive as to think that a pro separatist government would put a referendum question to which a "Yes" answer would not favour their cause? How could the Prime Minister think for one minute that he or his ministers could vote "yes" in the referendum and still favour federalism? What kind of bluff was he trying to foist on the Canadian people?
1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, he was trying to walk on both sides of the fence, trying to assure anglo-Canadians outside Quebec that he stood for a united Canada, and trying to win, on the other hand, a bigger following in Quebec by courting the pro nationalist element in that province.
On November 1, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government published its white paper on sovereignty-association and the referendum, and made its proposals more specific. Of course, it only became more clear that the Parti Quebecois wanted to break up the country before seeking an association which, I might say, would be weaker than the common market.
I quote from a summary of the white paper on page 13 as follows:
The only laws applying on Quebec's territory will be those adopted by the National Assembly, and the only taxes levied will be those decreed by Quebec law.
As a result of the publication of the white paper, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister once again some similar questions on November 5. This time the Prime Minister said
November 12, 1979

that members of the Conservative party would participate in the umbrella committee supporting the federal system in the referendum, and that that was the intention of his two Quebec ministers as he "made it clear in the House the other day." I do not know what day he was talking about, Mr. Speaker. I reread all his answers in Hansard, particularly his answers on November 2. 1 can find no statement which makes clear that its Quebec ministers will campaign for the "no" option in the referendum. As a result, it is still unclear with respect to the Quebec ministers.
As reported at page 884, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), the Prime Minister said:
The question is whether it would help the cause of federalism to have a federal minister from Quebec join a somewhat limited group formed by Mr. Ryan. I think that now that we are in a position to discuss party strategies here, it would probably be better for us to let the supporters join that umbrella committee and to let the federal ministers from Quebec or elsewhere show through their actions and their activities this government's determination to bring about a truly renewed federalism.
Once again he is waffling. He is saying that he prefers that the ministers do not participate. We still want some clear answers. Will he and his ministers participate in the referendum umbrella committee? Will he commit federal resources to rebutting the white paper from a Canadian point of view? Is he going to stand up for Canada, or is he going to leave this to the premiers, and is he going to continue to appease the pro-nationalist forces in Quebec?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, appease the pro-nationalist forces in Quebec.
1 put these hard questions to the Prime Minister and he does not answer. The kind of answer he gives, which is complete nonsense-and you can refer to page 1084 of Hansard-is that the former government, the government of Mr. Trudeau, was responsible for separatism. Anybody that knows the history of Quebec knows that the seeds of separatism go far back into our history, and if anything the cause of separatism would have been much worse in Quebec if it had not been for the governments of Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau. I would like to hear some answers to my questions.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark).
The position of the government concerning the up-coming referendum in Quebec is clear. First, the government has stated that the proposal put forward by the Quebec government in its White Paper, the so-called sovereignty-association thesis, is incompatible with the federal system and totally unacceptable to this government. I fail to see how this position could be made more clear. Second, the Prime Minister has
Adjournment Debate
made it perfectly clear, in a reply to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that the Prime Minister, his ministers and members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, would work toward a victory of federal forces in the province of Quebec. Third, the Prime Minister has explained that our approach would be different from that of the previous administration.
The government in no way questions the sincerity of members of the opposite bench. But recent history has shown that much of their strategy was wrong and counter-productive. We do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that Quebeckers will be convinced of the merits of federalism by publicity campaigns, propaganda, or rhetoric, but rather by concrete acts of flexibility.
I sympathize with the hon. member. I respect his anxiety because it demonstrates his love for his country. But the hon. member, 1 would hope, would have more confidence in the good sense of Quebeckers. The great achievements of Quebec society during the last 20 years show that its people can move toward fulfilling their aspirations within federalism. On the day of the referendum I am confident that sc tenir debout to paraphrase Felix Leclerc, will mean Quebeckers will choose Canada.
Finally, I would like to say that all members in this House being dedicated federalists, it would be deplorable for us to be divided on this crucial issue. Federalist forces in Quebec will be rallying behind Mr. Ryan's leadership because that leadership is enshrined in law. In this chamber we may legitimately disagree in terms of day to day strategy. But I ask colleagues not to challenge the clarity or the dedication of this government's policy regarding the referendum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT-AGREEMENT WITH U.S. ON REDUCTION OF AIR POLLUTANTS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, acid rain has been described by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) as the most serious threat to our environment today. Yet his policy to combat it, at home and abroad, is hesitant, weak, and at times contradictory. On the one hand he is quoted as saying, "Our appeals for more U.S. controls will likely fall on deaf ears if we do not begin to clean up our own act". On the other hand he says we must wait for an agreement with the U.S. before we take any action at home, because it would not do any good to reduce emissions in Ontario without cleaning up U.S. industries.
When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry last week, buried on page 8 he had a one paragraph statement to the effect that acid precipitation is one area which requires priority attention. Beyond that, we do not know what his plan of action is. For instance, what are the steps he plans to take to establish federal-provincial co-operation? All we hear is that there is a problem and that something should be done, sometime. He talks of taking action, and then

November 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
all he does is outline efforts to strengthen monitoring and research, efforts initiated by the previous government. It looks more and more that what he means by giving priority attention to an issue and taking action is that he intends to redefine the problem while at the same time remaining vague as to how and when solutions will be reached.
Last July the minister was reported to have said that Canada is "very close" to signing a diplomatic agreement with the United States that will set the stage for a full scale treaty to cut down acid rain and other forms of international air pollution. He said, "We are so very close and I want the- initial-agreement very much . . . The time to sign this treaty is right now." Soon after, though, he began to say that we should not expect an agreement before the U.S. presidential elections in 1980, that this was a realistic date and that it would be irresponsible to raise expectations. When I asked him to tell us the source of the information concerning the date after the presidential election, he told us at the standing committee meeting of November 8 that it was an assumption, and that the information was not based on consultation with Washington. Why, then, on the basis of such assumptions, should we accept a date of some time in 1981?
Why can we not wait? First, because the destructive and cumulative damage to the environment increases slowly but inexorably with every day, week, and month that go by. What do we need to see happen to get this government moving?
Second, because we may well be making a wrong assessment of President Carter's priorities. Why are we concluding that he cannot sign a treaty in an election year, considering his record on environmental matters?
Third, because apparently the United States has higher emission control standards than Canada. With this in mind, it would seem that we have a lot of catching up to do right here before we can start to move with the United States, "equally" as the minister puts it.
Add to the minister's hesitancy and contradictions the provinces' reluctance to confront industry. In the case of Inco, the largest single source of acid precipitation in North America, it was ordered by the Ontario government some years ago to cut sulphur dioxide emissions to 750 tons a day by December 31, 1978. Yet Inco we learn has been allowed to emit 3,600 tons a day until June 30, 1982. Mr. Parrott was reported last week to have said that acid rain could be prevented, but that the cost is too high and there is a complicated problem of what to do with that material once removed from the atmosphere. This implies in the mind of the provincial government of Ontario that we have at the present time little hope except to let precipitation do irreparable damage to our environment. What a shame, Mr. Speaker! If you think that is bad, listen to this.
The federal Minister of the Environment is quoted as saying that to push Canadian industry to the same standards as the U.S., or beyond, would harm, imagine, our competitive position. He said, "You cannot go to Canadian industry and say you have to meet certain requirements" just to show Canada is serious about fighting acid rain. Why not? Are we not serious? How can the most serious threat to our environment, which is

largely caused by industry, be resolved without affecting certain interests, be they of an industry, of consumers, or of society at large. Is this being realistic?
On the other hand the minister is quoted as saying that, "Although substantial resistance might be expected in Canada from those affected by such costs, I would point out, in such countries as the United States and Japan, up to 20 per cent of the capital cost of new facilities is not being expanded on pollution control". This was in an interview over CJOH on September 25. It goes to prove that a country can be competitive, as Japan is, as well as being environmentally responsible.
To sum up, we in the opposition are asking the government to stop dilly-dallying and to give this matter top priority. We are asking the Government of Canada, (1) to press Washington for an early date in 1980, as the time when we want to sign an international agreement in the interest of both countries and (2), to pressure the provinces incessantly and without delay so as to get them to act within the scope of their responsibility and, if they are reluctant, as is the case in Ontario, to invoke the powers given to the federal government under our constitution to proceed unilaterally.
The environment is in grave danger. Therefore, in the long run we are in grave danger too. We do not want to reach the state of an emergency just because of federal-provincial minuets. Air does not know provincial boundaries, neither does water. We cannot let procedural and political delays destroy our environment. What is at stake today is a healthy environment and tomorrow the health, and maybe the survival, of the human species.


Mr. Joe Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated in his response to the hon. member, and he reiterated his position in the standing committee having to do with the estimates of that department, that he would welcome, as he emphatically stated in this House, the signing of an effective Canada-United States agreement having to do with the abatement of this very serious problem.
The judgment that such an agreement cannot be reached until 1980 or after the U.S. elections is his own. In coming to this conclusion the minister has taken into consideration the results of the meeting he held on August 8 with his counterpart in Washington and the advice of his own departmental officials in consultation with those of the Department of External Affairs. May 1 emphasize, in addition, that the problem we now face, and which has been described as so serious a matter, is not one which simply arose since May 22, and the minister takes the position that he must be realistic despite the seriousness of the matter and despite the priority which his department gives to it.
It would not be responsible for him to give the kinds of assurances which are being requested by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and he does not wish to raise such unrealistic expectations in the mind of the public. It is his view
November 12, 1979

that while this is not a new problem, as 1 mentioned earlier, its solution will take time. I suggest it will take time to identify the sources of the emissions, the technology of the control which will be required for each, to identify the aspects of law which will have to be applied both on this and on the American side of the river, and then to negotiate an international agreement acceptable to both governments. This process cannot take place tomorrow.
The minister has instructed his officials to ensure that in co-operation with the provinces they undertake all the necessary preparatory work so that an agreement can be signed as soon as a U.S. election is over or a United States President is prepared to enter into such an agreement.
If I might refer specifically to the concerns of Canada and the reduction of Canadian emissions in acid-causing pollution, a federal-provincial committee on control strategy has already begun to identify, develop, and evaluate alternative abatement policies. This initial work will be completed in the spring, and this government's intention is to rely on the provinces to put in place the needed control.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-NEW BRUNSWICK-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WILL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION INTO SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN BENEFITS
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 2, I rose under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for an urgent inquiry into the problem of seasonal farm workers who have become unemployed in the economic region of Madawaska, an area that actually includes the three provincial counties of Madawaska, Victoria and Carleton in northwestern New Brunswick.
The purpose of my motion was to ask the minister to inquire and send on the spot one or several officials to report to him in the shortest possible time. Prior to my motion in the House of Commons, I sent the minister an urgent letter on Monday, October 29, in which 1 related to him the demonstrations and the climate of tension surrounding those incidents among both benefit recipients and government officials. I still have not received an answer to that letter and I do not accept the answers given later on in the House by the minister as satisfactory.
Still on Friday, November 2, I came back during question period to ask the minister when he intended to study the demands of seasonal workers being deprived of benefits for which several of them believed they had worked during the whole spring period planting trees for forest companies in New
Adjournment Debate
Brunswick, this summer on broccoli crops for processors again in New Brunswick, and others on cucumber, tomato and tobacco crops in southern Ontario. The minister replied that he was directing attention to the situation.
He stated that it was difficult to evaluate the situation and admitted in his reply that there were examples of unfairness in the application of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. In the same breath, the minister agreed to examine the situation to see if he could provide some relief. In answer to a supplementary 1 put to him, the minister finally stated that the long-term solution to this particular problem was to find employment for the people receiving unemployment insurance. 1 certainly admire the minister's intentions and I will gladly support any sincere and serious attempt on his part to do so.
Last November 5 I met with a group of unemployed and their spokesman to explain the legislation to them and the recourse and appeal procedures it provides. 1 had many discussions with the employment centre director and the local Unemployment Insurance Commission staff. They are all awaiting some directive from above, from the minister or one of his senior officials, but the reply has yet to come and the situation has far from improved. Demonstrations continue and are becoming agitated or noisy to the extent that the police can hardly contain them.
The minister is not only responsible for the sound administration of the unemployment insurance system, he is also under the obligation of introducing in the House all amendments or changes which would make the system fairer, more humane and easier to apply. I urge him to act quickly in this respect. He can be assured of my support if he does so, just as I have always reacted vociferously against all the exaggerated and sometimes illogical proposals put forth by his predecessors.
I have been a member of Parliament for nearly 12 years and 1 can assure him immediately that 1 shall co-operate fully to humanize the present system. I am not at all interested in making petty politics on the backs of the workers. What makes me sad and sometimes angry is to hear certain members or other residents of economically strong areas like southern Ontario suggest that the people of the Atlantic region are lazy and do not want to work and that we should cut them off from all unemployment insurance benefits to force them back to work. We still hear this from the rich areas of the country.
Would the minister try to suggest that the 250-odd families from Madawaska and Victoria who went-men, women and children-to pick vegetables in southern Ontario, are lazy? Was it laziness on their part to work 10, 12, 13 hours or more each day from early July until October in Ontario fields, even though very often this meant that their children missed school? Does he think that those people went to southern Ontario to spend their holidays and that they would have gone if there had been work available in New Brunswick? Come on! It is time to act, and one of the things that could be done

November 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
would be to remove from the Madawaska economic area Carleton county which is now causing a serious distortion of the employment situation and unemployment levels in Mada-waska-Victoria. Seasonal workers were not able to get as many weeks of work this year as last year, and because of this they have been excluded from benefits through no fault of theirs. Winter is coming. In fact, it is already quite cold in my area of New Brunswick and we must do something to help the workers and the families of workers who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. We should do so also if we want good workers from Madawaska and Victoria for the harvest in Ontario next summer. Something must be done immediately to rectify the inequities of the present system.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, have 1 the permission of the House to respond? In response to the question of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), 1 will begin, as the minister did, by reminding the House that the repeater clause is contained in legislation which was argued vigorously and successfully by hon. members opposite when in government.
As the hon. member knows, this particular amendment to the Unemployment insurance Act was made in order to reduce the extent to which it was being used to maintain the income of those in cyclical patterns of employment.
In addition, as I am sure the hon. member knows, the departmental officials, in consultation with the provinces and the private sector, are engaged in an extensive review of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This particular item which gave rise to the unrest in that part of New Brunswick will be one of the provisions that will be examined very closely.
Referring specifically to the current situation in Edmunds-ton, I am well aware of the fact that the hon. member has met
with some of the demonstrators and has heard one side of the story. But is he also aware that the majority of the demonstrators have decided to seek redress through the statutory appeal process?


Eymard G. Corbin: I told them to do so.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I would like to add that the ministry is very well aware of the fact that changes in legislation and regulations can sometimes cause problems to some individuals. We are equally aware that the repeater regulation, in increasing the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits, has resulted in a situation where some who would previously have been eligible for benefits do not now qualify.
Any time that such a policy change may be detrimental to individuals, naturally we are concerned. In this case we are concerned with any potential negative effects it may have and we hope they will be minimized.
As the minister said, the best way to reduce these negative effects is to increase the employment opportunities for the unemployed. To this end, the minister has already taken action to extend the deadline for the receipt of Canada Works applications. This step will improve access to funds available for job creation purposes.
In so doing we are able to facilitate the creation of an increased number of employment opportunities which will contribute positively to the local economy. This alternative also provides the opportunity to create jobs, not only for those who are affected in this particular instance, but also for other unemployed workers in the Edmundston area. 1 am convinced that these changes as proposed by the ministry will deal positively and effectively with the current situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, November 13, 1979