1979-11-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. Today it was reported that a commissioner of the Canadian Transport Commission had made an incredible statement, that with so many freight movements, the occasional accident was necessary.
In view of the fact that the CTC has yet to issue any orders for interim changes in the regulations during the inquiry period governing the transportation of dangerous goods, and since in every major city in Canada hazardous products are being transported in substantial quantities every day, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Minister of Transport use his discretionary power to issue interim regulations with respect to the transportation of dangerous commodities, such as the reduction in speed of trains carrying such products through densely populated areas, and the assurance that explosive materials will not be carried on the same train as toxic gases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House warmly welcomes the recognition by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that older women, particularly those of single status, are having a difficult time trying to cope with seriously inadequate levels of income,
and this House calls on the government not to make this group wait for years while reviews take place, but to introduce at this session amendments to our pension legislation which will provide pension levels for older and unattached women that will give them the dignity and security they so clearly deserve.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put forward for debate at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT REVIEW OF PROGRAMS BE CARRIED OUT UNDER INQUIRIES ACT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask that the House consider a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) has initiated a review of health programs in Canada under the esteemed Mr. Justice Emmett Hall.
In view of the fact that Mr. Justice Hall has been assigned to the review on a contract basis under very restrictive terms of reference, and since a commission legally constituted under the Inquiries Act can be the only effective forum to get at the realities of the medical health situation in Canada, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare modify the terms of Mr. Justice Hall's review and place it under the Inquiries Act so as to allow witnesses to be called, thereby assisting Mr. Justice Hall in the thorough study of this area of most critical interest to Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be accepted for debate, under the terms of Standing Order 43, only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 27, 1979
[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that, according to a study of the Economic Council of Canada, 60 per cent of persons over 65 years of age and living alone are under the poverty line and that most of these people are women, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take all necessary steps to increase old age pensions to meet the minimum standard of living as defined by the central government.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.


CHANGE IN NAMES OF STANDING COMMITTEES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the change of antiquated names of two standing committees of this House.
I propose that the name of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be changed to Communications and Culture, and that the name of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be changed to Transport. After further consultations with House leaders and those directly involved on both committees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley):
That Standing Order 65(1 )(b) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"65(1 )(b) Communications and Culture, to consist of not more than 20
members;"
and that Standing Order 65(l)(l) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"65( 1 )(1) Transport, to consist of not more than 20 members."


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for discussion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Rayonier-Quebec Company in Port Cartier in the constituency of Manicouagan, definitely closed down over two months ago, and considering that the company, by ending its business, leaves an entire area in a very precarious economic situation forcing the population to depend on public welfare, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration take all necessary steps, either by earmarking supplementary funds in the Canada Works program or through other government employment programs, to develop projects which will immediately create employment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. 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.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that PWA-Transair has negotiated a deal with Calm Air Ltd. which will result in inferior and inadequate air services for the Keewatin district of the Northwest Territories, and in view of the fact that there is strong opposition to this move from people who live in the
November 27, 1979

Keewatin and who are dependent on the services for food, medical care and transportation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That the Minister of Transport intervene to ensure that PWA-Transair be required to fulfil the terms of their licence by continuing to provide full air services in the Keewatin.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in a case of urgent and pressing necessity based upon existing public disappointment and frustration that this Parliament appears bogged down. I would move, if consent is given:
That this House urges the government House leader to discuss with his counterparts the expediting of second reading of Bill C-20 by considering an amendment to provide that after the first year, subsequent operation of the act will be subject to a parliamentary negative resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be introduced only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: 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 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) is wilfully jeopardizing hundreds of jobs in Canada, that a number of small bottlers are running the risk of going bankrupt, and that the minister is also penalizing Canadian consumers by forcing them to use containers which are smaller and therefore more expensive for middle-income families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne):
That the minister reverse his decision and seriously consider with various firms such as Coca-Cola a sure and effective way to settle his conflict with the bottlers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATES OF CANADIAN AND EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTS
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, may I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of distinguished visitors in the form of a delegation from the seventh interparliamentary meeting of delegations from European and Canadian Parliaments.
The co-leaders of the delegation from the European Parliament include the vice-chairman, Mr. Carlo Ripa di Meana, from Italy, Mr. Kai Uwe von Hassel, from the German Republic, as well as the leader of the delegation, Sir John Stewart-Clark, of the United Kingdom Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Economic Council of Canada stated yesterday that many Canadian pensioners are living below the poverty line, 1 should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he could tell us what are his priorities. What is he trying to achieve vis-a-vis Canadian pensioners? Does he want to upgrade private pensions first, or is he ready, now, to move to increase benefits under the Canada Pension Plan?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Economic Council of Canada made public the other day is, indeed, a good one and I recommend to all members that they take the opportunity to read it. As the hon. member is aware, in this House in the Speech from the Throne and, indeed, on two other occasions I have mentioned that with this report, when it is available- which it is now-as well as with a variety of other reports which have come from other sources, I will be going to the

November 27, 1979
Oral Questions
pension review committee of which the hon. member is a member.
We asked that committee-and I hope it will do so-to deal with both private and public pensions together, so for the first time this country will have an integrated approach to pensions and it will not be ad hoc as it was in the past.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, may I say, by way of a supplementary, that the answer of the minister is kind of cute but he is daydreaming; he thinks he has invented the world. [Translation]
On the French channel, there is a program called "Parle, parle, jase, jase". I am sure the minister could find a job on this program without the least difficulty. Now, my question is a simple one. Everybody has received a copy of the report, and I am directing my question to the present government which is supposed to have been leading this country for the past six months. Did the minister consult the provincial ministers of welfare when he met with them in Toronto on November 13, if my memory is serving me right, about the pensions plans in the private sector and the Canada Pension Plan; has he asked this issue to be placed on the agenda and, if not, what is he waiting for?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before-and I am sure most hon. members would agree-the problem of those people who are between the ages of 55 and 64 and, indeed, those over the age of 65 who are below the poverty line, is not one that was created in the last six months. Everyone understands that it is absolutely essential that we get on with the matter and that we deal with both public and private pensions together. Otherwise, people simply get whipsawed. That is why we are approaching the matter this way.
With respect to whether or not it will be on the agenda of the federal-provincial ministers conference in January, my answer is yes, it will be.


Monique Bégin: We now know that the minister will put this question on the agenda. My third question is for the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I will put it to the President of the Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board, now that the Minister of National Eiealth and Welfare pledged yesterday in Toronto help against inflation for pensioners, ready to move amendments to the law? He does not need any committee to do that; he just has to consult the work already done in his department. He just has to move amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act to preserve the real value of private pensions in the face of inflation. Will he do so?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the question to which the hon. member has referred,

of course, has been of great concern to this government. It is presently under review, and in due course we will be making a suitable announcement.


IMPROVED PENSIONS FOR OLDER AND UNATTACHED WOMEN
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has recognized there is a problem in particular for older and unattached women, will he not subject them to another study but, in fact, convince his colleagues in the inner cabinet-to put their priorities where they should be and to move immediately to help this group, instead of helping the group which is being assisted by the tax credit plan of the Minister of Finance?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, the request and, indeed, the requirement for the pension review by the standing committee was made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne.


Monique Bégin: Which committee?


David Edward Crombie: Indeed, it enjoys the support entirely of the government and all caucus members on this side.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, again we will get reviews and studies. Since the Prime Minister-probably at this very moment-is arguing over, not whether oil prices should or should not be increased but by how much, will the minister say that he will move immediately to help those who will be negatively affected by heating oil price increases and gasoline price increases-consumers, including a lot of poor people? Will he move to improve immediately the level of the guaranteed income supplement for those living under the poverty line?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first point, already the Prime Minister has spoken positively on that matter. With respect to the GIS, I have indicated that certainly it is a priority of mine. The committee of which the hon. member is a member will be dealing with that matter.


Monique Bégin: Which committee?


David Edward Crombie: Certainly, 1 hope that all the interest we now find from the last two questioners will be found with some haste when it comes before the committee, because this problem with respect to people aged 55 and over has been with us for a long time and should have been dealt with before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Another study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 27, 1979


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my question I should like to make an announcement to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: My question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that in the last two years his department has not completed one successful negotiation with any group across this country in order to settle land claims or land entitlements, could the minister explain to the House what his policy will be and what presentation he will make to cabinet to settle this very important issue?


Hon. Jake Fpp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I answer the hon. member for Churchill by indicating to him that this has been the situation for some time and not only for the last two years. The matter of land claims is one facing the people of Canada and also the government which cannot just be put aside flippantly by saying that there have been no negotiations or settlements in two years.
I want to indicate to the hon. member what is happening. In fact, negotiations are going on: for example, they are going on with the Council of Yukon Indians. Also, in terms of the COPE agreement, after our meeting of last week we agreed to meet within the next ten days to look at the areas which are outstanding and are creating difficulty. In terms of presentation to cabinet, cabinet will have to address the entire question of most specific and comprehensive land claims. When cabinet has made a decision, it will be available to the hon. member.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that negotiations are taking place, but what kind of negotiations can take place when cabinet does not have a position? In view of the fact that in 1976 the federal government agreed to the Saskatchewan formula to settle land claims in that province, and in view of the fact that last night the minister indicated that formula was too rich, will the minister indicate to this House that his government still stands behind that formula in respect of Saskatchewan Indian claims?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member refers to the so-called land entitlement or treaty entitlement on the prairies, I should indicate that I had a meeting yesterday in Winnipeg with my counterparts from the four western provinces and Ontario, at which time we discussed various land entitlements as well as other outstanding treaties that have not been completed.
I would indicate that at that time we did discuss the so-called Saskatchewan formula, that being that entitlement be taken as at December 31, 1976. Saskatchewan is ready to use that formula, but it is not acceptable to some of the other
Oral Questions
provinces. As a result, we had discussions on what formula might be acceptable, and we have not reached a conclusion on a formula that we might present.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am still wondering whether the minister is willing to live up to that agreement. Is he still willing to live up to that formula in the province of Saskatchewan? Why does he think it is too rich? Those people have been waiting for the land for 100 years, and it is about time something was done.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where the hon. member got the quotation that I feel it is too rich. What 1 want is a formula that is equitable. The Saskatchewan formula in some cases would be fair and equitable, but there are other reserves in respect of which it would not be fair and equitable. Before a final formula is agreed upon, obviously the principles of fairness and equitability have to be in place.
I would say to the hon. member that we are ready and, in fact, we have been meeting with the 15 entitlement chiefs in Saskatchewan. However, I say to him quite frankly that this is part of the negotiation and we will do it at the table rather than here.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I continue to be disturbed at what I regard as lack of solidarity, indeed, a possible cop-out on the part of leaders of free democratic nations in the face of an atrocious assault on human rights and the breakdown of international order as evidenced in Iran.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, after we had pressed him to take the initiative in seeking from summit leaders a common declaration, a common front, said that all the summit nations have made their position unmistakably clear. If they have, their position has been totally unnoticed. I ask the minister, in the interests of advancing our information, to tell us where these summit nations have made their position clear-to whom, and by whom? Was their position made clear by the head of the government, or by some third secretary buried down in the foreign office so deep that his comments would be unnoticed?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that the leaders of four summit nations have, through their individual Parliaments, through the European Parliament and through the European Community, made their positions known in that way to the United States, indicating their common front with the United States in this deplorable situation. Japan has, as well, made its views and comments known

November 27, 1979
Oral Questions
to the United States. That, too, is public knowledge. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the way in which the Canadian government, the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament feel.
I would further inform the hon. member that in other fora throughout the Commonwealth, as well as through La Franco-phonie, some of the members of the summit are making their views known. There are a variety of ways in which the summit countries have been communicating their very real concern about this situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the minister has fully justified my concern, because she has not been able to say that the leaders of these free democratic nations have personally said anything. The minister has not been able to say that Prime Minister Thatcher, President Giscard d'Estaing, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, or the Prime Minister of Japan have individually or collectively stood up and condemned the atrocious situation in Iran. That is why we are still asking the Prime Minister to take a lead and to get these people to come together to speak out on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is more anxious to condemn the leaders of the countries in the free world than he is to condemn the actions of the ayatollah.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It may be that the hon. member does not recognize the European Community or the European Parliament as a just voice to express the concerns of those countries. It may be that the hon. member does not recognize their Parliament as the just voice to recognize their concern, but we on this side of the House do.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Where are the leaders?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I must say that I find it inconceivable that the minister would suggest, when we are asking the leaders of the industrialized nations to stand up publicly and to take a stand collectively, that we would be suspected of attacking them rather than the ayatollah.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Shame. Apologize.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in all our questions it has been clear that we are condemning the actions of the government of Iran in not taking firm steps to set free the hostages, but we will soon be condemning this government if it continues to take such stand-offish attitudes.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have a question. I am distressed at the indifference on the other side, and the applause for such a comment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The United States is our closest friend and ally: we have always said that when we have needed their help. Will this government, in the next 24 hours, get in contact with the other six summit leaders, ask them collectively to make a statement of solidarity with the United States and to make it publicly at the head of state level, as Mr. Clark should be making a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the former prime minister recognizes that the Prime Minister has made statements on this subject, and that he has been staunch in his support of the United States throughout the last 24 long days through actions many of which cannot be publicly conveyed, and of which the hon. member should be aware are taking place in everything that we do.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that we have on numerous occasions reiterated our support to the United States. We have opened new channels where there would be much broader support for the actions, through the Commonwealth countries-which we think is a very representative group of countries embodying different countries, creeds and cultures. We have approached the countries of La Francopho-niey and we have taken into consideration the stand that has already been put forward by the leaders of the summit countries to which the hon. member has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister constantly-and, I am beginning to believe, deliberately- missed the point. It is not enough for Canada, France or Germany to tell the United States, "We feel for you, brother, and we are your friends."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is important that the governments which are allies of the United States indicate that they are prepared to take collective action, and that they will be collectively affronted if any harm comes to any of the hostages from the United States. That is what we are asking of the government, not vague statements by European parliamentarians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friends in the gallery.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
November 27, 1979


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I would like to say to the former prime minister that this is no time for grandstanding by him or anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This question is much too serious because it involves, not just the breaking of the Vienna Convention, but it involves the lives of human beings.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is about time you understood that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It involves the lives of the American human beings who are hostages in Iran. It involves, as well, the lives of Canadians who are in Iran-and that is something which we must never forget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Why don't you answer the question?


SITUATION IN IRAN-PRIME MINISTER TO INITIATE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATION
Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is she prepared to answer the question? Is she prepared to talk to the Prime Minister and approach all these nations, requesting them to make a collective representation regarding the atrocities in Iran? Yes or no?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not here yesterday when the answer to that question was given by the Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was not.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Prime Minister said that he would consider the matter. I would be only too happy to talk to the Prime Minister, as I would be to talk to the hon. member or to any hon. member.


John Carr Munro: Yes or no, Flora?


POLITICAL PRISONERS IN ARGENTINA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO BRING ABOUT RELEASE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It also concerns the lives of human beings. Inasmuch as over 100 prisoners who are being held in Argentinian jails without charges being laid were approved some time ago to come to Canada, and since the Argentinian government refuses to release these prisoners as promised, will the minister tell us what government action has been taken on this very urgent matter, and will she use economic pressures or other pressures to expedite the release of these political prisoners?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I share with the hon. member the
Oral Questions
concern she has expressed about the plight of these persons who are being detained in Argentina. We have on a number of occasions approached officials of Argentina through our ambassador in that country. We have made our views strongly known, and we have urged through every possible means that these people be released.
As the hon. member knows, only two people of the 100 prisoners have been released to come to Canada. A few others have been released to other countries. We are continuing by every means possible, through our embassy and our representations to the Argentine government, to effect their release.


IMMIGRATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It takes over six months for Canadian immigration officials to process political refugees in Latin America, and in Brazil this delay forces Argentinians to return home to face torture and execution.
Since Canada has greatly speeded up the process respecting refugees from Southeast Asia, will the minister tell this House if it is the deliberate policy of his government to favour Southeast Asian refugees while refusing asylum to Latin Americans; and, in particular, is the eight-month processing period in Brazil which involves his government officials a deliberate slowdown to avoid helping Argentinians to come to Canada?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly no. In fact, to the contrary. We have interviewed a number of persons in Brazil. We have received a total of 159 applications in Buenos Aires. We have received permission from authorities there to interview 146, and 63 such interviews will be proceeding. I think- as was indicated by the minister who spoke previously-the problem is not with the Canadian immigration process; the problem is elsewhere. We are doing our best to accommodate those refugees as rapidly as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A recent study conducted by the Quebec government apparently shows that it would have cost the Quebec treasury some $512 million

November 27, 1979
Oral Questions
in 1976 to take over the unemployment insurance program. Can the minister tell us, first, whether the conclusions of that study are well-founded and, second, whether the present Quebec government has asked the new federal government to hand over this program?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, obviously I have not had the opportunity to see this report. The unemployment insurance program quite clearly favours Quebec. An in-depth study conducted for the Employment and Immigration Commission shows that in 1977 the net total of benefits paid in Quebec was $551.7 million. Ontario, on the other hand, contributed in the same year $612.9 million more that it received in benefits.


André Ouellet: I thank the minister for his answer. But I wonder if he could tell us whether his government has been asked by the Quebec government to hand over to that province total responsibility for unemployment insurance. Has such a request been made to the new government of Canada?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, there has been no formal or direct request, although one would have to believe-if there is substance to the report, which I have not seen, and it is truly a report of the government of Quebec- that in the near future such a request would be forthcoming.
As I have indicated to the hon. member, the cost to Quebeckers of such a transfer would be considerable. I may indicate, for example, that if a program similar to that which we now have at the federal level were to be transferred, the increase in premiums for the average Quebecker would go up something in the order of three or four times, from $1.35 per $100 of insurable earnings to something in the order of $3.50; or, for the average person making $15,000 a year, an increase of something from $300 per person to $1,000 per year. That would be a substantial additional cost if such transfer were to be made and the same program continued.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Because of the uncertainty on the west coast about the status of two sets of fishing regulations, one concerned with the proposed limit of 20 inches for Chinooks in the sports salmon catch, and another one connected with gill netters in the herring fishery, could the minister tell us what the status is of these regulations? Are they proposed; are they firmly there? If they are not firmly there, will he say when he is planning to clarify the situation?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the sports fishing

question, I am looking forward to having discussions with the new minister of the environment for British Columbia. To that end, I am hoping to be in a position to make a statement on new sports fishing regulations for British Columbia early in December.
With regard to the other aspect of the question, this is a matter of serious concern because it speaks to the preservation of a very important fishery, namely, the herring fishery on the west coast. To that end, we will have to bring in regulations which will ensure the survival of the species and at the same time protect a very important and lucrative fishery, namely, the herring roe fishery.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As the minister is aware, the Ottawa area daily newspapers announce today in their headlines that an agreement is about to be reached concerning the designation of Hull for industrial purposes. My question is this: could the minister indicate what is the present status of negotiations with the government of Quebec concerning the allocation of at least $50 million in federal funds for industrial development in Hull?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can recognize the concern of my hon-. friend opposite. But I want to tell him that the newspaper reports to which he refers are based, as far as I can tell, on a mixture of fact and speculation involving two proposed initiatives by DREE, one for Quebec and one for Ontario. I can tell him that when matters are finalized, they will be announced in due course.
[ Translation]



INQUIRY WHETHER INDUSTRIALIZATION PROGRAM IN HULL WILL BE EXTENSION OF MONTREAL PROGRAM

Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since his colleague the Minister of Supply and Services stated a few weeks ago in Buckingham, with a big smile on his face, that a major allocation of funds to the Hull area would be announced in January, could the minister indicate whether the $50 million grant mentioned today is part of that program or whether it will merely be an extension of the Montreal area program?
November 27, 1979


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, about all I can usefully tell my hon. friend at this time is that it appears that it will likely be connected with an extension of the Montreal special region.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: However, I do not think it would be useful for me to speculate at this time until I have something tangible to announce.



REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF BUDGET TO QUEBEC

Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he can confirm his position to the effect that he rejected the request put to him by the Quebec minister, Mr. Leonard, to transfer the entire DREE budget to the province of Quebec. What was the minister's answer to this request from the provincial government when they met in Montreal yesterday?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to tell my hon. friend that we had useful discussions. But 1 could not agree to any substantial change in the existing practice for the allocation of DREE funding at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. member for Vaudreuil asked questions of the Prime Minister regarding the entrenchment of language rights in the constitution, to which they did not get very satisfactory answers.
I have some questions for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In British Columbia, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said he would take steps to lessen the requirements for bilingual labelling-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: -and after the election the minister said he was undertaking a review to pursue the Prime Minister's statement. Would the minister tell us if he has completed the review of bilingual labelling requirements and, if so, when will he announce them to the House?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the review
Oral Questions
has been completed; that is the actual work of obtaining opinions of people in public life, from people in industry and from people across the country has been completed. These opinions, comments and suggestions relate to the policy of the previous administration and where the new administration should go, and they are presently being collated for me. I have not yet received them. However, as soon as I do, the matter will be discussed with my cabinet colleagues and an announcement as to future policy changes, if any, will be made in the House.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration arising out of a speech he made yesterday. What steps will his department take to ensure that the tax incentive programs he announced will create the objective of 105,000 jobs for young people next year?
What steps will his department take to ensure that those incentives will not be used simply to subsidize employers in paying low, near-minimum wages and, indeed, will lead after a year to permanent and better paying jobs.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, there will be basically two requirements to ensure what the hon. member is after. One is that the job must, in fact, be a new job: the employer must so declare and prove that it is a new job. The other requirement, of course, is that it is a tax credit. The company claiming the tax incentive must be in a tax payable position in the year of claim or in the five-year period carried forward, as the case may be. Therefore, there are some precautions. In addition, there will be precautions which I will deal with more fully during the course of the budget debate after the details of the program are announced.


David Orlikow: Given that his department has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the past ten or more years on Manpower training programs, and that our shortage of skilled workers is still so great that the minister now proposes to encourage people with special job skills to come to Canada, what new steps, if any, is his department taking, in co-operation with the provincial departments which deal with apprenticeship training, so that future needs for skilled workers in Canada can be met by Canadian workers, rather than by further immigration of skilled people from outside Canada?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, we must be clear on this. The demand for skilled labour in Canada will be met, first and foremost, by Canadians. Canadians will be given an opportunity for the training positions. I may say that my department will give a new emphasis, which the previous government was

November 27, 1979
Oral Questions
unwilling or unable to give, to critical trade skills to meet the very important labour market demand that we know will come from various parts of Canada, particularly from the large mega projects in western Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given very brief general notice. The reason I have given very brief notice is partly because of the serious questions that came earlier today with regard to Iran, and also the very serious question involving our external affairs position, particularly and specifically with relation to Georges Bank, because of the preoccupation, understandably, of the United States and other countries with the Iranian situation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If members opposite do not care about the Georges Bank situation, they had better leave this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is just taking time away from you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister please advise the House with regard to this situation very soon, definitely before December 17 when leases will be auctioned off in the United States for drilling rights on Georges Bank, where we do not even have an agreement as to who owns Georges Bank? Will our protest be made very clear to the American government regarding leasing rights and drilling rights before we clear up the jurisdictional problem of who owns it, because of danger to the fish and the question of jurisdiction?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that the leases for drilling which are under discussion all lie within the United States jurisdiction of the Georges Bank. They are in the United States area. The leases were first supposed to be let on November 5, but were held up for a 40-day period as a result of court action initiated by the state of Maine and the state of Massachusetts.
My officials and officials of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, are in constant communication with our American counterparts to ensure that there are adequate safeguards as far as conservation and any damage to the environment is concerned in this drilling area. At the present time, we are satisfied that such safeguards exist. However, if we are led to believe that there should be further examination, we will very definitely be expressing our concern to the American officials.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and deals with the situation in Port Cartier. I would like to know whether the minister has received a letter from a group of citizens of the region who have decided to invest $100,000 to open a sawmill in that town to try to replace the Rayonier-Quebec Company. People responsible for that project have asked to meet the minister and some of his officials to make a technical study of the briefs. So my question to the minister is this: Does he intend to follow up the suggestions made by the developers of this sawmill in Port Cartier and when does he intend to answer the letter sent to him on November 19 by people from Port Cartier.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will give the assurance to my colleague that I will be pleased to follow up the suggestions. If anyone seeks a meeting, I will arrange that. The hon. member would certainly be most welcome at the meeting.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning a solution to the problem of 1.5 litre bottles. My question arises from a conflict which I detect between the minister and his deputy.
The minister informed me that one of the Japanese coating techniques has been found to be most suitable in terms of film performance and cost factors. However, the minister added in his letter to me that before making a final decision on the adoption of an offshore product, a Canadian process which recently surfaced is presently being considered. This morning, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, he should put it.


Gary Francis McCauley: -deputy minister informed me that there is, in fact, no Canadian process being considered. I ask the minister if he can explain this discrepancy.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in any case of a dispute between a minister and a deputy, the minister is right. The hon. member knows that.

November 27, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I say in full confidence that there is no dispute between the minister and the deputy minister on this issue. Believe me. Certainly as far as coating or any covering of 1.5 litre bottles is concerned, we are willing to look at any process the industry comes up with. To my knowledge, there are at least three Japanese processes and at least one Canadian process. There are other means of containing the shattering of the glass when a large, awkward bottle such as that slips, falls and breaks. We are willing to look at any reasonable proposition the industry may come up with.


Gary Francis McCauley: Mr. Speaker, I believe the industry has come up with a solution-a two-bottle package which was submitted for testing and found to be satisfactory. Can the minister confirm that this is so, and advise what action he proposes to take concerning this? Also, what are the details of the two-bottle proposal?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that the question of putting two 1.5 litre bottles in a single cardboard container is no answer to the problem, as far as the minister is concerned. Those bottles would still have to be taken out of the carton to be cooled. They would still have to be taken out to be poured. That type of solution smacks more of a merchandising gimmick than an answer to safety problems.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As both the minister and the House know, a $10 million program has been offered to trade unions for labour education. Can the minister tell us whether he has received a report on the use of those funds and if so does the report explicitly indicate that the funds were used for labour education?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: 1 heard part of that question only, Mr. Speaker. I heard "employment and immigration" and I heard the hon. member mention the utilization of funds.
The hon. member asks, "Why don't you listen?" Well, it was difficult to hear because of the-


An hon. Member:: Noise on the other side.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -mechanism. Not having the answer, I will look into the hon. member's question and give him a reply as soon as possible.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, the minister will only have to read my first question. My supplementary question deals with the same subject and is addressed to the Solicitor General. Can he confirm to the House that RCMP agents are now investigating the use of funds set aside for labour education, namely, the $10 million which has been the subject of an agreement among unions. Is the Solicitor General aware that several RCMP agents are carrying out an investigation regarding these funds? If it is not true, I would like him to deny it before the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The Solicitor General is not aware of that, no.



PETRO-CANADA ABILITY OF CORPORATION TO ALONE CARRY OUT ALSANDS PROJECT-REMARKS OF PRESIDENT

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. At a committee meeting this morning, the president of Petro-Canada demonstrated in an unequivocal way the great success Petro-Canada has had in carrying out its mandate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Hopper confirmed in his testimony this morning not only that the company is capable of carrying out on its own the Alsands project, but he also indicated that if oil were brought in by his company at cost instead of cost plus guaranteed profits as demanded by Shell, the people of Canada could save hundreds of millions of dollars. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has any reason at all to doubt those claims by Mr. Hopper.


Walter David Baker: I am sure Mr. Hopper was explaining things as he saw them, but if I understand the gist of the hon. member's question, he is still on his crusade for Petro-Canada, something he is entitled to do. I should inform him that the government has the whole question of Petro-Canada under review. When that review is completed, an appropriate announcement will be made in the House of Commons. Naturally, in the course of this review we shall take into account opinions expressed by people like Mr. Hopper.


John Edward Broadbent: I am not now dealing with the survival of Petro-Canada as such; I am asking a question about the government's policy for the development of the tar sands

November 27, 1979
Privilege-Miss Begin
resources. Considering that Mr. Elopper made the claim, unchallenged, that hundreds of millions of dollars could be saved if these resources were developed on a non-profit basis by this public agency, and considering there are likely to be four tar sands projects in which case the cumulative savings could run into billions of dollars, will the government assure the House that before proceeding to dispense the kind of hand-outs it is proposing to give to the multinationals, it will consult directly with Mr. Hopper concerning his plan to save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?


Walter David Baker: There are two or three issues which the hon. gentleman is trying to raise in his question: at least, I think there are. On the most important aspect, whether the government will give consideration to the testimony of Mr. Hopper, let me say that of course the government will give consideration to the testimony of Mr. Hopper. That was the answer to the first question the hon. member put.

[ Translation]



PRIVILEGE


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice. Last October 22, in answer to a question, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) stated that the Lazar report on pensions would soon be tabled-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou has the floor.


Monique Bégin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On October 24, two days after that question, by virtue of a motion presented under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and carried unanimously by the House, the government was required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if hon. members realize how difficult they are making it for the minister to hear the point which is being raised.


Monique Bégin: And for the member concerned to raise it. [Translation]
Further to a motion presented on October 24 under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and passed unanimously, the government was ordered to table immediately the Lazar report on pensions. Several questions have been put since then. We know the report was sent for translation by the former government at the end of March. In other words, the new Conservative government has now had that report for six months. My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is one which, I believe, concerns the rights of all hon. members and may perhaps even jeopardize the integrity of the government. I should therefore

like to advise you of what I have heard said, namely that the government is in the process of editing the report and screening an important part of the document from the public, more specifically the part that deals with pensions, the recommendations on what is needed to bring private pensions up to date. In any event, the government has been ordered to table the report. A month and three days have now elapsed since the House passed a motion under Standing Order 43 to that effect. If, as I do, you consider that this constitutes a breach of the respect in which this House must be held and of the right of all hon. members to information, I reserve the right to table the appropriate motion in due course.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. In an endeavour to be helpful, let me say two things; first, that when the motion under Standing Order 43 was passed by this House the report itself was already out of my hands. I had assumed the matter had been proceeding in its normal fashion. I can only assume there must be some mechanical cause for delay. I will undertake to investigate the matter and report to the hon. member and to the Speaker tomorrow.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: In light of the explanation of the minister, and the fact that the matter brought up by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin) seems indeed to be justified, I wonder if the House leader could promise, on behalf of the government, because we are dealing here with a resolution passed unanimously by the House of Commons, to consult his colleague, the minister, and table the report involved without further delay since the House ordered the government to do so several days ago and no one has yet taken upon himself to table it. Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances, it is up to the House leader to act and see to it that whatever resolutions are passed unanimously are acted upon.


Walter David Baker: The hon. gentleman's point is well taken. As I understand the exchange, particularly the comment by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), if there has been any delay it is only a mechanical delay rather than an attempt not to produce the report. I undertake to look into the question of the mechanical delay and perhaps I might speak with the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the
same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, it happens that the motion under Standing Order 43 which was passed on October 24 was in my name. I would remind the government House leader that on at least two occasions I asked him when that report would be brought down and he said, "Soon". When is "Soon"?
November 27, 1979



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to correct a statement I made in the House yesterday concerning the capping of rental charges. I have since been informed by my staff that the break between the $35 a month cap and the $50 a month cap does not come at a certain rank but at a certain income, which is $1,300 a month, that being the income of the corporals. The corporals will be capped at $50 and not at $35, as I said yesterday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Regional Development-Mr. Brisco.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Finance, and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I now table a document in both official languages showing indexing provisions for personal income tax deductions for the taxation year 1980.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OF "POSITION PAPER: THE REFORM OF PARLIAMENT"
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the standing orders and practice of the House and its committees, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the proposals contained in the document entitled "Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament" tabled Friday, November 23, 1979, (Sessional Paper No. 311-4/47), and to recommend such changes as the committee considers necessary.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is a motion standing in my name which you were about to call. Would it be appropriate to transfer that now to government orders?
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Tuesday, November 20, 1979, be concurred in.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 49, 408 and 411.


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


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1.	(a) Dr. W. G. Schneider (b) Mr. P. J. Choquette
Mr. W. A. Cumming Dr. B. A. Gingras Mr. K. Glegg
2.	(a) DM2-equivalent salary range-$55,600-$72,400 (b) V.P. salary range-$45,500-$60,300

November 27, 1979
Order Paper Questions POPULATION OF CANADA


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the total population of Canada on March 31, 1979 and (a) how many were (i) female (ii) male (b) how many (i) female (ii) male persons were there between the ages of 60 to 65 years?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: (a)
According to Statistics Canada's most recent preliminary post-censal estimates, the size of the total population of Canada as of April 1, 1979, was 23,644,800, As for population estimates by age, the most recent estimates available are those for June
1, 1978:
(a)	Total Population:	23,482,600(i)	Total females (all ages):	11,808,500(ii)	Total males (all ages):	11,674,100(b)	(i) Females (aged 60-65):	567,900(ii) Males (aged 60-65):	515,500


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): On March 31, 1979, what was the total number of married women in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Statistics Canada reports the following: This information is not available for the March 31, 1979, reference date. Statistics Canada's most recent population estimates by marital status are those for June 1, 1978, which indicate that there were 5,525,100 married females in Canada as of that date.


David Kilgour: Would you be so kind, Mr. Speaker, as to call starred question No. 384?


Mr. Evans: 1.	What is the annual budget for the office of the Minister of State responsible for C1DA for (a) staff (b) furnishings (c) others?
2.	(a) What is the source of such funds (b) did such funds come from the Departmental budget of CIDA, from aid funds or from other budgetary sources associated with the department?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The annual budget for the office of the Minister of State for CIDA for a full fiscal year is as follows:
1. Exempt staff	$125,000
Regular staff	$ 77,500
Other	$200,000
Expenses included under "other" include professional services and consultants, hospitality, postage, printing, travel, telephones, duplicating, and materials and supplies.

The one time only set-up costs of the office of the Minister of State for CIDA for the 1979-80 fiscal year are as follows:
Construction costs	$ 44,000
Furnishings and equipment	$ 32,400


[Stage Direction]
The construction costs have been approved by Treasury Board but no work has yet begun but completion is expected by March 31, 1980.
2. The source of funds is from the CIDA administration budget.
David Kilgour: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 26, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-20, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday in this debate, in my opinion Bill C-20 is the most inequitable, inefficient and expensive package of tax credits we have ever had to discuss in this House. I want to make it clear in my remarks that although it favours certain Canadians and certain problems of ownership, it certainly does not address itself to the problem of affordability of homes. Nor does it address itself in any shape or form to helping those who today have the problem of paying for their shelter and meeting expenses which sometimes go through the roof.
We are told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that if we do not pass this bill by Christmas, an election will be called. I ask the minister in all honesty how he can expect Canadians and members of Parliament to support a measure which proposes to expend hundreds of millions, indeed billions of dollars from here to eternity, dollars which will come from somebody's pocket, and yet not tell members of Parliament or the Canadian public where he is getting that money and who is going to pay for the tax credit proposal which we have before us. This is a tax reduction for certain people.
November 27, 1979

There are two aspects to the bill, the tax credit proposals for mortgage interest deductibility and the support given by this bill to home owners so that they may have some relief in coping with increasing municipal taxes, and on those two questions I have different positions.
I was saying yesterday afternoon that the provisions of this bill must be paid for in some manner. It is of some concern to me that this program, designed for the benefit of a few, will be paid for by all. 1 assume that the government has not changed its mind and that it is still set on controlling and possibly on setting ceilings on federal expenditures, and I ask, how can the government do that? Therefore, I must conclude that this very expensive program of benefits will be paid for by savings in other areas, most probably in the area of social services, increased direct or indirect taxes, a reduction in programs and possibly cutting government services.
If I may be allowed to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never before have so many been called upon to pay so much on behalf of so few.
[ Translation]
As I was saying, Bill C-20 to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax is an inequitable measure for most Canadians. As a tax measure, it is unfair because of its selective application and its indifference to the true needs of Canadians in housing. Generally, it does not deal with the great problems of property, the great problems of housing that confront all Canadians, be it potential home owners who want to buy a house for their family or renters who must pay higher and higher prices for shelter. This measure does not help old age citizens, young households or widows or, in fact, the majority of Canadians, to support financially their housing needs in this inflation period.

This bill will fool no one in my riding. First of all, it is obvious that one must own a home in order to benefit from this bill. Statistics gathered during the last census in my riding demonstrate, and conclusively, the inherent inequities which would result from the passing of this bill. In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier almost two-thirds of the households are rental accommodations. Thus, this proposed act would discriminate against most of the people in my riding.
The inequities are even worse when we look at the situation in detail. Where males are heads of households 59 per cent own their own homes. Where females are heads of households in Ottawa, Hull and Vanier only 29 per cent own their own homes. Of female single parents, only 19 per cent own their homes. It is quite obvious that the fundamental inequities in this bill fall hardest on female heads of households.
Even owning a home does not provide any guarantee of benefits under this plan. If one has already paid for one's home, or for those home owners who are lower income earners, this bill will provide absolutely no benefits. This particular inequity will hit hardest the oldest and the poorest elements of our population.
Mortgage Tax Credit
To provide some perspective as to the extent of this inequity, it is estimated that only 32 per cent of all Canadian home owners will be able to take full advantage of this program. In my particular riding this means that only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of all households would receive any benefits from the mortgage interest tax credit.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), who is sponsoring this bill, is of course supported by all the Progressive Conservative members and with the forthcoming holiday season they are trying to trick Canadians into believing that they will play Santa Claus. They are trying to make Canadians believe that everyone should be happy about this bill. Like a true Father Christmas, the Minister of Finance takes great pleasure in congratulating and praising this government for this measure which is supposed to be a big Christmas gift for the Canadian taxpayer. He has conveniently forgotten to say that 5.5 million Canadian families will receive absolutely nothing for Christmas. Moreover, he is threatening us with elections if the official opposition does not agree to pass this bill before the holidays.


An hon. Member:: What arrogance!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It certainly is! Unfortunately, this type of arrogance and blackmail is not acceptable for those of us who have the duty to bring back down to earth the Minister of Finance who seems lost in the clouds, who is regarded as a buffoon rather than as a serious man by the voters, who is beginning to lose the confidence of many Canadians and whose credibility remains to be proven if it is not too late already.
Mr. Speaker, underprivileged Canadians are adamantly opposed to the Progressive Conservative bill proposed by the Minister of Finance as it is basically wrong, politically opportunistic, socially unjust and extravagantly costly for the country.


An hon. Member:: Typically conservative!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are not alone in rejecting this measure since housing experts have warned the minister against such action.

It is a phony election promise which was changed after the election, flip-flop, flip-flop, from a mortgage interest and home owner property tax deductibility to a mortgage interest and property tax credit plan. They are two completely different things.
The mortgage interest and property tax credit plan-and I will explain it-calls for a mortgage interest tax credit of 25 per cent of the first $5,000 of mortgage interest paid up to a maximum of $1,250, over four years. In addition, a $250

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
property tax credit will be available. The credit plan will be phased in, as I said, over a period of four years, and then for eternity. The maximum tax credit in the first year of the plan will be $302.50 for mortgage interest and $62.50 for property taxes. The credit will increase in four years, as I said.
The tax credit plan which we have before us is somewhat better than the original tax deduction proposal discussed by the Conservatives during the election campaign which, in my view, was the most regressive fiscal measure 1 have ever heard. Under the deduction proposal, benefits would have been in proportion to mortgage interest and property tax paid and, more important, at the taxpayer's marginal rate of taxation. Under the credit plan, mortgage interest paid and the amount of federal income tax paid are the principal determinants of eligibility and of benefit.
The property tax credit is available at a flat rate to all home owners if they pay federal income tax. It is simpler than the deduction mechanism proposed during the election by the Conservatives; it places no direct stress on federal-provincial tax agreements. In my own province of Ontario, for example, if the Conservatives had not done their flip-flop, Ontario would have lost $300,000 a year in revenue. This loss of revenue would have forced the province of Ontario to cut its spending further or increase its taxes. The proposal during the election would have reduced the provincial revenue by reducing the taxable income on which the provincial tax is based.
When faced with provincial resistance and opposition, the Conservative party and its leader flip-flopped on it and came in with this new proposal as the House began sitting in October. The stated objectives of this new plan, so far as I understand them, are that it will ease the burden of purchasing and of meeting the cost of a home and, secondly, it will stimulate the Canadian construction and home furnishings industries. I question those objectives and I want to explain why.
It is interesting to note that these objectives are considerably scaled down from the objectives set out during the election campaign when the Conservatives were telling us that their mortgage deductibility plan would assist families to purchase their own homes and make the Canadian income tax system at least as attractive as that of the United States, while at the same time they did not tell Canadians that the Canadian tax system is indexed to the cost of living whereas the American system is not. Third, it was to stimulate economic activity by increasing the after-tax incomes of home owners, and it was supposed to stimulate activity in residential construction and the home furnishing industries by an increase in demand for ownership of housing.
[ Translation]
The mortgage and property tax credits may be more efficient but it is not the best policy in the present situation. It is true that the tax credit will reduce home ownership costs and help families to buy a home. However, this plan is an inefficient mechanism as the tax credit applies to every household regardless of the size of the mortgage. In most regions, Mr. 
Speaker, the major obstacle to home ownership is still a prohibitive mortgage interest rate and there is nothing in this bill that might reduce the mortgage rate which now stands at 14% per cent.

The impact of mortgage interest rates on affordability can be illustrated by the recent rise in rates from about 11 per cent last July to the present rate of 14% per cent. In 1978, the average value of an NHA house was $44,844. With a mortgage rate of 11 per cent, a household with a reasonably secure income of $20,731 could afford to buy this house at a 25 per cent carrying cost, gross income ratio. With mortgage rates reaching close to 15 per cent, the household would now need an income of over $26,000. During the election, and subsequently, we were told repeatedly that this measure will stimulate the construction industry. I find it ironic that even this potential benefit has been negated by the recent exorbitant increases in interest rates. Did this contradiction in actions arise from a problem of communications between the inner and outer cabinet, or is it more a case of the left ear of the Minister of Finance not comprehending what his right ear has heard? Is this all part of some grand design, or merely the lack of any design whatsoever?
The point of this argument, Mr. Speaker, is that if the Tories want to do something about easing the burden of purchasing a home, it would make sense to target the plan at the major reason for the slippage in affordability, and that is rising mortgage interest rates.

As far as incentive is concerned, you just need to look at the residential housing market this year and our housing needs in Canada to realize that the Progressive Conservative government is totally insensitive to this particular and very important sector of our economy.
The residential construction market is in serious trouble and if the present government does not amend the bill in committee by adopting concrete and urgent measures to bring down sky-rocketing interest rates, it will go on record as having destroyed in less than six months any hope young families may have entertained of ever owning their own homes. It will discourage many Canadians from buying property and will also bear the awesome responsibility for an unacceptably high mortgage interest rate that will force many Canadians into foreclosure and personal bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, a cursory examination of Bill C-20 is all that is needed to realize that it is basically a discriminatory measure from which nearly 60 per cent of the people will suffer and which will allow unwise and inefficient use of our funds to deal with our economic and our housing problems. I remind you that five and a half million Canadians and households will get absolutely nothing from this Tory measure. This bill is discriminatory and represents bad economic management in an inflationary period with interest rates hovering around 15 per cent. Since May 22, Mr. Speaker, with an increase of nearly 4
November 27, 1979

per cent in interest rates, one million households have been taken out of the real estate market.
With mortgage interest rates running at about 14 per cent to 14.75 per cent, families will not buy homes. This is partly because of higher carrying costs which have eliminated 900,000 families from the ownership market, and partly because of expectations that mortgage rates will come down when this government is kicked out of office and replaced by sound managers. The additional carrying costs on a 25-year $55,000 mortgage taken at 14.75 per cent over one taken at 11 per cent for the same period of time, are $106 a month or $1,752 per year. This amount is added to the housing bill.
The result of these high rates is that the housing industry is experiencing a severe slump. Unemployment will be high in the construction industry, bankruptcies will increase, and the residential construction industries such as forestry products also will experience difficulties. Since residential construction multipliers are relatively high, the shock to the economy will be severe.
It is predicted that housing starts in 1980 will be at the lowest level since 1967. I think that is shameful. In the short term, there will be serious sectoral and economywide problems brought on by the fall of housing starts. In the long term, house prices may be higher than they otherwise should be, as builders who stay in the industry will have to recoup their losses and charge a higher risk premium for continuing in the industry.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives offer no assistance to those who must renew their mortgages at outrageous rates except to tell them that they have nothing for them and they will do absolutely nothing to help them. The rental market will also feel the effects as it is already showing a decrease of about 30 per cent in housing starts. Tenants will get nothing from this program.
As 1 suggested earlier, in my riding there are very serious disparities and very serious discrimination against older people, women and single-parent families. This bill discriminates against those who live in downtown areas because 60 per cent to 70 per cent of them are tenants. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that this program neither meets the urgent need to lower interest rates nor the housing needs of Canadian families. Bill C-20 represents an expenditure of $2.5 billion after four years and for every year after that. This bill represents for this year, 1979, an expenditure of $575 million.
As I asked at the outset, Mr. Speaker, where is that money coming from? This bill proposes to reduce federal taxes for maybe 30 per cent of the people. The question that needs to be asked is, who is going to pay for those lost revenues? There is no Santa Claus in Canada as far as I know. Are the people who benefited from the tax credit going to pay in some other
Mortgage Tax Credit
way either through a tax increase or the loss of services or a reduction in federal programs? Or is it rather to be all Canadians, whoever they are, including tenants, senior citizens, those who paid for their houses and do not have mortgages, the poor in society? They will have to pay for the deficit. They will have to make up for lost revenues.
In all good faith, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support that plan before we get an answer from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) who has the duty to give us a final answer as to how he is going to arrange the public moneys in order to make such a tremendous expense of $2.5 billion in four years.
Several people think, Mr. Speaker, that this government was probably elected on that famous election promise, this government that changes its mind like a weathercock in the wind depending on whether it is convenient or not. This government threatens the country with an election every time it is asked for some explanations and details on its policies and it expects that all members, who are answerable to their constituents, will remain quiet about a bill which contains so much inequity and injustice.
Indeed not, Mr. Speaker! We shall not expect jokes and antics from the Minister of Finance in the House, we want answers to our questions. We are going to ask a lot of good questions in committee, and we hope the minister will then be a little more serious.

The Liberal alternative would seek to achieve objectives which would reduce the affordability problems experienced by low income Canadians, reduce the short-term hardships caused by high mortgage interest rates for those who must renegotiate their mortgages, cushion rapidly increasing home operating costs caused primarily by energy price increases, and finally stimulate where needed the residential industry.
We must address ourselves to the real equity measures which are required, such as a national rental assistance program so as to afford relief to renters in our cities who pay up to 40 per cent of their gross income on rent. Approximately 65 per cent of elderly non-family renters are in need. A national rental assistance program for the elderly and single parent families would do much to reduce affordability problems. The government is silent on the needs of those who cry out for help and assistance at this time, yet it has the audacity to threaten to impose this bill, without amendments, upon the Canadian public. 1 personally favour the tax credit approach, but certainly I do not think the deductibility or tax credit allowed for mortgage interest is a favourable or very good measure.
In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier, we carry the third highest per household residential tax load in Ontario. This may come as a surprise to many members in the House, but the source I am using is a table prepared by the municipal finance branch, treasury and economics, of the province of Ontario in which households in Ontario are weighted according to the residential taxes per household. Ottawa comes third after Mississauga and Burlington. The tax per household is $720 per year. This

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
measure of affording our municipalities and our home owners some relief, in support of tax-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Does the hon. member have a question?


Mr. Stollery:: No. He is just a guy who has nothing else to do but shout at you.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you. I thought the hon. member had a question. If he has a question, I would be glad to answer it.
When this bill is in committee, I know it will receive close scrutiny by members of this House. If anything, I think a sunset clause should be considered if we are not to have this kind of bad legislation for the rest of our lives. We must look at taking some measures which at least give some hope that some day this inequity will be terminated.
There are more important alternatives to this kind of fiscal approach. It is absolutely irresponsible for anybody to entertain the thought or to try to tell us on this side of the House that this is a housing measure. It is not a housing measure. It will not build one house. It may be a tax measure. It reduces the taxes for some people, but the question begs itself: who is paying for this? I maintain that at this time in our economy we cannot afford this kind of tax credit bill.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-20. This is a particularly unattractive and, I might say, pretty madcap proposal in the current economic conditions of this country. It is a plan that is presented to the House of Commons as a sort of rehash of a totally inoperable program or proposal put forward by the Conservatives about a year ago. I must say it was particularly difficult to take this crazy scheme of a year ago, when it was first put forward, very seriously because it seems to have come from the tortured brains of the former and, I guess, current economic adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Jim Gillies, and his other tortured friend, formerly from Ottawa Centre, Mr. "de Cutback", who I think worked for the disgraced President Nixon as an economic adviser. He proved so inept here as a Canadian MP that his electors wisely threw him out after six months. These are the kinds of tortured, perplexed individuals who have given us this tax scheme which we all know is totally inequitable, unfair and uneconomic. This is a policy that will put into the Canadian tax system the inequities we all know are glaringly evident in the U.S. tax system.
Many of us resent the kind of nonsense that goes on over on the other side when they try to fool the Canadian population into thinking we have the U.S. tax system. They have taken a few little parts out of a tax system from another country and implied that that is the system we have in this country. Those people opposite think that if you take the attractive bits and pieces out of a bunch of tax systems and present them to a

population made up of people who are not, after all, tax experts, they will accept them. That is what they think.
I read the speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) when he proposed this bill last week. I noticed at the time he made that speech that he was reading from an article by David Greenspan. That was an article written last year on the original proposal which the government has now withdrawn. The Minister of Finance did not mention that the article he was reading referred to a proposal that is not before the House of Commons but one that the government has withdrawn.
I noticed also that the minister did not mention, and maybe he did not know, that our friend "de Cutback", before he was so wisely turned out by his electorate here in the city of Ottawa, worked with another Greenspan. I remember when the other Greenspan was made president of the council of advisers to the President of the United States. I remember that Greenspan and I would recommend to the Minister of Finance that he look into his background because it is very interesting. He is the only person I have ever come across-this is the other Greenspan-who in the 1970s was a friend and supporter of Ayn Rand. He was a close personal friend of Ayn Rand and a proponent of her theories on how nations should be run. He was actually made the president of the council of economic advisers to the then U.S. president, Mr. Nixon. I think it would be interesting for the Minister of Finance to read some of the comments of the New York Times at that time. I was pretty shocked that this could happen in a country like the United States with the economic problems it faces.
Here we have another attempt by the Minister of Finance, who seems to be a reasonable fellow. He must have had a terrible time trying to stop the government from doing some of the more goofy things it seems intent on doing. One can only credit the Minister of Finance, or possibly the officials in the Department of Finance who saw the inequities and the impossibilities of the unfair system proposed a year ago.
The government has now come up with Bill C-20 which is really a pretty short bill. The minister has actually attempted to persuade us that Bill C-20 is consistent with a plank in the Tory platform during the last election. I am sure that for many years Canadians will be reflecting on the convolutions and the contortions of this government. Plasticman could not have invented some of the devious and manipulative schemes this government has come up with over the last few months. After six weeks or two months we have yet to see any kind of an economic program for Canada, but we have these convoluted, plastic proposals which are totally inconsistent with the times we live in, and they are supposed to hoodwink the Canadian electorate into thinking this government is consistently giving them what they were promised during the election campaign. I recommend to hon. members when they are addressing themselves to these kinds of programs that they look up the definition of "nostrum" in the Oxford dictionary. It is, "a medicine prepared by a person recommending it, a quack remedy, patent medicine, a pet scheme for political or social reform, or a panacea". I like "quack scheme" the best, because if ever there was a quack scheme presented in my time this
November 27, 1979

certainly is it, and the minister presents it to us with the crazy hope that we will actually go along with it. He hopes we will just say: "Gee, we certainly do not want to vote against that. We will just go along with it. We cannot understand the possible implications of an unfair tax system in Canada so we will just vote it in." Then the minister threatens us. He threatens those of us who had the dubious distinction of listening to members of the then opposition telling us how we were throttling Parliament. They have the dubious distinction of telling us now that if we do not accept this bill right away we are going to have an election. I guess that is the kind of attitude we will have to learn to live with around here for the next while.
Again we note the totally different attitude taken by this group of characters who have become the government. I remember in the last Parliament filibusters on Petro-Canada. I remember how they viciously opposed Petro-Canada as an instrument of Canadian energy policy. For three months we could not get the bill through the House of Commons. Now they present a major tax measure without giving us a budget, without giving us any indication of what kind of economic programs they are offering this country, and with no idea as to what approach to economic circumstances is required. We have an energy crisis with the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) caving in to the provinces, as reported in every newspaper we pick up, with a gradually quickening dissolution of the central government.
In these circumstances what do we get? The government gets us involved in municipal tax cuts. Talk about the community of communities! Do Canadians really understand-I point out that half a million fewer Candians voted for this scheme than those who voted for it-that this government would not only preside over the dissolution of the central government of Canada, but actually involve itself in municipal taxes? Does the government have any idea what this policy has led to in the United States? It is worse than a tax measure which takes from the poor, or from older people who have bought and paid for their houses and who pay taxes. These people will be paying for this scheme. People who live in apartments and who happen to like apartment living will not be able to make a claim, but they will be paying for this scheme. There are people across this country whose economic conditions are such that they will not be able to take advantage of this scheme, but they will be paying for it.
This scheme is already bad enough for the reasons 1 have just mentioned, but it is actually worse than that. It is a particularly evil tax measure because it alters the Canadian tax system fundamentally. It takes the worst elements of the U.S. tax system and instils them into the Canadian tax system. It take the worst distortion and puts it into the Canadian tax system. I hope that the finance minister and his government do not think that I will vote for this proposal. If the only way that I could win an election would be to go out and tell people that I was going to give them something that is the worst or the greatest evil that could possibly be taken out of the U.S. tax
Mortgage Tax Credit
system, and in particular the municipal tax elements, then I would not run.
There are people who live 100 miles from any major city in the state of New York, on a practically empty lot with no proper sewage, no electricity, nothing but a fire engine, and who pay $2,200 in municipal taxes because they can write a percentage of it off. The municipality raises the taxes and the people write the taxes off. This is a government that has talked of creating efficiency in government, but is that what they call efficiency? They have given us a scheme which encourages every municipal council in Canada not to be efficient.
1 hope that the government will reconsider and realize what they are doing. This policy will have a very serious long-term effect on the Canadian economy. This is not a tax incentive to an industry or some sector of the economy in order to create jobs. Everybody knows that not one job will be created by this tax measure. Interest rates are so high in this country that the construction industry has come to a complete halt. It will not create one job.
If one asks for the information from the Toronto Real Estate Board he will find that in that city, which has a great deal of excellent housing, house prices are going up, not in areas which have the least expensive housing but in the parts of the city which have the most expensive housing. This is because people are moving to the centre of the city due to the cost of transportation and energy, and are paying more to live near their work place. In terms of economic effect and job creation, this scheme is an absolute zero.
It can be argued that this scheme is inflationary. This government talks about fighting inflation, yet they pass an inflationary tax measure.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: They rob the poor.


Peter A. Stollery: They rob the poor, as my colleague has pointed out. I would like to take a moment to go over the figures on who will benefit from this scheme which the Minister of Finance provided a week ago Monday. The figures are being disputed, but the minister says that 3.8 million households will benefit from this program. With regard to the mortgage interest aspect of the plan, 2.3 million people will benefit and 1.5 million people will benefit from the property tax credit. In terms of Canadian economic history, this proposal is the worst thing that the government could bring forward at this time.
The minister skips over the fact that 6.6 million families in Canada will not be eligible for the program. He dismisses these people by saying that renters are students and that sort of thing. The largest apartment building in Canada, I believe, is in my constituency in central Toronto and it has 1,000 people living in it. Many of these people have lived there for some time, and they are not necessarily waiting to buy a home. I would say that many of them are there because of marital problems. When a marriage breaks up, the two parties often move into apartments in the central part of the city. They have experienced a difficult adjustment period. What does the government do for these people? It taxes them, penalizes them

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
and leans on them for having dared to move to the centre of the city, for whatever the reason may be.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Punished them.


Peter A. Stollery: Yes, they are being punished by this government. This government is not good at very many things, and I cannot at the moment think of anything nice that they are good at. They are certainly very good at punishing people who, for reasons beyond their control, find themselves in some form of difficulty. For example, older people whose incomes are not high enough are told by the Prime Minister to tighten their belts. This government penalizes the people who can least defend themselves.
It is worth pointing out to Canadians that while this government is in power they should never put themselves in a weak position or be a member of a group that cannot defend itself vigorously. This government operates more or less as a public relations firm which identifies certain little groups and says, "If we give them some money, we don't have to worry about the other people because they can't defend thenselves". That is the kind of approach which this government takes.
Two months after Parliament has reconvened, we still do not have a budget. We have a proposal made in total isolation from the broader economic scene in this country, a proposal that will probably be, as I have said, inflationary and which is copied from the U.S. tax scheme.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: A bad copy.


Peter A. Stollery: A bad copy. I know that other members have brought up the question of fairness and the fact that this scheme is inequitable. I just want to go over it very briefly once more. This scheme will not create one job. It is probably inflationary. This scheme is a fine, a penalty against people who have paid for their homes and who will pay for the scheme. It is a penalty, a fine, against older people who have for some reason sold their homes because they were too large to keep. It is a penalty against widows in large centres many of whom, if not most, decided at some point to sell their houses because they were too much trouble to keep up and who then moved into apartments. These people are going to be penalized and fined by the government. This is a fine against anyone who happens to like living in an apartment. It is a fine against anyone who wants to live, as has become fashionable, in the downtown areas of our large and great Canadian cities.
The minister in his remarks on Monday of last week spoke about this being a measure to help urban people. He said that for the first time this was a measure not meant for suburban people or people in developments, it was meant for urban people.
I represent an urban constituency. The minister also pointed out that members of his party from urban communities supported this measure. There are not too many members of his party from the central parts of Canadian cities. We all know what happened to "de Cutback'' after his six months. We all

know what happened to the sixth-month member from Eglin-ton and the six-month member from Parkdale. Those are parts of urban centres whose residents do not think the scheme was so hot. In any of those ridings you will find thousands of homes paid for by the owners, and in many cases these owners have lived in them for many years. These people saw through the scheme. They knew they were going to get penalized. They knew this during the election campaign. They knew that they were the group that had been identified by these characters over here, and by "plasticman", the convoluted, slipping-through-the-keyhole character that we now have for our Prime Minister. They knew that this group has identified sectors in the community to be penalized, sectors where, if you put a little group together, you would squeeze through even though half a million less voted for them. They knew that and they know it still.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: This gentleman over here-I do not know his name or where he comes from-certainly has a loud mouth. He will not be here long. I ask him to keep it down while I finish my remarks.
I can only say that those of us on this side of the House who try to keep abreast of what this government is not doing are waiting. We are waiting for a decision on energy policy. We are waiting for a budget. We are waiting for the conditions to be evolved that will finally bring down interest rates which the Minister of Finance insists are so temporary.
We read articles in economic journals about interest rates. I quote from such an article the following:
Mr. Peter Sternlight, the man in charge of open market operations at the New York Fed, met dealers in government paper who trooped to Liberty Street for enlightenment with the honest but unnerving reply that "we are in the midst of a learning process ourselves."
This is the attitude that has given us the highest interest rate in the shortest time in Canadian history. We would like the Minister of Finance who is, after all, in charge of the sixth largest economy in the western world to expose us to just some of his original thoughts, to some idea of what kind of economic program he is going to give us. Would he please stop his colleagues in cabinet from giving us one more of these totally irrelevant buy-off-the-voter programs'? Though one question the need for increased deficits at this time in our economic history, one certainly wonders about the $3 billion expense here, and one certainly knows full well that the $3 billion is going to come from people in the lower income groups in this country. One wonders about that. On the other hand, if a tax cut was proposed in the context of a larger economic picture where we could see some benefit-not just giving people money, not just running the printing presses but as part of an economic program, which the current government said it would bring in, if we could see something like that, then there are those of us who might consider voting for it.
I cannot in all honesty tell my constituents that I support the government in proposing a scheme which very few in my area can possibly benefit from, but which nearly all of them will be
November 27, 1979

paying for until the government comes forward with proposals based on more sound principles. I can assure hon. gentlemen opposite that there will definitely be an election sooner than later. I can tell them now that the Canadian people will not stand for a government that lets weeks go by and proposes nothing, except trying to buy-off sectors of the community. I can assure hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite that that cannot be allowed to continue. Those of us on this side will do our best vigorously to ensure that the Canadian electorate, and people who cannot see through these schemes as quickly as they should at times, are kept well informed. It all bodes very ill for the government, but sadly for the Canadian people.
We are now in the opposition. Some of us like myself were quite a few years over on the other side, longer than will be some members there now.


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Peter A. Stollery: We think that Canada is a great country that requires coherent government. Just because we are not in government does not mean that we do not want to see Canada governed well. We want to see Canada have a government that has some ideas and things to offer the Canadian people. This is the great tragedy that we are living through. I can only hope that this tragedy does not continue any longer.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will be able to put into concrete terms many of the suggestions that were made in the last speech and use another style to present them.
We are in a very serious situation. I wish to begin my remarks on Bill C-22 by situating the debate on this legislation within the broader issue of providing decent housing and adequate living standards for all Canadians. Surely everyone here agrees that shelter is a fundamental human need, and therefore in a society as blessed with material resources as ours it should be a fundamental social right of all our citizens. It is incumbent upon governments at all levels to see that this human right of Canadians is respected and acted upon. That that has not been the case in the past is all too apparent to anyone who opens his or her eyes and ears. 1 hope that we can discuss these problems and their solution with open minds and hearts.
We do not need a recital of statistics to know that there are still many Canadians who do not enjoy the quality of housing to which those of us more fortunate are accustomed. We need only visit and talk to people in the north, on Indian reservations, in our inner cities and depressed regions to know that this is so. In Canada right now there are millions of people living in substandard housing, millions who are having great difficulty bearing the carrying of operating costs on their homes, and still millions of others who are having to give up their dream of owning their own home.
1 am not saying there has been no progress in housing production in recent decades. It is certainly true that Canada
Mortgage Tax Credit
comes off very well when compared to conditions in countries in the Third World, conditions with which I am personally familiar. I would like to speak for a moment to the type of housing in which most of the world now lives.
In the area of South America where I spent a number of years of my life, northeast Brazil, the standard house was the kind of house that most people now on this planet have as their house. It is literally made out of sticks and mud with a thatched, palm leaf roof, lacking what we call the basic necessities of what makes it possible to live a human life. It is a dwelling with a mud floor, without furniture, bedding, water or sanitation, and by its very nature is a trap for disease. It is a dwelling with rats, lizards and insects.
I wish to give a case in point to illustrate this reality. For many of the people in that area their house was literally a death trap. When the mud dries on the walls, there is a little insect called the barbeiro which crawls into the cracks in the mud walls. At night it comes out and bites those who are there. The next day these people do not know they have been bitten. However, the insect has deposited in their very bodies the seeds of death. It is a kind of fluke, a little bug that travels through the bloodstream and finally ends up in the heart. It eats out the interior of the heart and ten to 12 years after the person has been bitten, he withers away and dies.
I make this point now not because there is this type of bug in Canada but because one of my colleagues who now works in the inner section of Montreal told me that, on returning to Canada after working with me for six or seven years in northeast Brazil, he was surprised there was such a similarity between the housing for the poor in Montreal and the housing for the poor in northeast Brazil. Canadians must remember that these kinds of miseries exist in our midst.
It is true that in Canada we have succeeded in building a large housing industry, but we have done much less in seeing to it that the benefits from this increase in enterprise and production are available to everyone at a reasonable and affordable cost as a matter of social right. Moreover, while governments, federal and provincial, have sought to assist and stimulate this industry through various tax and fiscal measures, through programs and agencies bearing a plethora of acronyms such as HUDAC, AHOP, MURB, CHIP, GPM, NIP, RRAP-so many words have been put together to disguise some mode of acting that it is almost like having to learn a new language-these programs have done much less well at ensuring that these budgetary measures, programs and agencies were in fact meeting the real housing needs of people, in particular the needs of low income earners or those who are, through no fault of their own, unable to support themselves and are those with special needs. Here I would mention the handicapped, students, pensioners, new immigrants, native people, people in the far-flung communities of the north and in remote, outlying areas. Let us take to heart that these are Canadians, people who live among us, our brothers and sisters who live in a situation that should not be tolerated in our country.

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
So far in this debate our Liberal and Tory friends, those representatives of the centre right parties of this country, have been more interested in scoring political points than in addressing the real housing needs of our people. That sort of partisan pettiness is not what motivates those of us who speak on behalf of our constituents through the New Democratic Party. It is not what motivates those who, with us, make common cause for a socially just housing policy for Canadians.
Earlier in the debate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) honoured us on this side of the House by referring to the opponents of his regressive and insensitive policies as an unholy coalition of baneful bureaucrats, raving radicals and "middle class trendies". In view of the minister's eloquent description of our social justice and equity-in a word, fairness-in Canadian public policy, I would like to quote, for the edification and enlightenment of members opposite, several sections from the pastoral message of the Canadian Catholic Bishops on the occasion of the Habitat 1976 conference in Vancouver. The bishops' pastoral message, entitled simply "Decent Housing for all", reads in part as follows:
Canada, despite its abundant wealth, has not yet managed to provide all of its population with a decent shelter. Here and there we have our own grey areas of substandard dwellings that call to mind conditions in developing countries. Particularly in large cities, behind a screen of skyscrapers, wide avenues sometimes conceal blighted areas teeming with newcomers, unemployed workers, low wage-earners or members of ethnic minorities. The development of suburbia has given rise to similar results. Alongside well appointed and serviced new residential areas are clusters of huts or shacks without essential services such as running water, adequate heating, transportation and sewers. In such marginal communities, the infant death rate is twice as high as the Canadian average. And that rate is higher still among Indians and the Inuit; strange contrasts between two worlds that face each other from afar and do not meet.
The bishops went on to say in the same pastoral letter:
To avoid swelling the ranks of the needy it will not be enough to build thousands and thousands of houses. We will first need to know where to build them, where to find the required capital, and what types of dwellings are necessary for human community. That is why Canada must urgently adopt policies calculated to protect its citizens, especially its low wage earners, against galloping inflation of house building costs.
Remember, this was written almost four years ago.
It must protect citizens against rising mortgage rates, real estate speculation, increased costs of building materials, higher rents, etc.
We all know these are the things we were warned about five years ago. They have become the reality of today because we let them get out of hand. I think I share with many members of this House and with the Canadian public at large an interest not only in the future of our country but in the future in general. We are only some 30 days or so away from the 1980s and in a few years we shall be face to face with the year which has been set before us as a kind of symbol of the future-1984. It is in this light that I should like to read one more section from the pastoral letter I have been quoting:
Of course, Canada in the year 2000 will be quite different from what it is now. What is really important is that it become the country Canadians want it to be. This all depends on our common dream and our collective ability to make that dream come true. Do we want a society whose over-all priorities will be determined solely on the basis of economic principles? Do we want a society which perpetuates social differences, discrimination between the affluent and the

destitute, between posh areas and slum-dwellings? Or would we rather have a society in which people are foremost? Our task, therefore, is to define clearly the links we wish between profit, consumption and the quality of life for us all: housing for people or housing for profits? Food for the hungry, or food as a market commodity? Thus, it is not that economic means are lacking: the problem is to find the will to restructure our society and reorder its priorities.
That is the end of the passage I have selected to read from that document because I believe it touches at the very base of the question.
We must have the will to do these things because it would seem we have the ability and the material. In addition to the document I have quoted I might have mentioned Peter Spurr's excellent study on land and urban development, the incisive review of Canadian social housing policy put out by the Canadian Council for Social Development, or the many recommendations of Canadian non-governmental organizations, a number of which were accepted but never acted upon by the Liberal government of the day, that decent housing be treated as a priority social utility and not as just another market commodity. Does the Minister of Finance really believe that all these distinguished individuals and organizations are just a bunch of extremists or misguided "middle-class trendies"? If he does, I would warn him that the language of petty insult is a very slim foundation on which to rest a government.
We in the New Democratic Party are not afraid of the verdict of the Canadian people on this issue. The Minister of Finance thinks he has a Christmas goody in his tax credits, but as long as this ill-starred government lasts we will credit the people of Canada with enough sense to see through his arrogance and bankrupt arguments.
Surely, the test of any government is how well it attempts to meet the needs of all the citizens it was elected to represent. And, surely, the measure of any single piece of legislation is how well it contributes to that noble goal of government. By that standard, Bill C-20 is a meagre and cynical effort indeed. The Minister of Finance has at least recognized the inequity of a tax deduction and changed it to a tax credit. As my hon. friend from Regina East (Mr. de Jong) has stated, we shall be moving amendments in committee to try to salvage something for the millions of ordinary Canadians who have been forgotten by this bill. We want a comprehensive social housing policy which will provide a mix of good, affordable accommodation capable of meeting the needs of all Canadians.
The minister has given us only a piecemeal sop to work with. His statement that our party does not want Canadians to own their own homes is patent nonsense and unworthy of a minister of the Crown. The fact is that his bill assists those who already have large mortgages, regardless of income, far more than it assists renters of modest means to enter today's prohibitive mortgage market. Coupled with the hon. gentleman's disastrous high interest rate policy, the net effect of this government's program will be a decrease in housing starts, not an increase as they pretend. All this for the sake of a foolhardy election promise, and all this without once addressing the real issues of affordability and equity.
November 27, 1979

I shall not repeat the excellent arguments of previous speakers from my party with regard to the many specific weaknesses of this bill, but I should like to call attention to several of the most glaring ironies that surround this ill-considered piece of legislation. Ever since taking power the government has been wringing its hands about the size of the federal deficit, which it blames on Liberal mismanagement. But after six months on the job what is the sum total of Tory brilliance as reflected in this paltry proposal before us? It is a tax welfare scheme which will do nothing for renters, the poor and the many older Canadians who have paid off their mortgages through years of hard work. It is a welfare scheme which will get us nowhere in terms of a fair social housing policy for people of all ages and means in every part of Canada, though it will commit the federal government to successively greater cash outlays amounting to billions of dollars in a few years.
The government is asking us to support a welfare band-aid which will not only be discriminatory, regressive and ineffectual but will be inflationary and a growing burden on the federal treasury to boot-the wrong kind of burden, I might add, because it is the kind of government spending which divides Canadians and which economists have shown to be a dismal failure from a cost-benefit standpoint. This sorry piece of legislation will not achieve its stated objectives but will be an albatross around the necks of governments to come, an albatross which will weigh heavily in future years, an albatross which we might classify as a Clark-Crosbie albatross, a "C-C" albatross, though not the kind of "CC" most Canadians would look for.
However, the government persists as though it is doing the voters a great favour. The government obviously thinks it is doing itself a great favour. In reality it is doing neither. Within the context of the government's total economic policy only marginal net benefits, if even that, will accrue to eligible voters who need assistance. On the other hand, all voters will have to pick up the tab for an increasingly wasteful and inefficient program. Furthermore, the government will have to find ways to get this money from those unfortunate voters who will not benefit at all from the program.
This bill is nothing more than a hidden tax expenditure which itself is a camouflage for what my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), has called the Tory "hidden agenda". We now see that the principle of universality in our social programs is being threatened. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) claims magnanimously that this would only be in order to have more money, better to meet the needs of low income Canadians. However, the Tories have next to nothing in concrete terms to offer low income voters except more of the same, more restraint and more hardship.
We are left with the concrete reality that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in the inner cabinet, but the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) are. Do they share their colleague's good
Mortgage Tax Credit
intentions, or are they, as is much more likely, already laying claim to the savings from cutbacks in social spending and in services to people? With this ill-conceived bill we can look forward to welfare redistribution all right, from progressive social policies to regressive fiscal ones, and this in the name of giving Canadians the forward looking change they voted for and deserve. It is time this strategy of the Tory party was exposed for what it is, a desperate attempt to win support by means of shoddy, half-baked measures without regard to their elemental unfairness or negative consequences.
We have been speaking about housing, and I appreciate that there is a great difference between a house and a home. Nevertheless, let us bear in mind that without adequate individual housing for families there cannot be homes. Our country and all countries are based on the principle that we live in homes and that we have a place in which there is not only shelter from the elements but also love, care and shelter from the problems of the world.
This bill, which will help a small number of Canadians, leaves out the majority who need to have homes. I would like to bring to mind once more the fact that in our country we have a "third world" in which many Canadians live and which could become a greater part of our country unless a far greater effort is made toward creating situations and building dwellings in which we can have homes.
As a last thought I would like to leave this House with the idea once more that the albatross of the ancient mariner was what followed his doomed ship and finally brought about its destruction. The albatross we have spoken about, the albatross of Bill C-20, could certainly do the same to our land.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my view on Bill C-20. At first thought, this legislative measure seems very sensible. Its objectives are acknowledged by everybody. Every Canadian should have the possibility to take steps to own a home in his lifetime. The high cost of housing has taken away the hope of many ever to acquire a house.
This bill, however interesting it may be, is not without any flaws. The bill favours those who are in a financial position which allows them to own homes; that is to say, the better off. The bigger the mortgage you can afford, the bigger the discount from your tax bill. Half of the householders in the country are not home owners. They will not be helped in any way to buy homes. They will get nothing from the bill. There are also in this country a million home owners who are too poor to pay the bulk of their taxes. Some people of 60 years of age and over still live in their homes, and it is their right to do so. They will get nothing from the bill.
In short, what I want to say here is that the poor are left behind by the government. The poor will stay poor. And what about young families? They have little hope of acquiring homes in a short period of time. Interest rates are almost out of control and have reached a point which is not acceptable. Young families also get nothing from the bill.
1750

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
This bill, then, is a measure which can be criticized for numerous aspects. It helps middle income families a lot but does very little for low income families who will probably never have the chance to own homes.
Mr. Speaker, as a Quebec representative, I must say that I am deeply concerned about this bill. Indeed, as everybody knows, the largest number of tenants are found in Quebec. Thus, a survey conducted by Statistics Canada last spring has shown that fewer than half of Quebec households lived in their own homes, while in Ontario that percentage is 62 per cent. This means therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is not only to the disadvantage of the less privileged owners who do not pay income tax but also of tenants.
Indeed, Statistics Canada figures show that 200,000 low-income owners do not pay any federal tax. On the other hand, 2 million households will only get small amounts because their income is low and they pay very little tax. All things considered, according to those statistics, about 3 million households will benefit from those political measures. Let us not hide the fact that Bill C-20 is a political bill resulting from many Conservative election promises.
The government forgot to say during the election campaign that 200,000 low-income families that own their homes, some of which are mortgaged, will not be entitled to any tax credit, because they do not pay enough tax in other words, because they are not rich enough to pay tax. The Progressive Conservative scheme provides that the tax credit obtained by an individual may not exceed the amount of federal tax he would normally pay. In other words, a small wage earner who only pays $200 in federal taxes will only be allowed a maximum $200 tax credit, even if he is burdened with a huge mortgage.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, I think it is sad that these measures were not also intended for tenants who are among the victims of high interest mortgages. Everybody knows that these costs as well as property taxes are reflected in the rent tenants pay. On December 17, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said he had not promised anything to tenants, which clearly shows that this is a political measure that has not been thoroughly considered since Bill C-20 contains no improvement when compared with the rather vague promise made during the campaign.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in Montreal, among other cities, 80 per cent of the population lives in rental accommodation. It is therefore certain that the effects of this bill will not be felt very deeply in the largest city in the country. In the last few months, very relevant studies which would have been worth studying have been made by various interest groups. I think it is deplorable that none of these suggestions was retained. So I can hardly see how the minister can claim that an indirect consequence of these measures will be an increase in the

construction of homes. If that is the case, it will happen in some privileged city and not in Montreal island or in the remote areas of Quebec like my riding, the lower St. Lawrence River area and Gaspe where average earnings are nowhere near those of Rosedale or Westmount.
As for the owners, who are among the lucky ones and who will benefit from these measures, of course the tax credits will be welcome. As for those who can now afford to buy a house and face the highest rates of interest on record, the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance will only compensate them for the cost of high interest which has reached an unacceptable level. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote an editorial published in the paper La Presse, written by Mr. Yvan Guay on September 19 last, in which he very ably describes the dilemma I spoke of in dealing with the successive increases in interest rates these last few months. The writer says, and I quote:
Current tax credits will do much less to stimulate construction than to increase the profits of banks and lending institutions. Though no home owner will complain about lighter taxes, the majority of the people will feel frustrated, because the stated purpose of those tax credits proves to be nothing but a pretext. Mr. Clark and his team, in order to get into power, produced a fireworks of promises without ensuring that they were economically realistic.
It is absolutely mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker, when one realizes that once again big financial institutions will make the profits. Personally, I feel this bill will make more malcontents than happy people.
Quebeckers, the majority of whom are tenants, are therefore losers in this bill and, as 1 have already said, the latter will have no special effects on the Quebec housing industry. To illustrate how precarious its position is, let me quote a few figures on the Quebec Housing Corporation. In 1978, the corporation granted $3,409,000 in loans for 152 housing units, which represented investments of $4,042,000. For 1979, that is January to October, corresponding figures were 15 housing units and loans of over half a million dollars, for a total investment of $2,789,000. However, lending institutions took on the major part of that financial activity. In 1978, they granted loans amounting to $260,636,000 for 7,969 housing units. To this day, that means loans totalling $170,284,000 for 4,676 housing units.
Therefore, banks and financial institutions pervade this market. They take advantage of high interest rates to make huge profits at the expense of small and medium wage earners. As a measure of justice, we propose therefore that a home ownership savings plan be set up to make it possible for the medium wage earner to buy his own home. Such a measure would alleviate the negative effects of this bill on tenants and medium wage earners who want to buy a house but are prevented from doing so by economic conditions. The existing home ownership savings plan has been greatly appreciated in the past by the Canadian people and has enabled young couples to save enough money to buy a home.
November 27, 1979

From a strictly social and human point of view, it is important that every family should look forward to owning its own home. Unfortunately, this objective is becoming increasingly elusive because of worsening economic conditions. It is therefore important that the government help young couples to buy a home, and it will not do so with this bill. That is why we feel the government should seriously consider amending the present home ownership savings plan. Such changes could result in raising the present ceiling according to a given income scale in order to favour lower income families.
A national housing policy which does not give people the means of buying a home makes no sense and is ineffective. We of the Social Credit party of Canada have always said that the present system does not promote human dignity nor afford families the opportunity of having their own home. Present high interest rates prevent many low-income families from pursuing their dream. Those who, at the cost of great financial sacrifice, do get into debt to achieve their legitimate goal of owning their own home have no idea of the tremendous profits financial institutions are making at their expense.
Last year, chartered banks saw their profits go up by 58 per cent in some cases. At that time, I asked the then Minister of Finance to look into the matter. Shortly after, he told us that the superintendent of banks, after considering the matter, had found nothing unusual. Today, the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is telling us that the rise in interest rates will have positive effects in the long term. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, am I to infer that succeeding governments in Ottawa are powerless or rather that they are resigned to a situation which undermines the initiative of the average Canadian and of low-income families which have the legitimate right at some point in their lives to own their own home?
I find it sad that the bill will favour those who need it the least. I should like to hear government spokesmen comment upon possible amendments to the home ownership savings plan or make new proposals for low-income families that wish to buy a house, that are prepared to sacrifice something else for it but need only a little help from the government which once had the monopoly of election promises.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that we are not against the fact that 3.8 million Canadian taxpayers will benefit from this program, but we are particularly concerned about the fact that, for all practical purposes, almost one million Canadians will be excluded from the housing market because unprecedented interest rates push the purchase of a house beyond their means. To take advantage of the Progressive Conservative program, one must already own a home, hold a mortgage and pay taxes. Therefore, there is no social justification for this bill, since the 200,000 people who own a home, perhaps have a mortgage, and do not earn enough to get the tax credits, will be left out of the provisions of this bill.
Mortgage Tax Credit
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall that it is the duty of a government to protect minorities and the poor. In my opinion any government failing to do that is remiss in its responsibilities. Bill C-20 is entirely defensible in its substance but particularly incomplete and unfair in its form.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate at this time and to say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), who introduced Bill C-20, that I am not at all happy with his proposal, that I cannot agree with the ways he wants to use to promote home ownership in Canada. It is a good principle, of course, a noble principle, a noble purpose to want to encourage Canadians to become home owners, and I think governments-federal as well as provincial and municipal-should adopt measures to facilitate access to ownership and encourage Canadians who want to become home owners. But the means being sought by the new Progressive Conservative government to reach that goal are wrong. Obviously Bill C-20 offers a mortgage interest and property tax credit and is going to relieve and help some Canadian owners. That mortgage interest tax credit, of course, is going to help those who already own their homes and already have a mortgage on them. Unfortunately, the nonowner will not get any direct benefit, and the pious wish of the Minister of Finance that this measure will urge Canadians to rush over to the real estate agent to buy a home is entirely without foundation.
I do not see how any individual, on the basis of this bill which is going to allow him to deduct a few dollars from his taxes this year, could decide to buy a home today. We know that since the Progressive Conservative party took over, interest rates in Canada have shot up at an unbelievable and unacceptable rate. And the same Minister of Finance pushes Bill C-20 and tries to make hon. members and all Canadians believe that his measure, which does nothing more than extend a tax credit to a few Canadians who already own a home, is going to put the residential construction industry back on its feet. That does not make sense, and the Minister of Finance knows it very well. His proposal is not going to inject new life into the construction industry. Nobody faced with 14 per cent, 15 per cent or 16 per cent interest rates now being sanctioned by this Minister of Finance is going to rush over to his real estate agent to buy a new property because, although he may get some $300 from the Minister of Finance, he will have to pay twice or three times as much in outrageously high interest rates approved by the Progressive Conservative government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the proposal of the Clark government is unacceptable. If, for the noble purpose of encouraging Canadians to become home owners, we use the means suggested by the Minister of Finance, I believe that we will be making a mistake because this measure is completely wrong and unacceptable and should be rejected by the House of Commons. The Minister of Finance even had the

November 27, 1979
Mortgage Tax Credit
audacity to threaten the members of this Elouse with the idea of an early election if the House of Commons does not pass this bill before Christmas. In my opinion, this is despicable behaviour on the part of someone who should have some authority and be a bit more serious about his duties as Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: It is arrogance!


André Ouellet: One of my colleagues says that it is arrogance. It certainly shows arrogance on the part of a government which has just received a mandate from the Canadian voters and which is now threatening to hold another election if the members of Parliament who were democratically elected go on too long or take too much time to express their views on this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this government did not receive an absolute majority at the last election and has no right to treat us in so cavalier a manner by threatening us and the Canadian population with the idea of holding another election if this badly designed, badly planned and useless little bill is not accepted by the Liberal opposition, the New Democratic opposition, and even the Social Credit opposition, since a few of its members have rightly noted the serious weaknesses of this bill.
I would therefore say to the Minister of Finance that he would be much better to review his position and recognize that the plan announced by his leader shortly before the election was not a good idea. Of course, the promises by the Prime Minister before the election have been abandoned and this plan has been considerably amended, but even though it has been amended, Bill C-20 is still extremely shaky and unfair to too many Canadians for us to accept it, as the official opposition in this House, without pointing out its weaknesses and especially without asking this government to make many other amendments. In fact, we believe that this bill does not meet the objective, perhaps quite legitimate, of the government to promote home ownership. On the contrary, because of the means suggested by the government, it only creates more difficulties and more distortions in the Canadian housing market and considerably hinders the freedom of action of the Minister of Finance for preparing the next budget he is expected to table in December.
It is evident to me that this legislation is quite incomplete. Indeed, it is aimed at the privileged few, those who are rich enough to own property, the last ones who should be helped under these circumstances.
I see it is five o'clock. I shall resume my comments at the next opportunity because I would like to put forward a much better alternative to this government measure.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni)-Health and Welfare-Vivisection of human foetuses; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)- Agriculture-Inquiry whether minister received representations from Quebec for reduction in poultry imports; the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-External Affairs-Aid in construction of frozen fish plants in Senegal-Government position.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-202, in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with Bill C-202, in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, and that order No. 1, Bill C-201, be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: that Bill C-202, to amend the Statistics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the struggle to create more open government which recognizes that public information belongs to the public, it is also important to limit public information gathering that employs compulsive and coercive methods in acquiring non-criminal information from private citizens. Surely an open society also implies voluntarism. Surely a free society neither implies, nor practices, compulsion and coercion toward its individual parts.
November 27, 1979

I can appreciate the desire of the government to have all possible information at its disposal in order to ensure that its decisions are empirically grounded. However, when you weigh that limitless knowledge against the equally total destruction of an individual's personal privacy and integrity, the price becomes too high.
I agree with the view that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also a government that is big enough to take everything you have.
Section 29 of the Statistics Act provides for criminal prosecution of those individuals who refuse to answer StatsCan survey questions. The penalties are up to $500 in fines, three months in jail, or both.
Why are these legal sanctions so onerous and how do they make StatsCan surveys ultimately counterproductive? Section 29 of the Statistics Act provides a legal justification for a blatant invasion of personal privacy.
The family expenditures survey, which we nearly moved toward last March, is typical of the excessive demands made upon the time and the privacy of the individual. Let me give a few examples. The question on family expenditure on home repairs and maintenance alone was broken down into 21 subsections. These dealt with wallpapering, painting, gutters, etc., down to the smallest detail. Small electrical appliances required more than 17 subsections. Clothing expenses were dealt with in a mere six pages. Not only that, other questions asked about things like how much money each householder lost in wages, payment of fines, deposits, thefts in a year, how much money was held in savings, what the value of insurance policies and real estate holdings was. These questions certainly are not in the realm of "trivial". They are, indeed, highly personal in nature. Moreover, the interviewee is bound by law to answer them as accurately as he or she can.
Lest some of us believe that these fines lack teeth, that no one is ever prosecuted so we should just go ahead with this, I would like to draw attention to a problem encountered by one of my constituents, Mrs. Angela Sheremata. Mrs. Sheremata objected to certain questions on the seemingly innoncent 1976 population census form. For example, she saw no reason why she should have to indicate through what kind of entrance she went into her private living quarters. Because she received the more detailed form which is sent to part of the population each census, she was also requested to indicate, among other things, what her level of education was, how many hours she had worked for pay on her own farm, business or professional practice, which visitors had stayed overnight on May 31, and what was her telephone number. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if a person had been involved in a divorce case and required that information to be kept private, he or she would not have been able to do so.
In addition she was asked, should she have a privately listed telephone number-the reason for which in the beginning was to maintain privacy-to give the number, as a result of which that right of privacy would be lost. The government in fact requires you to reveal that telephone number and where you live.
Statistics Act Amendment
At any rate, she was asked to answer these questions, the answers to which she felt it was none of the government's business to know. What did she get for her belief in the sanctity of human privacy? She started out first by getting several letters from StatsCan threatening her with legal action, and finally the reality of court itself. It is amusing to realize that the case against Mrs. Sheremata was thrown out of court. The reason it was thrown out of court was that StatsCan had lost her file. That was amusing, yes, but the gravity of the situation should not be overlooked.
People have been prosecuted for refusing to answer Statistics Canada questions. Statistics Canada is in fact appealing the decision of the court in Mrs. Sheremata's case. It is not good enough to say that legal sanctions can be retained because they are hardly ever invoked. They are invoked in fact and in practice and they remain a threat to the fundamental human right to privacy of Canadians.
These kinds of questions become particularly onerous for rural respondents. Residents of rural areas often find that those conducting the interviews are their neighbours or close associates. It is understandable that a person would be reluctant to surrender information of a personal nature to someone the interviewee knew, yet this is what happens with StatsCan, and it happens across the country.
I have met interviewers who say that it is very interesting to get to know about your neighbours or about the neighbourhood community and about how people are living. While that information may be claimed to be private, I think practice has shown that leaks and so forth make this information readily available in many cases to many parts of our society.
Rural citizens are not the only ones who have cause for concern about the increasing detail of Statistics Canada surveys. Canadians in general are concerned about other ways by which the government is gathering information about them. Take, for example, the issue of social insurance numbers. Some feel that just having these numbers is an indication of the increasing depersonalization of our society. Others are concerned that social insurance numbers could be used for a more sinister purpose, that of contributing to a central file on each and every Canadian citizen. This central file has the potential to be comprehensive indeed. It would include personal economic information from income tax forms, information on activities for which social insurance numbers were necessary, and then, with StatsCan data, a wide variety of personal details on the citizen's lifestyle. It is no wonder that we are witnessing widespread opposition to the concept of social insurance numbers. It is easy to see that this opposition is a manifestation of a deeper distrust for government intrusion into the private lives of Canadians.
O)
We are now in a position which no government which aspires to democratic principles should find itself, that of defending itself against charges of intruding into the bedrooms, and indeed the bathrooms, of society. The government must attempt to justify that this is not simply an embarrass-

November 27, 1979
Statistics Act Amendment
ment. That people are led to question the integrity of government, to suspect the motives behind information gathering, suggests to me that government is viewed not as a benevolent administrator but as a "big brother". As the government passes a freedom of information act we should also have concerns regarding the protection of an individual's privacy and certainly of involuntary personal information gathered under protest and interconnected to computer systems. A freedom of information act needs a companion freedom of privacy act.
The argument we hear in justification of StatsCan surveys is that they provide us with the basic information necessary for public and private decision making, and for informed discussion of the public issues that concern Canadians. But how does Statistics Canada go about getting this basic information? The family expenditures survey, as 1 already mentioned, asked a multitude of questions about the various items and services Canadians spend their money on in a year.
Let us assume for the moment that such a detailed examination of the spending habits of Canadians is absolutely necessary for shaping economic policy. That is a big assumption, but let us for the moment accept it. Then, Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves who could accurately recall the amount of money spent on a particular item over a year? None the less, under section 29 of the present Statistics Act, they are compelled by law to give an answer. Somehow I doubt if this method encourages accurate or even honest answers. Yet the answers given are supposedly those which are used to chart Canada's economic future.
I think what I have just described provides a partial answer to another question: Just how valid are these detailed examinations of Canadians' spending habits for shaping economic policy? We have it on the authority of the former finance minister, while he held the post, that StatsCan could not be depended upon to provide a reliable estimate of Canada's economic growth. And the respected C. D. Howe Institute has also questioned the reliability of Statistics Canada figures. Inaccurate growth figures projected by Statistics Canada in the early 1970s formed the basis for government budget assumptions, which in turn led to government policy which actually created inflationary pressures. I think we are all aware of the consequences of that earlier government policy.
Many of these assumptions were based upon business statistics and not detailed household expenditures that I described earlier. However, if information from business sources poses such a problem for Statistics Canada, how can that organization be expected to cope with myriad details of personal family expenditures? My own feeling is that in the hands of government, to paraphrase Lord Acton, information corrupts and absolute information corrupts absolutely.
1 do not wish to give the impression that 1 am against the job for which Statistics Canada was created. We do indeed have a vital need for Statistics Canada. But it is also vitally important that those statistics, and the projections which are based upon them, be accurate ones. I do not believe that Statistics Canada can be expected effectively to fulfil its

mandate as long as its questions are so broad ranging and are backed by compulsive and coercive legal sanctions. How far will the details go and remain accurate and relevant? I am sure that most of the reports that were made from those very statistics are lying on shelves gathering dust somewhere and have not provided any real assistance to economic growth in Canada.
It is obvious that Statistics Canada and, by association, the government must regain the trust of the people. It is perfectly apparent to me that it cannot be done until we convince Canadians that the information we seek from them will be treated with respect and not abused. Statistics Canada guarantees that all information given by an individual will remain confidential. That guarantee, however, looks less impressive when information files are subsequently lost, and it looks almost useless when information files are sold by Statistics Canada employees. A citizen has enough cause to suspect the motives of government in asking personal questions without dishonest methods making him even more doubtful.
It seems to me that we should be seeking to inspire confidence in StatsCan so that Canadians will not be reluctant to respond voluntarily to survey questions. We already have cause to doubt whether StatsCan can even answer many of the questions it sets for itself. Perhaps it sets its goals too high, or perhaps we ask too much of it; but we must not expect that the situation will improve by compelling people to answer even more and more personal questions. StatsCan would be faced with a flood of details, and the citizen would wonder why the government wants personal information so badly that it will resort to legal sanction to back its demands. Whatever we hold the role of government to be, surely we do not give it the right to impinge upon the personal rights of citizens.
I would ask the House to consider my bill, which would remove the penalty on individuals for refusing to answer questions other than those pertaining to basic population census information. I feel that only from this first step can we as government re-establish the public's faith in StatsCan and in government itself. I ask also that we amend section 29 as it pertains to individuals, and in so doing remove an impediment to accurate and reliable statistical information. Let us begin to move toward renewed confidence by removing the threat and by taking the first step by voluntary response.
We are one of the fortunate few countries in the world to enjoy the luxury of a democratic system. Implicit in the notion of democracy is the faith of the people to know what is good for them. We trust the people to elect us and we abide by their choice. What we are doing in section 29 of the current Statistics Act is the equivalent of penalizing people for not voting. It is indeed a sad state of affairs when people cannot indicate their objection to an all-knowing central government agency for fear of prosecution. Are we really drawing so near to 1984?
By all means, encourage compliance with statistical surveys. But let us take a more positive approach than fining people for refusing to respond. Let us demonstrate the need for Statistics Canada and the benefit we can derive from an effective
November 27, 1979

statistical agency. We can only inspire confidence if we do not appear to be resorting to compulsion. Let us not insult the intelligence of Canadians. In the end we are only undermining the foundations of the parliamentary system if we deny the responsibility, right and privilege of privacy to the people.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out a change in wording which 1 intend to introduce into my bill when it is in committee. As the wording currently reads, an individual is not required to answer even those questions pertaining to the topics 1 specified on page 2 of my bill. My intention is to make it compulsory to answer those questions specified, and I will suggest the amended wording in committee.


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me say that I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). In addition, 1 would like to offer my personal congratulations to him for taking the initiative in bringing this private member's bill before the House for discussion and consideration on a matter which, I think we will all agree, is of paramount importance.
He has expressed a fear of the "big brother" complex which he believes the existing legislation may help create here in Canada among Canadians; the invasion of privacy which he feels is inherent in the current state of the law. He raises a number of problems which I would like to touch upon, because 1 think they are real, not perceived. I will subsequently deal with whether the amendment which the hon. member proposes to the Statistics Act is the right way to go at this stage. I would like to re-emphasize that I believe the matter is important, and the member indeed deserves to be congratulated for taking this initiative.
First of all, the issue of personal information is a very real one. 1 think all of us are concerned that some of the surveys may be requesting information which is not really required for the objects of the act or for what the act should really deal with. That raises a variety of considerations, one of which is whether the Statistics Act in terms of its objects, in terms of its purpose, in terms of where it is supposed to take us, should not be amended in a more meaningful way to further define those objects, rather than unnecessarily changing the nature of the sanction imposed upon people to whom surveys are addressed. In other words, we have to examine the issue as to whether or not we are requesting information under that act which should not be requested at all.
Another point though which was quite striking in the member's comments has to do with the extent of the burden which apparently is being imposed on Canadians in responding to these extremely complicated, complex forms. I believe the hon. member mentioned that with respect to family expenditure information there were something like 21 subdivisions on house improvements alone, on which the act as it presently stands would appear to permit a questionnaire. Not only that, it requires the citizen to respond under pain of criminal prosecution.
Statistics Act Amendment
All of us would have to ask, is that not too much of a burden to impose upon our citizens? Going even further than that, I would guess that many Canadians today suspect that much of the information sought by Statistics Canada is probably irrelevant and much of it is probably never used for any useful purpose in any event. In other words, there may be drawersful of statistics and information located in Statistics Canada which is of no effective benefit and that maybe it is a make-work program within that department. We do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to cast aspersions on Statistics Canada; all I am saying is that that is a question which I am sure comes to the minds of many Canadians as they are required to fill out these various surveys.
I might also say that I, like many other people in this House being a practising lawyer in the commercial area, have been appalled at the burden historically placed on many of our own clients with respect to information required from commercial operating firms. One does suspect that this information, while being put necessarily to a bad purpose, may not be put to any purpose at all. Hence, is this an expense, quite apart from the fact that it is a burden on the people, which the Canadian people should be expected to incur? Is there a risk in terms of invasion of privacy?
As I understand the proposed amendment, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has sought to eliminate the punitive provisions of the act in so far as they apply to individual Canadians, except in the case of a very limited amount of information, being information pertaining to name, sex, marital status, mother tongue, birth or family relationship of members of the household.
In other words, as I understand the amendment, if a person gives false information or refuses to respond in those areas, and in those areas alone, then the law will apply as it did apply and the usual criminal proceedings or whatever can be levied against that individual.
On the other hand, he is amending section 29, which states that:
Every firm or corporation, and every person acting for or interested in a firm or corporation-
Which I presume would include a shareholder of the corporation, for example.
-without lawful excuse, (a) refuses or neglects to answer-
And so on. In that event, as I understand the amendment, the provisions of the law would continue to apply and criminal prosecution could ensue against such an individual in the event that he did not respond to a questionnaire. Of course, there we are dealing with persons interested in the firm or acting for the firm or corporation. In addition, as I understand it, we are talking about the firm or corporation itself to the extent that it can be fined and it will remain subject to the act. Corporations do not enjoy any further protection under this amendment nor do firms, which I also would presume would be what we in the province of Quebec regard as a sole proprietorship operating under a raison sociale. So that effectively in those instances those individuals could still be prosecuted. But with respect to

November 27, 1979
Statistics Act Amendment
the activities carried on by the firm or corporation, I again presume the intention of this amendment is that those areas will be commercial areas, areas which may have a more direct bearing upon the economy and upon the statistics which Statistics Canada requires with respect to the economy than would be the case with individuals. Those are the assumptions that I am making.
In itself it seems like a worthy objective that we should say to Canadians, "Look, we will encourage you to respond to surveys on a wide variety of issues, but in the event that you do not do so, you will not be subject to prosecution under the Statistics Act unless you give false information with respect to these very specified limited areas," and I enumerated these areas just a few moments ago. That indeed might be a satisfactory approach to this problem. But immediately questions come to my mind, being someone basically quite unfamiliar with the internal operations of Statistics Canada, when I see this kind of provision in this context. Would there not be other information which Canada and the government requires from individuals, information which individuals should be required to respond to but which is not included in this very narrow list set forth in the bill of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West?
I say that I really do not know but I raise the issue, might there be? Let me give an example of what I mean. When one looks a Statistics Canada, one finds a wide range of areas where information can be sought; there is no doubt about that. Under section 21, general statistics, there is an enumeration of items (a) through (u). In fact, (u) is a basket clause which says "any other matters prescribed by the minister or governor in council" where the chief statistician is entitled essentially, I presume, to order these surveys and require information to be furnished by Canadian individuals, hence falling under all the penal provisions of the act in the event someone does not respond or gives false information.
But as I look at these items I see, for example, something like agriculture. Does this mean that a farmer in Canada would not be required to respond with respect to information bearing upon his crop production, his crops or diseases, or any other area that might affect agricultural production in this country? Does that mean that Statistics Canada would be shackled in so far as individual farmers are concerned and not be able to obtain this kind of information which they would in turn be able to obtain, I would submit under the amendment, from an incorporated farmer of which 1 imagine there are many in this country? I know that there are many in my province and I suspect the same is true across Canada.
I raise that as an example of the kind of problem I see in a very restricted amendment of this kind. Again, it may not be a problem, but I say that this bill brought before us may very well have the effect of undermining this very important role of Statistics Canada. I say this recognizing the validity of a number of points which the hon. member has made and which I think will cause us all alarming concern if the situation is not corrected. The issue is: are we to solve the problem of Statistics Canada in any meaningful way in this area of what might
[Mr. Johnston.)
be described as an invasion of privacy, with this amendment? This amendment still permits, and I emphasize this, the prosecution of individuals who are associated with firms or corporations, but does not permit the prosecution of individuals per se except with respect to this very narrow list of items.
I raised just one example with respect to agriculture. As I say, since the list goes from (a) to (u), it would seem quite possible that there are a number of areas which we might regard as being information which should be at the disposal of the Canadian government. It should be at the disposal of the policy makers of this country, but will become unavailable from individuals because of this proposed amendment to the act.
There is another route which I think should be followed at this stage. Undoubtedly, you, Mr. Speaker, have been in this House when questions have been raised during question period over the past several weeks with regard to the operations and methodology of Statistics Canada and whether we can rely upon some of the economic material or documents coming out of Statistics Canada. Today our entire forecasting apparatus, our reporting to the OECD, our international position, and everything else are determined by information gathered by Statistics Canada. One wonders whether the time has come for us to conduct a serious examination of the affairs of Statistics Canada, as has been suggested. This was in fact raised in a question on November 23 by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras). The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) indicated a consultant firm would be established to look at Statistics Canada and its methodology.
It might be more appropriate at this stage to suggest an in-depth examination to determine whether many of the problems raised by the hon. member with regard to simplifying the volume and complexity of surveys that have not been made public cannot be avoided, and to determine whether it is possible to attack this problem which he so eloquently outlined today, namely, is there a way we can prevent Big Brother from carrying on into the lives of individual Canadians under the auspices of this act, with the possibility of criminal prosecution in the event that the person does not comply or respond?
An hon. member on the other side, who is a practising lawyer, told me how distasteful it is as an attorney to take actions based on this provision of the law, namely, to prosecute Canadians for failing to respond to these surveys. Like everything else, these issues are seldom black and white. It would appear there is room for great abuse, as outlined by the hon. member.
I would find it absolutely repulsive to consider that if someone gives false information with respect to wallpaper used in his house, its cost, application or anything else, that person theoretically could become subject to prosecution under an act of this country. A law of that kind in this country must be examined and modified.
I commend the hon. member for taking these initiatives. However, I suggest that the proper forum for this is a greater
November 27, 1979

context with a complete, in-depth review of Statistics Canada, particularly since questions as to its credibility have been raised in other forums, in fact by questions in this House and in the media.
The time has come to get at the job and encourage the President of the Treasury Board to act quickly to have these consultants appointed, and hopefully to bring these matters before a committee. I dearly hope that takes place and that the evil which this bill is intended to correct will be addressed by such a committee. It is clearly an important issue.
I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this before us. It gives us an opportunity to talk about it. This has been a useful exercise. I hope the initiative he has taken will result in the law being approved.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, 1 enjoy, both in this Parliament and outside it, listening to the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), that poverty-stricken riding in eastern Canada. He seems to want it both ways, as I understand his colleagues do, which is to say that the bill is good but he wants to talk it out. It reminds me of the people in B.C. that we refer to as having their mugs on one side of the fence and their wumps on the other. We call that mugwumpery. I gather in eastern Canada it is called the radical middle.
We in the New Democratic Party are prepared not to have this bill talked out today. Therefore I will not speak very long. Second, we want it to go to committee where, as the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount said, we can look at some of the questions that arise and hear some of the views on the other side from Statistics Canada. We have to examine some of the real details. I might say I agreed with most of the remarks set out rather succinctly and precisely by my corporate friend from Saint-Henri-Westmount.
1 wish to address some remarks to my friend smiling over there, with his natty suit, as always, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). In my view, he made a good speech, but occasionally he sort of cheapened it by certain phrases. I see the member nodding. Let me give a couple of examples. The member said, "I agree with the view that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also a government that is big enough to take everything you have". Those are buzz words, big government. What does that do? We have big government. We have to recognize that. In my view, it does not mean very much.
Just before that the hon. member said, and 1 agree, "I can appreciate the desire of the government to have all possible information at its disposal in order to ensure that its decisions are empirically grounded. However, when you weigh that limitless knowledge against the equally total destruction of an individual's personal privacy and integrity, the price becomes too high." That is well put.
Later the member went on to say, "My own feeling, Mr. Speaker, is that in the hands of government, to paraphrase Lord Acton, information corrupts and absolute information corrupts absolutely." What does that mean? We need infor-
Statistics Act Amendment
mation. Is it really corrupting? It is only corrupting in the way that it is used. The hon. member puts his argument and takes it away from a good logical approach with a sort of social credity approach. I did not mean to slight my friends from the Creditistes. I mean a British Columbia social credity approach.
What we need is a balanced view here. Statistics Canada and government officials indeed have a right to get information from the public. They have a right to know what kind of population we have. They need information for all sorts of reasons. For example, they need to corroborate what our social scientists are studying, to analyse trends and so on. They need the information to put forward new government policies. They need it for some of the reasons my friend from Fraser Valley West said. We have to state that and state it categorically. Given the fact that they need the information, it is no doubt there can be and have been abuses.
I have looked at the census. When I was a young man I was paid to go around and collect census data. This has changed over the years. There are now many more questions and they are more detailed. Many of the questions are open to abuse. The hon. member gave a good example about a woman involved in a divorce matter. That is a great example of where there can be abuses.
It seems to me, first of all, that Statistics Canada may not need as much information as they ask for. We can look at that point in committee and determine how much they really do need. Second, it seems to me that they are asking some unnecessary questions. That, in itself, is an abuse which takes up the time of the householder. Perhaps we should consider this aspect further. One question that was always a problem when I was asking questions-and it apparently is still a problem-is: who is the head of the household? What is the mother tongue of the household when you have an English mother and a French father? How does one determine the answer to the question? These are matters which the committee should consider.
The third problem, one which has only come to light recently, involves the leaking of information. In other words, we cannot really trust a lot of the people who get the information; we cannot trust the government with the information. The answer to this difficulty may lie not just in changing the questions you ask, but to make sure there are no leaks of information. You make sure that the information really is kept confidential. It may be necessary to prosecute the deputy minister, or even the minister, if the information goes astray. That is a way of approaching the problem, although I do not see us adopting that approach.
The point I raise is that the information could get lost and could be leaked. I think of income tax data, for example, or medical records. The Krever commission is looking into this. They have evidence of medical records being in the hands of the RCMP. It is not right and proper, and it is very dangerous. This is what we understand as Big Brother. Perhaps it is a
1758

November 27, 1979
Statistics Act Amendment
different big brother from the one my hon. friend sees. Essentially we believe in government, and I basically do not think he does.
There is an additional danger today, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we are in an era of computer data banks. We could have the information we give in a census taken in Pouce Coupe in British Columbia appear in data banks in Atlanta, Georgia. It is not something out of Kurt Vonnegut; it is quite possible. The information could be stolen, it could be used privately, it could be sold. So we have to look into all these aspects.
Before I take my seat I would like to raise just one other point. I wish the hon. member in his bill, or, perhaps, in his speech, had dealt with the matter of questionnaires to small businessmen in our country. I am sure he is aware that small businessmen are losing a lot of time and patience having to fill out a lot of seemingly useless forms. I think many small businessmen, especially in British Columbia, are tired of doing this, and I believe we really have to take a hard look at this when we are considering Statistics Canada. We should be given reasons why they need to have all this information.
I would also draw the hon. member's attention to the speech made in the Elouse of Commons by Max Saltsman on December 16, 1970. He was at that time the member representing the constituency of Waterloo. He dealt with the question of abuses and problems connected with Statistics Canada.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we need to have statistical information. It is not my intention to undermine Statistics Canada, but we also need privacy and safeguards. We need to consider carefully the kinds of questions which are being asked.
1 am glad to see the hon. member brought in the notion of freedom of information in his speech. I am the critic for our party in connection with freedom of information. We said we would go along with the bill, that it was basically a good bill, but that it would need some amendment. Well, where is the bill? Bring it in. We are waiting for it. It is your government. Talk them into bringing in a bill. We are prepared to consider it.
Finally, I wish to say that this is not an easy question. It is a modern and very deep problem. We are experiencing an explosion in the technology, an explosion of information. I have mentioned the new data banks. My hon. friend from New Westminster-Coquitlam in an article in The Globe and Mail the other day was talking about this technology and the storage of information. Those of us who are interested in law realize that we are behind in dealing with these matters. We are behind when dealing with the question of privacy, in legal definitions of how to deal with information, and I, therefore, welcome the bill. We in the New Democratic Party will support its passage to committee for further study, and I urge the Liberals to allow the bill to go to committee as well.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a few minutes to comment on this bill as other hon. members wish to take the floor. I merely wish to congratulate

the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) for having presented this bill to amend the Statistics Act. He has just drawn the attention of the House to a discrepancy that might have serious after effects. Even if Bill C-202 does not add anything new to sections 29(a) and 29(b) it does extend considerably the thrust of the present legislation which refers only to a person in general without specifying whether physical or moral, by adding and I quote:
Every firm or corporation and every person acting for or interested in a firm or corporation that, without lawful excuse-
We might agree on the fact that this change emphasizes the importance of penalizing firms or corporations that hire experts to defraud the government. In that respect, I am afraid that this omission in the initial legislation might have been almost intentional because we did not dare attack the big financial corporations such as multinationals, banks, insurance companies and others that can afford to hire experts to hide certain facts in their Statistics Canada forms. But legislators in those days wanted the individual to declare everything under penalty of imprisonment. Obviously, a corporation or a bank cannot be thrown in jail but we might at least take away their licence for a limited period like we do for drivers who do not respect highway regulations or are found guilty of impaired driving.
On the other hand, we find ludicrous that subsection (b) refers to a maximum penalty of $500 when corporations are involved. According to that provision, corporations would be only liable to a $500 fine, but an individual should not be liable to the same maximum fine of $500. It is absolutely ludicrous. As concerns the refusal to give confidential information, I agree with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West that it directly interferes with human rights. We are always told that that kind of information is kept secret but it is absolutely false, Mr. Speaker. Such information is handled by civil servants and most of the time the investigators are appointed through political patronage.
Statistics Canada has lost its credibility and is no longer an accurate measure of the growth rate of our country. For that reason, we should not only add the words "firm and corporation" but also review entirely the Statistics Canada Act in order to protect the public better and give more credibility to this legislation.


Mr. Jack Murta (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are all agreeing this afternoon that this bill should be passed into committee, and 1 just hope we do not end up talking the bill out before doing that. So, my remarks are going to be very, very brief.
The government supports my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), on Bill C-202. We believe that it is certainly a step in the right direction, and the bill certainly conforms and falls within the government's desire
November 27, 1979

to be consistent with the commitment to privacy of the individual, and with Statistics Canada's own wish to move toward a voluntary survey in terms of statistics taking in this country.
I had a speech prepared in which I wanted to outline two or three of the reservations the government has about the proposed wording of the legislation while still agreeing with the basic concepts in the bill, but seeing that time is running out- and the time is now ten minutes to six-I think I will conclude by stating that certainly from the government's point of view we feel that the bill is a positive step in the right direction. It would allow Statistics Canada to be brought before a committee of Parliament to be examined on this particular issue and on other issues as well. As do other hon. members, I certainly hope that any other members who are going to speak will limit their remarks to a very few minutes because we would like to see this bill in committee. A good deal of credit should go to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct some of the impressions created by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and also perhaps to answer the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta).
Sure, we in my party would like to see the abuses under the Statistics Act removed. Elowever, we are concerned that if this bill goes through in the manner in which it is proposed, it may emasculate Statistics Canada. I suggest that if a private member wishes to put a bill through, more detailed information about the bill and its effects should be given to us so that we really know what it is we are dealing with. There seems to be a certain amount of vagueness about that at the present stage, and therefore, we in our party find this bill difficult to support.
On behalf of the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) I would like to correct another impression raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who referred to the riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount as being an affluent suburb. I suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that it is not just NDP constituencies which have economic and social problems.
As the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount indicated, we agree with the motives of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, but we have serious reservations about his method. We also are concerned about the privacy of individuals. The hon. member referred to a case involving Mrs. Sheremata, and dealt with it. It would seem that in a case such as this that, yes, there are circumstances under which people should not be obliged to answer questions, and perhaps exceptions should be provided for.
It is also possible that the legal sanctions should be changed. It seems ludicrous to subject people to imprisonment for not answering questions in a census of the country. I think the present fine can be $500. It should perhaps be a fine of $25, $50, or something like that. Therefore changes of this nature, perhaps, should be contemplated.
Statistics Act Amendment
As I said, we are concerned about this. We know that the bill proposes to remove sanctions from individuals who refuse to answer any questions other than those pertaining to just a few personal matters, and those matters are specified in clause 1 of the bill which proposes a section 29.1 in the act. They deal with the name, sex, marital status, mother tongue, birth or family relationship of the members of a household.
However, at present individuals and corporations are obliged to answer questions with respect to the objects of this act. What are those objects? They are detailed in section 3 and section 21 of the present act. The duties of Statistics Canada are to collect, compile, analyse and publish statistical information relating to the commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and general activities and condition of the people and to take the census of the population of Canada and the census of agriculture of Canada as provided in the act.
In section 21 there are further purposes defined. I am dealing now with matters about which presumably individuals, under the present act, are required to answer. This does not refer to corporations, but the act states, and I quote:
-the Chief Statistician shall... collect, compile ... statistics in relation to .. . population . . . health and welfare . . . immigration and emigration . . . education ... community, business and personal services-
If we removed the obligation to answer questions about matters of that nature, we can wonder whether we will be left with anything meaningful other than fewer population statistics which will be gathered by Statistics Canada.
The hon. member suggested-and we commend him for this-that it is possible that questions asked by Statistics Canada should be restricted, but as we have said, the proposed changes may indeed emasculate Statistics Canada.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West raised a question about the validity of the statistics gathered by Statistics Canada. This again has to be a concern of members of this House, cabinet ministers, departments and government agencies, because if the statistics upon which we are to base our judgments and legislation are wrong, we are in serious difficulty. Our concern should be about improving the validity of statistics. We are afraid that an amendment as sweeping as that proposed in this bill would be moving in the wrong direction in this respect.
The members of this House are aware that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has hired a management consultant firm to look into the personnel, administrative practices, and policies of Statistics Canada. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras) asked that the scope of this study be broadened. This was in a question to the President of the Treasury Board last Friday, November 23, and he stated that the examination should include, and I quote:
-experts on methodology of economic analysis, collection, collating and interpretation, so that the real problem of lack of confidence in the information base will be removed, for the sake of Statistics Canada and all those who depend upon that information-
We suggest that that is the way, and that the problems raised by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West should be

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
addressed by that consulting firm and referred to the appropriate committee of this House. I believe it should be the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Then we would have the opportunity to address ourselves to some of the concerns which have been quite correctly raised by the hon. member.
It seems to us that that is the appropriate method to deal with this difficulty and that it would be dangerous to pass this present provision which, as we have indicated, could lead us in a direction where we do not know where we are going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-25, to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured tonight to have the opportunity to introduce the second reading debate on Bill C-25, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.
In introducing this bill it seems to me I would be remiss if 1 did not make some reference to the recent derailment of a train in Mississauga carrying flammable and toxic substances on the Remembrance Day weekend, and also to the obvious role of the provinces in connection with this very unfortunate event. However, I think that for a variety of reasons it must be made clear that this bill is not being presented tonight as a reaction to that disaster.
When I first considered how the accident would affect this legislation and my presentation of it, I thought that in addition to reviewing the draft of the act, I might be faced with the task of rewriting the speech which had been prepared in readiness for this debate, to take into account the numerous questions that had been raised following the Mississauga incident, not only in the House but by the media, by the citizens of

Mississauga and the surrounding district, and the fallout that arises as a result of such a disaster.
After considering these elements carefully and, on reflection, I decided to say almost exactly what I had intended to say at the outset when the bill would have been introduced in the normal manner if a disaster had not occurred. To do otherwise, in my view, would be misleading in a way that could only serve in the long run to undermine the care and expertise that have gone into the preparation of this legislative measure.
I must reiterate that a tremendous amount of work has gone into this legislation, having regard to the ramifications of federal and provincial jurisdictions and the importance of attempting to define a piece of legislation with accompanying regulations that are workable and enforceable.
To appear to be introducing emergency measures in haste after a near catastrophe would be to detract from the fact that Bill C-25 has been discussed and negotiated with the provinces, dissected by industry, and drafted and redrafted over a period of several years. It might equally detract from the fact that the bill has always been on the government's list of priorities for legislative action. In saying this, I do not suggest that the questions which have been raised by the derailment at Mississauga have not been valid ones. Indeed, 1 want to commend all hon. members of the House, and particularly my good friend, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), who has pursued this particular issue with a great amount of vigour. His questions have been sincere; I know that he has pursued this issue with sincerity and has gained the respect which I know he commands from all sides of the House. In that connection I am sure he will be glad to know that today the CTC has introduced an interim safety measure, an order requiring that railways separate tank cars of flammable compressed gases from those containing toxic gases. The order provides for a buffer of at least five general freight cars, or about 250 feet, which would now be required between the dangerous commodities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am pleased that the CTC has seen fit to issue that interim order. I know my friends across the way and my colleagues on this side of the House are fully in support of the measure which has been taken.
As well, I might add that I am satisfied the bill with which we are dealing this evening responds to many of the concerns expressed by the provinces and the industry. I can assure hon. members that as far as the provinces are concerned-and I am sure as far as industry is concerned-this bill will have their full support.
It was as long ago as 1973 that the need for legislation governing the transportation of dangerous goods was recognized by the federal government. At that time the minister of transport was the Hon. Jean Marchand. I had occasion to see him in the corridor earlier this evening. I indicated to him that some of the pioneer work he had undertaken at that time, in
November 27, 1979

trying to lay the groundwork for such a piece of legislation, is now coming to fruition. It speaks very highly for that hon. gentleman because, as a minister of transport, he had a genuine rapport with the provinces. Indeed, he was certainly recognized as one of the ministers of transport who worked closely with the provinces. The fact that this bill is now being introduced at this particular time is a clear indication of the work which had commenced at that particular time. 1 want to commend him and congratulate him for the work he did.
At first the regulation of highway traffic only was contemplated, since each of the other modes of transport already had some form of dangerous goods regulations. It soon became apparent, however, that this was not enough. In the first place, the increasing use of intermodal transport made it necessary to seek to harmonize the regulations for all modes, so that consignors of dangerous goods need only follow one set of rules when preparing their goods for shipment.
In the second place, it was obvious that true safety in transport could only be achieved by regulating pre-transport activities such as the manufacture of freight containers and packagings, the in-transit activities such as packing, loading and temporary storage, and the post-transport activities such as unloading and receiving.
In the third place, much of the existing legislation, both federal and provincial, which deals with dangerous goods was written in terms of specific substances such as explosives, or dealt with such related matters as construction standards or vehicles, fire prevention and occupational safety. The result was a proliferation of well-thought-out but rather narrowly focused regulations which often proved incompatible and therefore unenforceable.
Finally, both exporters and importers were being faced, to their disadvantage, with contradictions between Canadian regulations and those of other countries. The need to adapt to international standards and procedures therefore had become urgent.
The first proposal for a transportation of dangerous goods act was tabled in Parliament in May, 1978. That piece of legislation died on the order paper when that session of Parliament came to an end. It was reintroduced in November,
1978,	and second reading debate started on February 16,
1979.	At that time there was about a 30-minute debate on this very important issue. On that occasion, as opposition transportation critic, I stated that the Progressive Conservative party supported the bill in principle and recognized the need for it and for a co-ordinated approach to legislation governing the transportation of dangerous goods. Also I stated that the objectives of the bill must be met without imposing excessive economic or legal restraints on industry, and that there must be full consultation with the provinces, as well as with industry, to ensure that the regulations which are the meat of the legislation were practical, acceptable and enforceable.
1 hope by now it is well known that two of the most important aims of this government are the improvement of federal-provincial relations and the reduction of the regulatory
Transportation of Dangerous Goods burden upon industry. Bill C-25, as it is now drafted, incorporates both of these aims while maintaining its original goal.
Those hon. members who are familiar with the previous bills, Bill C-53 and Bill C-17, will note that the bill currently before the House has been extensively restructured, although the objectives remain unchanged. This restructuring has been done as a result of lengthy and detailed discussions with representatives of affected industries and of the provinces, as I indicated earlier. Of course these discussions have been going on since the legislation was first conceived. However, as time passed, and as it was made clear that the federal government was seeking co-operation and not confrontation in this enterprise, debates between the parties concerned became increasingly productive. Consequently after Bill C-17 was published, both industry and the provinces were in a position to comment on the legislation with a full understanding of the policy it was intended to implement, and to discuss it in full detail.
The role played by industry in the preparation of the current bill has been very important. It is important to me because I have been able to benefit from their practical experience to ensure that the legislation makes economic as well as political sense. It is important to industry because they were provided with the opportunity to make their views known and to have them effectively recognized. Similarly, the participation of the provinces in the preparation of this legislation has been mutually beneficial.
From a practical point of view, it would be difficult for the federal government to administer and enforce such a sweeping legislation program alone, without the wholehearted support of the provinces, which incidentally I was promised when I met with my provincial counterparts in September. At the same time it would be an obvious waste of resources for each province to develop such comprehensive legislation and maintain the research, training, information and enforcement operations which are a necessary adjunct to it. Thus, the relationship between the two levels of government, in dealing with the problem of dangerous goods in transport, has been and must continue to be symbiotic in the truest sense of the word.
It is not my intention to take up too much of the time of the House by further repeating in any great detail the reasons which gave rise to the formulation of Bill C-25 and its predecessors, or the purposes it is designed to serve. Briefly, the bill is part of a three-pronged safety program, consisting of legislation supported by a trained inspectorate and an emergency response network, the latter two being developed in co-operation with other federal agencies and with the provinces.
Although it involves the imposition of fairly severe penalties on offenders, the proposed act is designed essentially to have a preventative effect. For the first time it will be possible to promulgate regulations for transporting and handling dangerous goods for transport in such a way as to facilitate intermodal, interprovincial and international trade in them, while promoting public safety in this area by establishing comprehensive and comprehensible safety standards and procedures.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-25, and particularly so since it is the first piece of legislation being presented to the House by the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). As the minister has indicated, this is not the first time we have seen this legislation before the House.
I am sure the minister made an oversight when he only mentioned Mr. Marchand's contribution in the year 1973. I think he forgot his western colleague, the Hon. Otto Lang, from Saskatoon-Humboldt, who, on August 4,	1977,
announced a major safety program to regulate transportation of dangerous goods, to produce compatible safety standards for transshipment of dangerous goods between air, surface and marine transport, with dangerous goods to include explosives as well as inflammable, poisonous and radioactive material. The then minister suggested the new act would ensure that the responsibility for the transportation of dangerous goods would be shared by manufacturers of transport equipment and containers, producers, shippers and purchasers of dangerous goods, as well as carriers and operators of transportation facilities. In short, what the minister was announcing at that time was a coherent step to set up regulations and standards across the country.
Very little has changed, in spite of some statements regarding tightening up, with the benefit of hindsight, in Bill C-25. As a matter of fact I think it is almost 99 per cent the same with the exception of two major changes, the first being that during an inquiry the minister may, at his discretion, pending the submission of a report, take measures to alter or cease transportation of dangerous goods. The second major difference, I think, is that if, after 12 months, there is no agreement with a province to enforce the act, the minister may enforce the act in that province.
With all due respect, it is rather ironic that this government would institute that clause as opposed to the previous government when you consider the confrontation-co-operative theory which obviously the government has been advocating since the pre-election time.
I would like to read a paragraph out of Hansard which I think expresses our position about as well as it could be expressed. Let me read from page 3330 of Hansard for February 16, 1979, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say that our party supports the principle and therefore the major objective of this piece of legislation. I believe it is fair to say as well that we acknowledge the need for such a piece of legislation, given the fact that there has been an increasing number of fatal and near fatal incidents involving dangerous goods, which unquestionably highlights the need for a co-ordinated law which is put before us in the form of this bill now, and to
November 27, 1979

ensure that the public interest will be assured and that the movement of dangerous goods will not harm the Canadian public.
I am sure the hon. minister will recall that paragraph, because on February 16, 1979, that is exactly what he said in the House.
Here is where the comparison ends. We want to proceed with this bill tonight and as expeditiously as possible get it out of second reading stage and into the committee. The hon. member for Vegreville at the time, now the Minister of Transport, said he wanted to have the national transportation act precede this bill in respect of dangerous goods. He wanted to have the ports act precede this bill regarding dangerous goods. Now that he is the minister and has had the opportunity to present those two bills, I notice he has not followed through with what he originally wanted. I am sure there must be justifiable reasons for that, and maybe during committee meetings he will explain them to the hon. members.
The minister said it would be cynical to suggest that the Mississauga accident had anything to do with this bill. I think that part of the problem is as a result of the minister's own priorities written in his own magazine, as one of my colleagues outlined the other day. I think it was an oversight that this priority was not mentioned. Knowing the sincere and honest gentleman that he is, we will take him at his word.
As I stated, really nothing has changed in Bill C-25, except I am looking for an explanation as to why the national transportation act did not precede this particular piece of legislation.
We did not need the Mississauga incident, as the minister said, to have a discussion on the transportation of dangerous goods. The incident in New Brunswick involving radioactive material that was mislaid several months ago prompted a request from one of the provinces for some action in respect of the transportation of dangerous goods.
As I said several weeks ago, what we should not be doing by this piece of legislation is looking for a scapegoat, pointing the finger at someone to blame. What we should be doing is taking the golden opportunity that the Mississauga incident offers, with the fact that no loss of life occurred, with 250,000 people being evacuated, this setting an example for all the world to follow. Obviously I want to join with all of my colleagues on this side of the House in endorsing what the minister said, commending everyone, the evacuation team, the fire department, the police, and the people of Mississauga.
We want to expedite second reading of this bill and get it into the committee. As the minister has said, there have been years of negotiations between the provinces and the industry. Now it is the public's turn, the public in terms of ourselves as members of Parliament. We need to hear full and comprehensive evidence at committee meetings. I want to assure the minister that we have no intention of passing this bill until we have had a full discussion on the regulations, because in essence that is where the real safety is. The bill basically is motherhood, but the preventive problems the minister referred to will only be resolved when we have had a full and complete
Transportation of Dangerous Goods discussion of the regulations. Perhaps we may even want to include some of the regulations in the legislation.
Obviously we want also to consider any recommendations from the CTC inquiry into the Mississauga incident. I think we would be very irresponsible as parliamentarians if we rushed the bill through committee without giving full consideration to representations made at those hearings.
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister for acquiescing in the request made by members on both sides of this House with regard to a judicial inquiry or a Royal Commission, I am not sure yet which action he plans to take, in order to have the whole broad spectrum of rail transportation safety examined. This certainly is something long overdue, and 1 think it fits in line with the safety conscious expressions the minister has advocated since he has been a member of this House.
I do not think we need go any further than the opening testimony that was given the other night at the committee meeting by a commissioner of the CTC. If I am not mistaken, he was the chairman of the rail safety committee. He acknowledged that this enquiry would take a look at transporting dangerous goods in "a safer manner than has been the case". Obviously, he acknowledges a serious problem in this regard. I do not think that hon. members should be under the illusion that this bill is the panacea to accidents in the transportation of dangerous goods, although, as the minister has said, it does reduce some of the risk. I consider this bill and its predecessor as being almost post-accident rather than preventative in nature. Therefore, as parliamentarians, we must use the committee hearings to explore fully and digest all the avenues in attempting to alleviate the safety problem of the transportation of hazardous products.
Many things have changed since there was first a discussion on this subject back in 1970-1971 with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods. First of all the railways since that time have made significant changes in the types of cars they are handling and the technology, which has been introduced on a massive scale. They are using longer capacity cars, more powerful locomotives, automatic train switching controls, as well as mechanical track maintenance and inspection, and all these have reduced much of the cost to railways. Unfortunately, the preventive safety measures do not appear to have improved concurrently.
New chemicals are on the market. In many cases these chemicals are unable to be handled by our present technology. A few moments ago the minister mentioned trucks. In my conversation with the trucking industry, I learned that the safety laws of the United States are far tougher than they are here in Canada, i was also very happy to hear the minister discuss some of the requirements regarding inspectors. He said that there would be enforcement of the safety laws by specially trained inspectors, yet there is no commitment with regard to hiring additional inspectors. What branch of the railway service will they come from? Will they eliminate the five-year

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
mandatory status as a railroad official that inspectors must have before they can become inspectors? In other words, they must be in management before they can become a CTC inspector. What is wrong with someone who comes from the rank and file sector so long as they have the experience in the field? Where will these inspectors be located and at what intervals? Could they serve the dual purpose of being an inspector and a carman?
Earlier today I proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 which, unfortunately, was turned down. The minister answered part of that motion tonight, much to my surprise. I want to offer my sincere congratulations to him for that. I know that the minister has had some serious discussions with the CTC in this regard. A commissioner of the CTC made a statement today with respect to the substantial movement by rail, that the occasional accident is necessary. I am sure that all hon. members find that statement totally unacceptable. Hopefully, when the CTC representatives appear before the committee, we will have an opportunity to pursue that reasoning with them.
In 1970-71, 47 days of testimony by the Inter Rail Safety Committee resulted in several committees, including the Committee on Transportation of Dangerous Goods. According to the testimony given, the CTC acted on very few of the recommendations at the time. A transcript of the meeting held ten years ago today indicates that many of the recommendations we are discussing here tonight were made then. This includes such recommendations as the make-up of trains, the placement of cars, the placard on cars, the very things which we have been discussing ever since the accident in Mississauga.
The reply of the CTC is always that the enforcement of the regulations is too expensive, and the minister has mentioned this in his comments. This is one of the things which we must explore in the committee; just what is too expensive? When the final cost of the Mississauga accident is tabulated, we may find that some of the recommendations suggested ten years ago may not be too expensive after all. We must also consider inconvenience to the people. We must consider that a lot has been done with respect to setting up programs, but we must explore the costs and not just take them for granted.
There are many questions which this bill does not answer, and I hope that they will be dealt with in committee. There are questions such as why is it not compulsory to have hot box detectors on main lines in urban centres and why do we not cut down the distances between these detectors within the railway yard limits in built-up areas. If I recall correctly, the vicepresident of CP Rail said that the Mississauga accident could have been prevented with the installation of these hot box detectors. I hope that we can find out why these things have not been installed, particularly on the main lines which handle dangerous goods.
Another question is why do we not use dedicated tank cars in North America like they do in Europe, whereby we could follow the European placarding system whereby the ingredients are stamped in raised letters which can be seen in a fire. We know from statements made at the Mississauga incident

that this was one of the problems incurred by the first people to reach the site. We should also ask about slower speeds for trains carrying dangerous goods, especially through densely populated areas where there are so many switches and junctions. Surely we must explore the cycling problem of tank cars in these trains if they are running at slower speeds.
The next question is, why not more interchange of traffic between rail companies which might avoid routes going through developed areas of communities. Why are there no specific requirements involved in inspecting car equipment carrying hazardous products, bearings, wheels, etc.? Another question is why do we not expand the solid consist train concept to more trains. I believe that it was stated in committee that right now sulphuric acid is one of the few products handled in that manner. What are the possibilities of rerouting the movement of these commodities, as the minister indicated in answer to one of the questions posed to him during question period?
There is also the possibility of computerizing and installing centrex phone numbers so that municipalities will know what is going through their areas. Obviously there are many questions which must be asked during the committee hearings. I was happy to hear the minister announce that the CTC has taken some interim steps. We have advocated through exchanges in this House that if the CTC was not willing to accept the responsibility for this matter, the minister should invoke the discretionary power which he has. For example, part IV of the National Transportation Act gives the minister the power to rescind a regulation and place a new order if the CTC has not acted to his satisfaction. I realize the technical difficulties involved, but surely, considering the incident in Mississauga, and with the CTC inquiry under way, some interim action is necessary. Of course, we heard earlier tonight that part of that action was enacted by the CTC this afternoon.
We would like the minister to take a look at other areas of interim action. He does not have to wait for this legislation to be passed. He does not have to wait for the inquiry, and the minister has said that one of the first things we must do is ensure that necessary steps were taken to prevent the recurrence of such an accident.
The following are some of the things that the minister could put into effect under his own discretionary power. He could hire some CTC inspectors and not proceed with the Treasury Board order to reduce the staff by 100. He could ensure that no train will carry both explosive materials and toxic gases, but this was already resolved earlier tonight. Another thing the minister could do is to have combustible goods and poisons taken off the train at the first available terminal at the final point of destination where it would be handled by a yard engine which operates at much lower speed.
The minister could also use his power to put into effect regulations ensuring that the engineer as well as the conductor is made aware of any cars which he lifts that contain toxic or combustible products. For these special cars a colour-coded waybill could be used. A regulation slowing down trains
November 27, 1979

carrying toxic gases and explosive materials in major urban centres where there are so many junctions and switches could be put into effect. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned several weeks ago a situation in downtown Winnipeg. If I am not mistaken, an hon. member from the Vancouver area also expressed his concern in this regard for that major metropolitan centre.
Another possibility is reclassifying chlorine as a poisonous gas, and propane and butane as explosives. This could be done right now by the minister. What about the classification of PCBs? I could not even find them mentioned in the red book on regulations. One other item 1 mentioned a few minutes ago was the elimination of the requirement that a CTC inspector must spend five years as a railroad official before becoming an inspector. I am sure that the minister would agree with me that my colleague, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), who has probably been over the last 11 years the most eloquent spokesman for rail safety in this country, would make an excellent CTC inspector, but under the present regulations he does not even qualify.
I would like to congratulate the minister on bringing this bill to the House at this particular time. I think that it is most opportune and should not be thought of as being cynical because of the Mississauga situation, because right now rail safety is in the minds of all Canadians. We, as parliamentarians, must take advantage of this opportunity and have a full discussion with not only the industry and the provinces, but with the public and many interested individuals such as the professor from Carleton University and the group Transport 2000, who have long voiced very strong concerns about rail safety in this country.
Several of my colleagues, such as the hon. member for London East, and the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), who has spent two or three years discussing this particular issue in his municipality, would like to participate in this debate, but because of our interest, concern and wish to get this bill into committee, they have passed up this opportunity in the House. However, we will see them during the committee hearings.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my approval of the fact that this bill has come before the House too soon. I begin my remarks on the bill by reminding the House that accidents involving dangerous goods are not a new occurrence. All of us have heard of, and 1 am sure some will remember, the explosion in Halifax harbour during a previous war. An entire city was devastated, hundreds of people were killed, and millions of dollars worth of property was destroyed, all because the urgency and uncertainty of the day prevented proper safeguards for the movement of hazardous substances.
The war is long over but cities across Canada are threatened by potential disasters involving toxic, corrosive, explosive, radioactive and combustible substances. The increased consumption of synthetic goods which are made from hazardous
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
substances has increased the frequency and severity of transportation accidents involving dangerous goods. In 1977 alone, Canadian railways carried 1,295,062 tons of sulphuric acid, 89,807 tons of explosives, 46,891 tons of sodium hydroxide, and 47,419 tons of other types of inorganic chemicals.
Public policy has not kept pace with the increased volumes of hazardous goods being transported. Clearly, legislation is required. The government indicated, prior to the Mississauga derailment, that it intended to bring in legislation pertaining to the transportation of such goods. In fact I asked a question on October 12 of this year, and the answer to my question as to when the legislation would be coming forward was, "soon". I take it for granted that the intentions of the government with regard to bringing this legislation forward were genuine and I have no cynicism as to whether they would have brought in this legislation in the absence of the event at Mississauga.
Legislation several years ago may have prevented the catastrophe at Mississauga, and for the absence of such legislation we have the former Liberal government to blame. While the legislation proposed in Bill C-25 does not provide the details that would prevent future spills such as the one at Mississauga, regulations could and should, and we expect will, be published subsequent to the passage of this bill, that will prevent dangerous combinations of cars on the same train, and require proper identification and classification of substances.
With regard to the order today by the Canadian Transport Commission concerning a space of five cars between toxic and inflammable gases, there are many derailments in which trains pile up like an accordion. It is not inconceivable that we could still have a car loaded with toxic substances landing on top of a car filled with a flammable substance.
As we know, and as I said before, the Liberals introduced a dangerous goods bill some time ago. I would like to point out some of the ways in which this bill appears to be an improvement. For example, in this bill there seems to be fewer excuses for those who must pay for the costs borne by the taxpayers for emergency measures. The commitment to federal action in the absence of provincial agreement after a period of 12 months is an improvement. The fact that the minister may make orders respecting handling and transportation of dangerous goods pending the report of an inquiry appears to be an improvement.
There are other problems, however, which I will not go into at this time, except for one I feel obliged to mention. That is the deletion of protection of the environment, something the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) did not mention, as reason to take emergency measures, seize dangerous goods, or conduct an inquiry.
I find it worthy of some reflection that environment has been removed from the list of health, life and property in the previous bill. Environment is a form of common property and should have been left in the bill as a concern pertaining to the transportation of dangerous goods. However, 1 leave these and other detailed comments until the bill is before committee. We certainly have no problem with the bill being sent to commit-

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods tee as soon as possible where, hopefully, many worth-while improvements can be made.
Apart from this legislation is the fact that existing rules and regulations, although inadequate, are not being enforced. The Railway Act gives the Canadian Transport Commission power to prescribe regulations of safety for the transportation by rail of dangerous products. The CTC is charged with responsibility to ensure the best possible safety of railways, regardless of whether dangerous goods are on board or not. The CTC has not been able to carry out that duty, partly because of this government's and the previous Liberal government's mindless restraint program.
Edgar Benson, president of the Canadian Transport Commission, testified before the House of Commons transport committee that their budget prevented them from hiring enough safety inspectors. I quote:
The people we have I think do a pretty good job based on the numbers we have spread across the country, which 1 think is something like 78, which bothers me. It probably should be 178 instead of 78.
Mr. John Magee, commissioner of the CTC, further testified at a later committee meeting that Treasury Board was asking the CTC to reduce its staff even further:
-the man-year allotment of the railway transport committee in 1977-78 was 260 persons. This was reduced in 1978-79 to 246 persons. It was reduced for 1979-80 to 239 persons. And we now have a directive from the Treasury Board within the past week to cut 100 persons of the staff of the Canadian Transport Commission. Incidentally, the reduction in the staff of the RTC out of the 100 will be from 239 to 225.	.
We do not need an inquiry to tell us that the budget cutbacks must be lifted and the CTC must be permitted to expand its staff of railway inspectors, now.
The action today is a partial recognition of the fact that something can be done previous to the outcome of the inquiry and passage of this legislation. There are certainly more actions that could be taken, many of which were ably listed by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas as interim measures.
If we, as parliamentarians, move to pass this legislation, to increase our responsibility as legislators, and if the government lives up to its responsibility by revoking the cutbacks, and increasing the budget of the CTC, surely we should expect some improvement in the performance of the carriers themselves.
The railway companies in this country are chartered to provide a service to the public of Canada. One of those companies, CN, is owned by the people of Canada, and there is no question that it should be responsible for the safety of the public. The other company, the Canadian Pacific, which has been paid for several times over by the taxpayer through land grants, cash grants, ongoing subsidies and the deferral of $679 million in taxes owing, has a responsibility as well. But what have the railways done? Between 1957 and 1977 they laid off 31,000 road and equipment maintenance employees, a policy which directly affected safety.
More particularly, let us look at the CPR. In 1978 the company spent 35.6 per cent of its revenue on maintenance. In
[Mr. Blaikie.J
1936, at the height of the depression with low traffic and profits, the CPR spent just as much-34 per cent of revenues.
The CPR did not have hot box detectors on the heavily travelled portion of rail line through Mississauga. Now it is telling the people of Mississauga that if they wish to receive compensation for their very pressing and immediate needs caused by evacuation, they must give up their right of action for further compensation. Mr. Speaker, blackmail by any other criminal would not be permitted in this society. Why should the people of Canada, who paid for the CPR in the first place, put up with this treatment?
While improving railway safety and federal legislation can reduce accidents involving dangerous goods, it cannot eliminate them. Realization that there is a threshold above which accidents involving dangerous goods cannot be reduced has prompted discussion of the whole question of our dependence upon non-renewable materials. Our traditional sources of fibres and household goods such as leather, cotton and wood, which were labour intensive, have been replaced by synthetic goods and fibres which are extracted from non-renewable hazardous substances or which require dangerous chemicals for their manufacture. Like the energy crisis, the dangerous products crisis cannot be approached in practical terms alone but must also be seen as a crisis of lifestyle and of the technology we employ.
We depend too greatly on synthetic materials and on nonrenewable resources, for our way of life, both of which are often dangerous, even when not in transit. Only by reducing our dependence on such substances in the first place will we actually approach a satisfactory solution. Too often a technological solution to a technological problem misses the real problem. We shall see.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the day when the intention of this bill is fulfilled by the development of the regulations it proposes to set up. The true measure of this bill's worth will be tested not here in Parliament but in the field where the adequacy or otherwise of the regulations eventually developed will, in time, be revealed. We shall expect to have a clear idea of what those regulations are to be before we extend our present co-operative mood through to royal assent to this bill. In a speech made earlier in this House the Minister of Transport complained that the previous government did not consult sufficiently with industry. We should be watching to see that consultation with industry does not mean accommodation to industry. In this connection we can only watch the regulations.
We look forward to working in committee, determining an approach which would ensure, as far as possible, the safe transport of goods within Canada.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to extend unduly this debate because I agreed with the government House leader to-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!
November 27, 1979


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Oh, oh! It is quite normal for government House leaders to communicate with one another; it is always done in a democratic Parliament and especially when it is honestly done, it is a fine custom which will enable us not to do as the previous government did-introduce a bill and leave it to die on the order paper. We now have the evidence. On November 9, 1978, the Canadian government, which was then led by the Liberals, introduced Bill C-17 to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods. This bill was never passed by the House even though it was discussed in February, 1979. It cannot be said that hon. members did not agree at that time because when we reread Hansard we realize that they were ready to pass that bill. Therefore, I do not know why the government did not present it once again to have it passed before the dissolution of the last session of the Thirtieth Parliament.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, a number of mishaps have occurred since then. The catastrophe in Mississauga was of such a nature as to give us abundant food for thought. Made even more aware of the situation, the government has introduced Bill C-25 which we are looking into just now; although not perfect, this bill will make it mandatory for public transporters to operate more carefully and to warn the people who manoeuvre the cars about the dangerous goods they are transporting.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will not remedy the unfortunate events which have occurred in the past. That is clear. But it will prevent similar events in the future. To administer is to foresee. On the basis of the provisions of this bill, it is to be hoped at least that the safety of the public will be better preserved and travellers better informed about the goods being transported. Moreover, the railway workers who manoeuvre the cars will probably be more careful, in order to protect not only the people but also the property of the community.
Mr. Speaker, passing a bill is not the end of it; it then has to be enacted, the act must be made known and applied. I have always regretted and I still regret the fact that once a bill becomes law it falls into the hands of the officials who are responsible for applying it. We then come to the stage of drafting the regulations which govern the application of the act.
1 have often had to review specific cases pertaining to the implementation of an act and noted in the process that the regulations did not at all follow through on my intentions as a legislator. The rules and regulations did not follow the same train of thought as those I had hoped would apply in the application of the act. That is why I have always felt that the time has now come, when we reform our parliamentary procedure, to deal seriously with that problem, namely that once the regulations have been drafted, before they are sanctioned by order in council, they should go to a committee of the House where they could be reviewed to see whether they truly reflect
Transportation of Dangerous Goods what the legislators, hon. members, had in mind, when they are applied.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be wise to do so; we would thus protect not only the users and those who apply the law but also the public generally, because the act would be publicized through the media, be it radio, television or the newspapers, to ensure that the public is made aware of both its obligations and its rights. Bill C-25 would, to my mind, give us a splendid opportunity for doing so. We would then know that this bill was passed, not only for the pleasure of doing so and showing that we want to give the people some measure of protection, but also to make sure it is really efficient.
I think if that were the case we would be acting as responsible people and the law would be applied as best as humanly possible. Of course there may be mishaps along the way. Nothing is perfect. I know that, but our responsibilities as parliamentarians, as law makers, is to strive as much as possible for perfection in drafting our laws and to ask our officials, who are responsible for the application of the legislation, to do their best so as to ensure the greatest protection possible and to achieve the aims of this bill.
I wanted to take this opportunity to say that my colleagues and I support this piece of legislation and, as I have said, we want it to be well applied when it does indeed come into force.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the minister for introducing this bill, and I welcome the opportunity to express our position, and to comment on it very briefly.
Our concern on this side of the House has to do with the fact that any direct reference to the environment in the title and in the text of the bill has been omitted. If the minister will take a moment to compare the old Bill C-17 in its previous incarnation, he will notice that it was entitled "An act to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods". The bill before us today, Bill C-25, the Progressive Conservative version, is entitled "An act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods". The word "environment" has been dropped from the title, and it has been dropped from the text of the bill.
It is true that the descriptive part of the bill gives adequate emphasis to the environment in so-called class 9 of the schedule, but the operative part of the bill does not. For example, when it comes to the powers of the inspector to seize, remove, or forfeit dangerous goods, the duties to report and to take reasonable emergency measures, and the power to conduct inquiries, no mention is made of the environment. Why is that?
Clause 14(1) of the present proposed bill gives the inspector powers of seizure, removal and forfeiture of dangerous goods in order to prevent or reduce any serious and imminent danger to life, health and property. Why is there no reference to the environment as there was in Bill C-17, clause 11 ?

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
The same thing applies to the clause on accidents and incidents where damage or danger to life, health or property is considered. Why is the environment not included here as it was in clause 13(1) of Bill C-17?
Why is there no reference to the environment in clause 16(2) of this bill, which concerns the duty to take reasonable emergency measures to repair or remedy any condition or reduce or mitigate any damage to or destruction of life, health and property?
Why is there no reference to the environment in clause 19(1) of this bill, which gives the Minister of Transport the power to direct an inquiry into an accident or incident involving dangerous goods which has resulted in death or injury to any person, or danger to health or safety of the public, or damage to property?
Clause 16(1) of the previous bill, Bill C-17, gave the minister the power to direct an inquiry into an accident or incident which results, and I quote: "in death, or in damage or in danger to life, health, property or the environment". This wording in the preceding bill is more comprehensive, and I submit to the minister that it broadens the scope of the bill. It is a better approach.
Let us consider an accident involving dangerous goods which might occur in an area where there was no death or direct injury to any person or danger to the health or safety of the public or damage to property, but which could seriously damage the environment. There could be a situation like that in this very large country where a variety of situations may occur.
We on this side of the House question the necessity of clause 6(4), which provides that no proceedings by way of summary conviction may be instituted after two years from the day the offence was committed. Why the time limit? Would an offender not be responsible for long-term damage caused, for example, by chlorine gas?
With regard to other matters, we would like to express the hope that regulations will take into consideration the danger posed by railway cars carrying a variety of chemicals which, in combination, could be disastrous, and we ask whether regulations will be drafted in a way which will require that such chemicals be effectively separated while travelling in the same convoy.
Another point of concern which perhaps goes beyond the scope of this bill but which nevertheless needs to be mentioned in this debate, is that there is no provision for unguarded railway crossings along routes taken by trains carrying dangerous goods. We welcome the opportunity to register this point with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). We also urge him, besides looking into the matter of unguarded railway crossings, to ensure that there will be regulations which require trains carrying dangerous goods to bypass urban areas, where tracks are available or where there is a system which is available but which perhaps needs to be modernized or upgraded. And in the longer term, of course-and we realize the expense that is involved here-we urge that a policy of

railway relocations be considered where alternative routes are not available.
We are concerned really about the omission of references to the environment as a matter of principle. Whenever we move goods which are potentially damaging to the environment, it becomes crucial for governments to take a leading role in the protection of the environment in the broadest sense of the word, and by omitting any reference to it in the text of this bill and even in its title, the environment becomes relegated to the last page of the bill, just in the schedule. That is where it is found, and yet we thought we were looking at a total picture and that we were concerned about life, health, property, the environment, everything, not one to the exclusion of the other, which prompts me to ask where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) was when this bill went through cabinet. Was he consulted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.


Mr. Caccia:: Did he have any input in this?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes.


Charles L. Caccia: What did he say to justify the omission- virtually the deletion-of this word from the present bill? Why was the word "environment" dropped? Was there any fear of encroaching on provincial responsibilities? Did Ontario raise a fuss?


Mr. Kempling:: No.


Charles L. Caccia: Did Ontario say that perhaps it would be inadmissible-


William James Kempling: No.


Charles L. Caccia: -that Ottawa should have in a federal bill any reference to the word "environment"?


William James Kempling: No.


Charles L. Caccia: Were you in cabinet?


William James Kempling: Yes.


Charles L. Caccia: How do you know?


William James Kempling: They told me.


Charles L. Caccia: Of course. I should know that the whip of the government party is a person who knows everything, by definition.


William James Kempling: That's right.


Charles L. Caccia: We are wondering about the clout of the Minister of the Environment in relation to this bill. There is a very serious shortcoming, and we would like to register these thoughts with the Minister of Transport. We know he is concerned about the environment, and we hope that in committee there will be an opportunity to redress this omission and to bring into focus again and into the centre of consideration
November 27, 1979

of this bill-as he has already done with other parts, namely, health, property, and all the other elements which come under consideration-the environment, which belongs at the centre of our attention.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I had been interested in the previous bill to this one when it was going through the Elouse because of a number of complaints that were being made in northern Ontario regarding the movement from Manitoba to the town of Cobalt, in Ontario, of a large quantity of arsenic ore. At that time the argument was made by the then government that if the Efazardous Products Act had been passed, something could be done about the problem. There were numerous complaints in northern Ontario about the transportation of that arsenic ore, because it is a fairly lethal substance, and a sufficient amount was being moved to endanger most of the communities through which that product was moved if an accident were to occur.
I studied the act and I found at that time that it did not do a damn thing to solve the problems we were encountering and that it would not really make any difference whether or not the act was passed because so many agencies were involved, as well as three governments and the environmental people in those governments. Thus passage of the act would mean nothing at all.
It was for that reason that I was hopeful that when Bill C-25 was introduced in the House, the minister would look not only at the problem with which we had been faced recently in Mississauga where all the potential of a major disaster existed and only good luck and considerably good management had enabled the people in the area to escape death or injury, but would look at the total problem of the transportation of hazardous goods.
In my view, as I read this bill, I do not think it will do anything to solve that whole problem. Hon. members have mentioned what we should be doing. The minister should be looking at some emergency legislation which would require proper spacing of cars, something which the CTC has done now'. I presume the minister has twisted their arms because they did not appear to be the least bit interested in doing that a couple of days ago when they were before the standing committee. At that time they said it would cost too much. If the minister did twist their arms, I hope he will keep on twisting it because this is the only way in which we will get any action from them.
This legislation should contain a requirement that hazardous products be marked, that the cars, the trucks and the containers, no matter whether they are on piggy-back, on the highway, in the marine service, or in whatever form, or mode of transportation is being used, be clearly marked so that people would know exactly what is being transported in the container and what to do about it in case of an accident. It is all well and good to know that a car has gone off the track. It may have oil in it, it may have gas in it, it may have propane in
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
it, or any other chemical that might be highly toxic, highly dangerous or highly explosive.
Also, it seems to me that the designation we put on the cars, trucks or containers in which dangerous and hazardous products are moved should be internationally recognized. We are moving Canadian cars into the United States and the United States is moving its cars with such products into Canada, and in that interchange it would not be wise if Ontario marked propane with a red circle, New York state marked it with a blue square, Manitoba used another designation, and so on. Surely we should arrive at some internationally recognized designation of such products. Yet it is stated in the bill that the designation will not be an international designation but that we are merely going to enforce some safety markings of these products.
I think it is absolutely essential that people know exactly what kind of product is being transported. I understand that in Mississauga officials who were present at the time of the accident were told first that PCBs were being transported. Then they were told that it was chlorine, and finally it turned out to be another substance. I think it makes a great deal of difference what kind of product is in a car when choosing the correct method of control in case of an accident. Yet this is not what this legislation specifies.
The minister has inherited this act from the Liberals. If they put environmental provisions in there, I do not think it was intentional because they did not really intend to pass the bill. At first it was kicked around in the early 1970s, and then it was reintroduced in 1978. Now in 1979 the minister is introducing the same act or a similar act. Frankly, I think that every time the government talks to industry, the legislation is watered down some more, to the point that we might as well throw it all out.
I urge the minister, who is very knowledgeable and certainly very concerned with this, to look at some of the recommendations that will be made by the committee members. He should be willing to amend this bill. This is not his bill. It is one he purloined from the previous government, and I presume he would not be averse to improving it. I believe that the small improvements he has made are bad ones.
The previous speaker mentioned the two-year provision. I do not see any reason why it should not be possible to go beyond two years. I remember a particular accident which had occurred in the rural town of Gogama. A certain substance was dumped in that community and no one was told what it was. It polluted the wells. It was agreed that the wells were poisoned and that no one was to drink water from them. On one side of the street there might have been four houses to which fresh water was supplied, but the fifth house might not have obtained fresh water and another street might have been missed altogether. They never told many of the people what the poisonous chemical was. Last year some officials came along and told the people in that community that all the poison had dissipated, that there was no more poisonous chemical in the water, and that people could go back to using their own source of water.

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
I am sure the minister will be able to make a number of improvements to this bill and I am sure members will be interested in making them. I would like to make one last plea. The movement of hazardous goods by way of rail transportation is the responsibility of the federal government. But one of these days there is going to be an accident on the highway which might involve the same kind of chemical as was involved in Mississauga, under similar circumstances. Will we say, in setting up a hazardous products act, that it is the responsibility of the provinces; if a truck is not going from one province to another in interprovincial trade, it will be provincial responsibility?
It would seem to me that the federal government will have to assume the responsibility for the standards, the symbols or the marks on the containers which indicate what the product is. We will have to assume some responsibility for the jurisdiction which is partly shared by the provinces. It would be wise to give consideration to a hazardous products act on the highways, no matter whether they are interprovincial or totally within the provincial field. Surely to God we are trying to protect the general public. The problem on highways will be about as strong as it is in the field of railway transportation.
I would like to think the committee will make a decision for the upgrading of railway cars using the type of journals which overheat. We have been able to overcome that problem with bearings which run on oil. The other type of bearings are obsolete. It seems to me on cars which will carry dangerous products that we should insist on the new, up to date, much safer type of bearings than we are using on the other cars. It is all right to say that we will instal hot boxes. That will be an advantage, but the problem will not be eliminated until we get around to putting in oil bearings which are not subject to the same heat condition as the old friction bearings were.
I should like the minister to give some consideration to giving the committee the regulations before we pass this bill. Frankly, I do not think the bill is of any value unless there are regulations which enforce it. I am aware that we are not able to put on enough inspectors, to have an inspector travelling on every train. We will not be able to have inspectors sitting there nursing the industry. The fines will have to be high enough for infractions that it will be necessary for them to do some of the policing themselves. I suggest the committee should be entitled to the regulations.
When the minister considers the regulations, how about considering referring the red book on regulations, on which we are now operating, to the committee? I imagine there are regulations which governed members of Parliament who used to take their horses with them when they travelled on trains. That is probably still in the regulations, but I imagine it is so archaic that it does not have any relationship to modern transportation on an efficient railway system. Regulations are absolutely essential to any decision made by members as to whether they believe this bill will serve the needs of today.

Those regulations must be brought to the attention of the committee before the bill receives third reading.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the principle of this bill, I should like to touch on just three points. The first one is that perhaps the word "prevention" deals with every one of those points. It does not matter what is done, because the best way to handle the situation is to prevent such things from ever happening. I think we have spent too much time on regulations and considerations without touching the real cause of many of these accidents.
First I should like to deal with the matter of equipment. The last speaker mentioned that trucks should be considered. For many years truck companies have been required to mark on their vehicles if they are carrying dangerous or explosive materials. This requirement by the provinces has been in existence for quite a number of years. For many years trucks have undergone inspections to make sure that the vehicles are in roadworthy condition. It seems strange that the railways have not kept pace with what provincial governments have required the trucking companies to do. I should like to deal with that particular point because it is very, very important.
If one looks at the routes through a city, trucks are not permitted to go wherever they wish. Even though it costs the trucking companies additional money and it is inconvenient for the drivers, trucks must follow certain routes when they carry explosives. But that is not the case in connection with the railways. Again there has been some carelessness in regard to tackling this problem on the railroads that has not been evident when it comes to the provincial governments in the ten provinces of this country.
In regard to train equipment, I will not deal with every type of equipment. The alleged claim is that the accident at Mississauga happened because of the hot box or the overheating of bearings literally burning a set of wheels from the car. In the case of Mississauga that is exactly what happened. They found a pair of wheels 1.5 miles from the spot where the derailed cars spilled and burned. It has been said that the hot box problem was mainly caused by old-fashioned brass wheel bearings, that all new tank cars must have roller bearings, but that if they had to be installed on all freight cars, it would be an immense expense. When one talks about expense, one cannot value human life in dollar bills. This has been the claim of the railways for a long time.
I realize there is a limit to what the railways can do, but if their competitors, the truckers, were required to mark their vehicles and keep them in a roadworthy condition, why have we been so lax in ensuring that boxcars carrying dangerous goods are marked? That was mentioned by the previous hon. member a few moments ago. We have made strides in this particular area in every other field. People are not permitted to put poisonous substances in bottles without labelling them. Yet here we have the same thing in larger and more dangerous quantities, and we have never required them to be labelled. Consequently we have the situation which exists in this particular case.
November 27, 1979

The safety conference in 1971 found that 60 per cent of Canadian train derailments were caused by the hot box. This was in 1971, eight years ago. If we are even to begin to solve the problem and prevent a terrible tragedy and catastrophe from happening in the future, we will have to take a look at some of the causes of accidents. Certainly equipment is one of the causes. In 1977 or early 1978 there was an event similar to the one at Mississauga near the town of Stirling in southern Alberta. At that time I, along with many other people, made representations to the Canadian Transport Commission to do something to ensure that this would not happen again. The railway was lucky that nobody was killed, just as it was lucky in Mississauga that nobody was killed. One of these days there will be a tragedy and the railways will not be so lucky. The cost will be enormous in dollars, and even then they cannot pay for human life or the destruction of part of the human body.
I am not even asking that the railways be required to move every line out of every populated area, but when a railway is rebuilding or replacing a line and there is an alternative route to the one going through a hamlet, a village, a town or a city, then there is no excuse whatsoever for putting that line right back where it is in a dangerous zone.
We have come a long way in respect of corridors for highways, power and gas lines. I do not think we have gone far enough. We should be extending these corridors so these utility lines do not have to cut over every farmer's yard. We do not have to endanger every human being in our large settled areas because of the movement of explosives. We realize that trains and trucks have to carry explosives because that is the only way of getting them from one place to another. I emphasize again that, when a line is being replaced, the Canadian Transport Commission should not permit the railway to put that line right back where it is going to be a danger should this type of thing happen in a particular settlement. This has not been the attitude of the Canadian Transport Commission and it was not the attitude of the minister in the previous government.
The other day I asked the minister to look over the record of what has happened at Lake Louise. There were three possible routes, one of which was right through the village of Lake Louise where, in the summertime, there are thousands of people. People live in this village all year around. There was an alternative, but it would have been more expensive. It would have destroyed more of the environment. That alternative was not selected. I hope the railway will be lucky and there will never be a tragedy in that village of Lake Louise. If there ever is, it will not be an inexpensive accident equivalent to the difference in cost of putting that rail line in the corridor that was advocated as compared to the floor of that very narrow valley. If such an accident occurs, I am sure the CPR will realize it has made a mistake.
When we made representations to the Canadian Transport Commission advocating that it not permit the railway to put this line right through the heart of Lake Louise, they just
Transportation of Dangerous Goods
laughed us off. We received consideration, but their answer was no. They agreed with the railway. If we are to have that type of procedure, then all these regulations will not help very much. If these accidents occur in built-up areas people will be injured. It has been sheer luck that people have not been killed and injured, and subjected to the suffering that results from the escape of some of these gases.
1 made an appeal to the minister in the Liberal government, outlining a program with which he agreed to some extent, but he said he would not interfere. I suggest he would have had to interfere if there had been an explosion and people were killed at Mississauga. The members of this government expected our Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to interfere, and properly so, if the lives of people were at stake, but the minister in the last government would not interfere. Consequently that project to which I have referred has now advanced too far. Thousands of dollars have been spent.
One of the things that amazed me and to which I objected was the fact that even before the Canadian Transport Commission gave its decision on the appeal, the railway had started to build this line. This is disgraceful, but that is what happened and I challenge anyone to produce evidence that this is not so.
How many other places exist where lines are being rebuilt in areas where they represent a danger to life and limb? I suggest that prevention is better than any cure, and prevention is better than any act. We should be making sure that we are carrying out this type of prevention in every way possible.
I know it would be impossible to check every particular item of every boxcar on the line, but surely it is not too much to expect that there will be a general inspection periodically. Provincial governments require truckers to carry out inspections. Truckers cannot operate year after year without checking their vehicles. They must spend money to keep their vehicles roadworthy. This money is added into the cost of operation. As a result there are very few truck accidents. The truckers respect these regulations and live up to their requirements.
I want to also deal specifically with the regulations. If regulations are not set out specifically, with every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed, there will be ways found to get around them. We must take all the precautions necessary because, in the event of another accident, we may not be as lucky. I am thankful we were so lucky in respect of the accident at Mississauga, and I am thankful we were so lucky in respect of the incident that occurred at Stirling. Many people could have been killed there. People were evacuated from that area, but because this was a small town the incident did not get national press coverage and a lot was not made of it. I should have thought, as I said to the CPR at that time, that this example would have been enough to persuade them to correct the situation to the greatest possible degree.
I commend the minister for bringing in this measure so quickly. I hope that at the committee hearings we will have a full discussion of individual items and will be able to put together an act that is as air tight as possible. In addition I hope the government, and the Canadian Transport Commis-

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods sion, will not permit the railways to put in lines where they are a danger to human life. We are not asking the railways to build complete lines, we are simply suggesting that when a line is being replaced it be relocated in an area where there will be less danger in the event of an explosion or a terrible accident.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, albeit very briefly, this evening on Bill C-25 to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods. I would hope that with our system it would not take an incident such as the ones referred to by previous speakers this evening, with the loss of life or the threat of loss, in order to have us, as parliamentarians, accept our responsibility to act. We should act now, without waiting for a disaster or a loss of life, and move toward bringing forward legislation such as we are considering this evening.
I, too, am satisfied that we will have an opportunity to question the minister and his officials on many other aspects of this important bill when we have completed second reading and the bill is before the committee.
I want to join with those other hon. members in congratulating the minister for moving as swiftly as he has in seeking the approval of his government to move in this direction.
I would not want to miss the opportunity to mention the fact that in addition to the Mississauga incident we faced a very serious situation in the province of New Brunswick. Very recently radioactive goods were being transported from Montreal, Quebec, to Saint John, New Brunswick, to the Le Preau project, and for a considerable period of time a package of raidoactive material was unaccounted for, or lost in shipment. After the Emergency Measures Organization and the staff of the RCMP had spent hours at great expense in an effort to locate this dangerous product, it was found in a warehouse.
On another occasion in Saint John, New Brunswick, which was equally as dangerous, a package containing radioactive material feel off the back of a truck. It took a considerable amount of time, manpower, and expense to locate that package. The fact that such a thing could happen certainly justifies the minister acting in the fashion that he has and carrying out his responsibilities in bringing forward Bill C-25. It is none too soon. We on this side are certainly anxious to complete debate on this issue so that it may come back to the House for report stage and third reading.


Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate, but I want to raise with the minister a caution about the nature of this legislation, and offer what I would hope is a suggestion that he would review and take into account. One of the things which we should prevent ourselves from doing with this legislation is assuming that it will solve the problem. The minister indicated that a lot of work and time went into this bill to arrive at the solution, but we must recognize that it is more a panacea than it is a solution.
Other hon. members, including the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), have pointed out a far more serious concern, that is, that no matter how good the regulations, inspection and monitoring procedures are, there will still be a major movement of dangerous goods through high density residential areas right across Canada. As our industrial world grows, it seems to have enormous ability to proliferate toxic chemicals and their uses. We have a great capacity to develop poisonous ways for dealing with our world, and it concerns me that we often use these methods without looking at all the consequences of our actions.
I hope that the minister will use this bill as a way of examining a much more intensive difficulty, that of the major movement of all kinds of dangerous goods through major urban areas and our small towns in Canada. I wrote to the minister about the problem in the city of Winnipeg with regard to railway location. As the minister knows, this is a topic of major debate in our city because we have one of the world's largest railway marshalling yards in the downtown portion of the city. I raise this for the reason that the railroads have argued that the only time they will be prepared to move those railroads and yards is when the government is prepared to pay them for it. They are not prepared to contribute in any tangible way to the cost of such a move. In fact, the railroads had to be shown through a railway relocation program how it would be profitable for them to relocate their yards.
We now have very graphic and dramatic evidence that we cannot measure safety in terms of the profitability margins of the major railroads. I suggest to the minister that in looking at the relocation problem, which is really the only solution to this difficulty, it will require something more than what is available under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. It will require a substantial co-operative effort on the part of the municipalities, the federal and provincial governments and the railroads all equally contributing to what will be a very high capital cost.
Once this bill has gone through the House and the minister has provided his temporary solutions, his holding action, the next major step is to look at the major relocation of railway yards and railway lines throughout settled areas of Canada, to avoid these problems. That is not something which the government can do alone. The minister will have to use the leverage, influence and power of the government to bring the railroads into line to co-operate and change the formulas and equations by which the whole relocation process is being administered in this country. We have had the warning and we do not have much time. I hope that the warning will be taken up by the minister, not only through this bill but through subsequent action which will provide a major commitment to the relocation of railways in Canada.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this matter as an ordinary citizen because I consider myself neither an expert in the technology of this particular problem, the transportation of dangerous goods, nor in a legal sense with regard to this legislation. However, I am beginning to conclude having stud-

November 27, 1979

ied some of the material relative to this question tonight, that I live in and represent a potential bomb in Vancouver East. 1 suppose the explosive situation in the port of Vancouver applies to other ports in Canada. I sympathize with the members on the other side who expressed equal concern for small communities across the country which experience dangerous situations that do not hit the national press. 1 also would concur with the last speaker, and to me it makes great sense that the solution to this problem in major urban centres is to relocate the potential danger spots outside densely populated areas.
With regard to Vancouver East, I am sure that my constituents would want to be assured that this bill is broad enough to take into account all modes of transportation. There is a convergence in Vancouver East of major railway lines from across Canada carrying explosive materials from other parts of the country. There is also a convergence of heavy trucks bringing in explosives and other such materials to our port. These transportation modes co-ordinate with airlines going over to Vancouver Island, and they, too, carry dangerous materials. These transportation modes also co-ordinate with both the ferry shipping industry and major deep sea shipping where goods are transferred from trucks and rail cars to the ships.
It seems to me that the nature of the problem we are talking about tonight is quadrupled in an area such as the port of Vancouver. It makes me shake a little, and I am sure that I will lose some sleep when I think about the topography and the fact that we are surrounded by mountains which will keep gases over the city should we have an accident. Most of our area is connected by bridges and waterways, and this is detrimental to evacuation. This concern is so great in Vancouver that the mayor and representatives from the Greater Vancouver Region have been holding meetings with regard to evacuation and safety measures which can be co-ordinated at their level.
Today I received a report from the CTC's dangerous commodity review committee. I will not go into it in detail tonight, but I can assure hon. members that there are about ten different trouble spots in and around the port of Vancouver. In places where the railways connect with the ships, there is no other solution, but through relocation. In September, 1978, we had a very serious scare in Vancouver East when a truck overturned at Main Street and Third Avenue. Liquid chlorine spewed out on the street and, the area had to be evacuated. There was no real evacuation procedure to follow, but fortunately there were people in charge who were levelheaded and moved quickly. Approximately 78 people went to hospital, and the whole area could have easily blown up were it not for the excellent preventive work of the fire department.
In the downtown area of Vancouver, behind the Holiday Inn, where many members have probably stayed while visiting Vancouver, there is another powder keg. Trucks and railways connect with CPR ferries there. A year ago there was an accident, but fortunately the cars involved were carrying wheat. It could have been explosives. Many cars carrying
Transportation of Dangerous Goods chlorine and liquid natural gas transfer their load to ferries at this point behind the Holiday Inn.
I refer the minister to an article in the Vancouver Sun which mentions Yumahide Maru, a floating bomb which regularly carries liquid petroleum gas through our port. It has carried 3 million barrels over the past 14 years without incident. However, you just have to read this article to know that any day there could be a major accident there.
The Vancouver Sun of November 15 states that overheated CP Rail axles which caused the Mississauga accident could happen again, very readily in downtown Vancouver.
I hope the minister and the committee will look in great detail at the dangers inherent in all these modes of transportation, particularly at the very serious situations in the ports of our country, especially the port of Vancouver.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I realize the minister would like to say a few words in closing. I am very concerned about an aspect of this bill, an aspect that has been mentioned earlier. That is the operative clause concerning the protection of the environment which has been removed from the bill. Even the weak legislation proposed by the previous Liberal government included some protection for the environment. The new minister has taken away that protection. I worry that the consultative process he talks about with industry has already taken place and the minister has already succumbed to the wishes and directives of those who support the Conservative party and the Social Credit party.
In the whole area of environment, we need more protection, not less. In my constituency there is little chance of a tragedy occurring in a populated area. However, there are miles and miles of track passing through some beautiful environment, trees and lakes. People rely on the forest and fishing industries for their economic well-being. I wonder if this act and the regulations that will flow from it will give these people protection, as well as protecting the environment. I must admit that I do not feel we will have this protection under this act. We need legislation and regulations that will protect this country. We cannot afford to have something happen to us because at this time the minister does not want to introduce legislation to protect the environment. Instead, he is removing those clauses which would protect it.
Like an earlier speaker, I am wondering where the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) is this evening. His absence from this debate is very interesting. Obviously he should be here speaking about protecting the environment. Not only is he not here for this bill, he was not here to protect the Arctic when permission was given to allow the Arctic mine to go ahead without further study. He was not notified when a decision was made to allow Dome Petroleum to extend drilling in the north after the end of the regular season. That was not allowed last year, but is being allowed this year under the new

November 27, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp).
Where is the Minister of the Environment when it comes time to protect the environment of this country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Running the Post Office.


Rodney Edward Murphy: According to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he is running the Post office. That is a big department. It brings up another problem. We have a Minister of the Environment, but he is too busy with other things to look after the environment of this country. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) does not have faith in those sitting on the back benches on his side. It is unfortunate that a number of ministers each have two major portfolios. As a result, the people and the environment are not protected. The veterans of this country are concerned that they do not have a minister in this House to protect them. As a result, we have to wonder what is happening.
Back to the legislation we are discussing-the Minister of the Environment is not here to speak on it. 1 wonder if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) consulted him. How concerned are the backbenchers in the Conservative party? The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had a concern on a number of issues ever since the dinosaur issue. That is the type of thing missing from this legislation. We need protective legislation, not weak legislation, to protect the interests of the environment in this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 37(2), I must inform hon. members that if the minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


William James Kempling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if necessary could we agree unanimously not to see the clock in order to allow the minister to finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see no problem. My interpretation of the order adopted yesterday for consideration of second reading of this bill was that later today all questions necessary will be disposed of. As far as I am concerned, today ends at midnight.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: said at the outset, this is a piece of legislation which requires the co-operation of both jurisdictions, and this was done to prevent conflict with the strong provincial legislation dealing with remedial powers. By establishing adequate transportation regulations over the identification of such products, their labelling, packaging and movement, these preventive measures should assist and complement the provincial powers in complying with environmental protection. Also, for what it is worth, the protection of the environment is automatically achieved when public safety is promoted.
To put it quite bluntly, although protection of the environment will often be a consequence of the provisions of the act or the regulations, the action we have taken was in response to questions raised at the provincial level as to the jurisdiction of the minister and of the federal government with regard to the environment. Reference, to the environment remains in the schedule in order to allow the department to include environmentally hazardous substances in the safety standards classification. This, we feel, would enable the environmental and transport agencies to assume complementary roles in achieving the ultimate objective of this bill.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) raised the question of whether this bill would apply to interprovincial trucking. The answer is yes. The legislation is enabling in nature, but there is also a provision whereby, if agreement between the federal and the provincial jurisdiction is not reached after consultation, the federal government, under clause 28, can invoke this measure so that interprovincial trucking is covered. As 1 said at the outset, the bill covers all modes of transport. That is the intent of the measure. 1 am sure that if the hon. member reads the relevant portion of the legislation he will find that both his concerns are adequately answered.
Finally, the question of the regulations was brought up by a number of members. They are quite correct. The regulations are the core of this legislation. I can assure all members that a lot of work has gone into their drafting-I believe two or three drafts have been compiled. They are very comprehensive in nature. For the information of the Flouse I might mention that they cover about 1,200 pages in total; that includes a whole list of the chemicals, special packages, tank cars, truck designs and use and so on. While I want to co-operate with the committee in every way I can, I am not at all sure whether the members of the committee will be prepared to digest the contents of those hundreds of regulations adequately.
We have taken part in discussions with a number of provinces, municipalities and associations throughout the country, so the code which is being established has not been put forward in an environment of lack of consultation. There has been a high degree of input from all quarters. Hon. members have suggested that the legislation might have been watered down as a result of the degree of consultation which has taken place. I assure them, this is a case where the legislation is only as good as the degree of support it receives from the industry-we cannot have enforcement officers in every caboose or trailer truck so we have to promote the bill in an environment
Adjournment Debate
where we are working together as government, industry and carriers, to make sure that its ultimate objective is achieved. To be honest about this piece of legislation, I think it has received the co-operation and support of literally every segment of our society, including the provinces, the industry, and the carriers.
1 wish to conclude by assuring the House that I will deal with this legislation in committee and in this chamber in the spirit of full and open co-operation for which I am known by most hon. members. I believe the debate tonight has been conducted at a very high level. It has not been partisan but constructive, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it will be in that spirit we shall proceed to the next stage because I believe all members share one common desire, that is, to develop the best possible legislation to provide for the safest possible transport of both passengers and goods. I thank all hon. members for their support and for their contributions to the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

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

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, page 1550 of Hansard records my question to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding research reports which reveal that human fetuses from ten to 25 weeks' gestation were victims of vivisection in the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre for purposes of scientific experimentation.
These reports appear in detail relevant to this debate on page 74 of the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 1973, Volume 37, on page 60 and following pages of the same journal, 1976, volume 42, and page 9 and following pages of the same journal. On November 22 I rose on a question of privilege and offered at that time to table these reports. I subsequently gave copies of them to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie).
Although the acting minister said, and I quote, "I think it is important that there be a full exposition of the facts of this matter," I fear, judging from his answer to me, that such an exposition will not be possible because the acting minister himself seemed unaware of the initial facts. Nor, in fact, did he even attempt to answer my first question, which was

November 27, 1979
Adjournment Debate
whether or not such experiments are still being funded by the Medical Research Council of Canada.
In fact the reports raise several other vitally important questions, not the least of which is the reason why hysterotomy was chosen as the method of abortion, especially on babies of less than 12 weeks' gestation. Surely other methods would have been less traumatic for the women.
We are told that hospital laws state that abortions cannot be done after 20 weeks, yet these same research reports themselves specify, especially on page 614, that there were two babies well over 20 weeks' fetal age and probably more like 26 weeks of obstetrical age by estimating their crown rump length. These babies would certainly have been viable and might have had a chance of survival.
This raises another question. If some of these babies were big enough by both fetal age and/or crown rump length to survive, then were the proper resuscitation measures not indicated, or did the procedures subsequently carried out cause or hasten their deaths? As, by the procedure of hysterotomy, they had completely proceeded in a living state from the body of their mothers, were they not, under section 206 of the Criminal Code, human beings within the meaning of the Code and therefore to be protected by law? Could eight cubic centimetres of cardiac blood have been removed from a tiny heart unless that heart was still pumping? Many experts believe this to be highly, highly improbable.
We are told, furthermore, that each hysterotomy was performed because of gynecosocial indications on otherwise healthy pregnant women. Does the Criminal Code permit abortions for such reasons?
We are told that the mothers signed a general consent form stating that tissues removed would be subjected to a pathological examination. It appears they were not told that their babies would be subject to heart puncture and the removal of glands, including the pituitary, the adrenals, the ovaries or the testes, yet medical experts, including a fetologist and a neonatologist, tell us that some of the babies subjected to these operations would certainly have been viable and might have had a chance of survival. However, the actual operation of the removal of the adrenals and gonads would certainly have caused or hastened the deaths of these babies.
How, then, did these babies actually die? We know they were born alive because hysterotomy implies just that. The first report in particular mentions the fetal age of 25 weeks, and all three reports reveal that the tests were performed immediately-not immediately following death, but immediately following live delivery. When and how, then, did the babies die? Where are the death certificates required by the Manitoba Vital Statistics Act?
I believe this entire question is one of fundamental human rights. If a baby is born alive following an abortion, then all available medical treatment must be given to assist and sustain that life. Until these and all other questions are addressed, and until appropriate guidelines have been developed, I believe that

a moratorium must be imposed on all scientific experimentation on human fetuses.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the question of the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni) concerning the vivisection of human fetuses, in particular to her reference to reports from the Winnipeg Health Sciences Centre.
I agree that this is indeed a very sensitive and important issue, and for this reason I would like to provide additional clarification with respect to the matter.
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, section 206:
A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.
A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.
Under section 215, abortions are permissible when, in the opinion of the members of a therapeutic abortion committee of an approved or accredited hospital, the continuation of the pregnancy would, or would be likely to, endanger the life or health of the woman.
The laws of Canada, therefore, protect the lives of individuals and of the fetus, while excluding certain instances under a controlled authorization such as a medical intervention in the case of an abortion.
In terms of general policy, the federal government does not regard abortion as an acceptable method of birth control. It does, however, recognize that unwanted conceptions may occur as a result of failure to use an effective method of contraception or any contraception at all. In these cases, there may be justification for therapeutic abortion, not because the pregnancy was not planned but because it may have given rise to conditions which, in the opinion of a therapeutic abortion committee, provide appropriate grounds for termination in accordance with the Criminal Code.
My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald), has already provided substantial information concerning the context in which these studies were carried out, although all the direct questions that the hon. member has put tonight have not been answered, and as more information does become available the hon. member can rest assured that the minister will inform the hon. member and the House.
It now appears that the matter is being handled in the most appropriate manner, that is, it is being considered by the attorney general of the province of Manitoba.
[Translation}


AGRICULTURE-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC FOR REDUCTION IN POULTRY IMPORTS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 last, several hundred poultry producers from Ontario and Quebec marched on Parliament Hill to protest
November 27, 1979

against the Canada-U.S. agreement providing for an increase in chicken imports from the United States. On November 20 I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) but his answer did not seem to satisfy producers entirely, since according to a telegram we received on November 23, the Quebec Poultry Producers' Union is again protesting against this agreement which is far from satisfactory, despite what the Minister of Agriculture may say.
To show that the agreement is really not satisfactory, let me draw attention to the fact that in the early seventies chicken imports from the United States were approximately 7 million pounds a year. In 1974, they reached over 11 million pounds, in 1975, 20 million and in 1976, 52 million pounds. During those years, Mr. Speaker, producers succeeded in promoting a marketing system for their products, the cost-sharing provincial programs that logically led to the establishment of a national board in charge of them all completing the provincial organization for the orderly marketing of a farm product through interventions on the interprovincial and international markets.
However, Bill C-176, allowing the establishment of national marketing boards, was used for the production of poultry and a national chicken board exists since the end of 1978. Setting up all those agencies was not an easy task, I remember it well, but the aims spurred us on. It was encouraging to see the producers get organized and use this act that had been passed by Parliament. The Canadian producers adjusted their production to the demand, assigned shares of the market to the provinces according to criteria agreed to by all provinces. This restriction of production had the advantage of making the sale of products secure and costs more equitable and stable.
According to Bill C-176 the volume of annual imports must be representative of traditional imports. So, the average should have been between 25 and 30 million pounds, all classes, fresh or cooked. The unilateral decision of the federal government will have very serious economic consequences on the farming industry in Quebec. Large poultry production and slaughtering facilities, particularly in Quebec, whose investments in each area exceed $100 million, will lose a good part of their efficiency. With respect to the marked effect on prices, in my opinion and in that of the producers themselves, an import volume of that order will reduce producer prices by 15 to 20 per cent and will have an impact on the up and down ends of that production. The fact that producers will have to reduce production in Quebec to avoid unnecessary production surpluses will result in fewer food sales, less slaughtering, less distribution, consequently less manpower, hence more unemployment.
The decision of the federal government is based on the import volume of the last two or three years. On the one part, producers would quota their production, and on the other part,
Adjournment Debate
brokers seeing the import quotas coming did everything they could to increase their volume.
Mr. Speaker, that decision does not take into account the facts of reality, the need to produce or the consequences that can bring. That looks like a decision made not to offend our southern neighbours. According to the reports we get, producers in the Quebec area and other provinces do not accept that decision. On the other hand, we must not destroy what has been built either-provincial organizations, joint programs, the national agency, sales security, equitable prices, production and slaughtering facilities, creation of jobs, huge capital investments. All this has been done by producers to meet consumer needs and also arrange to have profitable businesses. It would be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if as a result of that agreement a provincial government should feel compelled to withdraw from the agency to protect the interests of farm producers in its province.
Once again I would like to urge most sincerely the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), to get in touch at once with the national marketing agency to see if it would not be possible to change the agreement so as to offer better protection to our producers; otherwise, if that is not done, what is going to happen is that one of these days the United States may no longer be able to supply us, our producers will be disorganized, and we will have a shortage. It will be our fault because we did not act advisedly.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs);: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to respond to the hon. member's question for my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
On November 20, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) questioned the minister about any representations that may have been made to him on behalf of Quebec poultry producers by the Quebec minister of agriculture. The minister in response stated that he is, indeed, in communication on a fairly frequent basis with his provincial counterparts and, in fact, he had just recently received a telex message from the minister of agriculture for Quebec. However, this communication did not state that Quebec was ready to withdraw from the National Chicken Marketing Agency. Indeed, as the minister pointed out, if the press reports had been correct in that this is what Quebec is thinking about, he hoped that Quebec would seriously reconsider its position as one of the signatories to this national agency.
In the communications the minister from Quebec had with our colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, there has been the concern raised over the issuing of supplementary permits for the importation of chicken to Canada. I may state here on behalf of my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret), that in

November 27, 1979
Adjournment Debate
addition to the global import quota for chickens there may, at certain times, be a requirement to issue supplementary permits if domestic requirements cannot be sourced locally.
The normal procedure would be that the applicant makes his request known to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency as well as to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The agency would then have 72 hours to attempt to source domestically the quantities of the product specified by the applicant. If the agency can supply the product requested by the applicant, then no supplementary permits would be issued. However, if the agency cannot supply the product, then supplementary permits would normally be issued. Of course, if the agency can partially fill the applicant's requested quantity of product, then the supplementary permits would normally be issued only for the balance.
In the longer run my colleagues and I see the need for supplementary permits for chicken imports being sharply reduced or even eliminated. This will, of course, depend on how well the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency is able to supply Canadian market requirements. If the agency ensures that adequate domestic supplies are available, at competitive prices, then there will be no need to implement supplementary permits. In a situation as just described, actual imports may even fall below the global import quota level.
For the information of this House, if I may, I would like to give some figures concerning the annual import quota which was established as follows. For the period October to December, 1979, 8.75 million pounds eviscerated weight will be allowed for chicken import; for 1980 total year import permits will be allowed for 48.5 million pounds eviscerated weight; and for 1981 this will increase to 52 million pounds. The quotas will be allocated to individual importers on the basis of their imports during 1976, 1977 and 1978. On a quarterly basis, importers would have to use their basic quota entitlement prior to being eligible for consideration for supplementary permits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member as his allotted time has expired.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-AID IN CONSTRUCTION OF FROZEN FISH PLANTS IN SENEGAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: It is with pleasure that I repeat tonight the question I asked on November 19 and for which I could not obtain an answer for several reasons, including the noted and notable absence of the minister responsible for Cl DA. As we know, it is very difficult for members of this House to obtain answers on Cl DA since the minister responsible does not sit among us. This is a situation that 1 deplore and that is to the disadvantage of all members of the House.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) told me that she would take my question as notice and give me an answer later. Indeed, she sent me a letter on

November 22, but in fact my question of November 19 was only one of two questions I wanted to ask. What I wanted most of all was to obtain details about the Joal project. Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that this project has been in existence for only one year. However, I know from reliable sources that this project has been going on for much longer than one year. It began several years ago when the Canadian government provided motors for the canoes of the Senegalese fishermen. Since then, there has been a surplus of fish in Senegal and there have been many losses because of a lack of facilities to process this surplus.
Since 1976, at the request of President Senghor, a group within a non-governmental organization called Granby and its twin cities, whose headquarters are located in my constituency, has been closely interested in this project and has made many representations in favour of its implementation. The figure of $12 million has been mentioned. President Senghor gave his approval, and in September, 1978, the assurance was given that the city of Joal would be considered as the site of a future fish processing plant.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes no reference to Joal, answering in a most evasive way, that five other fish processing plants will be built under those projects. Mr. Speaker, this does not answer in any way my question. What 1 want to know in particular is whether the Joal and Fadiouth plants will be built.
As I said earlier, the Minister of State for CIDA (Mr. Asselin) was not available in this House. I do not think he is outside the House either, because since June 16 the people from that Granby association and its twinned cities have been trying in vain to meet with that famous minister. They have been seeking an appointment for more than five months. Among others they have representations from the government of Senegal to bring to the minister. They must be content with a mere acknowledgement stating the letter will be brought to the minister's attention as soon as he comes back to Ottawa. The letter is dated June 16 and I hope that the minister's new obligations have not been keeping him outside the country since that date. This is why I am asking for answers. On November 19, the day I put my question, I had a complete delegation from the Granby groups and its twinned cities who had come to Ottawa in the hope of meeting with the minister. They still have not been able to meet him, and they were disappointed with the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In their names and on my own behalf, I would like to know what CIDA's real intentions are? A lot of hope was created among those people from Joal and Fadiouth. There was a commitment to build that famous fish treatment plant, but then no answer is forthcoming. 1 think a clear answer would help.
I am informed that the Minister of State for CIDA will travel to Senegal in a few days. I would have rather liked he
November 27, 1979

met the delegation from Granby and its twin cities which is well informed about the Senegal files. He has chosen to ignore them and it is too bad for him. However, I would like to know if the city of Joal is still under consideration as it was at the outset. I would also like to know if the minister intends to make concrete proposals regarding the five other fish processing plants to be built. We would like to know that. 1 have been asking that question since last June 16 but he does not answer his mail. Ever since he became a minister he does not answer questions from hon. members and I think it is the role of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to keep herself informed about these projects. I know that she is absent tonight but she must certainly have someone to speak in her name and I hope the answers will be more encouraging and, above all, much more direct and pertinent.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald). My intervention is in line with the letter the hon. Flora MacDonald sent on November 22 to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) in which she gives him useful
Adjournment Debate
information regarding a frozen fish plant in Senegal. As she stated in her letter, this project started in August, 1978, with the building of an administrative centre near Dakar and of a fish processing plant at Kayar, a small fishing village 50 kilometres from Dakar. A start is also scheduled, some time during the coming 30 months, for the construction of five other fish processing plants. In addition to the construction of the buildings, this project supplies technical assistance with a view to assisting the Senegalese co-operative movement which will ensure a system that is better adapted to the marketing of non-commercial fishing.
I should like to point out finally that this project was defined in co-operation with the Senegalese and that it ties in with the perspective of progressively reducing the food deficit of that country. A more appropriate processing of the fish, achieved thanks to the realization of that Canadian project, will give better supplies of fresh fish to the peoples who live inland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The 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 10.38 p.m.

Wednesday, November 28, 1979