1979-02-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Because brucellosis compensation is totally inadequate and because a number of dairy and beef farmers are being forced into bankruptcy under this compensation law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately instruct his department to raise compensation values to realistic levels.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise the House on motions or otherwise whether he approves of the policy and actions of the "Q" radio system of Newfoundland in their campaign for the decertification of NABET as the representative in collective bargaining of the employees of the "Q" radio system, 100 per cent owned by the minister in a blind trust, or whether the minister wishes to continue to turn a blind eye to the union busting and anti-union tactics of his family-run radio empire-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the winter I believe all members will be happy to support the motion I wish to present under Standing Order 43. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), I move:
That this House urge the Deputy Prime Minister to make government time available next week so that the House can deal either with Bill C-247, in the name of the member for Windsor-Walkerville, or Bill C-363, in the name of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, it being clear that the passing of either one of these bills would result in Monday, February 19, being celebrated by all Canadians as National Heritage Day or jour du Patrimoine national.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that Voyageur Colonial Ltd. is now crippled by a strike of its 400 drivers; considering that so far arbitration has been unable to bring the two parties closer; considering that this public service is the only one available in many Quebec regions, especially on the north shore, in the Gaspe Peninsula, that is from Gaspe, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Matane up to Mont-Joli; considering also that the economy of eastern Quebec generally is affected enough as it is without leaving present conditions to deteriorate further due to a lack of communication, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) to intervene directly in that conflict with a view to drawing both parties closer and encouraging them to reach an agreement in the shortest possible time so that Quebeckers,

February 1, 1979
especially in the Gaspe Peninsula, may enjoy that essential transport service which they are entitled to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

O)


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In appreciation of an outstanding contribution to clarity of thought within Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That this House call upon the communications department to institute an annual "Communicator of the Year" award, the first recipient to be the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway who, in a westcoast broadcast, said that the Minister of Communications had betrayed the trust of the Canadian people and that she was not competent to run her department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that as of today CMHC has acquired over 20,000 housing units as a result of default and foreclosures, in light of the fact that this represents almost $350 million in real estate that is costing the Canadian taxpayer additional millions every year, and in view of the projection that thousands more units will be acquired be CMHC this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and his officials to appear before the appropriate committee in an effort to provide a strategy combining the housing needs, financial resources and the capabilities of government and industry in an effort to redress the inadequate housing policies of the present government.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion at the present time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 which will be of particular interest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) since it has to do with double-digit increases in incomes. In view of the increased profit gouging by transportation companies in Canada in 1978 over 1977, with Canadian Pacific increasing profits by 31.6 per cent, Canadian National by 386 per cent, Air Canada by 135 per cent and CP Air by 506 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Transport require these corporations to live up to their historic and statutory obligations to provide transportation service which the country must have.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 and to continuing difficulties at Statistics Canada. Since it appears that neither the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), responsible for Statistics Canada, nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) fully appreciates the distinction between the consumer price index and the job vacancy survey, which is hardly reassuring, and since there are continuing morale problems within StatsCan which, unless they are dealt with, will lead inevitably to the type of problems so evident in the post office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce show some ministerial competence and firmness and specifically investigate why, in 1978, over 200 staff complaints in StatsCan, leading to over 100 grievances being file on behalf of clerks and typists by the Public Service Alliance, have been dealt with so summarily and unsatisfactorily; and, in addition, why senior employees are being denied the opportunity to contribute to improving the dismal performance of our national statistical agency because they have no specific assignments.

February 1, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who will know that, in answer to a request from the hon. member for Don Valley to have the governor of the Bank of Canada appear before a standing committee of the House, the Liberal chairman of that standing committee said in a letter, and I quote:
I certainly agree with you about the considerable public interest in this matter and, like you, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss his decision with him in committee... May I suggest that this important matter be raised in the House of Commons. For my part, I would welcome such an initiative.
Is it still the intention of the Prime Minister to deny the requests from this side of the House and the request of the Liberal chairman of the standing committee to make a reference which would allow this House of Commons to examine the governor of the Bank of Canada and his officials in relation to the interest rate of the Bank of Canada and the dollar policy being followed by this government, at such high cost to Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the Opposition has obviously not been listening to the answers I have given to him, Mr. Speaker. I said, and I say again today, that if the opposition or any group in this House wants the governor of the Bank of Canada to discuss these matters, he will appear any day when he is asked to do so by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which is meeting now to consider the Bank Act. He appeared a couple of times last fall and he will appear any number of times this winter or spring, and he will appear again if only the opposition will use the occasion of that standing committee which is meeting many times a week on the Bank Act. The governor is there to answer questions. I doubt very much whether the Leader of the Opposition will be there, and will take his foot out of his mouth and ask any questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister, who yesterday had difficulty distinguishing between the House of Commons and the Senate-
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -apparently does not know there needs to be a reference in order to allow the kind of inquiry for which we are calling. Will he make such a reference to allow a full examination of the governor of the Bank of Canada by a committee of this House as well as of other relevant officials and spokesmen for investment houses and chartered banks in this country, so that we may obtain all the evidence which is available to the governor and to the government in relation to a policy which has caused the value of the Canadian dollar to fall and fall?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I doubt very much the sincerity of the opposition in making this request, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they want to discuss this matter without histrionics-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They do not want it to go a committee, Mr. Speaker. That is why they are raising the matter every day in the House. They do not know what to say in front of a committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is easier to stand up and ask a question of the government than to enter into a rational argument with the governor of the Bank. They tried a rational argument with the governor last fall, Mr. Speaker, and he had answers to all their questions and they just did not know what to say. They have a second chance now. The committee is meeting. It is meeting regularly, several times a week, on the Bank Act-


An hon. Member:: No reference!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -on the very subject which is of interest to the opposition. If they want the governor to be there, and if they want to call other witnesses-


Mr. Stevens:: We would need a reference.


Mr. Chretien:: You have not even raised the subject in the steering committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members honestly want to discuss this, do it in the way parliament always does it. There is a steering committee. They decide the procedure, and that is the way to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister pretends to disagree with me but he is not disagreeing with me; he is disagreeing with his own Liberal chairman of the standing committee-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -who has asked for a reference and which the Prime Minister has turned down.

February 1, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is the whole parliament he is attempting to muzzle, not just the official opposition. As a careful student of the press, the Prime Minister will know that on January 13 the Financial Post reported, and I quote, that the slogan floating around New York currency circles these days indicates that the Canadian dollar will sink to 79 cents U.S. I wonder whether the Prime Minister, knowing this information and being concerned about it, as he should be, has had any studies made within his government which would give him reason to believe the dollar will not fall to 79 cents: and if he has carried out these studies, will he make the results available to parliament and to the people of this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the former matter, the muzzling of parliament, the chairman of the committee is following the business put by the steering committee. If members of the House want to use the steering committee in order to do other things, the president will do his duty and follow the will of the House. The opposition talks about being muzzled. It has a leader who has his tongue in his cheek and his foot in his mouth, and he feels muzzled by himself.


REQUEST FOR AUTHORITY TO MAKE REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Prime Minister. I am sure the Prime Minister has already seen the letter from the chairman of the finance committee addressed to my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley. In that letter the chairman states, and I quote:
-you seem unaware of the rules governing committees. The committee can only consider matters referred to it by parliament and with no authority from parliament to call such a meeting, I cannot on my own initiative order the clerk, the interpreters, the recording staff or any of our machinery without the authority of parliament.
In view of that committee chairman's clear understanding that he cannot make a reference on monetary matters without the authority of parliament, will the Prime Minister not grant that authority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Bank Act is before the committee with the autority of parliament. If hon. members opposite want to raise a certain matter in the steering committee, we will see that it is proceeded with in the normal way. The governor has been there before. The opposition asked him precise questions on monetary matters, and they were dealt with by the governor.


Mr. Woolliams:: They were ruled out of order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member need only look at the record.


INTERVENTION TO SUPPORT CANADIAN DOLLAR-REQUEST FOR DEFINITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, whenever this matter has been raised, our questions have been ruled out of order.
My supplementary question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in replying to certain appropriate questions put by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax, concerning the disappearance of $5 billion of our reserves for the purpose of defending the dollar, which is supposed to be floating, the Minister of Finance stated, as reported at page 2755 of Hansard:
I have said many times that the governor of the bank intervenes in the marketplace to maintain an orderly market... to make sure that there is a normal market.
How does the minister define that intervention, bearing in mind that yesterday and today the Bank of Canada has expended 230 million U.S. dollars in an attempt to defend the dollar, and bearing in mind that that represents 40 per cent of the approximately $500 million loan which has been arranged with Japan? Is that the type of market intervention the minister regards as normal? Has the minister set no limit on the amount the Bank of Canada may expend in defending the dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a habit of throwing out figures which are not accurate. The release of information regarding the use of the reserve during a particular month takes place on the second day of the following month. Information relating to the month of January will be published tomorrow.
The intervention of the bank has been the same since I have been Minister of Finance. I explained yesterday that one of the reasons we have to borrow in foreign markets is that there is a lot of liquidity in Canada. The provinces are not borrowing abroad, and we have decided to substitute for them in that respect. That is why we are borrowing abroad. We want to maintain the flow of capital which is needed because we have a balance of payments deficit.
While I am on my feet I would like to inform the House that never in the steering committee have hon. members asked for the appearance of the governor, who is willing to testify under the auspices of the Bank Act. Last fall we were dealing with borrowing authority, which has no relationship to this problem. Hon. members opposite asked the governor about the monetary policies of the government, and the governor replied to all questions. Hon. members opposite stopped asking questions after a few minutes because they had no more questions to ask.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed again to the Minister of Finance, who knows very well it is not just the governor of the Bank of Canada whom we need before that committee; we need many other witnesses so

February 1, 1979

as to get to the bottom of what is happening to our crumbling dollar.
My final question to the Minister of Finance is as follows. In view of the fact that the dollar has fallen in value approximately 20 per cent in spite of the policies of the government, would the Minister of Finance indicate whether he has any contingency plan which he might invoke if the dollar's retreat is not halted; and second, would he indicate whether he has taken it up with Petro-Canada to see if they will hold back on the purchase of U.S. dollars which is now under way by that Crown corporation in anticipation of the closing of their Pacific Petroleum deal later this month?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that the first question asked by the hon. member is purely speculative and I will not comment on it. I just want to say at this moment that yes, we are willing to go before the committee. Members on this side of the House wanted to have meetings of the committee in the month of January, but it is the hon. member who did not want the committee to meet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was blocked in December by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are misleading the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He wanted to go on a trip and lose his luggage, and at the same time to invent a new theory-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. Just an hour from now the minister will be announcing at a press conference outside of parliamentary scrutiny a multimillion dollar handout for the pulp and paper industry in Canada, which I think is totally irresponsible, instead of bringing the matter before parliament. Considering that the big six in the pulp and paper industry which control most of the industry have made profits in 1977 of $160 million and have just announced a 150 per cent increase in those profits for 1978 up to $379 million, can he tell the House why the government is giving away to this industry many millions of dollars at this time for the development of resources instead of insisting that when they are making profits in the
Oral Questions
resource sector they must be obligated to hold back for investment in Canada a certain percentage of those profits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite correct that the forest products industry in this last year or so has enjoyed a good cash flow and good profits. It is very much related to the temporary situation with regard to the Canadian dollar, a competitive advantage they enjoy now but one which I do not think anyone anticipates may last very long, and one on which they cannot count.
In the meantime, I think everyone who examines this very important industry in terms of the number of jobs it provides in this country, the volume of its export trade in the amount of $8 billion a year, and who examines the significance of this, would realize it is in the Canadian interest to ensure there is investment and modernization of plants, because it is facing severe competition in the longer term from the United States and from other parts of the world. It needs modernization and it needs forest management. All those aspects were recommended by the task force on the forest products industry in which both labour and management joined. We are responding to that and insisting, of course, that any contribution or grant from the government is matched at least three to one by the companies themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought that those who believe in the creative private sector, especially spokesmen for the industy themselves, would say that if you are earning profits for whatever reason, you should be ploughing them back into new investments instead of going to the government for handouts.
I should like to ask the minister in all seriousness whether in this context, considering the industry's profits are up 150 per cent, the Government of Canada is saying that the only way to get firms making profits in this sector to invest part of their profits-and I stress in parts of the country that do not rely on regional development, such as many of them do right here in the province of Ontario-is to give them handouts precisely at a time when the federal government is cutting down on health services to hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country?


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. member is losing track of the ultimate purpose of this which is to maintain and protect, and in fact, we hope, to enhance, employment in this country. This is an industry which is vital to the Canadian economic scene, an industry which is having a temporary respite from very difficult conditions. It is exactly the time to entice them to modernize their plant and equipment. Over the last ten years, their profits have not been sufficiently attractive for them to see an opportunity down the path, compared to other opportunities which they might use, to invest their accumulated capital. This is a great combination of labour, management and the government working together to protect jobs and make the country's industry competitive.

February 1, 1979
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that virtually all Scandinavian countries dealing with forestry management work out long-term agreements with the private sector and make it a condition of earning profits from timber rights, which belong to the people, that they plough back a part of their earned profits into new investment? If the minister is aware of it and is aware that it has worked very well in those countries, why is he giving handouts now to very profitable, large corporations which do not need handouts just before a federal election?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to deal with the implication of the last comment. This comes about as a result of a consultative process which has been ongoing for many, many months-almost a year-in which representatives of industry, labour and management have made very definite, joint and agreed upon recommendations to the government.


John Edward Broadbent: Labour does not agree with that.


Robert Knight Andras: As the hon. member knows, forest resources are controlled 90 per cent by provincial governments: the questions of reforestation, timber limits and various matters. We are working this out in co-operation with the provinces across the country. There is no question about the provinces being in agreement. In fact, it is being recommended by Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, yes!


Robert Knight Andras: I think the hon. member is trying to throw a smokescreen over this. In my view we are protecting jobs, and we are hoping to enhance the opportunity of that industry to create more jobs.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and has to do with the strike which is affecting the 400 drivers of Voyageur Colonial in Montreal and which is a source of extreme hardship for those living in northern Gaspesia between Gaspe and Rimouski. Because it is the only mode of transportation in that region, because a great many senior citizens and students do not own a car, and because this strike is playing havoc with that part of the province, could the minister advise the House whether he has received information concerning this dispute, whether anybody has asked him to intervene, and whether he intends to step in to resolve this dispute which has lasted too long already?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I understand the hardship being created by this particular dispute in the province of Quebec. I should inform the hon. member that the two parties are meeting again today in the presence of a federal mediator. It would be inappropriate for me to intervene at this time while the parties themselves are trying to resolve their dispute with the assistance of one of my officers.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister mean to say that if this dispute is not resolved he will not intervene? I think there have been precedents where the Minister of Labour intervened directly to solve a labour dispute.


Mr. O'Connell:: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. I said that the two parties have returned to the negotiating table and I hope they will be able to resolve this dispute.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why does the government not direct the Bank of Canada to value the government gold reserves in the foreign exchange account at market value?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to change the policy.


James McPhail Gillies: I am sorry, I did not hear the minister's answer. What was the answer?


Charles Joseph Clark: He said that there is no reason to change the policy. He just does not know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, with a situation where the Canadian dollar has hit the lowest point since 1934, we have been borrowing abroad, and we have no foreign exchange reserves, 1 would have thought the government would have been interested in looking at some alternative policies.
My supplementary question is: Why does the Minister of Finance not direct the governor of the Bank of Canada to tighten up secondary reserves so that speculators will not be able to do so well speculating against the Canadian dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very surprised by the question of the hon. member. Yesterday his leader was complaining that there was not enough reserve, and today he is saying that we have an underestimated reserve, because the book value of gold is the same as it was before.
February 1, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a completly impossible proposition, as all propositions coming from the other side.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Minister of Finance answers my second question by replying to the first one. If the value of gold was at market price, the government reserves would increase by $3 billion, which is precisely what the United States and other countries have done. It is preposterous that we do not do it.
My supplementary question which the minister did not answer was: Why does the Minister of Finance not recommend the governor of the Bank of Canada tighten up secondary reserves so that there would be less liquidity in the system for foreign exchange dealers to speculate so easily?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the monetary policies of the government have been stated in the House many times.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They have been stated by the governor of the Bank of Canada many times. I have no intention of giving direction to the governor of the Bank of Canada; he knows how to handle his business very well.


ACTION TO BRING CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT UNDER CONTROL
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. By the way, while there might have been some baggage lost by our party, it is the government that has lost the Canadian dollar, which is not coming back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is far more important to the Canadian people than the few pieces of baggage to which the minister referred.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Juvenile asininity.


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


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there was a $600 million increase only in the trade surplus in 1978, but at the same time the deficit in the balance of payments in the current account is estimated to increase by at least $400 million this year. Since the merchandise surplus will have to increase by at least $1 billion a year to avoid an increase in the current account deficit, how does the minister plan to bring the current account deficit under control? What options is he considering? What action will he take? Never mind the silly baggage to which the minister referred; what will he do about this very serious situation?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply by indicating that the Canadian economy performed very well last year; it was a record yearly increase.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have a surplus of $3.5 million. The Canadian economy has not yet derived all the benefits it is supposed to receive from the more competitive position of the Canadian dollar. I think the hon. member should go back to Newfoundland and talk to the fishermen, the ones who are benefiting very much from the fact that the value of the Canadian dollar has made Canadian fish products much more competitive in world markets.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister said that we have our feet in our mouths. Well, I say that the minister and the department have forked tongues in their mouths.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I would sooner have a foot than a forked tongue in my mouth. Despite the decrease in value of the Canadian dollar by 17 per cent over the last year or year and a half, exports in 1978 increased by 17.2 per cent and imports still rose 17 per cent. So that the dollar, which the minister has smashed down to 82 cents, has still not saved our current account deficit. Will the minister explain how this battered and bruised Canadian dollar that is going down to 79 cents will save us this year when it did not save us on the current account last year, and what does he propose to do? Will the Minister of Finance tell the country what he is going to do and never mind the rigmarole and silly talk?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian economy we know at this moment, as the business community said to the nation last Friday, that many sectors of the economy are operating at full capacity-pulp and paper, steel, fisheries, clothing, shoes and many others. The hon. member should realize that going from a trade balance of $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion is a very nice improvement. I can tell the House that we will do even better this year.


Mr. Fraser:: What about your balance of payments account?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is very important that we follow the policies we have established and not flip-flop every two months.


John Allen Fraser: Your middle name is flip-flop.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Two months ago we brought down a responsible budget, and the opposition said that the deficit was too high. Now the Leader of the Opposition has invented a new concept, the phantom deficit which appears and disappears. The country wants steady economic policy, and we are on the right track.

February 1, 1979
Oral Questions


Mr.   de Cotret@: Steadily down.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The business community and labour agree with us.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHY CERTAIN GAS COMPANIES REFUSE TO SUPPLY DISTRIBUTORS
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House whether he is aware that some gas companies now refuse to deliver heating oil to some distributors because of shortages of the product, they say. Would they not rather be trying to create a strong demand and consequently to raise prices?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have received certain allegations that that kind of situation might develop, partly as a result of the tight supply situation occasioned by the cessation of production by Iran. My department and my parliamentary secretary have been meeting with the companies involved, and I believe that it will be possible to work out a solution which will maintain the source of supply for those marketing companies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question I would like to express my thanks to the Minister of Finance, who predicted a change in government in that he said that things are going to be better next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: My question is a very serious one, and it is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to the serious situation that has been exacerbated in the last 24 hours in Iran, what has the minister to say concerning the general situation there, particularly with regard to the threat which was made, I believe, this morning to the effect that oil will be denied to the United States? Would he give the House a picture of the situation there and, at the same time, as a suggestion, would it not be a very appropriate time for Canada to show its alliance to the United States by making clear now that if conditions continue as they are predicted to in Iran-that by April the oil shortage will be dangerous to world peace-we will make available large portions of our oil reserves, to the end that in unity we stand together?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that I can give a total report in the context of the question period. The truth of the matter is, as the right hon. member knows, to put it very simply, that the situation in Iran is far from clear at the moment. The Ayatollah has returned home but he has no official authority. On the other hand, it is obvious that he has an enormous amount of public support.
As of last report, about an hour ago, the prime minister, Mr. Bahktiar, had indicated that he was remaining in office. It appears that he will seek some kind of discussion or meeting with the Ayatollah to see if a compromise can be arrived at. At the moment no one outside the country and very few people within Iran know what the result of the present situation will be. There have been threats, not only with regard to cutting oil supplies to the United States, but to other countries as well, including Israel and South Africa.
I believe it is obvious that, in so far as we in this country are concerned, we will put forth our best efforts, particularly as they relate, as the hon. member has suggested, to the United States; we do not wish to see them penalized in any way. I am not so sure, however, that the answer is a direct exchange or a direct shipment of oil from Canada to the United States. Perhaps it may be within an international context. I can certainly assure the right hon. member and the House that we will be forthcoming to the extent of our ability in diminishing or reducing any of the hardships which proposed actions may create and, of course, we will do whatever we can to resolve the great tension which has come about as a result of this problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister, and I repeat the question. Would this not be an appropriate time to inform the United States of where we stand in this regard, so that that country will realize that united we were in war and united we are today in face of the most perilous situation in the western world in the last three or four years?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I am at odds with the right hon. member. If he will recall the situation which existed a couple of years ago when severe winter storm conditions caused problems in the United States, we responded with great alacrity and it was appreciated. The message of that action is perfectly clear. To paraphrase a comment which one hears in Canada from time to time, I am quite sure that we would not allow the Americans to freeze in the dark.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Several months ago a geoscientific mineral survey of the Kirkland Lake area was allotted $2.3 million in a joint
February 1, 1979

arrangement between Ontario and DREE. Would the minister tell the House how soon we can expect a preliminary report, and has it been agreed as to what the use of the survey reports will be?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I hope this report will be submitted to us without delay by those who are drafting it. Once we have examined the report we shall be able to determine what action both governments can take jointly. Of course the studies are being made with the intention of helping industries go into exploration but particularly into mining exploration as such in northern and northeastern Ontario but I think it is too early at this time to indicate what might be the final results of this report.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as most of the mineral areas around Kirkland Lake are held by private owners, including many of the largest mining companies in Canada, which are showing no interest in gold though the price is at an all time high, will the minister provide leadership by involving the CDD, which now controls Texas Gulf, in a joint venture with the property owners so that employment can be provided and the government can draw benefits from a product that will aid in our balance of payments?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, if the report shows a positive indication of any major resource deposits in that area, namely coal, and if the private companies are not interested in taking advantage of the situation, we along with the provinces will investigate to determine what we can do to entice them, or find some other appropriate means to exploit those resources.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like a little clarification with regard to some questions I asked yesterday, because I think it is important that the government's dollar policy be understood and, above all, that it be credible. Yesterday the minister said in reply to my question, as reported at page 2755 of Hansard:
Because we are having this balance of payments problem, we must maintain some inflow of capital. We have borrowed in order to achieve this,-
Will the minister explain why this does not constitute a policy of support for the Canadian dollar and why a policy of borrowing abroad to offset the balance of payments problem is consistent with a floating dollar?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that because of our balance of payments
Oral Questions
problems there is constant need for maintaining the level of foreign capital inflow into the country. I also explained that in years past that inflow was ensured by provincial, municipal and private borrowings abroad. Now, this year, as liquid assets are considerable within the Canadian monetary system, the provinces and municipalities do not feel the need to borrow on foreign markets. That is the policy of the government and if the hon. member wants to see it as an intervention in the monetary policy so be it; naturally the balance of payments and the monetary policy cannot be separated, one does not go without the other.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would really like to know whether the Minister of Finance is being stupid or dishonest. I should like him to explain how a deliberate policy of the federal government of borrowing abroad because of a balance of payments problem does not constitute support for the Canadian dollar. Can he explain that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed by the humility of the hon. member. I have just said that the policy has been enunciated, that we had decided to borrow abroad. We have not denied that we were borrowing abroad. Of course, we say that the Canadian dollar is a floating currency because we do not want to fix the rate of the currency. We have said many times, however, that the governor of the Bank of Canada has intervened in the market in order to maintain an orderly market, and that is one of the operations.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What steps are now being taken to bring to the direct attention of all foreign-controlled firms the new principles of international business conduct, inasmuch as they were tabled in this House in July, 1975, as a statement of "broad government policy"? I gather from what the Prime Minister said in this House recently that this policy is still in force. When will the minister publish information to update the results of surveys to assess the degree of voluntary compliance with these principles, which in effect call for the application of the FIRA test of "significant benefit" to all foreign controlled companies, including those not covered by that law? I understand that the last of these surveys was published in 1974 for the years 1971-72. Finally, will the government soon be taking steps-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased, and I

February 1, 1979
Oral Questions
know my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is particularly pleased, that the press had found out about the business conduct guidelines which the minister enunciated a number of years ago. We intend to make certain that companies operating in Canada adhere to those guidelines and, in fact, we are taking a close look at that specific area in the hope that we can multiply them to improve the benefits to Canada from them.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is responsible for Statistics Canada. The question relates to the StatsCan survey of family spending habits, which constitutes an intolerable invasion of personal privacy.
In view of statements made this morning on national television by the deputy chief statistician for Statistics Canada to the effect that Canadians could be prosecuted under the Statistics Act for refusing to co-operate in this tedious inquisition-which amounts to 45 pages of questions and three hours of work-will the minister advise this House as to the rationale for such a frivolous and costly project at a time when the government needs to borrow billions just to supply essential services?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Actually, Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has been cut back substantially and in terms of personnel and funding available to it I think it is doing a very good job. That particular survey is one which is carried out from time to time to ascertain the spending habits of the Canadian people. I think StatsCan expressed the view that about 80 per cent of the people surveyed quite readily filled out the questionnaire. The remaining people were not pressed and the department more than likely went on to another person rather than use the power it has under the Statistics Act.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if this survey is needed for purposes of determining incremental effects on the consumer price index, why can the information not be obtained much more cheaply by reference to the wholesalers and retailers of the country, instead of sampling every twenty-eighth recipient of family allowances and threatening prosecution under the Statistics Act?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, nobody is threatening prosecution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a power that government gives to StatsCan so that they can make an accurate survey. In this particular case it is far more useful to ascertain the spending

habits of people rather than what wholesalers sell to the country at large.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Peter P. Masniuk (Portage):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister is aware, about one and a half years ago the Hall commission recommended for the CNR's Inwood subdivision, in the Interlake area of Manitoba, that either this line be abandoned and a spur line built across to the CPR line at Arborg, or alternatively, that grain be trucked some 40 miles to Arborg from the elevators at Fisher Branch on the Inwood line as an off-line loading experiment.
In view of the fact that almost two years have gone by since these recommendations were made, could the minister tell the House and the people in that district when the government is going to take action on the Hall recommendations and which one it is likely to adopt? The farmers of the district would like to know.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Prairie Rail Action Committee looked at some of these questions which were left unresolved by the Hall commission. It examined the "off-line" elevator concept in connection with its other work, as we have also done internally. The proposals now have to be examined from the point of view of alternatives. I anticipate that within the next three or four weeks the government will make a decision on the question of trucking assistance of a variety of kinds. That should affect the Fisher Branch situation.


COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible to parliament for setting governmentwide standards for security on electronic data processing. In view of the fact that one expert who is here today, Professor Eric Manning of the University of Waterloo computer science department, has stated that the government's safeguards on the networking of computers are so lax that massive invasions of personal privacy will be possible in the near future, can the minister assure the House that no further networking of government computers will take place until such times as adequate safeguards have been put in place?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that we have investigated these uses of government computers but we have a limited role
February 1, 1979

as far as that is concerned. Our investigation shows that a series of applications has been made to us in the last little while, all of which have been examined carefully and did not involve any further extension or any further invasion of privacy as far as additional uses were concerned. We are endeavouring to monitor things, as far as the use of the SIN number is concerned; and 1 would take issue with the assertion made by the professor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, unlike the President of the Treasury Board, Professor Manning is an expert in the field.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It relates to the use of the social insurance number. In view of the fact that Professor Manning has stated that the spreading use of the social insurance number as a computer filing number greatly facilitates invasions of personal privacy and that "until we have proper laws to regulate the use of information, the use of social insurance numbers should be pared right back", will the minister act now to put a stop to the proliferating use of the social insurance number?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have in the past answered a series of questions in this area. I have indicated that under the human rights legislation specific provision was made giving authority to the President of the Treasury Board to monitor the use that is made of social insurance numbers to determine if there is in fact any invasion of privacy.
In addition to that, although it is probably not technically within the responsibility of the department, I have indicated that I intend to ask the advisory council to look at the issuance of social insurance numbers so that we can have any recommendations they might wish to make.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) raised a point of order with respect to the reporting of the adjournment debate on Tuesday evening in Hansard. I have checked the record and have determined that the Hansard recording of the events which took place on Tuesday evening is accurate.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have given you notice of my question of privilege, although following the last several days of question period I am tempted
Privilege-Mr. Wenman
to raise another one. I have given notice of my intention to raise the question regarding the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts).
Section 23 of the Canada Council Act specifically states that the chairman of the council must submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and, I quote, "provision shall be made for a review thereof (of the annual report) by parliament". To date there has been no review of the Canada Council's annual report or of the council's mandate. Of course, when the estimates of the Secretary of State's department are before the appropriate standing committee, the Canada Council and its staff respond to various questions put forth. The Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has, however, never had the council's annual report referred to it, nor has there been a review by parliament as legislated by the House of Commons.
There are several pieces of legislation which place similar demands upon the government as found in clause 23 of the Canada Council Act.
Section 46 of the Anti-Inflation Board Act obliged the government, if it wished to extend the controls period beyond their December 31 expiry date, to present a motion on the order in council which would outline the extension. Clearly if the order in council was given to extend the controls, then three days hence a motion would have been laid before parliament.
Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act states:
The House of Commons shall, within the first fifteen days next after the expiration of that period that the House of Commons is sitting, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objective.
Clearly, if the procedure in section 20 of this legislation is followed through, the House of Commons must debate that motion.
Finally, section 18(2) of the Government Organization Act obligates a member of the Queen's Privy Council to propose a motion in the House when the governor in council creates a new ministry of state by order in council.
If the government chose not to fulfil the obligations in the above pieces of legislation it would be an indisputable breach of privilege. I, along with other members, would not be able to discharge my duties in this House.
On June 27 in the House of Commons I brought to the attention of the Secretary of State the provision for the review within the legislation and asked him if he would refer the annual report to a parliamentary committee. The Secretary of State replied:
I would have absolutely no objection to such a course of action, if the members of the committee express their desire to meet through the chairman, and that such should take place.
Immediately I sent a memo to all members of parliament asking them if they felt there should be a review of the Canada Council. I asked for these memos to be returned to my office. Members from all sides of the House were in support that the legislation should be followed and that a review should take

February 1, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Wenman
place. I forwarded copies of the memos to the Secretary of State and asked him to sponsor in the House the necessary order of reference to the committee so that I might discharge my duty. The minister responded that the request should be placed before the steering committee. The matter of the review was brought up before the steering committee, as suggested by the minister, and support was indicated there for review as well.
Subsequently at the November 23 meeting of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the Secretary of State said:
-I would be reluctant to recommend to the committee that they undertake a study simply of the Canada Council.
After this circuitous route the Secretary of State finally indicated that he has no intention of sponsoring the needed order of reference. This is the "normal" course that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to earlier! There should be ways in this House of Commons that we can have an opportunity to express our point of view and debate the issues at hand.
I am not debating the failure of the committee structure. I am only telling you, sir, that I have followed all courses open to a private member, in order to bring this matter before the House of Commons, and I have found them closed. The last remaining route is this area of privilege where the Secretary of State is in contempt of the House of Commons by not fulfilling his legislative duty under section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
It amazes me that in less than four months the Secretary of State would have such a dramatic change of opinion from saying, "Yes, I agree. I will make the reference." Then, following through the procedure, he has once again thwarted the role of parliament according to the statutes of Canada.
The Secretary of State is treating artists like children by allowing his cabinet colleague-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a point under the heading of privilege which relates to his ability to examine this report by the Secretary of State. He may have other opportunities to critize the Secretary of State, or others. However, I think the hon. member should stick with the basic merits of the argument.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council's legislation makes it very clear that it is the duty of parliament, that is, that members undertake a review of the Canada Councils' annual report. The government's lack of provision for such a review prevents me from carrying out my duties in the House of Commons as the elected member for Fraser Valley West. The Canada Council Act obligates parliament to review the annual report. Admittedly the obligation is unique in this legislation, but the Canada Council's connection to parliament is unique and therein lies the reason for this review. The minister has broken his word to parliament and to the member for Fraser Valley West. He is, in my opinion, in contempt of the legislative direction of parliament thereby preventing the member for Fraser Valley West, as well as other members, from expressing their points of view on such a review.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the allegations made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). It seems to me that the hon. member has confused two questions, and as a result it has lead to erroneous conclusions. The first is the question of the obligations imposed on the Secretary of State by section 23 of the Canada Council Act. The motion of the hon. gentleman refers to the refusal of the Secretary of State to fulfil the obligation conferred by section 23. If members of the House were kind enough to read section 23 of the Canada Council Act they would see that the obligation referred to in section 23 is an obligation which attaches to the chairman of the council, not to the Secretary of State.
I would be pleased to transfer to the House a report of the Canada Council. Indeed I do transfer to the House reports of the various agencies which report to parliament through me as soon as I receive them. However, I cannot perform the deliverance of that which I do not have, and I do not have the report of the Canada Council. If there is a failure of obligation under section 23 of the Canada Council Act, it lies not on the part of the Secretary of State but on the part of the Canada Council which is not yet finished that report.
The second matter, which is a distinct and different matter, to which the hon. member has referred, is the question of whether the House or, more specifically, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts should conduct an inquiry into the operations of the Canada Council. I have said in the past that it is not for me to direct the members of the committee as to how they should work. The proper course of action for a member who wishes to see a certain matter discussed by a committee is to address that question to the steering committee so that the steering committee may consider the matter and make whatever recommendation it desires.
Whether the hon. member accumulates a petition, with goodness knows how many names of members of the House who are concerned to have that happen, is not strictly speaking relevant in that manner. What is relevant is that the steering committee make a recommendation. If that is the concern the member has, that such an inquiry should be undertaken, he should not take his concern to me but to the steering committee and ask that committee, via the chairman, to make a recommendation to me.
If he were to say to me, do I think this is a good moment to undertake such a review, I would say to the hon. member, as I have said to him, frankly, no. The reason why it is not at this time especially appropriate to undertake such a review is that we have under way, as the hon. member knows, in the Department of Secretary of State, a review of the government's cultural policy, our strategy of funding to the arts. It would seem to be much more valuable to the members of the committee to look at the Canada Council and its operations in that larger context which I hope will be available soon, and
February 1, 1979

available to members of the committee soon. A useful discussion of the Canada Council in isolation from that wider perspective should not be undertaken at this point.
The hon. member, as a member of that committee, and in fact all members of the committee, do now and have always had the opportunity to cross-examine the Canada Council on its operations when the estimates in the normal way are before the committee. That right, duty, and obligation have not been taken away from the committee. They are still there. The possibility of the hon. member throwing himself fully into that work, as he has done in the past, is still there. There is no lack of opportunity to examine the Canada Council and its operations in the normal process.
If the hon. member is asking whether we should have a special inquiry, I say that is not the best thing to undertake at this time given the fact there is a more general review under way which will be a more suitable framework for discussing this question, and the question of artistic policy generally.
To sum up what I have said, if his complaint is that I have not ordered, asked for, or agreed to an insurance of instruction to the committee, to undertake an examination of the Canada Council, I would say that is so. It is not primarily my responsibility to take that position. I do not think it would be a wise action to take at this time for the reasons I have just discussed. That may be a matter of debate between the hon. member and myself. However, if his question is whether I have somehow slighted him and the House in general by a failure to meet the obligation of section 23, I must point out that the obligations of section 23 of the act refer not to me but to the members of the Canada Council.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the first part and the last part of the minister's comments. He introduced a notion which must be challenged immediately and tossed out. In essence, the minister told the House that, as the minister responsible to parliament for the Canada Council, he cannot be held responsible for the fact that the head of the Canada Council might not obey the law passed by parliament in respect of the operations of that council.
I submit, if that argument is allowed to stand and accepted, it throws quite a different light on the question of ministerial responsibility. There is no way parliament can get at the Canada Council to hold it responsible except through the responsible minister. It is most inappropriate for the minister to stand up and say he may be the minister responsible for the Canada Council, but do not hold him responsible if the head of the Canada Council does not obey the law under which it operates.


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment, I have considered the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). The motion he would move, and of which he gave me notice, is relative to the refusal of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) to fulfil his obligation pursuant to section 23, and the obligation to ensure that this House is provided with an opportunity to review the annual report of the Canada
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
Council. That is the basis of his question of privilege, as I understand it, both from his remarks and from the text of the motion of which he has given me notice.
For the moment the Secretary of State has put that point to rest because he has indicated he does not have the report. I must accept his word. If he does not have the report, he obviously cannot refer it to the House. If the report is in his hands at a later time, or if in fact there is some action to be taken against the chairman for failing to file the report with the Secretary of State, that may be so.
The essence of the hon. member's question of privilege at this time is the refusal of the Secretary of State to ensure examination of the report by parliament. The minister told the House today, and I must accept it, that he does not have the report and therefore cannot ensure that at this time. There may be other matters the hon. member may wish to raise on further investigation. However, for the moment any question of privilege which is today related to a refusal of the Secretary of State has to be set aside subject, of course, upon further examination by the hon. member, to any action which might relate to a failure on the part of the chairman and the council itself.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to exchanges that occurred during the course of the question period between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). They had to do with the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and its jurisdiction with regard to the question of interest rates and the policy of this parliament to examine the fiscal and monetary policies of the government, notwithstanding the fairy tales that we have heard about the goodness of that policy from the Minister of Finance.
I raise this because the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), is now in the chamber. Unfortunately he was not here during the course of today's question period. Therefore we could not put to him directly the matter of the exchange of correspondence between members of the official opposition and himself as chairman with regard to convening a meeting of the committee to deal with the Bank of Canada, the governor of the Bank of Canada, and interest rates.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) has been referred to as one of the addressees of the letter from the committee chairman. I joined the hon. member for Don Valley in directing the original letter to the committee chairman on January 10, 1979, asking that that committee be convened as quickly as possible. I was chided on my knowledge of the rules,
2792

February 1, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
that the committee could only consider matters referred to it by parliament. I was told I should know that, as well as the fact the committee chairman had no authority to call a meeting of the committee. The House has been left in that position.
The country may have been left with the impression that during the appearances of the governor of the Bank of Canada at three meetings prior to the Christmas adjournment it would have been within the rules and quite proper for the governor to have been examined with regard to the policy of the Bank of Canada, interest rates, the floating dollar, the differential in interest rates between Canada and the United States, the effect of such differential on the international flow of funds, and a host of other matters such as unemployment.
The reference the committee had at that time was clearly to examine the subject matter of the Bank Act. If we had thought it proper to have that new subject bootlegged into a discussion of the Bank Act and thought that the chairman, who knows the rules of that committee, would have allowed that line of questioning, of course that would have been done. It would have been absolutely inappropriate. The chairman knows this to be the case and he indicated as much in his letter. The chairman knew it would be quite inappropriate for any questions to be asked during those sittings of the committee.
As a result of that, and as a result of a series of increases in the bank rate and the effect they are having on the economy- and despite what the Minister of Finance says, the effect is devastating and is reflected in the level of the Canadian dollar today-we asked the chairman of the committee to convene a meeting of the standing committee. His reply to us was correct, I think, from a procedural point of view. He said he could not do so on his own initiative. He said the committee could only consider matters referred to it by parliament and that, in the absence of authority from parliament to call such a meeting, he could not do so on his own initiative. He is not under the thumb of the government-I assume he is not, because he went on to say that this matter could be raised in the House of Commons and, for his part, he would welcome such an initiative. I asssume the situation is not so improved that the initiative he said he would welcome on January 12 would not be equally welcome now that we have returned to Ottawa. Well, we have renewed that initiative in asking for a special reference to that committee.
The chairman of the standing committee is in the House today, having been absent from the question period at which time we might have put questions to him directly. When inquiring as to the order of business we could have asked him whether or not it is his intention to screw up his courage and request the Prime Minister to make the reference for which we have been pressing-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that, while he may have an interesting argument to advance, it is

not a point of order. The question could have been put to the chairman of the committee under the rules during the question period, because questions related to committees can be put to committee chairmen at that time; that is part of our practice. But for me to permit a line of questioning to take place now under the guise of a point of order would be to invite, every day, an extension of the question period on the same basis, and I cannot find a way under the rules of doing it.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to the action which the hon. gentleman who is President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) proposes to take this afternoon when he tables the response of the government to the recommendations of the consultative task force on the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry. I submit it is entirely wrong from a procedural point of view. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) plans to hold a press conference after he has tabled this document; the press will be able to ask questions and discuss that government's response to the recommendations, or lack of it. I maintain this should be done by way of a ministerial statement in the House which would provide an opportunity to members to ask questions and discuss what the government is doing or not doing with reference to that task force report.
I want to protest the lack of courtesy and the lack of consideration we are shown as critics on this side of the House in connection with matters like this. We should receive copies of these submissions earlier. I got one from another member on our side who somehow received a copy-I presume we cannot talk about it until the minister tables it. 1 want to protest the lack of courtesy and consideration shown to me by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as the critic on this side for matters within this field. Considering he was in opposition for 16 or 20 years, the way he treats us on this side of the House is abominable. We never get advance notice of anything from him, nothing is ever arranged so that we get information ahead of time.
My question of privilege is this: the privileges of members of the House are being abused by the minister tabling a statement which we cannot comment upon here, and then going outside the House and discussing it with the press at a press conference at which we will not be heard, either.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) raises a familiar question of privilege related to the action of ministers making statements elsewhere. I say it is familiar, because it is as old as the history of parliament. The precedents are clear. Ministers enjoy the right to make statements either here or outside the House; it does not constitute a
February 1, 1979

question of privilege for a minister to make a statement outside the chamber.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, statements have been made here in the House during and after the question period concerning letters I have written and my intention with respect thereto, and whether I am an independent member of parliament or under the thumb of the government. I should like to comment on the remarks which have been made. I feel I ought to have the opportunity to reply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 understand the hon. member's desire to respond to the point which was raised on a point of order, but it was not a point of order and I am not able to give the hon. member an opportunity now.


MR. MARTIN-STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the subject matter of an exchange today between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on the issue of the Finance committee and the work before it. I simply wish to make the point that the question of the appearance of the governor of the Bank of Canada was never brought before the steering committee, which is the normal place to discuss the appearance of witnesses who might or might not be called before standing committees. The issue was never raised either in the steering committee or in the full committee. The governor did, in fact, appear on one occasion on November 28, and I never


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Members on both sides can surely understand that these are disputes either with regard to the content of questions or about answers given to those questions. We cannot carry on a debate like this under the guise of a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to try to upstage the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but today is Thursday and I wonder whether we could be told the business of the House for the rest of this week and the first part of next week.
Business of the House


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, we shall continue today with Bill C-9, the referendum bill, and after its completion, hopefully today, we would take up Bill C-2 having to do with the Health Resources Fund, for third reading. Then we would move to Bill C-12, second reading, amendments to various superannuation acts, following which we would take up Bill C-37, amendments to tax legislation and the Canada Pension Plan and providing borrowing authority. Next Friday, February 9, by agreement, we will be calling an opposition day. In the interim-I put this slightly out of sequence because we are not certain of the order-we would like to deal with Bill C-35; presumably an agreement, a House order, could be arrived at to dispose of this measure expeditiously. Of course, we also continue to have an interest in Bill C-29, amendments to the National Housing Act.


Walter David Baker: I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for his very complete answer to the question. As he knows, I sent him a note during the question period indicating the questions I would put to him. He has had time to prepare his answer, and I appreciate it.


Mr. Nystrom:: Why not thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?


Walter David Baker: I also thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am somewhat disappointed with the hon. member's answer, however. Perhaps he could consider with the government House leader the obvious importance of the question of the reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, to which reference was made earlier, in order that the governor of the Bank of Canada could be examined for the purpose of explaining to the people of the country the policy behind the moves which have done nothing but raise interest rates and cause hardship-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Walter David Baker: Given the exchanges which have taken place, I wonder whether the deputy House leader would undertake to consult with the chairman of the standing committee or with the government House leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, (Mr. MacEachen), to see whether such a reference might be made and this matter dealt with.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would undertake to do that. I have already discussed this matter with the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and confirmed to my satisfaction that no request has ever been made directly before that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There seems to be some dispute. I realize there has been an exchange of letters but I am assured that no formal request has been made directly to the steering committee or to the full committee. I understand that there is going to be a meeting of the steering committee this afternoon, very shortly. 1 am quite sure that this matter will be dealt with and
80047-35'/j

February 1, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
that a decision will be made. I feel confident that the steering committee and the full committee are capable of dealing with this question adequately, but if there is a disposition by the steering committee and the full committee that they do not have the capacity to deal with the questions which they want to bring forward, I am sure that the matter could be dealt with further. However, I have no doubt that they have full and complete power to deal with all the questions hon. members want to put to any witnesses which are relevant to banking in Canada.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from an answer given earlier in this House by the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) in response to a question I put to him. Your Honour will recall that earlier I was objecting to the fact that the Government of Canada was giving to the pulp and paper industry hundreds of millions of dollars precisely at a time when this industry experienced an increase in profits of about 150 per cent. This industry does not need any handouts.
In his reply the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers said that the government was responding to a report which had been endorsed by government, by the private sector, and by the workers involved. I was a little surprised when I heard that because I had been in touch with some of those people, and the minister's response certainly did not square with what I understood. So, during the question period I obtained a copy of the report which has been tabled, and on the last page of the report under the title "Membership of the Forest Products Industry Consultative Task Force" there is a footnote, and the footnote reads as follows:
Mr. L. H. Lorrain was unable to agree with substantial parts of the task force report.
Mr. L. H. Lorrain happens to be the head of the largest union representing paper workers in Canada. He is the principal spokesman on the task force for workers, and he flatly disagrees with this report, as he will be saying in a press conference this afternoon.
I suggest that the minister either deliberately or inadvertently misinformed the House because his own task force report says something completely contrary to what he told the House earlier today.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) I will simply indicate that the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) cannot, unfortunately, be here at
(Mr. Cafik.)
this moment. I would like, on his behalf, to reserve an opportunity to respond to the important point which has been raised by the hon. member, and the minister will do so tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I have pleasure in tabling, in both official languages, the federal government's responses to the recommendations of the consultative task forces on, first, the Canadian forest products industry and, second, the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry.
I would also like to table, in both official languages, two papers outlining the national development policies for these two industries.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 563, 638, 642, 706, 747, 835, 840 and 895.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Halliday: How many (a) policemen (b) custodial officers (c) other persons were murdered in (i) 1974 (ii) 1975?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Statistics Canada reports that the number of policemen, custodial officers and other persons murdered in 1974 and 1975 was as follows:
Custodial
Policemen Officers Others
1974	6	1	5391975	2	3	632
February 1, 1979


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Minister of National Defence state before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 18, 1977, that the distribution of the new fighter aircraft would be approximately 50 for Europe,
55 for North American Air Defence and about 25 for the North flank and, if so (a) how many would be used for training (b) will the balance be enough to maintain prudent minimum defensive capabilities and to ensure sovereign surveillance and control of Canada's airspace?
2.	Can the roles which the NFA will be required to fulfill be arranged in order of priority and, if so, what are they?
3.	Of the six planes examined by the NFA Project Office (a) which have the capability to destroy Air Launched Cruise Missiles (b) which in existing configurations can work with Airforce Warning and Control Systems (AWACS)?
4.	Depending on which plane finally wins the NFA contract, does the government contemplate asking NATO for a change of our air role in Europe?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes.
(a)	Eighteen to twenty-four aircraft will be used for training depending on the type and number of aircraft purchased.
(b)	Yes. Considering the multi-role capabilities of the contenders a dual tasking posture is possible where, for example, training aircraft could be operationally assigned to NORAD or NATO and some sovereignty aircraft could be additionally tasked with the north flank commitment.
2.	No. In the event of an emergency, priorities could be established depending on the nature of the emergency and the perceived threat. This flexibility is made possible by the multirole capabilities of the contenders.
3.	(a) All NFA contenders have a capability to destroy a cruise missile.
(b)	All NFA contenders will be capable of operating with the airborne warning and control system (AWACS).
4.	Currently, there are no plans for a change of the air role capability and the two finalists ensure flexibility, if required.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the ADM Material indicate to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on March 14, 1978, that an effort is made to include exchange rate fluctuations in the calculation of the escalation factor on capital purchases and, if so, by what percentage was it anticipated that the Canadian dollar would be devalued or revalued over the life of the contract against the (a) American dollar for the LRPA contract (b) deutschmark for the tank contract (c) Swiss franc for the AVGP contract?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) and (b) Inclusion of exchange rate fluctuations in the calculations of escalation factors for the capital program is a recent innovation, and at the time the LRPA and tank contracts were negotiated, currency fluctuation was not considered to be a problem. Consequently, the LRPA and tank contracts did not include a forecast of currency fluctuations.
(c)	Since the AVGP project was approved in constant dollars, based on the current DND economic model, which
Order Paper Questions
now caters to both inflation and currency fluctuations, it was not considered necessary to forecast currency fluctuation for this contract.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Where is the Canadian parachute training school?
2.	Are there facilities in Edmonton for packing parachutes?
3.	Is parachute jumping a part of the exercises at Petawawa?
4.	Are parachutes dried and packed at Petawawa, and if not, where are they packed? What is the cost of transporting the parachutes to Petawawa, if they are not folded there?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, Alberta.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Only on rare occasions. Generally, parachutes are packed at the Canadian Forces Parachute Maintenance Depot, Edmonton, Alberta. The approximate cost of moving parachutes between Edmonton and Petawawa for the period 1 Dec. 77_1 Dec. 78 was $75,000.


Mr. Howie: Since June 1, 1978, how many applications were received by the (a) Ministry of State for Science and Technology (b) Treasury Board, for designation as Centres of Excellence?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and Treasury Board as follows:
(a)	Since June 1978, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has received a total of 44 -proposals and inquiries regarding Centres of Excellence. Of this total, 11 were in the form of applications, 27 were written requests for information or statements of intent and 6 were made by telephone of through meetings with ministry officials (see list below).
(b)	Treasury Board has received no formal applications in this regard. Any informal inquiries would have been redirected to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology.
June 1, 1978-December 31, 1978 Expressions of Intent and Requests for Information
Region	Proposals	Written Inquiries	Meetings or Telephone Conversations	TotalAtlantic	4	4	1	9Quebec	2	5	-	7Ontario	1	8	3	12Prairies	3	8	2	13British Columbia	1	1	-	2Northern	-	1	-	1Totals	11	27	6	44
February 1, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Ministry of State (Small Business) finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b)what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Ministry planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?
* Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The only applicable program would be the Small Business Intern Program. The "SBIP" was initiated in July 1978 with a budget of $5.4 million and it is funded by the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission and administered through the regional offices of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with guidance from the department's small business secretariat. The objective of the program is to help create new positions in small businesses for unemployed graduates of community colleges and universities.
To date, a total of 132 new positions have been created in small businesses in the province of Quebec under this program. Regional breakdowns within a province are not available.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the Department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1. Project and Area	Fiscal Years
73/74 74/75 75/76 76/77 77/78 78/79 $$$$$$
Program to Assist Footwear and Tanning Industries ($61,952)
Richmond	13,200	25,346 15,644 7,762
Program for Export Market Development ($6,455)
Kingsbury	5,275	690	490
Workers Metric Tools ($1,067)
Tingwick	26	
Asbestos	95	85Wotton	51	194Bromptonville	23Disraeli	593	2.	(a) $7,872

(b) Program to Assist Footwear and Tanning Industries- Richmond.


Mr. Howie: On April 1, 1978, how many (a) offices (b) employees of the Federal Business Development Bank were located in New Brunswick?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: four offices and 35 employees of the Federal Business Development Bank were located in New Brunswick on April 1, 1978.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary a question standing on the order paper in my name, and numbered 180. This question first appeared on the order paper in January of last year. I do not think it is very controversial, and I cannot understand why, after over a year, it still has not been answered. I think I have been relatively patient, but I ask the parliamentary secretary if he would make a special inquiry to ascertain the reason for the delay in answering question No. 180.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to look into the matter as requested by the hon. member.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   THE CANADIAN ECONOMY DECLINE IN VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR

James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I gave Your Honour notice that I planned to move a motion under Standing Order 26.
This week the Canadian dollar has entered a state of renewed and greater crisis. Yesterday the value of the dollar on international money markets reached its lowest level since
February 1, 1979_____________________________COMMONS
April, 1933. In view of the serious and escalating problems this is causing the Canadian economy, and in view of the urgent need to deal with the situation before it deteriorates even further, it is absolutely critical that this House discuss the implications and consequences of this situation and hear from the government about its plans and remedies to overcome the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will know that in raising this matter pursuant to Standing Order 26, of which he has given me notice as he has said, he is raising again for the Chair a very difficult problem because the provisions of Standing Order 26 require some initial decision on the part of the Chair as to whether the matter is in fact, as described in the language of paragraph 16(a) of the Standing Order, a genuine emergency.
I want to refer to some language I have used previously. On January 24, 1977, a matter was raised with respect to unemployment levels. On December 6, 1977, the matter of unemployment conditions was again raised in an application pursuant to this rule. While I will not bore the House with the details of my language at those times, it related to the fact that this was a chronic problem in the country regarding an aspect of the economy, and as a chronic problem it ought not to be considered as the kind of emergency which is the proper subject of applications pursuant to Standing Order 26.
I said the same thing with respect to the value of the dollar, which surely falls under the same general condition.
However, I am sure the hon. member will know that on February 22 of last year, pursuant to a joint application by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I reviewed all the provisions of this standing order and this same application with respect to the level of the dollar at that time. I then concluded that all other conditions with respect to this standing order had been fulfilled, and having some doubt as to whether this matter at that time constituted the kind of emergency envisaged by the standing order I extended the benefit of that doubt to the hon. members and granted a debate.
I now must consider the matter again as a result of the application by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I did so in February of last year and departed for that one time from this line of reasoning. I think I have highlighted the difficulty the Chair is placed under with respect to chronic problems in the country when they are made the subject matter of applications pursuant to this standing order. The Chair is obviously put into the invidious position of saying, for example, "If 7 per cent unemployment is a chronic problem, does 8 per cent become an emergency?" The level of the dollar has been at 83 cents, 84 cents or 85 cents. Does a further one cent drop constitute a continuing chronic economic problem in the country, or does it at a certain level become a crisis or an emergency which should be the subject matter of an application pursuant to this standing order? I think the hon. member and other hon. members will understand that this is not the
DEBATES	___________2797
Point of Order-Mr. Alexander
kind of decision the Chair can make with any more precision than the House.
I do not think the purpose of the standing order was to expect the Chair at some point in respect of a chronic problem to say it has suddenly become bad enough today, or as a result of yesterday's figures, or of a consumer price index release, that a problem which has been with us throughout our history in various degrees suddenly should become the subject of an emergency application. Although I allowed that one exception, because I fell strongly that if this order is part of our standing orders I should not take a position which totally frustrates the operation of the order because, as members will realize, and as I said at that time, when the House turns its mind to a debate pursuant to the standing order, it has an immediacy and a relevance that often the other labours which we put into our legislative timetable lack because of pressures of time and so on. Therefore, I am sympathetic, as I was on that occasion, but I do not think I will continue to make that kind of a decision on a chronic problem, and therefore under these circumstances I say that I do not accept the application at this time.
I wish to say also at this time that subparagraph (5) of the standing order requires me to take into account the opportunity that the House has had in this session, and ones it will have in this session, to examine this problem. I can scarcely overlook the fact that it was not only discussed on several days as part of the question period-I have tried to take a generous attitude toward questions on this subject because of its importance-but was also discussed extensively in the throne speech debate and in the budget debate which was concluded on November 24, which is recent. There are a number of opposition days. I do not like to say how they should be used, but they do present opportunities. So I cannot say that opportunities for a debate on this subject do not present themselves in other ways. So, in general, I have to set the hon. member's application aside.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to follow up a point of order with Your Honour regarding the question raised yesterday in which the hon. member referred to CUPW. At that particular time the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) accepted that that was the postal union inasmuch as his answer to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) came after the hon. member had referred to CUPW. The answer of the Postmaster General was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this question has been drawn to my attention. The position of my department was that it was an internal matter with the postal union.
So I think it was a mix up, but I just wanted to say that my remarks regarding the question of privilege with reference to that union of course were in error because I was following the

February 1, 1979
Referenda
sequence of events and we were talking about another union, CUPW, which was not the union involved. Therefore, my remarks should be taken in that way, but keeping in mind the fact that the point which was raised by me still stands because we were talking about postal workers who were undergoing harassment from which they should be protected in terms of government statements made during the postal dispute.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 31, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for Mr. Reid) that Bill C-9, respecting public referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to resume from yesterday my comments in connection with Bill C-9 which is, in my opinion, one of the most negative ever introduced in the House of Commons. It has been motivated by fear. The government is fearful and, not unlike the events in October 1970, it would like to stir up another crisis but in a different way. With Bill C-9, the confrontation is restricted to Canada, our country.
There are some points in that bill which I would like to raise. It gives a discretionary and discriminatory authority to the government to choose the provinces where in theory a referendum could be held. This means that the bill would not necessarily have a national scope or fall under a truly federal jurisdiction. If it were passed, it would be possible to decide as early as tomorrow to hold a referendum in four Canadian provinces and then on the basis of the results obtained try to enforce a particular decision on that province. This is certainly one of the dangers of this bill. Moreover, the government comes up with a rather doubtful argument to the effect that when the referendum takes place in Quebec, the Parti Quebe-cois could bias the question and phrase it in such a way that people might not exactly understand its meaning. As far as this is concerned, let me refer to the question which was asked during the 1942 plebiscite held by a Liberal government. The question was not particularly clear and I suggest there is no guarantee that the question asked on a federal referendum would be any clearer. In 1942 the question was as follows: Would you agree to discharge the government from any obligation resulting from previous commitments restricting the mobilization procedures for military service? No reference

whatsoever was made to conscription. Yet, we all know that this plebiscite was held with a view to drafting Canadians into the armed forces, but it was put in milder terms to entice people into supporting conscription in Canada. We all know what the outcome was. The province of Quebec alone voted against conscription, all the others were in favour. Maybe the English version was clearer. Who knows! That is one of the dangers. We cannot assume that the federal government will necessarily be more honest than the Parti Quebecois in Quebec in the way the question will be put. There is a danger of distorting the question. We are assuming that that is what Quebec will do. But Quebec can also assume that we, the federal government, will do the same. We are knee-deep in assumptions.
Also, this legislation is restrictive to an extent. It authorizes referenda only on constitutional matters. Why not other issues such as capital punishment, social policy? We could even go one better, like some countries and some American states, into tax fields, taxation, the people could be consulted on those issues as well. Also, this bill does not allow a citizen to ask for a referendum.
A province is not allowed to pressure the federal level to a referendum. Neither is a group of citizens. Only the governor in council may request a referendum at the federal level. This limits the will of the citizens. I think that such a possibility in Bill C-9 might be more palatable than the restrictive measures which exist now. I suggest the government should consider changing its bill to include at least part of what the opposition is seeking. I feel the federal government exists to maintain harmony in the interest of all Canadians and that it should take into account any constructive suggestion made by the opposition. And I hope that when we reach the committee stage, it will introduce amendments or at least propose some changes to this bill.
There is another clause in the bill which limits the broadcasting time allocated to the federal government and federal and provincial parties to three and one-quarter hours. I must admit that at first sight it does not seem too fair to me. There is a fairly large number of provincial parties across Canada and the air time allotted to those parties will be very restricted. This legislation goes even further when it provides that a party with one member sitting in a provincial legislature will be recognized as a political party. This is not recognized at the federal level but only at the provincial level. They want to divide and rule. There is a danger in monopolizing air time: the federal government could then make a national issue out of it. But if a province or a provincial political party is against the option, it would be restricted within a small region to express its views. This is not giving equal opportunities to all.
One thing that is often forgotten is that if we have a federal parliament, a federal government, it is because there are provinces, and if all the provinces decided overnight to become
February 1, 1979

a specific entity, a separate country, there would be no more federal government. If the federal government were to disappear, the provinces would remain. I think the essence of the Canadian confederation was precisely to acknowledge particular entities, provinces with specific areas of jurisdiction which decided to pool some sectors of activity saying: we will create a central government with powers to administer jurisdictions of our own choosing.
In 1968, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was elected because he promised to solve national unity problems. Well, if national unity problems have been solved, I wonder in what sector it happened. Things are worsening on the constitutional side because of the adamant attitude of the Liberal government. It does not seem that our Prime Minister wants to reverse this situation. He is chiefly responsible for the state of crisis we are experiencing now and now he will go before the Canadian people pretending to be the saviour of the nation. Some saviour!
In the ten years he has been in power he has tried everything to reduce the jurisdiction of the provinces, to centralize at the federal level, and this loss of powers has gradually led us to the present crisis which we are now trying to solve by means of national confrontation within Canada.
I suggest we should seriously, in our conscience, think that the Fathers of Confederation did not want a divided country, they tried to build a united country by establishing a fair and equitable division of powers. We are no longer talking about a Canadian confederation, the word is federation. Not the same thing by a long shot. A federation is a group of states accountable to a central government, while a confederation is made up of sovereign nations which decide to pool certain sectors of activity, in their common interest. I believe we should come back to a real confederation to establish harmony and national unity in this country.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, we have already heard many different comments on the bill respecting public referendums in Canada. First, let us look at the reasons for this decision by the government. We could dwell on some problems which most hon. members know and which are the reasons for the decisions the government made concerning this new piece of legislation. This formula of consultation has already been used in different countries. There are probably a few advantages to it, provided the many disadvantages which could arise in the style used in the drafting of the questions which will be asked are foreseen in the implementation of the rules.
The general organization of a referendum can be compared with the organization of a general election each time the elements are similar. For example, in both cases there is a national vote and the electors are the same, namely those who are on the permanent election list. The same officers will probably be used and they will probably have the same responsibilities. Finally, the details on the material organization will
Referenda
have to be established in consideration of the experience acquired; it is a matter of convenience and of efficiency.
What gives value and usefulness to a referendum, advisory though it may be, is the attitude of the government of the day in relation with the issue of the referendum, namely whether or not it is prepared to give consideration to the will of the public and consider itself bound by such will. A government can always promise that it will accept the result of a referendum. That is what Mr. Wilson's British government did before the referendum on maintaining British participation in the European Common Market. In our parliamentary system, where the written constitution makes no reference to referenda, it is necessary to enact legislation concerning the holding of a referendum and the way it will be organized. That can be useful in certain circumstances. Everything depends on the events which occur and on the way in which it is used. That is what was done in countries where the parliamentary tradition is similar to ours, namely in Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. In all those instances a bill was introduced respecting a referendum on a specific matter and even spelling out the question to be put to the voters. In the newspaper Le Devoir of December 17, 1976 there was an article entitled: "Spain Referendum Lesson" summarized somewhat the inconveniences and advantages that can result from a referendum. After having pointed out that, of those who voted, 94.2 per cent voted yes and 2.6 per cent of the population had abstained from voting, it said, and I quote:
This is where some truths must be grasped and the real question put. Might the watchword to abstain not be a strategic error, all the more unforgiveable that it fed-the success of the referendum has proved it clearly-on a false perception of Spanish realities? Ideologically speaking, some will claim great democratic ideals while rejecting compromise. That position could very well be justifiable. But does one defend democracy better when proving one's weaknesses?
I point out, however, that in these times of economic problems of all sorts it may not be as advantageous as some believe to make a permanent institution of a formula that has not been tried.
If we spent more time discovering the reasons which have led to our discussing this bill, we might discover that the most ingenious means would be to solve, beforehand the problems that are likely to crop up later. I remember full well that referendums have been asked for on various occasions in Canada, all bearing on very important topics. I shall mention the suggestion made to the government that a referendum be held before the bill on capital punishment was passed. For reasons that are difficult to explain, our administrators did not deem it wise to agree to those suggestions, but the fact remains they would have given solid reasons to the legislators and so enabled them to give a better orientation to legislation in that field.
In the last few years, we have noticed that polls of all sorts have become quite fashionable. Public opinion poll firms are developing very sophisticated questionnaires to submit to their
2800

February 1, 1979
Referenda
patients. However they are far from being ready to point out under the group "undecided" the increasing number of those who should be more properly included under the group "disgusted". I also remember reading somewhere what seem to me to be useful advice concerning referendums, namely that a policy of over-control could jeopardize the equal opportunities provided to the options involved.
In a report published in the newspaper Le Devoir on October 21, 1977, entitled "The Referendum War" by Robert Decary, the following could be read:
The campaign for the provincial referendum has hardly been launched in Quebec and already Ottawa has decided to organize its own referendum. It is fair play. Even if the contents of the bill have not yet been disclosed, it is possible that in the near future Quebeckers will be called to vote twice about belonging to the Canadian nation. No provision for the withdrawal of a province appears in the British North America Act, so it seems that Ottawa as much as Quebec could hold its own vote.
It is a clear indication of a sick political system when two levels of government can in turn and each in its own way legislate in the same field; and this is no doubt a further reason to treat the "patient" and to make sure that under the new system, such a situation cannot be repeated. But for the moment, we will have to live with the system and submit to the rules of the game.
In 1942, we had some kind of public consultation in the form of a plebiscite. Many certainly remember the reactions to the announcement of that plebiscite.
The "yes" won nationally by 63.7 per cent to 36.3 per cent. So the country as a whole agreed to release the government from earlier promises. The kind of crisis that followed stirred many Canadians and changed several ideas. It is often when two nations are fiercely opposed that one can measure their vitality. I mentioned that kind of consultation, which was not a referendum strictly speaking, in order to show that one must be careful when holding a public consultation in a country like ours. Since the events that took place in Canada in 1976, all citizens and their governments were led no doubt to reconsider carefully their convictions and their position.
In an article published in Selections du Reader's Digest for the month of May, 1977, and entitled "Confederation in Danger" I read the following by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who sits in this House, which I think is quite relevant and I quote:
We must choose between the blind pursuit of our individual interests and the common good. We must give up the narrow-minded visions we have of Canada at times and consider everyone's needs and desires.
And he went on:
The direction taken by political leaders will be of prime importance because it will provide leadership; yet, they can do nothing without the support of every Canadian. The federal government will have to consider the consequences of its actions in the various areas of the country; Canadians for their part will have to try to ponder the effects of their statements, their actions and their individual reactions.
The article ends on this:
Maintaining Canadian unity always had a price. We must be prepared to compromise, to make concessions, even reluctantly. The fate of our country depends above all on our moderation and our will to survive. We are now going through a difficult test and we will know shortly if we are worthy of our heritage.
I have already stated in this House that our duty as legislators would be to allow all Canadians to live as heirs instead of
being perpetually indebted. If the government would really try to find an effective remedy to cure that sickness called fear of the future instead of legislating on referendum issues, we would avoid many difficulties, most of which result from our ineffective financial system. When we consider the damage caused by this system which produces indebted heirs, we find many causes which should be understood so that we can put some order in the present confusion.
However, I recognize that in the history of some countries many referendums have been held, sometimes on constitutional issues or to find a solution to controversial matters. Between 1911 and 1928, six referendums were held in New Zealand on prohibition and the sale of alcoholic beverages. Since then they have used that kind of popular vote many times.
In the United States, they held referendums at the very beginning of that nation. At the declaration of independence in 1776, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island had their constitution approved by a direct vote. In 1778, Massachusetts was the first state to have recourse to that practice for its constitution which was rejected in public meetings across the land. Some authors maintain that it was the first time legislation was subject to a popular vote by way of a referendum.
On November 12, 1933, Adolf Hitler held a plebiscite at the same time as a general election. This election was held to obtain approval for a unique list of candidates to the Reichstag and the referendum to get approval for the withdrawal of Germany from the League of Nations. As a matter of fact, Hitler often used a referendum to gain support for his foreign policy. After his rise to power, he used the referendum essentially to show the other countries that his teams had the general support of the population.
We could ask ourselves this question: Of what use would future referendums be? Of course, they would be used to answer or to try to answer questions or problems about which the government must make decisions, but which could cause electoral embarrassment among a large sector of the population. We must recognize that a government must often take certain action which goes against the interests of certain groups. The concept of referendum could therefore be used to justify unpopular policies. Thus, in certain conditions, a referendum could become a strategy much more than a democratization of power. There are many problems too complex for a referendum to solve.
Let us consider for instance our energy problems; they are so complex that the experts themselves do not agree. Should we use a referendum to determine whether or not to develop nuclear energy? The citizens would not know what to decide because they are all more or less afraid of radiation. It would be difficult to use the results of a referendum to develop a long term energy policy. Just as if doctors asked their patients to choose their own therapy and medication.
In summary, referendums are political strategies much more than they are an effective means of popular participation in

February 1, 1979

the affairs of the state. Even if white papers are published on the subject, this does not necessarily mean that the intentions of the government are as pure as driven snow. We sometimes hear about separation and even subdivision. We must not forget that there are citizens with separatist ideas throughout the country. Fortunately, there are not that many of them at the present time. Flowever, at the proper time, it would be wiser to keep the debate on a conversational level, which could eventually lead to a Canadian union based on new and realistic concepts.
It is too late to rewrite the history of our country but we could find a formula of agreement in our modern Canada which would allow us to carry on together, to work in harmony and to develop our enormous potential of resources. Perhaps we could try to develop a few minds which appear to me far too proud to recognize the rights of others at the appropriate time. It is not because we lack legislation in our country, we might even have too much of it. The referendum bill might just be one more law out of many which, most of the time, are written in such a way that they cannot be understood.
Lately I had the opportunity to read in Le Devoir of March 29, 1977 an article about the new government in France and I want to quote an extract of a speech which was given by the French president on that occasion where he attributed to the new government the two following tasks, and I quote:
-First of all, our economy being on the way to recovery, we must pursue in that direction as it is vital for France and for the French. Your standard of living and your jobs depend on that recovery.
Then we must launch a 12-month action program accompanied by specific objectives. This program will have to meet the concrete areas of concern of the French and contain simple measures, explained in plain words easily understandable by everyone."
That is what we forget to do here when we write our bills. They are always very complicated. I remember drawing the attention of the members of the House to the fact that our laws are written in style which is far too complicated. We would need to seek formulas easily understood by everyone.
On April 4, 1978, Le Droit of Ottawa reported the first part of a speech made by Mr. Gerald Beaudoin, a member of the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity. He was invited to comment on the constitutionality of the referendum. I quote a part of his speech on constitutional jurisdiction:
In 1969, under the Bertrand government, the Quebec legislature studied an organic bill on a consultative referendum. The Levesque government tabled its referendum bill in 1977. The constitution definitely grants a legislative assembly as well as the central government the authority to pass legislation respecting referenda on issues which come under their respective jurisdictions.
In the last few years much has been said about the constitution of Canada, now to amend, now to repatriate and more recently to renew it, emphasizing what it should be and seldom what it was, stressing the distribution of powers and educational and linguistic guarantees without realizing that we were reducing the 147 initial clauses of this act down to 4 or 5.
The constitution is more than a cluster of powers or rights which may be amended, repatriated or reformulated. It also means a political way of life, a choice of institutions, an almost
Referenda
invisible structure within which every citizen exercises his rights and without which he might have no right at all or exercise them differently. The constitution is the basis and the guarantee of social order.
We should take a more comprehensive and concrete approach to this and provide a more specific framework for the discussions which have been at a standstill for far too long. Our institutions have been set up only to serve the people that founded them and when they have become obsolete it is time to amend or replace them so that they get closer to their objective.
After 110 years of Confederation, Canada is facing the vital need and the moral obligation created by the parties concerned to reassess its attitude and position in a modern world. Our task now is to build the kind of Canada we would like to live in, not one which is imposed upon us from the outside, this does not imply a rejection of our past, but rather a positive, forward-looking attitude and a progressive, humanistic outlook.
Our past is gone by. The present quickly ebbs into the past. We must build the future, not only our own but that of our country and our fellow citizens because only in the future shall we be able to find gratification for our present yearnings and desires. History has decided that Anglophones and Francophones should share the same country as partners, albeit unequal, who have survived in the midst of many difficulties. All Canadians, within and without Quebec, can overcome their fears, prejudices, frustrations and resentment and learn to live together in a true spirit of brotherhood. In our country two races, two glorious histories are living side by side with just one common future. Every Canadian has the duty to make sure that our hopes will be fulfilled.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to say a few words in the debate on this bill because in June, 1977, I introduced a private member's bill calling for a national referendum on the question of possible Quebec separation. I noticed that in his introductory remarks on December 12 the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) said that was one of the purposes of this bill, the main purpose being to allow the government to ask the people of Canada generally about possible constitutional questions, now that we have been pretty actively engaged over the last few months with the question of a new constitution for Canada. There is every indication that this process will intensify in the months ahead.
What bothers me about this situation is the fact that the government wants to reserve unto itself the privilege of deciding when a referendum will be called, what question will be asked, and which citizens of Canada will be allowed to answer the question. I believe, generally speaking, that we have to give consideration to this system of direct democracy because over the last number of years this institution has not been responsive in a number of areas.
I believe my friend, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), said yesterday there are questions besides constitution-
80047-36'/2

February 1, 1979
Referenda
al ones that are important in people's minds, for example, the question of capital punishment and that of abortion. Those types of questions could come to a more satisfactory resolution if they were dealt with by referendum. However, the government does not seem disposed to consult Canadians on matters of that kind. I believe it is clear to every member of this House that a vast majority of the population, approximately 70 per cent to 80 per cent, would like to see capital punishment in effect in Canada. But because of the operation of our present system that will is frustrated and thwarted. As a result, people have come to believe they have no representation in this chamber.
In one respect I am pleased that the government is not saying absolutely that the general citizenry is forbidden from expressing a direct opinion, but I feel a means could be provided in this legislation by which citizens at large could determine what type of question they would like to see dealt with by referenda on an initiative basis.
The present legislation allows the government the absolute right and discretion concerning what questions will be asked. It has been pointed out before that a referendum has never been lost in Canada. We do not have a long history on the use of referenda. Some people have said what history we do have is not particularly happy when one considers the results of the two referenda that were used in the first and second world wars with respect to conscription. Many people believe that some of the problems that exist in the country today flow directly from the use of referendums in those times. It appears that all governments are prepared to make use of a referendum when they think it can help them to avoid a problem. In the case of the referendum held during the First World War it was a Conservative government that made use of the procedure, and during the Second World War a liberal government made use of it.
To date we have had the experience of the government being sole arbiter as to how, when, and if a referendum will be held. The government is now moving along to create a permanent structure to allow it to proceed in this manner in an easier way.
I am discouraged that the government is not prepared to allow Canadians to voice their opinion concerning the type of question that could be asked. It seems to me the government should be forced to listen to the people because the government wants to consult with Canadians to get itself out of some tight situations.
I am concerned that the present legislation leaves to the government's discretion the question as to who will be able to vote on any referendum it decides to hold. In the present situation the main impetus for this bill is in response to what has happened in Quebec. Just because the Levesque government has stated it will hold a referendum, the federal government appears to want to hold its own referendum in that province. I suggest that it is incorrect for the federal government to impose a referendum on people living in any one region of this country. The federal government, being a national government, should concern itself only with national affairs. If the question of the status and place of Quebec is a national question, then Canadians as a whole should be consulted.
The Minister of Justice, in a statement made earlier this week, has given the impression that any referendum on the status of Quebec in a continuing Canada will be dealt with solely by the population of Quebec. I think this is wrong. This legislation that we are dealing with should be amended at some stage to make it quite clear to everyone that, if the federal government decides to hold a referendum, it would be confined to questions to be dealt with by the entire population of Canada. It is not proper for the federal government to be able to conduct a referendum sponsored by it solely within the confines of Quebec. In my opinion, Canadians generally would like to have something to say about the possible break-up of this country. I would like to be consulted as to the possible future make-up of Canada. I repeat that it is absolutely improper for the federal government to say that it wants to be armed with a tool to allow it to conduct a counter-referendum within the boundaries of one province.
I understand there are some members from the province of Alberta who are concerned that this legislation might be used by the federal government to help it obtain the right to control and direct the development and use of the natural resources of Alberta, and to take over control of their administration. I suppose it is quite possible, the way this bill is framed at the present time, that the federal government could conduct a referendum in the eastern part of Canada asking whether the national government should have complete control over the natural resources of the provinces. In this particular case, whether they said it was all of the provinces, the question would apply primarily to one province, that is, my province of Alberta.
As the Minister of Justice pointed out in his remarks, these are purely consultative votes. They are not binding on anyone. However, this type of procedure could be used in a manner that could create more division than unity in the country. I do not think that is the best argument against this bill. Where a question involves an individual citizen so intimately, there must be provision for that citizen to be consulted. There can be improvements made to this legislation.
I am a little concerned about the statement of the Minister of Justice to the effect that any possible referendum on the future of Quebec will be dealt with only by the citizens of Quebec. That was unfortunate to make that statement before the bill is even passed. At least the minister is honest enough to indicate his feelings. However, it is wrong.
I would like to see the bill amended so that if any question is a national question, every citizen in Canada is entitled to vote on it. If it is not national, the national government does not have any right to ask the question.
I hope consideration will be given to my arguments when this bill goes to committee. The federal government should be prevented from becoming involved in provincial politics. That is not their right. It should stay in its own field, the national field.

February 1, 1979


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate at the second reading stage, but in view of what some newspaper articles may cause Canadians to believe concerning us, as members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, a party which serves indeed as the official Quebec opposition in the Canadian parliament, I feel it is my duty to make a number of observations to clearly define the position of our party and that of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) in respect of Bill C-9.
I listened most attentively to the eloquent remarks the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) made when he introduced this bill. Mr. Speaker, many years ago there was in my riding a great nationalist and a great Canadian, Mr. Armand Lavergne-older members certainly remember him-who made resounding remarks in this House while defending within parliament the rights of Francophone Canadians. And I am happy and proud to represent the same riding. And I would like to follow in those steps, to imitate these shows of strong will, of Canadianism, of nationalism, of support for the development of this country and also to be a great defender of what is contained in the Constitution and which guarantees to the French-speaking people equal rights in their country.
Mr. Speaker, to those members who are relatively young, who perhaps are not familiar with our history of the last decades, of the beginning of the twentieth century, 1 would like to say this: It was during the war of 1914-18 that at a certain point in time, the Canadian government felt that it should take up arms and have Canadians serve in the armed forces and it is then that the conscription act was passed by the parliament and subsequently enforced.
It was under a coalition government that this act was passed and that conscription became compulsory and I remember that Canadians still had the chance to volunteer. I have a brother who volunteered and served overseas for many months, 30 or 32 if I recall, and who fought bravely as all other Canadians did and who at that time believed he was fighting for the course of Christianity, civilization and liberty.
After the war was over, Mr. Speaker, elections were held as they are in our times. I was still very young and I attended one of these political meetings. As we had no parish hall at that time, the meeting was held in the local shoe repair shop. The school building was close by. So, after school, as I already felt a desire to participate in the political life of my country, I went to this meeting and I enjoyed listening to the speeches. Naturally, I was ignorant of those things and I could not pass judgment on all that was said, but my brother who had fought during the war was there. At one point, he challenged the man who was speaking: Stop telling us lies, just tell the truth to these people. I went overseas, I know what happened there and what you are saying now is not true. You must stop this nonsense. The speaker was a brilliant lawyer from Quebec city and he was behaving just like a king in this little town. So he
Referenda
paid no attention to the advice he had been given and he went on. A second time my brother told them. That is enough, just step down from there! He answered back: Nobody is ever going to make me step down. He had hardly said those words that my brother caught him by his tie and took him down. He twisted his tie to the back of his neck and so subdued him, and he had to stop talking. I say this, Mr. Speaker, to show how a battle was started which is still going on today. This is what has brought us to this Bill C-9 respecting public referendums.
Later on, I noticed that during every federal election the same thing happened. This was also involved at the provincial level. Let us remember that Liberals used to tell French Canadians: "Vote for us and you will never be called upon to take part in extraterritorial wars against your will. Vote for us, and conscription will never come to Canada."
Mr. Speaker, it was easy to make that kind of promise when there was no danger of being put to the test. But when the time came to fulfil their commitment, the Liberal government weakened, although on the government side, Liberal members accounted for 99 per cent of members of this House. Then on September 1, 1939 the government proclaimed the War Measures Act and established censorship. Let us make note of the dates: September 1, 1939. The then Prime Minister, Mr. King, called parliament in and stated that were the United Kingdom to declare war, the government had decided that parliament would immediately meet and would be asked to approve efficient co-operation between Canada and Great Britain.
On September 3, Britain declared war. The same day, national defence regulations came into force in Canada. From then on it became a crime to impede recruiting or the success of Her Majesty's forces. Parliament met on September 6. The throne speech referred to the existing state of war. If it were concurred in, the Prime Minister would make a formal war declaration. French Canadian members here in Ottawa en bloc were against Canada's involvement in the war, but they realized that were they to oppose it, the hon. Ernest Lapointe, the then Minister of Justice and the Liberal leader in the province of Quebec, would be forced to resign from cabinet, the result of that resignation being that Prime Minister King would be left in the hands of imperialists, and conscription would shortly follow.
At that time the attitude of French-speaking members was explained in the newspaper Le Devoir by columnist Paul Sauriol.
And they accepted the principle of a moderate participation as the lesser of two evils, as a concession through which conscription could be avoided. Then they changed their mind. They were saying, we are going to participate moderately to avoir conscription. That is what happened later. In the course of debate in this chamber, the hon. Ernest Lapointe made a formidable statement. He said this:

February 1, 1979
Referenda
The whole province of Quebec-and I speak with all the responsibility and all the solemnity I can give to my words-will never agree to accept compulsory service or conscription outside Canada. 1 will go farther that that: When I say the whole province of Quebec 1 mean that I personally agree with them. I am authorized by my colleagues from the province of Quebec... (Dandurand, Cardin, Power)... to say that we will never agree to conscription-
Thus, for the sake of national unity, Mr. Lapointe got the idea of a compromise accepted. It was the beginning of the end. Here is what we can read in a monography on conscription:
French-Canadians accept involvement in war whereas Anglo-Canadians accept to limit involvement to volunteering.
The Quebec premier, Mr. Maurice Duplessis, announced provincial elections for October 25, 1939 ...
I remember the statements made at that time by politicians who were stating on the hustings that it was a scandal to hold elections while the country was at war. Since I have always enjoyed attending political meetings, I have so many memories on that subject.
... alleging a federal invasion of provincial jurisdiction by means of the war measures.
Duplessis was a shrewd man. He would sense that during those war years the provinces, and especially Quebec, would lose part of their autonomy. Events later on bore out his apprehension. With that manoeuvre, Mr. Duplessis thought he could transform an election into a plebiscite which would turn to his own advantage.
On the contrary, the election campaign is dominated by Ernest Lapointe who becomes its real strategist.
He heads the troops at the provincial election level.
Lapointe claims that the federal ministers from Quebec having been attacked by Maurice Duplessis, they would take up the challenge and ask the province of Quebec to give them the needed mark of trust. He does indicate clearly that if Duplessis won, the federal ministers from Quebec would resign and French Canadians would not have any supporters in Ottawa.
How extraordinary it is to see how they played with us. And here, I quote again from Mr. Lapointe's commitments:
And if I recall all those statements, it is to warn us against what could happen if we are not wise, if we rush things, if we try to get around legislative measures in other provinces by way of legislation. I for one prefer to follow the course of events. Before saying "yes" or "no" to a referendum, I want to know the question. That is normal! There was another referendum, in 1942, and I shall talk about that in a moment.
Here is what Mr. Lapointe said at the time, and he was very clear:
I told the English speaking majority in my riding and across the country, frankly, honestly, and squarely: we are going to co-operate, but you have to co-operate also to ensure the unity of Canada-
-we have been hearing of national unity for a long time.
-of the Canadian union, the future of our country... I pay tribute to my English speaking colleagues, to the majority of parliament, who have accepted this offer in a spirit of generosity, and all of parliament is bound by the promise that was made.
So, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: That was a long time ago-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I congratulate members for their youth, but we cannot all be of the same age-


Mr. Bechard:: Are you referring to me?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) thinks we are talking about him. Yes, I recognize that he is still relatively young, and I hope he will serve parliament and Canada in this chamber for a long time to come.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government then decided to hold a plebiscite. I am certainly not a linguist, and I have to admit that I do not know the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum. But I look at the aims! And indeed a plebiscite was held in Canada to release the government, Mackenzie King, the Liberal party of the commitments he had made to French Canadians and Francophones in Quebec during many elections. Since those promises had been made to Francophones, it would have been normal that the plebiscite be held only among those whom the promise had been made to. But the plebiscite was held right across Canada. Obviously, Anglophones and Canadians in other provinces readily released Mackenzie King of the promises he had made to French Canadians but Francophones voted a massive "no". However, the government had been released by a majority in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I mention that because there is a direct relationship with Bill C-9. There are excellent things in Bill C-9, the procedures for holding a referendum and all that. It looks very much like the Election Act. That is why in principle the bill is great if it were a legislation to authorize the government and the parliament of Canada to hold the referendum on questions considered important, not on a specific question that concerns only the province of Quebec. That is where, Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with this bill. Of course I will have to oppose it unless the government changes it when it is considered in committee to allow us precisely to agree with a general legislation on referendums, whether it be for the death penalty or another matter of national interest.
We have to remember history. There is a Canadian, the mayor of Montreal, Canada's metropolis, who, like me and many others, believed in the promises of the Liberal party at that time and when that government ordered national registration he felt justified in saying to his fellow citizens: I am not registering because I trust the promise that was made for years. He said: Do not register. And then he was picked up, sent to a concentration camp, kept there during the whole war, without any trial. I find that extraordinary, abominable. There is another Canadian who was sitting at the time in the parliament of Quebec, at the National Assembly. He died recently in the month of December. I am talking about Rene

February 1, 1979

Chaloult. Another brilliant lawyer, a passionate nationalist. Thanks to him Quebec has its fleur-de-lis flag. I am annoyed, Mr. Speaker, with those young members in the Quebec government who try to make people believe that this has come as a result of some legislation they have passed. It irritates me. I want to point out that he was the one who introduced the motion; then only did the parliament of Quebec, under Mr. Duplessis, pass a bill giving Quebec its fleur-de-lis flag. Things ought to be set out straight, they ought to be reported the way they are. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chaloult was accused and then prosecuted for having made certain statements, for having repeated things said by Mr. Mackenzie King and others. He brought into court. I have here a booklet which sums up this trial. Fortunately, he was acquitted thanks to the brilliant defense of both his lawyers Fernand Choquette and Phillippe Monette. He was himself a great lawyer. He was able to plead his case while Camilien Houde could not. He did not have the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I bring up all these things without any animosity; I would not want people to think that I hold a grudge because I do not, but before we pass this bill, I would like the younger members to look back on our history lest we provide the government with a weapon or a tool for which we could later be sorry. It is our duty to seriously examine the bills that are submitted to parliament, and I hope that at the committee stage, the government will introduce amendments which will revive our confidence in this bill should it ever become law. Since I had said I would be through before five o'clock in order to give someone on the other side the chance to conclude the debate, I shall go no further and I hope that the next speaker will succeed in renewing our confidence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the minister, I want to give notice to the House that if he speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Hon. John M. Reid (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of fascination to the speech just given by my hon. friend opposite. I am amazed at his recollection of history and of some of the facts he discussed. The referendum called by Mackenzie King in the parliament of 1942 for 1943 was a fascinating exercise of the power of a government to call a referendum.
I want to point out to my hon. friend a contrast between what happened in the First World War and what happened in the Second World War. In the First World War there was no referendum, and the result was that Francophones in Quebec did not go to the polls to express their discontent. They went to the streets in riots. In the Second World War there was an opportunity for them and all Canadians to express their wishes in the polls. As my hon. friend has pointed out, it is true that the vote went against the people of Quebec, but the fact of the matter is that in 1944 Louis St. Laurent was elected in Quebec
Referenda
to become Minister of Justice in the government of Mackenzie King. That was a significant achievement because it meant that the people of Quebec accepted the results of the referendum and Louis St. Laurent as their leader. Otherwise there is no possible way Louis St. Laurent could have been elected under those circumstances. If hon. members go back and look at the record, they will find that St. Laurent campaigned on that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister does not want to distort history. Mr. St. Laurent was elected in 1942, before the referendum was held.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I would like to carry on after eight o'clock.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is not five o'clock yet.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it had been arranged that I would have 15 minutes in which to speak. My hon. friend went on for a considerable length of time, and I am not so sure that I should give up my opportunity to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that we not see the clock, allow the minister 15 minutes or whatever he wants, perhaps until 5.15, and then proceed with the vote. I hope that there is unanimous consent for that. I am sure my colleague would forgo his private member's hour today and proceed on another date.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has just confirmed that an agreement has been reached whereby he would have fifteen minutes before five o'clock to deliver his speech.
According to the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), such an agreement was negotiated with the Chair and the time agreed upon was not 15 minutes, but five. A difference of ten minutes is a lot. I still had many things to say, but I wanted to keep my promise. I was watching the clock so that the hon. member could have his five minutes. I gave him five minutes. However, I would not want anyone to make incorrect statements as I myself could have spoken longer. I still had many things to say, but, I wanted to stick to our agreement, and I would like the hon. minister to recognize that I acted in a gentlemanly fashion.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should neither be allowed to mislead the House. He was delivering his speech when the agreement was reached. I was dealing with his colleague. We agreed not on five or 15 minutes, but on ten minutes. There has been a misunderstanding, but I do not think that we should make a mountain out of a molehill.

February 1, 1979
Referenda
[English\


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, if the House will give me five minutes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do the House and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) give consent to allow the minister to go beyond five o'clock to complete his remarks in five minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, this is so agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that the question should be put after the minister has completed his remarks?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at 5.05 p.m. or 5.07 p.m., or whatever is the appropriate time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I will not object if he wants to go on. This I call behaving in a gentlemanly manner.


Mr. Towers:: Yes, I agree, Mr. Speaker, but has it been established at what time the vote will be taken?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has agreed that the vote will be taken immediately after the minister has completed his remarks, after the five minutes that were made available to him. Is this agreed by the hon. member also?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for this privilege. I had really intended to try to answer all the criticisms which have been raised on this bill in order to try to give a general summing up, but in view of the desire of the House to come to a decision I will not engage in that. Instead, what I would like to do is to indicate that a number of points have been raised that we would like to look into a little further. There has been the question of definitions that have been raised, and there has been a question on a number of items, particularly with respect to the question of definition of the constitution which has some members concerned. The definition which we have put into the act was the definition, which is a standard one, which describes the Canadian constitution.
The dilemma we face is that the Canadian constitution is not found in any one document or any one place, it is found in a collection of conventions and legislative enactments. When the decision was taken to allow referenda to be held on the basis of the constitution, we were forced to describe what our constitution was. In the United States, for example, it would be much simpler to describe the constitution, it is contained in a series of documents. Ours is in a series of legislative enact-

ments, bills from the British parliament, as well as a number of statutes which we call constitutional, and that is why that definition is there. If we could find another definition which could describe adequately what our constitution was, we would be prepared to look at it.
The second point I want to raise is the apparent fear that members have about a question being put on the constitutional question, or indeed any kind of question on a referendum. The only answer I can give to that is that elections are divisive, people make choices in elections, parties take stands on particular attitudes and positions, and therefore the fear that has been expressed by a number of members that people would make the wrong decision on a referendum question strikes me as one that I cannot really accept because that is the nature of our democratic society. From that point of view I really cannot find that to be serious.
The second point I want to make before I sit down concerns the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who said we could use this referendum power to take away the powers of the province, that is, that a province might give up its natural resources through the referendum procedure. Frankly, we have looked at the bill and we cannot find how that kind of charge could be made. The referendum is not binding; it does not bind anyone to anything, which means it has no legal status. It is, as my friend, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Johnston), pointed out the other day, a glorified public opinion poll in a way, and therefore has no effect in law at all. Therefore it seems to me that the concerns that people have expressed about the possibility of this referendum taking away powers from the provinces simply do not stand up when one looks at what referenda can do. The hon. member shakes his head. I have listened to his speech and I have read it. He raised this point but he did not express anything except the fear of the question being put and what it might do.
It seems to me to be absurd to assume that the people in my home province of Ontario would vote to give up their natural resources to another province or to the federal government if they did not want to do so, and if they did want to do so, why not use the technique of a referendum to find out? I apologize to the hon. member because I have taken his argument to an absurd ending, but the fact is that the fears that were expressed on this point by hon. members opposite do not seem to bear a relationship to reality.
I want to say also, in answer to my friend who spoke just before me and who said he was interested in the fact that the committee would bring forward amendments, that I recognize that this is a complex bill because what we are doing is to build on to our Election Expenses Act a very complex process. We have taken a different route to that which has been taken in Quebec. We are prepared to look at amendments where necessary changes are to be made and where there are disharmonies in terms of two pieces of legislation, and I trust that members will have an opportunity to make their specific wishes known as soon as possible.
February 1, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Labour Relations-Reason aircraft operations personnel without contract; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Statistics Canada-Abolition of job vacancy survey; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)- Shipping-Pilotage rates for small vessels.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for Mr. Reid) that Bill C-9, respecting public refe-rendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the motion of Mr. Lalonde for Mr. Reid. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers)-


An hon. Member:: We cannot hear you.


Steve Eugene Paproski: My name is Paproski. It is right here. Can you hear me now?
Having regard to notices of motions for the production of papers No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer who gave up his allotted time during private members' hour today, I would hope that he would be the first one up next Thursday, February 8.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that under notices of motions for the production of documents, motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer shall retain its position on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.50 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now!


Monique Bégin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for their fine co-operation in considering Bill C-2 during almost three working sittings. During those discussions it seemed obvious, I believe, that the decision to anticipate the final date for the expiry of that Canadian legislation which was aimed at the construction, acquisition, renovation and purchase of equipment and buildings for the individual training of health personnel, will not create serious problems concerning production and health manpower in Canada, or the availability of necessary institutions for that purpose.
As for professional and quasi-professional health groups, we now have in Canada a satisfactory level of personnel with adequate training. During the debate on Bill C-2, the major problem raised by opposition members concerned, as I see it, the financing of medical research in Canada. Support for medical research projects is not directly related to the Health Resources Fund programs being terminated sooner than expected by the bill under discussion tonight in the House.
In fact, under the Health Resources Fund Act, more than $100 million have been allocated to planning, construction or purchasing of equipment for research establishments related to training programs. That might be why many opposition members have used this forum to express their points of view and regretfully, I must admit, to criticize our very good work, not so much to criticize the good work but our attitude toward the Medical Research Council of Canada and, generally, the government financial support program for medical research in Canada. May I be allowed to dwell on it a few minutes.
The Medical Research Council, which is the main institution in Canada granting subsidies for medical research, is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a Crown agency which is distinct from my department and which has its own budget of over $60 million to which is added indirectly, through a specific program of my department, a budget of close to $10 million coming from what the government gives, what the federal government gives back for medical research from taxpayers monies. Those government subsidies amount to some 50 per cent of all subsidies given to that sector in Canada, the other 50 per cent coming mainly from the private sector, from associations like the Canadian Heart Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, the association for arthritis and so on, and for a few years, from small but well appreciated amounts given by some provincial governments. I consider that there will perhaps never be enough funds for medical research in Canada, and I
February 1, 1979

understand in this regard the constructive criticism which could be made to ensure funding. It will always be possible to increase the portion which is directed to medical research. But I fail to understand why the government is being criticized, rightly or wrongly, for not having done its part, because medical research is one of its priorities and will remain so.
The last positive decision dealing with biomedical researchers in Canada is the one the cabinet made to allow long-term financing, or in other words, guarantee the stability, of the Medical Research Council funding. A request to that effect had been made a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I believe it was made three years ago. It takes into account the fact that according to public opinion Canadians are eager to see medical research improved in Canada.
Therefore, before Christmas, I was able to announce a formula for determining the annual level of expenditures for the Medical Research Council from 1978 to 1983. It is noted that this five-year stabilization formula is absolutely unique as no government likes to commit itself ahead of time with one of its departments or agencies. Still, with the support of my colleagues, I made the point that the very nature of medical research requires that researchers know in advance where they are going, because the average project lasts three years, and because the money we give the Medical Research Council is used mainly to create jobs for technicians and one or two researchers who at times lead the teams. Jobs and people are therefore involved and I felt it was urgent that they be given some guarantee of stability with regard to the funds granted by the government. The present budget, therefore, amounts to exactly $63,002,000.
With the new formula, the basic budget of the council will now be figured out every year by adding to the current funds the increase in the cost of living index, plus the percentage of actual growth of our GNP, less one per cent. This calculation is intended to counter inflationary pressures that might build up within the system itself. Application of this formula, as approved by the cabinet, will mean a subsidy of $68.8 million will be paid to the Medical Research Council for the fiscal year 1979-80.
I indicated that this formula would be used to calculate the basic budget of the council, but another aspect of the government's decision is to favourably consider any application for additional funding, over and above this basic budget, which the council would submit to us for specific programs or priorities, for new and major projects aimed at upgrading the health of Canadians. Of course, the council is already funding many projects of a national scope. For instance, in 1977-78, it provided more than $3 million for research and training of researchers in the area of respiratory diseases. It provided more than $6 million for research on cancer and an equal amount on cardiovascular disorders. In the current year, the
Health Resources Fund Act
council is giving special encouragement to the expansion of research centres in cardiology. This explains the new programs in Winnipeg and Halifax. To the budget currently allowed to the council will be added, if need be, new proposals that will come from the scientific community.
The new budgetary provisions for the Medical Research Council will give assurance to those health professional schools in which the biomedical research effort has not yet achieved a solid base so that developmental funds would be available for the recruitment and support of additional faculty members competent in research. It is necessary that each such school have a research base with some depth as well as breadth so that its students will receive professional education which is up to date and the patients in the region will receive treatment which is also up to date. This development grant program has been a priority for the council as it has been for the government for many years. It is paying off, and its momentun can now be maintained without encroaching on the funds required for the maintenance of other efforts. With the new funding the number of highly qualified young investigators who can expect to receive salary support from the council as they develop independent research programs can be maintained at a level considered adequate to meet the demands of those who will also be assured of research funding.
These young scholars and their counterparts supported by the council under other programs may also look forward to a narrowing of the gap in 1979-80 between the salary provided by the Medical Research Council and the university salary provided to their academic colleagues. A slightly larger number of awards for research trainees will be available in the coming year than were awarded this year. Furthermore, the stipends attached to these awards are to be increased to offset somewhat higher living costs. This will be particularly welcome to those who are taking advanced training in centres outside Canada.
The greatest benefit to the research community to arise from the introduction of that new basic formula funding will, however, be felt by the investigators across the country who receive operating funds for their research from the Medical Research Council. The budget now proposed for the council and approved by the cabinet will provide for increases in ongoing grants which are more commensurate with the cost increases of research materials and supplies and the salary increases of the technicians and other assistants who are paid from these grants.
Investigators have in the past complained that on occasion they could only make ends meet by dispensing with the services of a technician. I am not sure of the extent to which that can be documented, but it is certainly true that biomedical research is a labour-intensive industry. I would like to impress on the public that fact, which is not known at all. I suppose if we were discussing this matter with neighbours or with people in shopping centres, they would think more is

February 1, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
spent on equipment, including monkeys and experimental animals, but each dollar we give to biomedical research through the grants of the council in fact helps support jobs, basically technicians' jobs. Some 65 per cent of the expenditures by the Medical Research Council grantees are for the payment of technical or other assistants or research trainees. With the proposed budget the president of the Medical Research Council has estimated that instead of jobs being lost, at least 100 more jobs will now be created. A formula based on economic indicators should serve to eliminate the stop-go effect on the biomedical research effort which has been the result of pressures in recent years created in part by inflation and in part by the increasing numbers of well trained young scientists seeking to establish research projects in our universities or hospitals.
Supporting even a minimal number of these young scientists and their research has in some years meant the interruption, if not the disruption, of research by investigators of long standing. Even with the new formula it will probably not be possible to support the research of all those who, in the opinion of their peers, are doing creditable work. However, combined with the realistic forward planning which this formula will permit-I want to repeat that the formula is a five-year funding mechanism-the new formula should ensure that well qualified young men and women with new ideas and new techniques and established investigators of longer experience are on an equal footing in the competition for research funds.
During the standing committee's study of Bill C-2 statements were made by a member of the opposition that the government's decision on the new funding formula for the Medical Research Council had not been well received by the research community. I am very pleased to see that gentleman in the House tonight and I would like to take this opportunity to answer that charge, to state strongly that I disagree with him and to say that, on the contrary, the new formula has been very well received by the Medical Research Council which is comprised largely of well-known Canadian scientists. I should also like to say that all the correspondence received by both Dr. Simard, the president of the Medical Research Council, and by myself reveals a very positive response on the part of senior and responsible members of the scientific community, among them, if I can name only one from my own city, being Dr. Charles Scriver, who appeared on two occasions as a witness at the invitation of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to plead the case for stable funding.
Of course, this new five year plan will not, nor is it expected to, eliminate all the problems linked with biomedical research. It should, however, restore a degree of stability to the research effort which is essential if we are to make the best possible use of our resources.
If I go back to the exact nature of this bill, which is to cancel the health resources fund a few years ahead of its natural termination date, I must acknowledge that many members complained in the committee about the fact that no

consultation had taken place with the provinces on introducing an earlier cut-off date after which no new projects are to be approved. The fact is that there was very little time for specific consultation when the final decision was taken. However, given the state of the economy, given the federal-provincial conference of first ministers in 1978, this program, as I explained in committee, was obviously a prime candidate for cuts because the fund had given most of what it could give to Canada. Provinces were informed of the proposed change by telex on September 8, 1978. They were also told that we would fully honour the commitment on projects approved to date. This program is not one with any formal federal-provincial agreement. Hon. members will remember that it was established by a law of this parliament in 1966 to enable the provinces to more rapidly develop health research and training facilities, and it has been successful in meeting this target. There was a need to curtail certain levels of planned expenditures in current and future department budgets for which I am responsible, and this decision was conveyed to the provinces. [Translation]
When the Health Resources Fund was established in 1966, Canada had 12 schools of medicine and 880 doctors who graduated that same year. There was a ratio of one active doctor for 762 people. Compared to the most recent statistics for 1977 we realize that there are now 16 schools of medicine training twice as many physicians. There is now a ratio of two active civilian physicians for 568 people. When I say active civilian physicians I include in my definition general practitioners, family physicians and all specialists. New specialties have also appeared in Canada in recent years particularly in the field of rehabilitation, ergotherapy, cardiovascular surgery, pediatric surgery, nuclear medicine and cancer treatment medicine. Because of this, hospital environments have become extremely complex bioscientific centres where clinical research is always accompanied by highly specialized therapy.
A detailed study on the need for doctors in Canada by medical specialties was undertaken in 1972 at the cost of more than $300,000 by the federal government. The report on this vast research, which was published in 1975, shows that even though the specialist distribution by specialty is not always adequate and the geographic distribution could be better, the total number of doctors in Canada should not necessarily be increased.
Indeed, the ratio recommended by the members of Canadian medical associations associated with the study is one doctor for 670 people, which excludes interns and residents. If we consider that the latter represent about 15 per cent of the total number of doctors, we reach a figure of one doctor for 566 inhabitants. The fear of seeing an excessive production threaten the balance of medical staff has brought about a drastic reduction in the immigration of doctors through restrictive regulations which have caused a decrease in the number of doctors immigrating to Canada from 1,000 a year in previous years to a little over 300 a year in the last few years. Of

course, this is a strict minimum if we want to admit refugees and the spouses of immigrants.
Our medical schools now produce 1,700 graduates a year in Canada. This figure is quite sufficient, and we must realize that if we had to increase it, our present schools have a maximum capacity of 2,500 students. This is based on a study made in 1973 by Dr. Rocke Robertson.
It seems absurd at this point in time to insist in the short term on increasing the productivity of our medical schools, or even expanding our postgraduate training programs. Our present efforts are directed at attracting professionals towards outlying areas where service is poor as well as towards the specialities which are most in demand, and this is being done by joint task forces composed of provincial representatives as well as spokesmen for professional associations and officials from my department.

Since the onset of the health resources fund, the manpower ratio for all disciplines in health has shown continued improvement. For example, the number of health professionals and paraprofessionals in relation to population shows a substantial positive change for the eight year period from 1968 to 1976.1 should like to refer to a few examples.
In 1968, the ratio was one physician for every 740 people, whereas the ratio in 1976 was one for every 578 people. The ratio in respect of nurses was one for every 187 Canadians in 1968; whereas in 1976 the ratio was one for every 129 Canadians. The list continues, but I will not take the time of the House giving further examples.
In the dental field, the number of dental schools increased from six to ten, bringing the output of graduates from 296 in 1966 to 465 in 1976. New dental schools were constructed with health resources fund assistance at Universite Laval, Quebec; the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario; the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; and the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Substantial assistance was approved to expand and improve facilities at Dalhousie University in Halifax and at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. The ratio of dentists to population improved from one per 3,097 Canadians in 1966 to one per 2,438 in 1976. Also, the significant improvement in numbers of graduates for other dental personnel is noteworthy. Dental assistant graduates numbered 58 in 1966 and increased to 917 in 1978. For dental hygienists, it was 82 in 1966 as compared to 350 in 1976. Due to market and employment conditions, some provinces are reducing the number of student enrolments in the dental auxiliary field.
In the nursing field, we witnessed the transfer of didactic training programs for nurses from the hospital to the formal educational setting, primarily in CEGEP and community colleges. Similarly, the period of training for diploma nurse graduates was reduced in most instances from a three-year hospital program to a two-year community college program. The number of graduates increased from 7,387 in 1966 to
Health Resources Fund Act
10,051 in 1976. As I have said, the ratio has improved remarkably. One can even say that Canada has an over-supply of nurses and almost the highest ratio of nurses to population in the world. We have adequate facilities for the training of physicians, dentists, nurses and most other health disciplines. In fact, there is a trend toward a levelling off of new trainees accepted in our training schools, and, in some instances, a reduction policy is being implemented. As a result we now have a surplus of nurses and an acceptable doctor to population ratio. The ratios for all other disciplines have improved and will continue to improve in relation to economic and social requirements.
On the international level, our manpower ratios compare favourably with a number of other countries. The ratio of physicians in Canada in 1974 was better or equal to those of Australia, the United States, England, Wales, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Spain and Portugal. We were surpassed moderately by Belgium, Italy, West Germany, Switzerland and the U.S.S.R. As for dentists, Canada fared better than England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, and Australia. Only Australia, the United States, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, France, West Germany, Switzerland and the U.S.S.R. had better ratios. As for nurses, Canada had a better ratio than all countries mentioned except Denmark.
During the 1966-1978 period, the health resources fund met the objective of having the necessary facilities on a national basis to train health personnel in sufficient numbers to meet the current and anticipated demands. For example, our medical schools have levelled off in the number of trainees accepted and some are operating below potential capacity. Recently a great number of projects approved under the fund have been to assist with the expansion and upgrading of teaching hospitals. With the trend now toward a reduction in training in these institutions, this type of requirement has diminished.
In the last 30 years, and to a greater extent in the last ten years, there has been rapid and substantial development of training and other health facilities all over Canada. There will be a need, to a much lesser degree, to maintain and upgrade existing schools and related facilities which in most instances are new or renovated structures. There will not be the demand for large injections of capital in this area, nor increases in the enrolment of trainees in the health field. It is for these reasons that Bill C-2 is before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the tone of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). In the last half of her remarks she seemed to indicate she was quite satisfied that everything in the health field is well, nothing further needed to be done, and therefore the health resources fund can be chopped easily without any detrimental results. Perhaps this indicates the minister's lack of appreciation for the health field and her complete disinterest in it. If the minister had bothered to

Health Resources Fund Act
inform herself fully on the problems in the health field, certainly she would not have taken the attitude she did.
The minister began her comments by criticizing my party for having spoken on medical research during consideration of this bill. Then she proceeded to spend at least 20 minutes speaking on medical research. In addition, she was somewhat dishonest when she accused us of criticizing the Medical Research Council. I challenge her to show examples in Hansard or the minutes of committee proceedings of my party criticizing the Medical Research Council. That was a blatant dishonesty on her part. We criticized the minister's policy of starving the Medical Research Council to death in its attempt to fund research in the country. Our criticism has been levelled always at the minister and her government, not at the Medical Research Council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: The minister went on at some length to indicate that the health resources fund had nothing to do with research, and that we were abusing the bill in talking about research. Yet, I have in my possession a sessional paper dated March 10, 1978, which was signed by the minister. I am referring to sessional paper 303-1/156 in which the Health Resources fund is discussed.
In this paper it indicates quite clearly that $75 million has been allocated for the support of health training and research projects of national significance. I do not see how the minister can stand up and state with a straight face that the health resources fund has nothing to do with research, because her own paper signed in her own hand indicates that $75 million of that fund was indeed channeled toward research of national significance.
We have opposed this bill primarily for two reasons. One reason is the high-handed method the government used to introduce the legislation and its failure to consult with the provinces. It was a unilateral decision with an announcement to the press, followed five days later by a telex to the provincial health ministers informing them that the fund would be terminated.
The other reason we opposed this bill was its detrimental effect on research, by cutting off funds for medical research to an even greater degree than she and her predecessors have done over the past decade.
We learned some interesting facts, however, about the minister and this government during debate on this bill. I think the Toronto Star article of January 27 describes what we learned quite clearly. The headline reads, "Boss Begin's in Trouble. Lack of Leadership has Staff near Mutiny". In reading through this article it clearly indicates why the minister has been so erratic during the debate and why she seems to have flip-flopped at least four or five times on various issues over the past three months. The article is based on information gained from talking to a senior civil servant and perhaps other officials who are close to her. It describes the minister as
insecure, and floundering under her scatter gun approach and indecisive dodging. We saw examples of that in her comments earlier. The article goes on to say that it is not easy for a civil servant working with a minister who is so nervous that she specifically ordered senior officials not to discuss her. I do not think I will spend any more time with this article. Anybody wishing to see it can look it up for himself.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What is the date of that article?


Paul Yewchuk: The article was in the Toronto Star of Saturday, January, 27, 1979.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I would like the hon. member to retract what he has said. He said twice and once in particular, that I was blatantly dishonest. Perhaps he did not understand what I said. I said that the opposition had criticized, not the Medical Research Council, but the government's attitude toward it. I would like the hon. member to apologize. When he reads the blues tomorrow, he will see that he made a mistake.
I think that it indicates a very low standard of ethics for this House, but the hon. member quoted from a newspaper article which gives a description of a minister, written by a journalist who never spoke to that minister nor to her staff. I think that should be clarified.


Paul Yewchuk: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister in any way, shape or form can claim that to be a question of privilege or a point or order. I would remind the minister that we are in a debate and, if it is too warm for her, she is free to go out and take a drink of cold water. As a matter of fact, I will not wait until tomorrow to check the blues, I will do it as soon as I finish my comments because she did say that we criticized the Medical Research Council. I noted the words verbatim at the time she was speaking, so I am afraid I cannot back down or swallow anything I have said.


Monique Bégin: You will have to do it in front of everybody tomorrow.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister just finished speaking for 45 minutes, and I have been up for only five, but she wants the floor again.


Monique Bégin: But I did not insult the House.


Paul Yewchuk: I would like to continue my comments if I could. In her opening comments, when this bill was presented for second reading, the minister indicated her philosophy and that of the government on programs which they have had in place for a number of years. With regard to the health resources fund, the essence of what the minister said at that time is that it was a terrific program, and that, therefore, the government decided to scrap it. The comment took me by surprise, because if you have a good program it is natural to want to continue it and perhaps even expand on it. My party's philosophy is that if a good program is in effect you do not scrap it, you keep it, because it is usually the best in terms of serving the public.

February 1, 1979

In spite of the self-righteous attitude of the minister with regard to the trained personnel available in this country, she is far from correct. For example, Canada has almost no specialists in the Field of geriatrics. This is a very rapidly growing field, and as our population ages and the birth rate drops over the next two decades, it will continue to grow. However, there seems to be no attention whatever paid to this area in the minister's comments.
The minister was proud of the fact that the nurses training program had been reduced from three years in a hospital to two years in a community college. In my opinion, and that is all it is, that program has been a step backward because it has resulted in less qualified individuals providing nursing services. I would suggest that the three-year program be reinstated because that extra year is necessary to instil the proper "Florence Nightingale" attitude in the minds of the young ladies who wish to serve their fellow man in that particular field.
The minister's behaviour during this debate has been rather erratic. The bill originally announced an $84 million cut from the health resources fund, but within just a couple of weeks or a month of the commencement of public debate on the bill, and as a result of the criticism it received, the minister reversed her decision and added $15 million to the pot. 1 do not criticize her for that move, because I think it was a good one. What I am questioning is why she would announce something and reverse her decision just three or four weeks after the matter became public. Whether it was because it was a bad decision to begin with or because she was not completely informed of what was happening, I do not know. I would say it indicates she made a bad decision, that when the pressure was put on by the public and by this side of the House she caved in and changed her mind in order to reduce that pressure.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: She sounds like Joe Clark.


Paul Yewchuk: I suppose that the New Democrats will have a speaker to put forth their position in a few moments, but I will not waste too much of my time on them.
There have also been charges from this side of the House that the bill was introduced without consultation with the provinces.
For a long time the minister insisted during debate in this House and in committee that there was consultation with the provinces. She was defended in that position by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). He attacked us very vigorously for being "unfair" and saying things that were "untrue" when we accused her of taking unilateral action and bringing in this bill which affected the provinces directly without having first consulted them. A reading of page 1599 of Hansard for November 28, 1978, would indicate that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs went to some lengths to try to convince the House that there was plenty of consultation with the provinces.
Health Resources Fund Act
When the bill went to committee, the minister again reversed herself. In the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of December 12, 1978, at page 7:21, the minister said:
You want a simple answer, why were the provincial ministers not consulted on my cuts, because they are not elected in the federal portfolio; they have no accountability whatsoever of my budget to any Canadian voter and I really resent the suggestion of the member.
After all that defence, she then admitted that she did not consult the provinces. When we pursued the question of why not, she said in essence that she did not have to, that it was strictly a federal program and the provinces did not have to be consulted. Earlier on the same day, referring to a particular research fund, she said, at page 7:8:
Our national economy is a tight economy, so are the economies of the provinces, and this program is by definition a fifty-fifty venture.
This leads us to wonder where the minister really stands. On the one hand she says the provinces were not consulted because this is strictly a federal program and is none of their business, so to speak, but on the same day she says this program is "by definition a fifty-fifty venture."
It is no wonder that the Toronto Star ran an article on January 27 criticizing the minister's lack of leadership. Whoever it was that the reporter talked to in her department or on her staff said that the department is floundering under her scatter gun approach. These examples indicate why the minister has not been able to do the job that was expected of her.
We criticize this bill on the basis that it has a devastating effect on research. The budget for the Medical Research Council was announced in the usual manner in the blue book. Later, as a result of pressure from the research community and from this side of the House, an additional $2 million was allocated to meet its needs. Six to eight weeks later, however, half a million dollar was subtracted. We then had a situation in which the Medical Research Council, which is largely responsible for medical research in this country, was faced with three different budgets in one year. First of all, the blue book budget, then an additional $2 million, and then a decrease of half a million. I cannot think of a better example of erratic behaviour than that.
The research budget has been eroded very substantially over the past few years. It is true that on this side of the House we have urged the government for a number of years to implement a formula of stable, long-term funding for research over a three-year or five-year period which would enable research organizations to engage in proper planning.
We did not criticize the minister for committing herself to the principle of a long-term funding formula as she seemed to suggest we did; what we criticized was the content of the formula which commits the government of funding the Medical Research Council for a five-year period with increments based on the implicit price index. In essence, this means increases of about 11 per cent per year. We know from the experts in the research community that the inflation rate in research-the increased costs in research-runs from 15 per cent to 17 per cent per year. It therefore becomes obvious that

February 1, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
this formula, which increases funding by 11 per cent, will not even keep up to this year's level of funding and that each year thereafter there will be a loss of about 6 per cent. In essence, the government has committed itself to a 6 per cent per year erosion in the Medical Research Council funding for the next five years. If this formula had been applied to the last six years or so the budget this year would have been about $7 million less than it is.
While we support the principle of a long-term formula for funding, the formula itself is somewhat of a joke. It will create greater difficulties for research than have been experienced thus far.
I want to touch briefly on another matter, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Indian health service guidelines which were implemented only a few weeks ago. The minister indicated that she felt the Indian people as a whole were abusing the health care services that were provided. I want to object to that sort of criticism because I do not see why that particular group of people should be singled out. It is quite easy to see that some people in every group in society are abusing the health care system to some extent, and I can give a specific example of that.
I do some part-time work in one of the emergency departments of a local hospital, Mr. Speaker. Each patient who walks in there automatically costs the taxpayer $21 in hospital costs plus $15 or so for the medical service that is provided. If that patient went to see a doctor in his office the $21 emergency hospital cost would be saved. Yet we see hundreds of people from all walks of life in the emergency departments of this country every day. They complain of things like sore throats, runny ears, coughs of two or three weeks' duration, skin rashes, aches and pains-in fact, all the normal things seen by a general practitioner in his office. All kinds of people go to the emergency department, a very expensive place to dispense these simple medical services.
If the minister is concerned about anybody abusing the medical services in this country, she should not single out the weakest group in our society, the Indian people. She should look at everybody else, including herself, perhaps.
It any case, Mr. Speaker, the minister made the accusation and brought in guidelines which resulted in some dangerous reductions in health services. They meant cutting back on prescription drugs, for instance. It is easy to imagine what the effect would be on a diabetic patient who needed insulin, could not pay for it, and the new guidelines perhaps would not allow him to get it free. The patient could be in a coma within 24 hours.
Another important service is the ambulance service. There may be some abuses here, but it is not just the Indian people who are responsible. If there were a genuine need for an ambulance, because someone was unconscious or in great pain, the ambulance driver would make a quick judgment as to whether the trip was necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that most ambulance drivers are not trained to make such judgments. This puts everybody in a difficult position.

As a result of pressure from the Indian people and from this side of the House the minister reversed her decision. She delayed the guidelines for six months. We criticized her because she imposed the guidelines without first consulting the Indian people. We took the position that if they were abusing the services, as she said, the proper thing to do would be to go to their councils and discuss the problem, pointing out where the abuses occur and where corrective action could be taken. She decided not to do that. The minister did not want to talk to them, she just cut off the service. But when the outcry came she had to reverse her decision. Why did she announce something which she later had to renounce? Why did she not consult with the people directly in the first place? Was this a bad decision; was she uninformed or was she given bad advice-what was it? Whatever it was it suggests to me that the department, insofar as her authority is concerned, is not being run very smoothly or in the interest of the country. The decision was reversed and the minister has said she will take six months to consult with the Indian people. Why was this not done before?
I had some serious reservations about the actions of this minister which were elicited during the debate on this bill. I put them before the House but I do not expect the government to take any action-it never does. Nevertheless, it is on the record and I hope the next minister of health will try to do a better job in the interests of Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words on third reading of Bill C-2 I must state that my reaction as I sat here listening to the minister's speech was quite different from that of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).
I have been involved for many years in efforts to secure better health services of all kinds in this country. I am proud of the achievements we have made. But in this respect, like the hon. member for Athabasca, I think a great deal more has to be done. I feel very strongly that any cutting back of funds for a phase of medical care is a serious mistake. As I listened to the minister tonight I realized that she was making the best case she could by use of statistics and references to other countries and so on. It made me feel not only that our efforts over the decades have been worthwhile, but that the pushing and prodding we have done in recent years for more funds for medical research has not been in vain. The minister was able to report some progress tonight and to report changes in terms of providing funds for medical research. She was able to put forward a much better picture than was the case a year or two ago. For the minister to be able to say this kind of thing at a time when the government is practising restraint, and at a time when it is being pushed by the Tory party to practise even greater restraint, is something that should be recognized and applauded, and I am not ashamed to say so.
As a matter of fact, sir, when the hon. member for Athabasca picked up the article that appeared in the Toronto Star on Saturday, January 27 I was aware of it and I wondered how
February 1, 1979

much of the article he was going to read. By way of an interjection I asked my friend if he would read the last paragraph. I wish he had because it would have been much easier listening to him read it than to read it myself. After the way the hon. member for Athabasca attacked the minister personally I have no apology at all for reading the last paragraph of the article that was written by Mary Janigan in the Toronto Star. The Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Miss Begin) says that the journalist was not in touch with her, but she was in touch with me and asked me what 1 thought of the minister. This is what appears in the Toronto Star, and let us have it on the record along with the quotations which the hon. member for Athabasca gave us awhile ago.
Perhaps the last word on Begin should be left to New Democratic Party House leader Stanley Knowles, a lifelong fighter for better pensions for the poor, the disabled, veterans and the elderly. "Her ideas are much more progressive than those of many other ministers in that cabinet and she's trying hard," he says. "Very seldom do I put a question to her that she can't deal with and if she can't, she says so."
"She's doing quite well."
I notice the colour in the minister's face. It may not help her in the cabinet over there to have a member of the opposition say these things about her. Just to make it clear that this view is not held only by me, may I read one other paragraph from the article which refers to persons called insiders. They are not named, but this is the paragraph:
Insiders say now that Begin is managing to retain her deep devotion to the poor while better understanding how to exercise political clout. Her arguments, often scattered in the past, now are more coherent-publicly and in cabinet. And "she never goes unheard by the Prime Minister."
If the Minister had to have all those nasty things said about her in order to get a few nice things said, maybe the price is not too high.
I have started reading something else in the health field. It is a rather monumental book by Malcolm Taylor on "Elealth Insurance and Canadian Public Policy." In fact he goes over the whole story and I have been associated with it one way or the other most of the time. It is a story of how inadequate our health services were in Canada a number of years ago and of how many persons, groups, organizations and governments had to get into the battle. It is a story of pushing and prodding. In particular it is a story of a pioneering done by the Saskatchewan CCF government when it first took office back in the middle 1940s. It is a story of pushing and prodding here in this place by some of us having to read many times the 1919 Liberal promises, some 30, 40 or 50 years later. It has not been in vain. We do have much better concern and attention for the health of our people today than was the case a few decades ago.
I may quarrel with the minister because she has so much trouble from the cabinet getting what she ought to get. But I think she deserves credit for fighting as hard as she does, and credit for being able to say tonight that some progress has been made in the matter of getting extra funds for medical research, and in the matter of increasing the personnel who are available to attend to the health needs of our people. I say that my reaction is quite different from that of the hon. member
Health Resources Fund Act
who spoke before me. These were not the thoughts I had when I was getting ready to say a few words on this bill. After his speech I felt that something like this should be said.
Having said that, I want to say that I still do not like Bill C-2. I do not like to cut back anywhere in terms of funds for the health needs of our people. I appreciate what the minister says, that the money is not needed in this area and is being made available in other places. I appreciate her contention that the health resources funds has done most of what it was intended to do. However, while sitting in my seat tonight, I looked over the speech that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), made at second reading of this bill on November 27, 1978. The charges he made against the government in my view still stand. When you consider what money is worth today compared with what it was worth when the Health Resources Fund Act was first brought into being, our contention is right, that the government should not be cutting back on the money available under this bill.
I also want to say that I do not like the extent to which, both under this measure and other health measures, the government keeps trying to push more and more of the costs of medical, hospital and other health services on to the provinces. I know the bind we are in these days with the provinces wanting more authority and some groups in this House calling for greater decentralization and regionalism. We have the Pepin-Robarts report saying the same thing.
I do not agree. I am an unrepentant federalist. I am a Canadian. I like to see standards of living and standards of health maintained at the same high level right across Canada. When you start to push these costs on to the provinces or participate with the provinces in programs and then withdraw and let the provinces carry them, inevitably health care standards are higher in some parts of the country and lower in others. It is the whole move in that direction on the part of the government I do not like. I appreciate that in her speech tonight the minister did not stay strictly within the terms of Bill C-2 but spoke in the context of the whole health program. I like to look at this bill in that same light.
We voted against this bill on second reading because it is a cutback as far as funds for health are concerned. We will vote against it again at third reading. When we do so, I hope the minister will see that it is a matter of continuing to prod, as people in this House have been doing since 1919, the government into bringing forward those measures that will provide in full for the health care of our people.
Despite talk about restraint and money not being available, I know of nothing more important for a society to do than to care for the health of its people. I have no use for any retreating there at all. Our vote against this cutback is a plea by us in the New Democratic Party that health stay at the top of the priority list as far as our people and the budgets of this country are concerned.

February 1, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, some members are probably wondering why an agrologist is getting up to speak on health care. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is no doubt worried that I may talk about the health of animals and brucellosis. I am tempted to do that, but I know it would be out of order.
I wish to make a few comments tonight with regard to two areas. First, I will plead the case for more research in the health area for native people. I will deal with a number of statistics that are somewhat appalling when comparing native people and non-native people in this country.
I would also like to speak briefly about health resources funds being used to help young graduates attain a higher level of education by providing them with more funds. This is very necessary in the realm of education today. Many students attend university and receive their bachelor of science degrees, bachelor of arts degrees, or whatever. They then Find that salaries are so attractive it would be too much for them to continue in their education. Therefore, we are not getting the numbers of young people continuing on to a masters or a doctors degree that will be required. This is because they are not being adequately supported by the governments of the day.
It was pointed out today that the Agriculture Institute of Canada is very worried about the fact that not enough students are continuing in their education to become the scientists of tomorrow. This particular funding is being provided in the health field, but governments should take this as a warning and provide funding in other fields as well.
I can give the example of CIDA. Non-Canadians are brought to this country to attend our universities. They are helped with the cost of their training. Hopefully they will return to their countries after completing their education. These students are provided with sufficient funding that they receive incomes of upwards of $6,000. In addition, their rooms, food and tuition are taken care of. Therefore, they can come to Canada and get their masters or doctors degree with relative ease.
Our graduate students are not accommodated in the same way by the Canadian government. As a result, they are looking for high paying jobs rather than becoming our much needed scientists of tomorrow. I thought I would comment on that because I am worried about my faculty and the research capability that will be available in the future as a result of this important situation.
An area that concerns me more is native health care in this country. The hon. member for Athabasca stated that $75 million of this health resource fund was spent on health research. It is my plea tonight that more funds be made available for the health research area. If they can be found, they should be channelled toward native health research and native health development. The statistics that I read trouble me. I intend to put them on the record. Much of the funding is channelled to health care that will help everyone, but not enough is being channelled to the area of native health development.

The minister recently announced some cutbacks in noninsured areas. The native people were so concerned that some 2,500 of them marched on the federal buildings in Edmonton, Alberta. The maritime chiefs found it necessary to come here to meet with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in order to discuss this.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) pointed out that the cost of moving Indian affairs personnel across the river from Ottawa to Hull cost $6 million, of which $500,000 was expended on the actual move. Money is still being spent on the accommodation in Ottawa that was vacated. Some of that funding could be provided for the research and development that is necessary to eliminate some of those areas in respect of Indian health care where these people are not being cared for adequately.
Bill C-2 is a cutback bill in the area of health services. The concept of health, if it is to be meaningful, must be viewed in the broadest possible context. This context must encompass the physical and social aspects of a person's well-being. It cannot refer only to the absence of disease. Indian people do not enjoy the state of health enjoyed by other Canadians. This is revealed most dramatically by statistics. The statistics with respect to the health of the Indian people in my province are horrifying. In Alberta the greatest causes of death among Indians are accidents, violence and poisoning. Dr. Kirkbride, the regional director of the Alberta Region, stated in his address to the All-Indian Chief Conference that accidents and violence accounted for 69 male and 30 female deaths. This represented some 37 per cent of all deaths among registered Indians. Many of these deaths were alcohol-related and could have been prevented. They were useless deaths. Violence accounted for most of the deaths occurring among those in the age group one to 49. Fifty-six out of every 100 deaths in pre-school children are due to accidents and violence. Sixty-six out of every 100 deaths in school children aged five to 14 are due to accidents and violence. Seventy-seven out of every 100 deaths among young adults aged 15 to 29 are due to accidents and violence.
The statistics on child mortality rates are just as frightening. The infant mortality rate per thousand live births for Indian people in Alberta in 1963 was 5.7. In 1970 it was 4.1 and in 1977 it was 2.2. One might say that the statistics show a drop and this is good to see, but it is still much higher than the 1.6 non-Indian infant mortality rate in 1977-1.6 as compared with 2.2 represents a difference of almost 60 per cent. When we look at the national statistics we find the mortality rate for Indian children is 2.4 per thousand compared to a national average among non-native children of 1.6.
I have just one more statistic concerning the average age of death to put on record, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the rate for adults. The average age of male deaths in Canada for the year 1973 was 63.6. For females it was 69.1. If we look at the average age for Canadian Indian males we find it was 41.5 in 1973 and 43.3 for females. In Alberta the statistics were even
February 1, 1979

more alarming. The average age of death for Alberta Indians in 1973 was 37.4 years of age for females and 39.7 for males. This is astonishing and is one of the reasons why I feel compelled to plead this case tonight. I plead for more funds to be made available out of the Health Resources Fund than the $75 million which was available under these provisions and which would be to cut off under the terms of the bill before us.
Why are the native peoples living 23 or 24 years less than we are? If we consider some diseases, for instance, tuberculosis, which most of us do not even think about any more, we find they are on the increase among native people. I only have the statistics for Alberta but in that province there were 75 cases of TB in 1973 among native people. It has not significantly decreased, since the 1977 figure of 67. Treaty Indians in the northern part of the province experienced no incidence of TB ten years ago but in 1975 there were 18 cases and in 1977, 21 cases were reported. These statistics are an alarming indication of the over-all state of health suffered by the native people in this country. I could give many more examples because the Alberta Indian Association came to see me last week and left me some 100 pages documenting the proposition that their health care in non-insured areas should not be cut back.
As I said earlier, we need a broad definition of health. Therefore when considering the issue of poor health among Indians we must regard the socioeconomic conditions in which Indian people live. This encompasses a broad range of matters such as housing, sanitation, recreation, nutrition and employment. If one considers the issue of infant mortality, for example, the general level of sanitation in Indian communities would certainly affect the well-being of infants and children.
I would like here to quote Dr. Lyle Black, a senior official in the Ministry of National Health and Welfare. He is in charge of medical care for Indians and he said that he would not drink the water on the majority of the reserves in Canada today because of the lamentable sanitary and health conditions to be found there. He said that clean water, properly heated, insulated houses and recreation facilities all contribute to a child's health and well-being.
Again, we can refer to the need for good nutrition. It is well known that poor nutrition has long been a major contributing factor to lowered mental functioning, greater susceptibility to infectious diseases, poor oral hygiene and vision problems. Health problems such as gall bladder infection, infectious diseases, high infant mortality, nutritional anaemia, obesity, retarded physical growth, are increasingly plaguing our Indian people in this country today.
Ray Obomsawin, the health co-ordinator with the National Indian Brotherhood, stated in a 1977 paper that the incidence of diabetes among Indians was five times higher than among the general population. Yet one of the guidelines the minister announced would mean doing away with prescription drugs. We see the necessity of these drugs being available to the Indian people when we look at statistics like the diabetes statistics to which I have just referred.
Health Resources Fund Act
I have noted that the main causes of death among Indians are accidents, violence and poisonings. For example, I will refer to the Hobbema Reserve in my own constituency. The Globe and Mail-an eastern paper but I was glad to note their interest in the subject-reported that people on this reserve were killing themselves at a rate 20 times greater than the national average. The community nurse in charge noted that during an 18-month period ending October, 1977, in addition to the 17 reported suicides there were 21 deaths due to consistent abuse in the use of alcohol and drugs. Seven people were found dead in unusual circumstances, although crime could not be proven. Seven deaths occurred in car accidents and four deaths among infants were due at least partially to neglect. There were four infant and 21 adult deaths due to natural causes. These facts are appalling and I cite them to illustrate the seriousness of the problem faced by the Indian people.
The reserve in my constituency to which I refer is one of the better-off Alberta reserves. There are oil revenues which provide much opportunity, and everything possible is being done to remedy this problem. Two detoxification centres have been established. They are being run by native people, and they are very successful. Attempts are being made to find employment for most of the people on the reserve. Still, we see statistics about people dying because of conditions under which other people do not have to live. That is why trained people who understand the problem are needed to work in consultation with native people to learn the reasons for these problems. Perhaps in this way they can be solved and conditions for native people can be brought closer to the national average.
I wanted to talk about problems regarding noon hour lunches for native Indian children, a policy which was discontinued. However, I will leave that for another time.
It is important that we improve conditions, and I have talked about that in my speech. There are complex problems, but we must consider prevention, research, community involvement and a high level of co-ordination and co-operation on the part of all groups and organizations concerned about the health of Indians.
To date this government has demonstrated that it lacks consistency and that it lacks co-ordination between departments. One department throws up its hands and says a certain problem is not its responsibility. There is no consistent, unified policy regarding Indian health. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, and I quote:
I also recognize that the statistics on health show Indian people generally to be below the Canadian average. However, the basic causes for this are socio-economic, for example, inadequate housing, water supply and sewage disposal and unemployment.
The minister went on to say:
These matters are outside the control of my department.
I am happy that the minister realizes there are problems in those areas, but she should not throw up her hands, say that they are outside the control of her department and slough the

February 1, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
problems off on someone else. It happens too often when people come to departments for help, that departments tell them their problems are not the responsibilities of those departments and that they should go somewhere else.
Then there are cutbacks, and the minister says they are not her responsibility. Surely the minister should have consulted the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) as well as native people. She should have consulted the Alberta Indian association, the Canadian Indian association and perhaps even some bands to decide whether more research funds should be spent.
I talked about consultation. There is to be a six-month period of grace. The National Indian Brotherhood has emphasized the need for involvement of tribal and band governments in the process of clearly defining health goals. Indian people know very well that they should be involved at all stages of negotiation and planning with regard to native programs. They should be involved from the community level up. Indian problems differ from those of the non-native community.
Another area of concern to me is the need for preventive health care. I want to quote Dr. Lyle Black, director-general of medical services, who has said that a shortcoming in the area of medical services "was apparently a total lack of programs related to preventive health".
Dr. Black said further that co-ordination between all government and university health services is needed to reduce the basic unsanitary and unhygienic conditions which can range from house design and house construction to water supply systems and waste water disposal systems which are rendered particularly difficult by such things as permafrost. Dr. Black also mentioned, something which we as non-native people do not experience, that many doctors and nurses who go into native communities, which are often far away from civilization, are not prepared to spend much time there. Because of that, many native people go to their doctor, are examined, subjected to tests and released, only to return a few weeks later when their problems still are not solved to find there is a new doctor who orders new tests and new prescriptions. The poor patients do not know where they stand. Dr. Black emphasized that the Department of National Health and Welfare should consider it obligatory that doctors who go into these areas keep very extensive notes on the problems of patients so that if there is a turnover, doctors who come in as replacements know exactly what treatment should be given, what tests have been done and what the results of those tests are.
I wanted to make a case tonight not only for the Indian and native people in my riding but also for those all across Canada. I hope the Department of National Health and Welfare will take into account the statistics which have been put on the record and the need for adequate research into why these statistics are as they are. I hope the department will attempt to solve this problem and bring the health of native people up to the same standard as that enjoyed by other Canadians.
The minister said she reversed herself when she offered a six-month grace period with regard to cutbacks. I think it is very important that after six months the cutbacks are not just
re-introduced, with nothing happening in the meantime. It is very important that the consultation process go on, that native people be taken into consideration and that the health care of this very important group in our society is adequate.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-2 which strikes me as being of capital importance. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, chapter H-4 of our statutes. The act stipulated that payments be made to help the provinces finance medical research with a view to improving the health of Canadians. Bill C-2 says, and I quote:
No payment shall be made under this Act in respect of any cost incurred in respect of a health training facility unless payment of a contribution toward the cost thereof was authorized by the Minister pursuant to subsection 4(1) or 5(1) before September 9,1978."
I agree wholeheartedly with the earlier comments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am convinced he was sincere when he said the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was doing everything she could to improve research possibilities and give Canadians a chance to improve their condition and their health. Unfortunately he added-and it is with a little regret that I express this reservation with respect to Bill C-2 because I believe that in 1979 the best investment we could make would be to continue to provide assistance for research to allow our institutions to provide better health services.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to have a daughter who is in that field and who loves her work very much. She was telling me at Christmas that she deplores that our hospitals could not do more precisely because of those restrictions and the lack of financial resources.
There may be cases sometimes, Mr. Speaker, where money, taxes paid by Canadians are being misused. That does not give the results we would like to see. But considering the percentage of waste that may exist, I do believe that the government should not reduce the funds intended for research because in the final analysis the people of Canada are living in an excessively difficult climate. I sometimes compare our conditions here in Canada with those in some other countries, particularly during the difficult months we are going through. We had a very tough month of January. We had big snowstorms. It was cold. We had difficult climatic conditions. In spite of all that, I say it is one of the attractive features of Canada that countries like those in the far south do not experience.
But we have to be prepared for that. We need very well designed houses, particularly these days, because of concerns with respect to energy reserves. We need well-insulated houses. However, I find complaining all the time a little disgusting and sometimes disheartening because you have to recognize that

February 1, 1979

we have certain advantages in Canada in spite of the climate and the harsh winters. Today is February 1. Tonight we realized that the sun set a little later, so the day was longer, the sun was out longer, and it seems to me that every day we are going to gain vitality.


Mr. Lapointe:: That will be something to see.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: No, no, I find that extraordinary. My hon. colleague for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) says that will be something to see. I do not know what he means by that. For whom? I do not know. But for me it is going to be really interesting, and people who live with me are going to like it too, whatever the hon. member for Charlevoix may think.


Charles Lapointe: If you have more vitality than you have now, that will be something to see.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In any event, I want to say to the minister that even if this bill is passed, she will still have some authority and she should use her feminine charm to try to convince her cabinet colleagues and the Treasury Board not to reduce the funds granted for research. The minister says no.
I am very happy if this is not the case and if I failed to understand the bill. However, the minister still has a certain authority and certain alternatives.
I hope that what she decides to do will not prevent our institutions and the people involved from doing more because of a lack of funds. If we need to invest some money for a good cause, it is certainly in this area. I have heard many times the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) tell us of her concern for the poor in our country. She wants to alleviate poverty and she wants Canadian families to live a better life, and I can appreciate and understand this. I would have liked to ask her a question today on this subject during question period, but unfortunately I did not have enough time to get to the bottom of the problem.
However, I was sorry to see in a newspaper concerning the child tax credit that since it will be occasionally and certainly granted to the individuals and the families who request it, the government of my province will decrease proportionally its welfare payments. At the federal level, we try to help families with children. I am certain that all members of parliament, whatever their party, try to co-operate in this regard with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to provide additional income for poor families that are in real need of assistance.
We had many discussions during the last session about the famous sales tax reduction. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said in his comments that this would increase the purchasing power of needy families. This was supposed to stimulate the consumption of goods and services in two areas at once: Increase the purchasing power, allow our economy to be more active in order to create jobs because of consumption
Health Resources Fund Act
of necessary goods to increase purchasing power. Then the government of the province of Quebec-I would like my message to be heard by intelligent people. This is where television is important, and radio, and the rest. Blunders-and I hope we do not make too many-boobs make the headlines. But serious considerations are not reported to the people.
I therefore call upon the press, the CBC and all other media to get our message across to the Quebec government, especially the health minister there. If the press report I read is accurate, if income tax credits, as the Minister of National Health calls them, and the 13th cheque sent families in addition to the usual twelve family allowances cheques there will be a 13th with a $200 payment per child. Having made a computation, I must say honestly I am quite happy with this. It will really increase revenues for families with net incomes below $18,000. But if, on the other hand, my provincial government reduces the benefits paid to families living off-welfare in the same proportion, the final result will simply be that while we are trying here to increase those families' revenues, to give them added security, to give them a more decent life, the government will take all this away from them. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can we be told whether we will continue with Bill C-2 tomorrow?


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, my response to the hon. member is yes, it is our intention to carry on with Bill C-2 tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

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

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few minutes on a matter about which

February 1, 1979
Adjournment Debate
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) is very much concerned, and about which I think all government members should be concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope you get the
correct answer.


John Allen Fraser: I do not participate in these debates anticipating that we will necessarily receive the correct answer. In reply to the hon. member's interjection, quite often we receive no answer at all.
The Minister of Labour and hon. members of the government ought to listen with some care to what I say tonight. The official position of the government is that it is in favour of paying government employees on the basis of comparability with the private sector. This is a principle with which my party agrees. As the critic on labour matters, I am quite prepared to say that this is an appropriate approach to be taken by any government in Canada.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House a situation in which the government, and generally speaking the country, are absolutely refusing to recognize the question of comparability. I refer to the Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees, and specifically 1 refer to the civil aviation inspectors in that group. This is not a large number of people, approximately 400. But, these people are completely responsible for civil aviation safety regulations in the country, and the flying public is completely dependent upon the government's ability to maintain within this group those competent and able people. I am not approaching this subject in a partisan manner, but I do not think there is any member in the House who would deny its importance.
I should like to emphasize what Mr. Walter McLeish, the head of the government's air transportation, said a few weeks ago. He indicated that the civil aviation inspectors are the backbone of the organization, in that they are in conjunction with other related officials the guardians of aviation safety in this country.
This group of civil aviation inspectors has not had a contract since 1975. If one looks at the total average income of the three subgroups within the aircraft operations group which comprises these people, one will find that the total average annual income is $25,240. A survey of 32 small independent aviation companies in Canada, on any comparability basis, indicates that the average annual income is $35,000. These people upon whom we depend to inspect and pass, for safety purposes, the other pilots of the country, are being paid $10,000 less.
The Canadian Airline Pilots Association has given me figures which show that in the current year for Air Canada the average annual wage for a pilot is $44,000 compared to $25,000 for those people who inspect the airplanes. At Canadian Pacific, the other major airline, the average wage for a pilot is $42,000 per year in comparison to $25,000 for the people who inspect the airplanes. We have here a situation where for a number of years we have grossly underpaid a small group of

people essential to the safety of aviation in Canada. The government, especially through my good friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), has indicated that it wants public sector wage levels to be comparable to wage levels in the private sector and other sectors. The Treasury Board does not seem to have heard the minister or the government because their recent offer included an increase of only 5.7 per cent, which amounts to $1,425 per year.
We are facing a shameful situation in which the Government of Canada is deliberately and without justification, based upon a stated policy of comparability, not even giving these people, who have not had a contract for three years, an offer comparable with wages in the private sector. I realize there is necessity for restraint and for not allowing matters to get out of line, but I also realize that as of January 1, 1979, there were 50 vacancies in this vital group, and that since the beginning of January another ten people have left, increasing the number of vacancies to 60.
To the degree that we cannot maintain these highly qualified people, the whole safety system of aviation inspection in this country is in danger. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has remarked on this matter in the House. We have had some answers from the government side, but they have not been adequate. If the Government of Canada believes that the public service should be paid the same as those in the private sector-a principle with which I fully agree-then the time has come-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may think that the answers given in this House last January 25 by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Miss Nicholson) are not adequate but, as he raised again this matter and said that the government has refused to sign a contract with civil aviation inspectors since 1975,1 shall repeat part of the answer given in the House, as I said, on January 25 and I quote:
The group has been without a collective agreement since July, 1975. Both the former and current bargaining agents refused to enter into a new collective agreement. They thought it might prejudice their attempts to have overturned the order-
The hon. member should listen to what I have to say. He probably did not read the answer given on January 25 and if he does not agree with that answer he should ask a new question tomorrow and ask again for a late show and we shall try to give him more explanations. Mr. Speaker, he just has to listen.
The regulations of the Anti-Inflation Board limited to $2,400 the maximum increase, and the civil aviation inspectors group appealed the government's decision. There being an
February 1, 1979

appeal, the bargaining agents of the group refused to sign the agreement. The government unilaterally granted the maximum authorized in August 1976 by the Anti-Inflation Board for that period, so that the salary of the group has increased by 11.5 per cent from July 1975 to July 1976-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Charles Lapointe: It was the comparability question that was involved, that is what you said. On this question of comparability, I do not think we can say much in this House tonight. I should like to say, however, that since the aircraft operations group recommenced negotiations on January 30, that surely is best way in which to discuss comparability of rates of pay at the bargaining table, rather than this chamber. A system for collective bargaining for public servants is in place and we should permit that system to work without undue interference from members of parliament.


STATISTICS CANADA-ABOLITION OF JOB VACANCY SURVEY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister yesterday was based on the premise that the job vacancy survey which has been done away with was a very important statistic which should not have been done away with lightly. It was a legitimate measure of the job demand and job opportunity for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians in this once stable and prosperous country.
In 1974, for example, there was an average number of job vacancies on a daily basis of 102,000. In 1978, the average number of job vacancies on a daily basis was 44,000. This means that only half the number of vacancies existed last year on a daily basis as existed four years ago. This is the part of the government's record of non-achievement, like the devastating $1 billion per month deficit, about which they do not like to have data published.
In the best traditions that existed years ago, when they would shoot the messenger who brought bad news, it appears someone-probably the chief statistician on instructions from the PMO-decided to do away with the embarrassing statistic that showed there were less than 50,000 jobs for the nearly one million unemployed in this country.
People like the president of the Canadian Labour Congress protested and wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asking for a change in policy in this regard. I wanted to know the response given to Mr. McDermott's letter of last November. Instead the Prime Minister, for some reason, gave me an answer which had nothing to do with the question I asked but which referred to the consumer price index.
The minister responsible, and I hesitate to use that word referring to ministers across the aisle-the minister in charge, if I could use that instead-said that Statistics Canada placed a high priority on its labour surveys. If that is so, why did it abolish this important statistical adjunct of labour surveys?
Adjournment Debate
One must also ask why Statistics Canada is doing such a stupid, time-consuming, complicated, expensive survey as the one which has drawn so much fire recently in this House, while not being able to carry on the very legitimate and necessary measurement of jobs for Canadians?
The history of Statistics Canada's problems related to this and other matters goes back some distance. It is not just focussed in the recent criticisms of the C.D. Howe Institute or editorials in The Globe and Mail. It goes back beyond that, as most hon. members realize. In an article which appeared in the Toronto Sun on November 8, 1976, Doug Fisher wrote:
A top heavy executive structure, too many high salaried, well educated, under used, rank and perquisite conscious officers, topped by a boss who has lost control because the structure is too complex for him, not least because he's a relative outsider.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is having problems with Statistics Canada. He was once in charge of it when he was minister of industry, trade and commerce. In that respect, when questioned by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and myself on November 8, 1976, he said he would seek answers from the chief statistician to the vexing problem of unacceptably inaccurate data emanating from Statistics Canada about our national economy. This is the same minister who turned down my request for an inquiry into Statistics Canada and refused the wager of my seat against his regarding conditions in Statistics Canada. All of this is a matter of record. We must consider that only two years later the same minister, now in Finance, and, to use a paradox, in charge again of our national economy, has the gall to criticize Statistics Canada for sins it committed while he was in charge. One can check the minister's press conference of last August when he panned the data produced when he was, to use a misnomer, in charge. Were it not for the harm being done to the economy by the data being put out by Statistics Canada, it would be poetic justice if this minister, who is now being hampered by the data from Statistics Canada, were to be victimized, particularly when he had a chance while in charge to to something about it, instead of acting as an apologist. Perhaps the most alarming problem in Statistics Canada in relation to this issue is the number of complaints arising in the department, the number of grievances being Filed by the Public Service Alliance and the way in which these grievances are being dealt with when they reach higher levels. It shows dissatisfaction by the employees, so much so that The Globe and Mail in its July 4, 1978 editorial labelled our national statistical agency as "Sadistics Canada."
Speaking of surveys let us not forget the debacle of the costly and time consuming census done in 1971. This cost millions of dollars in terms of taxpayers' money, wasted time and money lost by the private sector. It was mishandled by this agency and it was never used as the committee minutes will reveal. We are not reassured on this side of the House when we find that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), either through inadvertence or lack of knowledge, confused some-

February 1, 1979
Adjournment Debate
thing as well known as the Consumer Price Index with the controversial job vacancy survey.
The president of the CLC wrote to the Prime Minister concerning this last fall, and that was the subject of my question. We need a shake up in Statistics Canada. We need a minister in charge of this department who understands a little about the elementary work and its terminology. We need to remind the Prime Minister that he too has some responsibility. We probably need a new chief statistician in the person of a top administrator. There are lots of people around, believe it or not, who could fill that position. For instance, Mr. Sylvain Cloutier is a name that comes to mind. He is a man with a proven track record in this regard.
We cannot tolerate any longer our national statistical agency seething with incompetence in the production of data, despite the apologists on the other side. It is obvious from the comments made by reputable financial institutions that it is hampering this country's economy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the public expenditure cutbacks announced by the government last August, Statistics Canada's budget for next fiscal year has been reduced. Consequently this statistics agency had to examine and evaluate carefully all its on-going programs to see what could be cut back or discontinued.
The basic principle used in this task was to protect all the major national economic statistics. Except for these, however, all surveys were reviewed and classified by order of importance, the objective being to discontinue some. The job vacancy survey was considered of a lesser priority than other series which Statistics Canada continues to produce.
The decision to cancel the job vacancy survey was taken after consideration of the interest shown by the users for the information collected. After inquiries sent to individuals in the private sector as well as in the government, it was realized that the information on available positions was not systematically used by economists, political authorities nor by those who are responsible for programs nor by any other group of users. To that finding was added the fact that even if it had a general indicative value, the survey did not answer the administrative aims which have finally been felt to be more important. In addition, it was costly and quite burdensome for respondents.
The survey was launched as a result of a study made by Statistics Canada in co-operation with the Department of Employment and Immigration to determine the unfulfilled manpower demand. While Employment and Immigration Canada uses those data on vacant positions to establish its quotas per profession, it is a secondary use in relation with the

prime aim and there are less costly and more practical ways to meet that special need.
The collection of data for that survey has been cancelled. The last publication for 1978 will appear in March 1979. The calendar has been approved by the Department of Employment and Immigration.
In the last few years, Mr. Speaker, Canada was probably the only western country to make a regular job vacancy survey on a large scale. The United States abandoned theirs in 1973.


SHIPPING-PILOTAGE RATES FOR SMALL VESSELS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with the question I asked in the House on December 20 of last year of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) about the outrageous increase in pilotage rates in the Atlantic provinces by the Atlantic pilotage authority. I also raised the question last June in the House of Commons when the Atlantic pilotage authority first proposed these renewed increases in Atlantic Canada. I also raised it when the minister appeared before the transport committee on June 15, 1978. I pointed out to the minister that this would be the fourth increase in pilotage rates in Atlantic Canada since 1972.
The minister said they were giving $600,000 to the authority to help with their budget for this year, but that this would stop with his infamous user-pay principle and they had to be able to break even by 1980.
Large increases in pilotage fees were instituted in 1977 after tremendous opposition. Before 12 months had passed, the Atlantic pilotage authority with their voracious maw and insatiable propensity for spending money and increasing their fees were again looking for another increase. This went before the Canadian Transport Commission which held hearings in September. They compounded all of the errors and the felonies involved here by approving increases in excess of what the Atlantic pilotage authority had asked.
The commission approved an increase for small vessels of 62 per cent, for medium vessels of 30 per cent and for larger vessels of 18 per cent. This was at a time when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying that we must practice restraint in Canada and keep down our wages and prices.
The Minister of Transport should get his black belt for destroying economic opportunities in the Atlantic provinces with this kind of policy, permitting what he agrees is an unsatisfactory situation. The minister says he is not satisfied with the pilotage set-up in Canada and that he will bring in legislation. Why does he not act to stop this huge increase in costs for shipping in the Atlantic provinces?
If the Minister of Transport is left to have his way, he will make a desert of the port of St. John's and other ports in Atlantic Canada. He is choking port business by allowing these huge increases in fees.
February 1, 1979

Today the Board of Economic Development Ministers announced shipbuilding assistance. What they announced was very stingy, but it will be assistance. They are going to carry out a program. They talked about assistance to the drydock in St. John's and other drydocks. What is the good of that if foreign vessels will not come into our ports because of the huge increase in pilotage fees?
The increases were approved and went into effect on January 22. We only learned of them a week later. They were in effect before we knew about them. I want to quote Captain Douglas Latter, chairman of the authority, as follows:
Latter said a drop in expected revenues from the recent fee increase may force these fees even higher next year.
The authority has calculated the higher fees will derive a 21 per cent increase in revenues, if shipping remains at 1978 levels.
But traffic in the harbours of Atlantic Canada is down 12 per cent from the previous year and it may go down even more despite these increases. In fact, it will probably go down because of the increases in pilotage fees. Then they will come back and ask for another increase next year.
This is a policy of choking the ports of Atlantic Canada. There must be a thorough investigation of this situation. The minister should ask that these increases not go into effect. Why the discrimination against small vessels? How can we attract foreign fleets into our ports if we impose these increases of 69 per cent? Take, for example, Spanish pair trawlers previously paid $650 for pilotage inward and outward at the city of St. John's and movement within the port. That fee will increase to $1,100 under the new system, a 69 per cent increase. For a single Spanish trawler the increase will be 48 per cent, from $370 to $550. We spent three years persuading the Spanish fishing fleet to come back to the city of St. John's to conduct their business instead of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the French territories, and now we are going to lose it again because of these huge increases.
Not only that, but the increases originally advertized by the Atlantic pilotage authority are not the increases which have gone into effect. The Canadian Transport Commission which is supposed to defend the consumer approved increases larger than were asked for by the Atlantic pilotage authority. Take the port of St. John's, for example. I will put on record the number of vessels using that port last year. There were 780 vessels of 1,828,000 tons which were Canadian-owned. This shows the small size of the vessels. In addition, there were 846 foreign vessels with a gross tonnage of 1,591,000. Again, this shows how small the vessels are. The increase to which I have referred will hurt the city of St. John's more than any other port in the Atlantic provinces. Of those foreign vessels, 180
Adjournment Debate
were Portuguese trawlers, 100 were Russian trawlers, some 215 were Spanish trawlers. These increases of between 50 and 60 per cent are going to strike that traffic. How can we become the service centre of the North Atlantic in St. John's, in Halifax, in Saint John, New Brunswick, and the rest of the Atlantic ports if the government is going to permit these huge cost increases to be levied on users without concern to the efficiency with which the operation is run?
This is a quasi-independent operation. Why, for instance, should pilots in St. John's be paid on the same basis as pilots in Halifax? Pilots in Halifax have to go out ten miles to bring a ship in while in St. John's they might have to go out a mile, perhaps. In St. John's today we have several class A pilots who were originally supposed to bring tankers in and out of the Come-By-Chance oil refinery; they are now bringing in small vessels yet they have to be paid at the rates applicable to class A pilots. Surely this is not necessary. All kinds of changes could be made to reduce these costs but the government does not care. Apparently the government is not fazed by these huge increases. What is the good of giving assistance to the dockyard at St. John's, putting in a synchro-lift, if we are scaring off potential traffic? Here is Atlantic Canada on the verge of a breakthrough at last in these areas-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. Order at the back of the House!


Charles Lapointe: Under the Pilotage Act, Mr. Speaker, pilotage authorities should establish fair and reasonable rates which would enable them to make some profits and to accrue all other income needed to finance their own operations.
When the act came into force in 1972, we were aware that considerable increases would be necessary to attain that objective but we hoped that the four pilotage authorities would become financially autonomous from three to five years later. The Pacific and Laurentian pilotage authorities have already achieved that end and consequently they do not need any government subsidy. The Great Lakes and Atlantic pilotage authorities recently published new rates which, according to them, will enable them to become financially autonomous within two years. As foreseen in the act, representations were made to the Canadian Transport Commission which held public hearings and made a decision in each case. As far as the Atlantic region is concerned, the commission recommends an increase in the rates established by the port of St. John's, an increase of 40 per cent for small vessels, 25 per cent for average vessels and 35 per cent for larger vessels.
2824

February 1, 1979
Adjournment Debate
The foreign fishing vessels to which these rates will apply are, for the most part, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian or Japanese. Because of the number of vessels moving in the harbour, the pilotage authority believes that pilotage is essential for reasons of security.
In so far as the rates which I have indicated are concerned,
the normal review processes of the Canadian Transport Commission are available to interested parties to pursue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.

Friday, February 2, 1979