1979-02-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It arises from a news story by Tom VanDusen in today's Ottawa Citizen in which he quotes a government task force report that "enforcement of Canada's air safety regulations is generally unco-ordinated and often haphazard".
This is contrary to the answers given in the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) as recently as last Monday in which he assured that highest performance and safety standards were being followed. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall):
That this House calls for the immediate resignation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and calls upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to order an immediate inquiry into all aspects of air safety.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stevens:: Out, out!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: Otto Lang said no.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact the Letter Carriers' Union now is disciplining its own union members who crossed CUPW picket lines in order to obey the back-to-work legislation passed by the House, and in view of the statement of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) that this is only an internal matter for the union, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott):
That this House direct the government to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to investigate and report on what action should be taken on this grave question of principle: does an ordinary worker obey the law of the union, or the law of Canada, when the two are in conflict?


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) told the House on January 26 that he was prepared to consult and meet with women's groups concerned about his department's undermining of employment services designed to assist women, but whereas on two recent occasions the minister categorically refused to meet with the Ottawa Women's Career Counselling Services, a successful Outreach project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to keep his promise of an open-door policy and to meet as soon as possible with bona fide women's groups who do not want the minister to destroy employment assistance for women.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 8, 1979


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: 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 important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that, contrary to the allegations made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan), there is evidence that over 2,000 applications have been made to the government language school; considering that those applications have been filed but no acknowledgement nor replies have been sent; considering that in spite of those applications the minister still declines to keep the staff on duty to meet the requirements; and considering that the decision to reduce the training staff by almost 600 teachers is obviously based on inaccurate statistics, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the minister reviews his decision and, considering the applications effectively registered in relation to those which have been filed but have yet to be registered, that the minister delay the lay-off of teachers to the original date set for 1983.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on March 21, 1978, this House unanimously passed a motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) urging the government of Pakistan to commute the death sentence imposed on former prime minister Bhutto.
In view of the split decision of the Pakistan supreme court in considering the appeal and the announced intention of the government to carry out the sentence, and in view of the possibility of renewed violence in Pakistan if the sentence is carried out, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That this House, out of humanitarian concern for the stability and well-being of Pakistan, respectfully urge the government of Pakistan to grant clemency to Mr. Bhutto.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has been cultivating the Canadian market, attempting to get Canadians to eat more freshwater fish, and in consideration of the fact that the Independent Fish Company Limited of Winnipeg has been denied fish from the FFMC, with the explanation being that orders to foreign markets must be filled first, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment make a statement on motions today stating whether or not it is a policy of the FFMC to give priority to foreign orders before meeting the needs of the Canadian market, and further explain how this practice allows Canadians to follow the "Buy Canadian" policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House direct that the negotiations entered into with the government of the Argentine for the sale of a second Canadian nuclear reactor be discontinued by AECL until it has been clearly established that materials from the present reactor sold by Canada to the Argentine are not being used for the production of nuclear weapons material, as suggested in a statement by Admiral Madero, president of the Argentine National Atomic Energy Commission.
[Mr. Speaker.!
February 8, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who, as we all know, has spoken very fondly of his falling dollar.
Can he tell the House today some of the consequences of the fall in our dollar, consequences in respect of consumers in Canada? In particular, would the minister indicate to the House whether he is aware that beef is now selling in Omaha for $64 per hundredweight and the same type of beef is selling wholesale in Toronto for $78 to $80 per hundredweight, with the main difference between the two prices resulting from the discounted Canadian dollar?
If the minister is aware of this, would he indicate to the House whether or not his department has done any study to determine the effect of Canadian-produced beef on consumer prices in Canada and, if so, could he tell the House what that study shows?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I said in committee this morning that I was well aware that the devaluation of the Canadian dollar, while providing many benefits on the production side and the export side, has had some bad side-effects on the inflationary side of the economy. I have said many times that it is not unexpected, when there is devaluation of a country's currency, to suffer price increases due in many cases to prices established on international markets. I do not deny that the government is preoccupied with this matter.
I believe that the effect of beef prices on production in Canada, however, is not only related to the devaluation of the dollar. Many people are of the opinion-and there is some truth to it-that perhaps beef prices were too low some years ago and, as a result, herds were depleted. Producers are in the process of rebuilding their herds and, of course, if prices are higher it helps those producers to achieve a better production level.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all knowledgeable members of this House realize that beef prices for a time were
Oral Questions
unduly low. Would the Minister of Finance not agree that possibly half the increase in beef prices in Canada has been due to the fall in our dollar?
Would he also indicate to the House what has been the effect of his falling dollar on lumber prices in Canada? Yesterday, we learned that companies in the forest products industry had their profits increase by 86 per cent. Would the minister explain to the House the fact that lumber prices have been going up because of his cheap dollar policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that there are in the devaluation of our dollar negative effects which are mentioned by the hon. member. However I would like to advise him that we now have a dollar which makes our industrial products much more competitive on world markets, made it possible to create 125,000 new jobs in 1978 in our industrial sector. We could also increase from 82 to 87.5 per cent the use of industrial capacity in Canada thereby putting 450,000 additional people to work in one year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance speaks of the cheap dollar helping our exports, which is a nice way to explain that the Japanese now find that it takes half the number of yen that it used to take to buy the same amount of resources from this country. But manufacturing goods are not any more competitive, in spite of his cheap dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Minister of Finance, who tries to convince the Canadian public that his cheap dollar is a good policy, tell the House if they have conducted any study to determine to what extent Canadian retailers and other merchants have tended to increase their prices in response to higher import prices, as opposed to leaving their prices lower to take more of the Canadian domestic market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very amazed that the hon. member would want to compare prices in Canada with Japan. I am informed by the Minister of Agriculture that a pound of meat in Japan costs $15. I think we are producing very well in Canada. I do not want to repeat the explanation I gave for an hour and a half this morning in committee and again this afternoon, but I think it is quite evident that the weaker the argument of the hon. member, the louder he speaks.


ACTION OF MINISTER TO PREVENT INFLATIONARY SPIRAL
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Finance. A non-answer in Canada is the same as a non-answer in Japan. The minister might as well use Japanese as English when he answers our questions.
As the minister sees it, the main risk in the economic situation is that the inflationary spiral will get under way again. That is what he said in his speech two days ago. There

February 8, 1979
Oral Questions
are many signs of domestic inflation, apart from the imports which are affected by the depreciated dollar. The wholesale price index increased by 11.5 per cent in the 12 months ending in November. The industry selling price index increased by 9.8 per cent in the twelve months ending in December. The non-residential building construction price index was up by 8.4 per cent, and the residential building construction price index was up by 10.8 per cent in the twelve months ending in December.
In view of these indications, would the minister tell us what steps he is now going to take to deal with what he himself says is the main risk in our economic situation? What is he going to do?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets to mention that the consumer price index went down from 9.8 per cent in July to 8.4 per cent last month. The CPI is the composite indicator of all price levels in Canada.
I said in October of 1977 that we would end the controls and that we should have confidence in the marketplace, and in the speech I made in Toronto on Monday I said that everyone will have to fulfil his responsibilities. I said that I am not against profits but that profits should be used to reduce prices or be reinvested in productive capacity in order to increase it and to make Canadian goods more competitive on world markets. I think both labour and management have done quite well in this regard since the end of controls and I hope they will continue to fulfil their responsibilities in 1979.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to indicate that his only policy is a policy of jawboning, and if his jawboning is no more effective outside than it is in this House, we are in desperate straits.
Two days ago, in our House of Commons committee, the governor of the Bank of Canada said:
A substantial decline in the value of the Canadian dollar relative to the United States dollar had become inevitable because of the higher rate of price and cost inflation in Canada than in the United States earlier in the 1970s.
The minister's party was in power then and it is in power now. If that was true in the earlier part of the 1970s, is it not also true that if we have a higher rate of price and cost inflation this year, we will be in great difficulties again? The minister's forecast of price inflation, which has just been raised from 6.5 per cent to 7.5 per cent, is higher than what is expected in the United States this year. Does this not indicate a very serious outlook for us?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I changed my forecast from 6.5 per cent to between 7 per cent and 7.5 per cent. That is an increase, but I think the inflation situation in Canada will be as good, if not better, than the situation in the United States. It is at this moment, and that is why I made that speech urging all Canadians to show restraint and responsibility so that we can keep our faith in the marketplace and let the market

forces decide the levels. However, everyone will have to show responsibility and restraint if we want to achieve our goal.


REQUEST THAT BANKS REDUCE CHARGES TO CONSUMERS IN VIEW OF EXCESS PROFITS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said, and the Minister of Finance just said, that profits should be used to reduce prices. We now have an excellent opportunity to test the integrity of the government.
The Economic Council of Canada released a report earlier this week indicating that consumers and businesses paid chartered banks up to $500 million in what were described as "excess profits'' between the years 1968 and 1973. Since 1973 the Big Five Canadian banks have had even higher profits, culminating in almost $1 billion last year, a 33 per cent increase in one year.
Will the minister put into practice what he has just preached, call in the chartered banks, point out these excess profits to them and urge them to reduce their charges to consumers and, specifically, to roll back the announced increase to 21 per cent in Chargex rates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is putting a little too much faith in the report from which he is reading, because there has been a disclaimer by the Economic Council of Canada that it does not necessarily subscribe to that study. According to my information, that study is quite old. Those figures are for three or four years ago. They have been debated in many places, and we cannot take them at face value.
I have said that we hope profits in Canada will be used to increase productive capacity and to help reduce price increases, but since October of 1977 and since I became Minister of Finance, I have said that there should be no more controls in the marketplace. The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party asked us to get out of controls. Now that we are out of controls, let us let market forces decide.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to question the honesty of the minister at this point, but I draw to his attention that I quoted figures from 1968 to 1973, which was under study. I also pointed out, as he should bloody well know-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Hold him down, Stan.


John Edward Broadbent: -that since 1973, profits of the banks have increased at higher levels than they were in that period. Given the fact that the minister just said to the House in reply to an earlier question that profits should be used to reduce prices, will he now implement what he just said and make sure that
February 8, 1979

the banks, which have excess profits, give the Canadian consumer some justice at long last?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member believes there is no competition on the marketplace at the present time. For example, when we increased the interest rates because of a very high level of competition in the mortgage market, while short term interest rates went up very quickly because of the competition on the market, mortgage rates on houses did not increase because there was some competition. I am aware that banking costs increased in some banks where profits are not very high; some other banks, however, did not follow that initiative. Take the Toronto-Dominion Bank which increased costs for the Chargex card whereas other banks did not follow that example because they thought it undesirable for the customers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have rarely heard such hypocrisy in all my life. The Minister of Finance just indicated to the Conversative party that, not those who are simply making profits or reasonable profits, but surely those making what the Economic Council has described as excess profits should be plowing them back to help the ordinary Canadian. He has the opportunity right now to take some action. He has backtracked completely on what he indicated he would be prepared to do just two minutes ago. The same report says:
If no excess profits ... had been earned by the bank shareholder... the cost of banking service would have been lower-
This means that mortgages, consumer, small business and farm loans could have been lowered. Is the minister now saying that all of these, which is to say Canadians from coast to coast, must be overcharged because he wants to protect the profits of the banks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at first the hon. member said that these are the figures of the Economic Council of Canada. If he reads the report, the Economic Council of Canada has a disclaimer; they say they are not responsible and they do not take that responsibility. The hon. member is not being very fair when he gives the impression that these are figures of the Economic Council of Canada.
I would like to repeat that the figures in that study are at least five years old and there is a lot of controversy about them. Of course, the hon. member takes them at face value. He will appreciate that, as Minister of Finance, one has to look into these figures before taking them at face value. It is the least a Minister of Finance can do.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It deals with the problem that cropped up as a result of the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act on January 1, 1976 concerning persons of 65 or over. As we know, judges made a ruling last November on that group of recipients and asked the Unemployment Insurance Commission to pay unemployment insurance to those people, even though they had applied for a pension under the Quebec Pension Plan or the Canada Pension Plan. Can the minister tell us whether he has reached a decision and asked the Unemployment Insurance Commission to accede to the wish of the judges who ruled in that case?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we now have 36 appeals in that connection before the arbiters of the federal court. We have also suspended their overpayment collection.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the minister. I am trying to find out whether those people who were refused unemployment insurance in early 1976 will get the benefits to which they are entitled according to the judges?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have received representations from the hon. member for Gatineau in that regard. We are now looking into the situation, but we must first get the result of the appeal after which we will take a decision.


LABOUR DISPUTES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Justice, I direct my questions to the Minister of Labour, keeping in mind that the back-to-work legislation with regard to the Post Office was introduced by his predecessor.
On January 31, my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, raised the fact that the Letter Carrier's Union was disciplining its members who crossed CUPW picket lines after this House passed back-to-work legislation. In view of the fact the Postmaster General said this was an internal matter only for the union, my question is: what law governs an ordinary union member in the federal public service, the internal law of the union or the law of Canada as passed by the House of Commons of Canada?

February 8, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very difficult question to answer. Of course, it is the law of this parliament that governs the behaviour of citizens.


John Allen Fraser: When asked practically the same question by my colleague, the Postmaster General said, in effect, there is nothing the government can do; this is an internal matter. Will the Minister of Labour take the necessary steps to have this issue taken directly to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to investigate what is going on and come back with a report, so that the principle which I have just put to the Minister of Labour and to which he has agreed will in fact be the rule of law in Canada?


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there is no divergence of view between the Postmaster General and myself. Second, it would be important to ascertain whether the incidents which are alleged to have taken place took place before or after the statute was passed in this House.


John Allen Fraser: It was after; that is what I said.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: In any case, what I would like to say in reply is that I will discuss this matter with the Postmaster General before making any kind of commitment with regard to a referral to a standing committee of this House.


PROTECTION FOR POST OFFICE WORKERS AGAINST DISCIPLINING BY UNION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am in daily contact with some of the accused postal workers in the Hamilton area. They had always been under the clear impression that they would be protected if they went back to work, as indeed parliament ordered them to do.
As an answer to the minister, I can say that these alleged violations came after parliament's legislation. Does the Minister of Labour stand by a statement by the then minister of justice, when he said at page 344 of Hansard for October 23:
Mr. Speaker, we have been, as has the Post Office, urging the return of these various employees to work, assuring them of every possible protection in the exercise of what is now their legal duty.
When the Minister of Labour is consulting with the Postmaster General, will he find out what protection the government is giving to them now that they face what is referred to in Hamilton as these kangaroo courts?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker,
I heard the representation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary. Does the Minister of Labour stand behind the clear undertaking given in this House by the Minister of Justice?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.


RESTORATION OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: After that answer, Mr. Speaker, hope again springs eternal in the human breast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with a matter that deeply concerns farmers, particularly those in western Canada. My question is, is any progress being made in connection with the International Wheat Agreement, 1971, being restored and brought into effect? After I have his answer in that regard, I would like to ask a supplementary.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as near as I could ascertain today, the group meeting in Geneva will probably break up tomorrow, not having reached an agreement. Whether they have decided to convene at a later date, I do not know as yet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a death-blow to the western wheat farmer. Is the reason for the break-up the fact that the stand taken by Canada, and also by Australia, displayed an intransigent attitude on the part of Canadian representatives in one particular, and also the other country, Australia, to which I referred? What is the reason for the break-up? Is it stubbornness on the part of Canada, or just stupidity?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I like to think the Canadian negotiators are trying to negotiate the best possible arrangement for Canadian producers, having regard to creating security of markets and the best price that can be achieved over the long term for our producers.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Is the minister aware that the Quebec government is using the extra $20 that guaranteed income supplement recipients have been receiving since January from the federal government to supplement its own budget and that it is retaining, in a rather dubious fashion, the increase that is supposed to be for all senior citizens living in that province's institutions? If so, does she intend to ask the supposedly social democratic authorities of that province to cease and desist from this

shameful practice which seems to be built in that province's system and which is contrary to any good social democratic government?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, senior citizens living in homes have reported to us that rents have increased by the amount of the indexation for January plus all or three quarters of the $20 increase. 1 Find this last increase unacceptable and unjustifiable by the Quebec government which is recuperating, through senior citizens, moneys to which it has no claim. I can understand that provincial governments take back the indexation added every three months to the GIS, because they must face increased costs in salaries, food, electricity and heating for those institutions. But in no way do they have the moral right to do what is unfortunately being done in Quebec and also Ontario, the two largest provinces, and what 1 consider an anti-social act.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the fact that six provincial advisory councils on the status of women, as well as the federal advisory council, have written to the minister drawing attention to the impact of UI changes upon women, and in view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has given an undertaking to change the regulations if the impact is serious, can he give an assurance to this House that he will, by regulation, amend the 20-hour provision?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We are at the present time studying the recommendations made not only by that group but by many others. As the hon. member knows, having spent many hours at the committee meetings, we deliberately worded the regulation to read "up to 20 hours" so that changes could be made if the effect was detrimental. We are considering that section.


John R. Rodriguez: We are, indeed, hopeful from the minister's comments that he is studying the effects of this 20-hour, part-time work provision.
Since these councils on the status of women are holding their meeting on February 21, can the minister undertake to expedite these studies so as to be able to inform the advisory councils of the result in time to enable them to plan further action?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am not sure we can meet that date, or even whether we will come up with the answer which the hon. member is suggesting. I did say we were studying the impact
Oral Questions
to determine whether it is having the result some people are suggesting. I am satisfied that some of the changes we made will have to be modified, but until a complete study has been made I do not want to commit myself.



AIR TRANSPORT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Bearing in mind the severe condemnation levelled against the administration and enforcement of air safety regulations by the government's own task force, and given the fact that the minister, on Monday, accused opposition members of being irresponsible and of having no basis for alleging that air safety was deteriorating in this country, would the hon. gentleman not consider correcting or withdrawing his statement of last Monday; or perhaps he might choose the more honourable course of resigning?
Hon Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport): The hon. member overlooks the fact that it was because of some concern about our total package of enforcement measures that we created this task force to look into the matter and see what could be done about the situation.
The hon. member refers, as he did in his proposed motion under Standing Order 43, to a report in the newspaper today which is wrong in at least one important respect: it says that the report from the task force has been presented to me. It has not. I do not know how much else in that report is wrong, but I would hope the hon. member would also notice that what the report addresses is the question of how much regulation, enforcement and punishment we are effectively putting in place in relation to the whole aviation system. The report notes that a great deal of the responsibility rests with the good sense and law-abiding feelings of pilots, owners and operators of aircraft providing services. This is very often a very sound basis on which to be secure about safety, given the high quality and high standards of these people. The industry can, indeed, be self-regulatory to a large extent. We are concerned about back-up measures, though, and that is why we are studying the matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister is really backtracking; I hope he does not stumble and fall. He may not have to resign, because the next election will take care of that. Can we expect this report to be made public, or will he attempt to smother it as he seems to imply in his answer to me?


Mr. Lang:: If it is, indeed, the report which the Citizen has referred to, I suppose one might say it is obviously going to be made public in one way or another. Our tradition in a very open department is to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 8, 1979
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: -place reports of this sort in our library, where they are indexed and available to the public, even if we do not feel they are necessarily of the sort that deserve to be printed. I say "a very open department", noting the "raspberries" from the other side, because they may not know that we have thousands and thousands of documents available in the library.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Speaking of open departments, I have a question for the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: On Tuesday, the Solicitor General gave us some details from the testimony of a Boeing consultant given before the SEC in Washington. As there are still many questions having to do with this matter which are unanswered, will he table the testimony which the consultant gave to the Securities and Exchange Commission?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: As I understand it, there was a deposition by Boeing in an action commenced by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That is what I was referring to. Again, as I understand it, this document is in the public domain in the United States and could be obtained by the hon. member.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This is a very long way from the answer the Solicitor General gave when asked by the Leader of the Opposition to tell us the name of the person or persons alleged to have received these payments. He said:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The individual who testified before the SEC was a gentleman who was identified as a consultant of Boeing.
He was quoting from testimony, as he well knows. Since Boeing has admitted making double payments in Canada, which payments would inevitably increase the cost of aircraft, and since two of the organizations which purchased planes from Boeing are government organizations, these costs would inevitably be passed on to the taxpayer. I believe the taxpayer has a right to know how these extra costs are incurred.
To clear up this matter, would the Solicitor General refer the situation to the public accounts committee and give the committee authority to call the Boeing consultant as a witness?


Mr. Blais:: Again, the hon. member indicates, as he did yesterday, that a double payment was made by Boeing to the consultant. I again invite the hon. gentleman to tell us what he is relying upon in making that allegation.


Mr. Gillies:: Boeing said so.



DOMESTIC OIL. PRODUCTION-STEPS TO DECREASE DEPENDENCY ON IRAN

Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, because some 24 per cent of the oil Canada imports comes from Iran, and since there has been very little production for months and not much indication that there will be a resumption of supply in the immediate future, would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources share with the House his assessment of the situation and tell us what steps Canada is taking to replace this oil and to decrease our dependency upon oil from Iran?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in recent answers that the situation is a serious one and that there might well be shortages affecting eastern refineries. The corporation which owns these refineries has been making plans, running down its storage and inventories and making other arrangements for shipments. For example, a very substantial shipment arrived in Port Tupper today from Kuwait.
The most promising prospect, in my view, has to do with exchanges involving Canadian oil which would be moved through the Canadian system to Chicago, replacing oil which would otherwise be brought up to that city from the United States east coast. Instead of going to Chicago through the United States system, that oil would go to Canadian ports and refineries. I believe arrangements concerning something in the order of a million barrels have already been approved by the National Energy Board, and there may be applications involving as many as three million barrels under these exchange arrangements. This would provide, as a temporary measure, a degree of security for Canadian refineries.



EFFECT OF 1974 AGREEMENT ON INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAMS

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: As the
minister knows, I gave him notice this morning of a question along the lines of the one he has just received from a Liberal backbencher. I am sure the information was not leaked to that hon. member. As the minister also knows, Canada was a signatory to the 1974 agreement on international energy programs which, in effect, compels participating nations to share the consequences of any world shortage of oil production. Obviously, with the curtailment of Iranian supplies there has been a decline, certainly in this first part of 1979, of a significant amount of production.
Has Canada received any notice or, in turn, has Canada given notice to any of the other signatories or participating nations respecting this shortage? Are we being compelled, rather than the swap deal with the United States, to make up any shortage to the Americans, they to us or we to any other western nation?
February 8, 1979


Alastair William Gillespie: No, we are under no obligation at present to make any shipments to any other countries, including the U.S. The arrangement which we have put into place-when I say "we", that is to say Canada and the corporations involved in the importing of oil-was made through deals that they have made with other companies in the United States, the submissions being approved by the National Energy Board under general Canadian government policy.
Those arrangements, we believe, will see Canada through the difficulties of the near-term. They are, I think, a sound way to deal with the situation. They are a temporary solution. I do not see, at present, any indication that the trigger mechanism of the International Energy Agency will be pulled which will obligate Canada under those provisions to provide a cutback. I think that was the import of the hon. member's question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is well aware-I am sure he has been watching the same quotations as we have from the Americans, especially Mr. Schlesinger, regarding the policy of rationing in the United States-obviously, if we are part of an international deal which will require us to help them make up their shortfall, which is what parts 1 to 5 of the 1974 agreement call for, would the minister indicate whether, if that happens, we will automatically be going on a rationing system as well? What are the possibilities of this? Is there co-operation with them in that respect? Has the minister had discussions with his counterpart in the United States about rationing for North America?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is a little confused in that it suggests Canada would be under an obligation to export under the International Energy Agency arrangement. That is not the case. The obligation we would have, in the event that the International Energy Agency provisions were triggered, would to cut back our imports in the same way that other countries would be obliged to cut back their imports and their consumption, and I think the key question-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Domestic consumption.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said we would be obligated to cut back our domestic production. We do not have the obligation to cut back our production. The hon. member keeps calling from the sidelines that we would have to share in the sense that we would have to export our production. That is not part of the obligation. As the hon. member knows, we are a net importer of oil at present and, therefore, we would have to cut back our consumption because we would not have as many imports available to us.
The other part of his question was whether I expect it will be necessary to introduce rationing in Canada and the hon. member alluded to some remarks of the U.S. secretary. We have a contingency plan in the event of that possibility, but I do not think at present it is any more than a possibility. I
Oral Questions
believe the arrangements that are in place at present will see us through. However, just in case, we have a contingency plan.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Everybody will recall that last October 25, 16 students from Quebec went on strike at the Cornwall Institute for the training of air traffic controllers. Following the grievances formulated by these students, the minister had deemed advisable to launch an inquiry. This inquiry had discovered unintentional discrimination, according to the minister, and the students went back to training when they were guaranteed a measure of justice. Is the minister aware that six of these students have received a notice of dismissal? If so, does he intend to take action and examine the case of these young people who have now been dismissed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, after the report, various improvements were made in the way in which teaching is conducted at the Cornwall school. Obviously, notwithstanding that, there will continue to be incidents of students failing to complete the course. This is perfectly normal and to be expected; it happens regularly to a certain percentage of those attending.
There is now a review board looking into any such dismissals and each in turn is, therefore, examined very carefully. Up to this point I am satisfied that everything is proceeding according to proper academic principles.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister realizes the problem created by this situation; I suggest this has a lot in common with the whole situation of the Association des Gens de Fair, which issued a statement, namely that the Canadian Transport Commission is really in bad faith as regards this problem. In the circumstances, they demand an inquiry by the Minister of Justice. Would the minister responsible give serious consideration to the grievances expressed by these students on this situation which grows worse and inevitably represents a hazard? 1 believe the minister and all my colleagues from Quebec do understand the situation. For all these reasons, would the minister at least be prepared to recommend that these students can finish their course at the regional school in Dorval? I suggest they could be welcome there and be given the adequate tools to complete their course.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the immediate use of any other institution is that of adequate facilities being
3016

February 8, 1979
Oral Questions
available. I have assured the hon. member that 1 do take these matters most seriously and have been investigating them from that point of view and satisfying myself that, in fact, discrimination has ended and proper academic principles are being followed.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns yet another matter of double payment and relates to a Standing Order 43 motion which I raised earlier this week with respect to the allocation of Young Canada Works grants in British Columbia.
Is the minister in a position today to give the House an indication as to how these grants were allocated in British Columbia and why eight of the Liberal ridings received more than half of this year's allocation of $6.3 million?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I think that where the hon. member has tunnel vision is in his looking at British Columbia and not at Canada as a whole. I would recommend, with respect, that he look at some of the constituencies in Newfoundland where Conservative ridings received substantially more than Liberal ridings. I think this is a bum rap.
So far as the method of calculating the funding paid out under the Young Canada Works program is concerned, that has been made available to each and every member in a letter sent to him.


Frank Oberle: What I have done, instead, Mr. Speaker, is consult the unemployment statistics in the province of B.C. and I have taken that as a guide to raise my criticism, because what I have found is a rather distasteful and ridiculous case of political pork-barrelling which indicates to me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
 * *
[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Given the fact that the federal government has announced its pulp and paper industry financial assistance program and given the importance that industry has in the province of Quebec, given the fact that it is urgent to protect the 30,000 jobs that already

exist and those which will be created and finally given the fact that this program is a two-tier program, that is the federal government and that of Quebec both have obligations as to its implementation, does the minister think it could be implemented in the next few weeks?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can be optimistic and say that our negotiations are going quite well. The consultations which preceded the announcement of the program between my department and several departments in the governments of several provinces tend to indicate that the negotiations which are to lead to the signature of a formal agreement between my department and the Quebec government should be rapidly completed. So, we should be in a position to sign the agreement and offer the program to companies which will apply and want to take advantage of it.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Environment. Statements made by the minister of the environment for the province of Ontario this week indicate that acidic rain originating for the most part in the United States is destroying the fish population in at least 140 Ontario lakes. This situation is posing a serious threat, not only to the environment but to the tourist industry of northern Ontario and, eventually, Quebec.
Has the minister urged his United States counterpart to crack down on the United States industries which are polluting our Canadian lakes? Has the minister been able to elicit the co-operation of U.S. authorities in a campaign to clean up the affected lakes?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon. member will recall that when the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Vance, was visiting Canada last fall, he and our Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated that we would be signing an air quality treaty, with the United States. This announcement was made with acid rain and other matters in mind.
My officials, along with Ontario officials, have had meetings with United States officials concerning this very serious matter. We will be holding further meetings later this month. We are moving as fast as we can with United States officials to try to effect an appropriate agreement.
February 8, 1979



LABOUR DISPUTES


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question 1 would like to follow up respecting the postal workers in Eiamilton. Since the Minister of Labour said that in fact he is standing behind the statement made by the Minister of Justice that these postal workers would be protected if they went back to work pursuant to the law passed by parliament, what action is the government taking in order to give those workers protection?
What steps are being taken to prevent the internal harassment to which the workers are being subjected? The actions being clearly illegal, what steps is the Solicitor General taking to investigate the matter and to follow up with charges in order to afford the substantial and de facto protection promised by the government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my name came up halfway through the hon. member's question, I trust that it was directed to me. I will take notice of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PRIVILEGE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from answers given earlier today during oral questions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). The minister said two things which are quite disturbing.
I made reference to a study produced by the Economic Council of Canada in which it documented what was claimed to have been excess profits in the period 1968 to 1973. Obviously I do not have the words of the Minister of Finance written down, but I am sure I can convey the accurate sense of what he said earlier today. He implied that the study had been repudiated by the Economic Council of Canada, and that an official disclaimer had been issued by the Economic Council of Canada. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the minister was casting severe criticism on Professor Mintz who spent more than three years doing a study requested by the Government of Canada.
Would the minister confirm that it is the standard practice of the Economic Council of Canada, when a study is released in the name of one individual, to issue such a disclaimer? That is the standard practice. It is not exceptional for the Economic Council of Canada to make clear that a report is issued in the name of an individual. Surely the crucial point is that when the council makes such a statement, it is not dissociating itself
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
from the findings. It is simply indicating that one individual did the work. If the minister is referring only to the standard disclaimer, it is an understatement to say I find it disagreeable that aspersions should be cast on the quality of work of a man who worked almost three years for a government agency. If the minister is referring to a more specific disclaimer which calls into question the quality of work, I am not aware of it, and I hope he will clarify that.
My second point is equally serious. The minister indicated that I was using outdated statistics in my question. That is false as well. I am not saying that the minister deliberately misled the House; I am saying only that he misled the House. In my question I referred to current statistics which were derived from official reports produced by the companies themselves. I do not intend to read all the statistics, but I should like to refer to two statistics for the years 1977 and 1978. The profits of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for 1977 increased by 10.6 per cent, which was well above average. For the most recent year 1978, their profits were up 34.4 per cent to almost $1 billion. In short, the trend to which Professor Mintz referred in the earlier period has continued up to the present. The statistics I used were accurate and current ones, and I resent the implication that I was doing something to the contrary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when I referred to the study, I was referring to the paragraph appearing on the first page which reads as follows:
The findings of this study are the personal responsibility of the author and, as such, have not been endorsed by members of the Economic Council of Canada.
The hon. member referred to the study and to the figures, but I should like to indicate that I have checked the tables used in that study. Some of the tables were for 1963 and the last year used was 1973. I made the point that the study contained data which were no longer applicable today.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) indicated that other up to date Figures were used. That could be, but I just indicated that the background figures used in the study were old ones. The hon. member used other figures to show that the profits of banks had increased lately. I recognize that the profits have increased lately, but I should like to repeat that if there are good profits in some areas, they should be used to reduce prices whenever possible or to improve productivity.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, earlier I gave an answer provided to me by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) which has turned out to be not completely accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I referred to the price of beef and I should like to clarify my answer. Sirloin steaks are selling for $5.62 U.S. per kilogram in Ottawa, compared to $6.37 in Washington, $9.74 in London and $14 in Bonn. Earlier in error I said that sirloin steaks were selling in Japan at $15; but I should

February 8, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Brewin
have said that they were selling at an unbelievable $41.20 in Tokyo. When I said "$15," I was being modest; I did not want to create a false impression. Thus, I have referred to the figures which appeared in today's edition of the Ottawa Citizen.


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


Roch La Salle: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members will recognize that there was some misunderstanding between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). That misunderstanding has been cleared up, and what remains is a disagreement, not a question of privilege.
Also the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has given the Chair notice of a question of privilege.



MR. BREWIN-REFUSAL OF MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION TO DIVULGE CONTENTS OF MEMORANDUM

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I gave Your Honour notice of a question of privilege which involves the refusal of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to make available to myself and other concerned parties a written statement made by the minister and called a "clarifying memorandum". According to the minister's letter, apparently it was sent out to all offices of his department, including his regional officials.
The underlying facts can be stated very briefly regarding the so-called clarifying memorandum dealing with the admission and deportation of Chilean refugees.
An inter-church committee on human rights in Latin America, composed of representatives of the Roman Catholic, United, Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches, was anxious, in pursuance of its efforts to assist refugees of Chile, where terror and torture have been habitually used, to obtain copies of any directives issued by the minister's office bearing on this question of admission of refugees. I passed this request on to the deputy minister and to the minister, but no document was made available.
I can pass over the intermediate correspondence and say that on February 6 the minister wrote to me and said this clarifying memorandum, as he called it, was in fact sent out as an internal departmental document to regional offices, but the minister was not prepared, on the basis of a long-standing practice, to release an internal memorandum of this nature.
I point out to you first of all, Mr. Speaker, that the immigration policy by section 3 declares the policies of this parliament on immigration, and includes (g) which is to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to

refugees and to uphold its humanitarian tradition with respect to the displaced and the persecuted.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, as members of this House are aware, that the exercise of this power under the act to admit refugees is covered by a series of discretionary jurisdictions conferred on officials of the department, so that when the minister sends out a memorandum dealing with the matter he in fact is giving directives as to how this power shall be exercised. It is obvious, therefore, in effect, that the memorandum was a directive to officials as to how they should exercise their discretion in respect of allowing refugees either to come to Canada or stay in Canada.
I submit there is a clear case here of breach of privilege. As a member of this House I am deprived of the ability to review the memorandum and the decision, and to advise those who sought my advice on the matter. I submit that the action of the minister in refusing to make this document available to me and, presumably, to other members of the House and to those who sought it, namely, the committee of the churches to which I have referred, is contrary to the purposes of the act which refer to the humanitarian traditions of Canada. I submit that it is a deprivation of would-be immigrants' or refugees' basic rights and elementary justice. How can a refugee state his case under the various provisions set out in the act and the regulations unless he knows what instructions the officer examining him may happen to have in regard to admission?
Again I suggest this is a shocking disregard of the right of members of this House to know what is done in the name of this House in dealing with a statutory authority given by this House. The minister, under the pretence that this is an internal matter, refuses to disclose what is a general document issued for the instruction of his officials. I suggest that this action of the minister shows his insensitivity to the need for co-operation with voluntary organizations, such as the churches, in looking after this obligation of Canada in accordance with its humanitarian traditions.
Furthermore, this amounts to a breach of the promise made on behalf of the minister, with the minister present, to a committee of this House, the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, which was examining the act. On that occasion a Mr. Tait, who is an official of the department, was stating the view and interpretation of the act, and in the presence of members of the committee and the minister he said it had been decided that basic directives of the department would be made public. Instead of that, we have this policy of continued, blatant secrecy, all too common in this House.
I therefore urge on Your Honour that this is a prima facie case of privilege and, if you rule that it is, I would move that the minister be instructed to divulge this document. The House could then deal with the matter following your ruling.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter he wrote to you indicating he would be raising this question of privilege today.
February 8, 1979

I have reviewed all the correspondence with the hon. member leading up to his letter to you of February 7 in which he indicated he would be raising a question of privilege. Quite sincerely, 1 believe we have acted entirely properly in our responses to the hon. member, and that we have provided him with all the information relevant to his concerns. I will provide you, Mr. Speaker, with copies of the correspondence.
I would further suggest that this so-called question of privilege should more properly be put as a notice of motion for the production of papers.
On December 8, however, I wrote to the hon. member in response to his request to myself and my deputy minister and provided full information on our policy regarding deportation to Chile of persons whose claim to refugee status had been rejected by the refugee status advisory committee. In that letter, after acknowledging the questions he was asking in his earlier letter to me, I said this:
Our current procedure is that once the Immigration Appeal Board has confirmed our decision in those cases where this is applicable, the individual is allowed sixty days to leave Canada to a country of his choice. If the individual cannot or will not depart voluntarily to a third country, deportation to Chile is then carried out. However, the sixty-day period can be extended in those cases where approval to enter a third country seems imminent.
Where humanitarian conditions are found to exist, the individual will be permitted to remain in Canada and permanent status approved.
In summary, the commission has always carefully reviewed cases involving possible deportation to Chile. For some months in 1977-78 deportation was deferred in individual cases while additional information on the possibility of admission to a third country was obtained. In order to ensure a uniform understanding of the commission's position, as described above, a clarifying instruction was issued to all offices in September, 1978.
I gave the hon. member the full story so far as deportation to Chile is concerned, and the letter was based directly on an internal document, as I indicated to the hon. member. I indicated in the letter that there was nothing further to add to what I had put in my letter. Secondly, I made clear in my letters of both December 8 and February 6 that I did not myself issue any instruction or statement on this matter in August, 1978, or at any subsequent time.
I have been completely open and frank in providing the hon. member with information on this matter and do not believe his rights have in any way been infringed.
The hon. member raises a second question about a commitment made at the committee stage. In my letter of February 6 I commented on this as follows:
Your letter makes reference to a commitment made before the Parliamentary Committee by the former Executive Director of Immigration and Demographic Policy. In my view, we have completely conformed to that undertaking and have made the Immigration Manual available for use by the Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Statutory Regulations. We have, as well, instructed that these documents be made available for inspection at our offices throughout Canada to members of the public, and have deposited copies with the Library of Parliament. I do not view internal working memoranda of the type you have raised as falling into the category of documents that must be released to the public.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have given the hon. member all of the information he requires. I indicated that it was based on an
Privilege-Mr. Brewin
internal memorandum. I indicated that there was nothing else that needed to be disclosed.
We have tried to be open and above board with regard to this matter, because it is a matter of concern to many counsel who represent people who might be seeking refugee status in Canada. That information is certainly available to the public through the library and through our offices across Canada. If the hon. member feels that he has a case to put a motion for production of papers, we will debate that at that time, but I hardly think that his rights have been infringed upon.
Mir. Speaker: I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising. I want to tell him in advance that he will have to persuade me that this matter is distinct from any other application for a document from a minister resisted by the minister for his own reasons. In order to constitute this in any way as a question of privilege, there would have to be something which distinguishes it from an application for a document from the minister which the minister resists for his own reasons, whether I disagree or agree with
them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept your point as one that must be dealt with in supporting the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), but it seems to me there is a difference. First, the suggestion made by the minister that my friend should put his request in the form of a notice of motion for the production of papers would be futile since the minister has already said that he would refuse. There seems to be no possibility of getting anything by that method.
What makes this different from the ordinary document which a member tries to obtain through the order paper, it seems to me, is that in effect the clarifying memorandum is really an interpretation of the law. It is not good enough for a department to give to a citizen a statement of what is in the law or a precis of it. Citizens have a right to know what the law says, and that applies to acts which have been passed by parliament and to regulations passed under those acts.
What we have here is not a regulation passed under an act, but a departmental interpretation of the act and the regulations which in effect is the law covering the situation. It seems to me that on that basis the minister ought to be called upon to produce the document.
My hon. friend has suggested that he would be prepared to move a motion calling upon the minister to do so. If that suggestion is not acceptable, I have an alternative suggestion, that perhaps this matter ought to be referred to the committee on statutory instruments. If my case is valid, that it is in effect law, then I think that the document should be produced; but if that committee were to find that it was an internal document,
then,	of course, the minister's position would stand. Surely, the place for that kind of an issue to be settled is not in debate between the minister and the hon. member for Greenwood, but by some body which is competent to judge the nature of this document.

February 8, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Brewin


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to deal with this point. If he is indicating that this is added in some way to the body of law that every citizen is entitled to know and to receive, then how can I consider it to be a breach of privilege by a member of parliament? If it is something that is in that sense in the public domain and, as the hon. member maintains, it is a right which any citizen may assert, how can I classify it as the right only of a member of parliament in order to qualify it as a question of privilege? It seems to me that I am caught no matter in which direction I move.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that it is a privilege only of the hon. member for Greenwood or members of parliament. I am suggesting that the privileges of the citizens of this country are affected by the denial of this document to a member of parliament.
This matter is somewhat similar to the case raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) just recently. He had requested a document, not just for himself but for a constituent. My friend would like this document, which he believes is part of the law, so that all those named, the church organizations and individuals, will know what is in it. He does not want the document for himself but so that the public will know what is in it.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Either one or the other, Mr. Speaker. Either the directives given by the minister are part of the legislation in which case they are public and the hon. member may have access to them; or they are not part of the law and then it is up to the minister to communicate them to the hon. member or not. When the minister suggests a notice of motion for the production of papers which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) assumes will be rejected, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should know that this alternative would give the opportunity to launch a debate of over one hour in this House during which each member may get a chance to express his or her views instead of doing so by raising the question of privilege.
So to me, Mr. Speaker, the alternative is very clear, very simple: either these directives are part of the legislation and then they are public and it is not a question of privilege, as you did mention, or they have nothing to do with the piece of legislation itself and thus are not part of the law. In that case, the minister may or may not release them. There is no doubt about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I repeat, I am not in a preliminary way persuaded that there is any difference from a regular application for a document held by a minister, but I think I owe it to the hon. members who have argued and urged the case that I research it. I will endeavour to do so as quickly as possible and

return with my ruling. I think I could give it by tomorrow, or at the very latest on Monday.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if 1 might ask the deputy government House leader, today being Thursday, if he could deal with the House business. Before he deals with the general business could he tell us whether or not he has had consultation with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) as to whether or not it is the intention of the Minister of Finance in this session of parliament to bring forward amendments to the Municipal Grants Act. I do not know how far we could go in dealing with the matter, but I have made the suggestion that a bill be brought forward containing the appropriate amendments and the subject matter be referred to a standing committee of the House. Once there it could be examined and municipal representatives from across the country could be called as witnesses. It is a problem that is not only common to the national capital but to other parts of Canada. If he has not had an opportunity to consult with the Minister of Finance with respect to that procedure, would he do so and advise the House today at some point?
While the minister is on his feet, could he tell us the government's intention with regard to legislative business on into next week?


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, on the first point regarding amendments to the Municipal Grants Act, there is no doubt a great deal of concern about this across Canada, and to myself as well in my association with the Pickering airport expropriation issue. This subject is of great interest to the government, and we are giving consideration to the matter at the present time. I am not in a position to make a statement on behalf of the government as to the procedure which would be adopted to deal with that matter. I have not discussed it specifically in terms of a strategy here in the House with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), but I will undertake to do so and report back as soon as possible.
On the second point with regard to House business into next week, it is our intention, as all hon. members know, to continue today with Bill C-2. Following its completion, which should be very shortly today, we would then go to second reading of Bill C-12 which deals with the superannuation fund, and following that we will deal with Bill C-37, the amendments to the Income Tax Act and borrowing authority and Bill C-29, dealing with amendments to the National Housing Act. Then we would hope next week, if agreement can be reached between all parties, to deal with Bill C-35, which is the government organization bill. We would hope to reach agreement on limiting the debate to two or three speakers.
February 8, 1979

We also hope to deal next week with Bill C-28, the Northwest Territories Act legislation, if we can limit that debate to perhaps one speaker per party. In addition to that, tomorrow is an opposition day, and agreement has been reached for an allotted day for Tuesday, February 13.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to discuss with the deputy government House leader matters with respect to Bill C-35 and Bill C-28. I indicate to him that there is no intention to hold up that legislation. I will discuss this with him.
While I am on my feet, there is one other matter which is important. I thank the minister for his undertaking with respect to grants in lieu of taxes legislation. It is particularly important because, as the minister probably knows, the Minister of Finance is planning a meeting with the mayor of the city of Ottawa on February 19, and it would be interesting to know how he will be dealing with that legislation.
However, there is one other item which I do not know how to handle. I do not know whether I should address this matter to Your Honour as chairman of a committee which does not exist now, or whether I should address it to the deputy government House leader. I will take a chance and address it to the deputy government House leader. It has to do with the special committee which Your Honour chaired in the last session with respect to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Commons. There was considerable discussion in that committee-and I must say that it was very amicable- with respect to the possibility of permitting the broadcasting, either through House of Commons facilities or through private broadcasting facilities, of the proceedings of the standing committees of the House of Commons. That is something we could perhaps deal with.
The unfortunate thing is that in this session there has not been a reference to re-establish that committee, which was working reasonably well. I think that if it is important that the general public look into the House of Commons to see what happens here, the public should recognize that this is only part of our work and that the daily grind of work in parliament and the process of legislation does not all take place here but that it also takes place in the standing committees. Even as this parliament is ending, I think it would be appropriate if that parliamentary committee were reconstituted. It might be able to do something, at the tail end of this parliament, relating to the broadcasting of committees. It might be able to do that, but it certainly could prepare for another parliament in any event, and I think that would be very helpful.
With respect to this parliament, I am sure that if we talked to representatives of the television media we would find that they would be anxious, on an ad hoc basis, to go into the committees.
There is a whole host of matters with which we have to deal, and if the deputy government House leader is not equipped today, would he speak to his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), to see whether that reference
Business of the House
could be made so that that committee could be reconstituted under the chairmanship of Your Honour and we could get on with the work and finish it? If the minister cannot answer, would he give me an undertaking that he will at least speak to his colleague?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Quite evidently, the government is very much interested in making sure that the public has access to the deliberations of the House of Commons. It was for that reason that we introduced legislation to make that possible, so quite evidently the broad question raised by the hon. member about the reconstitution of the committee is important. Not having had notice of this question, I will indicate that I am prepared to take this matter up with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and my colleagues to find out what means might be best suited to the resolution of this question, and we will report back.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for that. There is one matter with respect to Bill C-35 which I should like to raise. There have been some discussions about the possibility of splitting that bill so that the fisheries portion of it would go to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and the balance to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. We are willing to do that if that bill is to be brought forward and if that could be arranged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the various bills the minister has listed for debate for the next little while, and with respect to the two bills concerning which he thought there might need to be discussion, 1 would be quite prepared to enter into such discussions on behalf of my colleagues. However, since the point has now been raised here on the floor about the possibility of sending Bill C-35 in part to one committee and in part to another, we would go along with that. We think the House should take whatever steps are generally acceptable to proceed expeditiously with that bill.
While I am on my feet, I would like to ask the deputy government House leader if he, with all the urgency and concern he can command, will speak to his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), and perhaps to other cabinet colleagues, about the desirability of bringing before this House, before something happens which might bring it to an end, at least some legislation respecting the veterans of this country.
There are three or four outstanding issues which are very serious. They should not be put over until the fall or to another year. Thus far there is nothing on the order paper. Nothing in sight is being done for Canadian veterans at this session, so I ask the deputy government House leader if he will raise this matter seriously and with concern with his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the cooperative spirit which is being exhibited here today with respect to Bill C-35 and Bill C-28. In direct response to the

February 8, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie
suggestion that Bill C-35 be split and sent in two directions to two different committees, I am not in a position to be able to respond in positive terms to that suggestion at the moment but we will deal with it. I understand the disposition of the Conservative party in that respect and the agreement of the House leader for the New Democratic Party. Those two factors will be taken into account, and we will report back.
The second point raised is with respect to possible legislation dealing with veterans. This is a matter the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in this House previously, and I think that the substantive question as to what should be done is something which ought to be dealt with by the Minister of Veterans Affairs in due course. Once a decision is made with respect to that, then the Deputy Prime Minister and the cabinet would have to concern themselves with the priorities which would be assigned to such legislation. When that is done, a report will be made in due course.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the confusion which is in the mind of the deputy government House leader, I am speaking with the consent of my House leader regarding the splitting of Bill C-35 to see to it that, as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wished, the fisheries part would go to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and the balance to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. We agree to that. I think my friends in the New Democratic Party would as well. 1 do not know whether they have had any consultation in this regard, but I think that is the general feeling at this time, and I am sure-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what 1 said. We agree.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Perhaps I was being overly cautious. It is my understanding that that is likely to be the case, but I do not like to stand here before the House and make an absolute commitment that that will happen without having certainty in my mind. I think that is the disposition. It has been discussed but I want to check into it further. I think all hon. members will not be disappointed with the final result, but I want to be certain before I make that kind of absolute commitment.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, as recorded at page 2986 of Hansard for yesterday, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) raised a point of order concerning myself. He said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that this government is supplying some kind of information to one of its own members, namely, the hon. member for Ottawa West, but not supplying us with this information-

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the hon. member that if he had spoken to me privately, I could quite easily have cited to him the public sources which 1 used.
On October 10 of last year the answers to my questions Nos. 1,958, 1,959 and 2,003 were printed in Hansard. The statement in response to my question was very clear that as of March 31, 1978, the balance in the public service superannuation account was $9,053,353,887.
A question was also raised about projections for the fund. I put down question No. 624 in this session, the answer to which was printed in Hansard of January 23. The President of the Treasury Board has indicated the projection was $39,872,700,000 for 1990 and $1,197,387,800,000 for the year 2025. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has only to read Hansard. I would be delighted to assist him in doing a little more work in preparing for this debate which is apparently his concern. But the suggestion that there has been information supplied to me which is not a matter of public record for every member of this House is completely and totally false.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is constant confusion over these matters when the government refuses to answer these questions. In the literature the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is distributing he is giving the distinct impression that $9 billion cash is in this pension fund. If there is $9 billion there, the government should be answering the questions which I placed on the order paper last October 17.
I want to know the following: In what instruments was the $9 billion invested, and in what amounts? In what debt series are these investments, the issue numbers of the instruments and the rate of interest on the investment? The government is creating suspicion by not answering precise questions. The hon. member for Ottawa West is trying to give the distinct impression that there is cash there. We want to know whether there is cash in the fund or whether it is a non-funded liability. If it is a non-funded liability pension fund it means there is not one red cent in it.



MR. McKINNON-BOEING CONTRACT-EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE SEC

Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) for remaining in the chamber to hear my point of order. My point of order concerns an answer he gave to me during the question period. 1 raised a question based on a detailed answer he had given to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on February 6 concerning the Boeing agent and his activities. There is quite a bit of information in that answer which is not readily available.
The Solicitor General in his answer said:
The individual who testified before the SEC-
-and I presumed he had the testimony that was given before the SEC. Today the Solicitor General claimed that it was
February 8, 1979

obtained from a deposition given on behalf of the Boeing company in front of the SEC. That deposition came as a result of a civil action commenced by the Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 1978 against Boeing. The action was heard by the district court, and a judgment was given concerning this matter. In the judgment Boeing had to comply with several conditions. Among these conditions was a requirement to file form 8-K with the commission. In accepting these conditions Boeing agreed to disclose information in a current report on form 8-K for the month of July 1978. The document goes on to require "Any instances of the existence of two consulting contracts with the same consultant providing for payments of compensation under each contract for the same services designed to facilitate the payment of money into accounts maintained by the consultant outside his own country". This was duly filed on July 28, 1978. I have the document here and it is some 15 pages long. Nowhere in that deposition or indeed in any of the other documents I have quoted from is there any word about who the individual is. And yet the Solicitor General gave us to understand on Tuesday that he knew. Because the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister:
-does he know the name or names of the person or persons alleged to have received those payments mentioned in the deposition from Boeing-
The Solicitor General answered:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The individual who testified before the SEC was a gentleman who was identified as a consultant of Boeing and who was working as a Boeing consultant in Canada dealing with the sale of Boeing aircraft to Canada. Payments were made to that consultant in the ordinary course of dealing with that company.
There is not one word of this in the deposition. It says that double payments were made in Canada to obtain the Canadian sales. I do not know, and the House does not know, where the Solicitor General obtained this detailed information about the agent. One would assume that he probably obtained it because the agent testified before a subcommittee of the SEC on March 24, 1977, some nine days after that sweetheart treaty was signed between the two governments protecting anyone who gave evidence which was likely to be disadvantageous to either government. I do not mind if the Solicitor General gets up and refuses to give the information because he thinks it will hurt the country or because he does not want to give it, but I do not like his claiming that it came out of some document it did not come out of. I would like the Solicitor General to clarify that point, if he would be so kind.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to do that. Indeed, 1 indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that the identity of the individual could be obtained from the transcript of the hearings before the SEC. I never indicated that I have those transcripts. The hon. gentleman asked me to provide documentation. I have the documentation which he has identified today and he has pointed out that the name of the individual does not appear. I informed the hon. gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition that it was not my intention to reveal the individual's name. I
Point of Order-Mr. La Salle
know the name of the individual. Indeed, there has been a complete investigation.
The whole series of questions asked by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe by other members of this House, were with reference to an investigation that had been conducted by the RCMP. The whole thrust of my replies pointed out that the investigation had been very thorough and complete. As a result of that investigation I informed the House that there was no evidence of impropriety relating to any member of the government, anyone working within the public service or with the individual who was hired as a consultant who would be subject to criminal prosecution. I indicated that clearly, and that is the position I advanced to the hon. gentleman.


Roch La Salle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I feel deeply that I have been hurt in my privileges as a member of this House and as a Francophone this morning when sitting in a committee meeting.
I will explain right away, Mr. Speaker. Whereas the government does not hesitate, for example, to boast about its respect for the official languages, this morning, at the first meeting of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs held on Bill C-9, the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs brought in a document in English only. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is my duty, I think, to report this insult to every French-speaking members in this House, since that prevented us from carrying on the discussion and securing enough information for the questions we had to ask.
Under the circumstances, I could not provide you with the motion on time, but I would like, by this point of order, ask you whether I could at the same time be allowed to raise a question of privilege about what I would qualify as discrimination against French-speaking members of this House; once again I repeat that I have been insulted, as so many other Quebeckers I imagine, to see that they had not put into practice what they often preach, at the very least the respect for Francophones who sit in this House. Under the circumstances, if I could raise a question of privilege, I would do it rather briefly and as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It is obvious that I cannot make a ruling on that matter without knowing all details. However, I feel it is not a question of procedure, but I am not sure because it may be a grievance. It is difficult to establish if it is a question of privilege or just a grievance against the minister. There is no doubt that before going further we must wait for an answer from the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.
3024

February 8, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. La Salle
Therefore, I must reserve the privilege in the minister's presence.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, if possible I would just like to reserve my right to raise the question of privilege on that matter when the minister is here.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, in the minister's presence.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I feel that what the hon. member for Joliette was also asking was whether he had a right to raise the question of privilege today even though he has not given advance notice as required by Standing Order 17.
I think that irrespective of the fact that it would be decent to wait till the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations is present, it would be advisable to consider the acceptability of that so-called question of privilege. If what the hon. member says is true, the incident would have occurred this morning in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs but he should have given notice an hour before the sitting today. He had plenty of time to give that notice, but he did not do so.
I respectfully submit that you should consider the acceptability of his question of privilege before automatically giving him the right to speak about it in the presence of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. Once again, I draw your attention on the fact that the incident to which the hon. member for Joliette referred, that so-called question of privilege, is supposed to have occurred this morning, therefore he had lots of time to give the required notice under the standing orders.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. As I heard the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), he rose on a point of order to ask Your Honour's permission, since he was not able to give you the pre avis required to raise a question of privilege, to reserve his position. As I understood it, Your Honour granted him the privilege of raising that question of privilege in the presence of the minister of state. It is not a question of privilege that has been raised but a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken for the moment the intervention of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-

I accepted the intervention of the hon. member for Joliette as notice for the moment. The parliamentary secretary will have the opportunity during the debate to support the position of the hon. member for Joliette and also to point out the breach of procedure. In addition, those problems occurred in committee and not in the House. Those are matters to be dealt with during the formal debate which of course should be held in the presence of the minister.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. It was indeed in committee. The minister was fully conversant with the facts. He did not feel at that time that he had offended any privilege. I am certain the minister would be willing to hear at any time from the hon. member, but I do not see this as a question of privilege in this House since the grievance was settled at that time by the chairman of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how I can decide that until I hear it. I will have to hear the point. At that time I will decide whether it is procedurally regular or otherwise, but I obviously have to hear it first. The hon. member is just giving me notice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (for the Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 149, 567, 601,617, 619, 691, 692, 716, 729, 813, 818, 844, 903 and 905.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many federal employees from other departments or agencies have been loaned to the Anti-Inflation Board since its inception?
2.	What was the total cost of salaries paid to such employees while working for AIB?
3.	What was the total cost of other expenses such as travel, accommodation and living incurred by such employees?
4.	What was the average length of time which the employees worked with the AIB?


Alan Gray Martin: In so far as the Anti-Inflation Board is concerned:
February 8, 1979

1.	377.
2.	$ 215,605.00
717,116.15 376,329.51 71,215.16 $ 1,380,265.82.
1976
1978	(to date)
3.	Travel claims for indeterminate employees, persons under contract, secondment and executive interchange are not kept separate by the Board. To have the voluminous number of files searched to segregate those claims for persons seconded would be both time consuming and costly. Therefore, precise information is not readily available to answer this part of the question.
4.	Approximately six months.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Were Regional Directors' Offices established by the Canadian Forestry Service and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates and in which locations?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the growth in man-years allotted to each Office since its inception?
3.	Since 1968, by year, what was the budget of the Canadian Forestry Service?
4.	For the same years, what was the total man-years allotted to the Service?
5.	For the same years, what was the breakdown between scientific and professional and administrative support man-years allotted to the Service?
6.	For the same years, what was the breakdown in the budget of CFS for scientific and professional and administrative support staffs?


Len Marchand: 1.
The following is a list of regional director's office of the Canadian Forestry Service:
Office	Date Established	Location
Regional		
Newfoundland Forest Research Centre	1949	St. John's Nfld.Maritimes Forest Research Centre	1933	Frederiction, N.B.Laurentian Forest Research Centre	1933	Ste. Foy (Quebec), P.Q.Great Lakes Forest Research Centre	1945	Sault. Ste. Marie, Ont.Northern Forest Research Centre	1935	Edmonton, Alta.Pacific Forest Research Centre	1940	Victoria, B.C.2.	Man-year allocations for establishments listed in (1).Establishment	1968 1971	1972 1973	1974	1975	1076 1977	1978Newfoundland Forest Research Centre	87.0 76.0	75.5 73.5	71.0	70.0)	65.0)	226.5* 220.3*	Maritimes Forest Research Centre	241.0 169.7	191.7 189.0	181.0	170.0)	152.0Laurentian Forest Research Centre	182.0 135.1	135.2 137.0	130.0	132.0	122.0 119.0	118.0Great Lakes Forest Research Centre	218.0 160.0	162.6 160.0	160.0	154.0	146.0 148.0	153.0Northern Forest Research Centre	152.0** 175.3	164.4 161.0	155.0	147.0	148.0 142.0	140.0183.0	Pacific Forest Research Centre	207.0 193.2	205.5 202.0	195.0	185.0	185.0 173.0	171.5*No breakdown available from EMS Atlantic Region figures	[DOT][DOT]Two separate research centres amalgamated into one in 1968.	Note: Records prior to the year 1968 are no	longer available.	3 and 4. Canadian	Forestry Service Resources 1968/69	Man-Years(l)(2)	Salaries	through 1979/80	Year	Professional	Support	Professional	Support1968/69	614	1,525	$ 6,714,600	$ 6,988,7001969/70	531	1,046	6,816,000	7,094,200Year	1970/71	520*	994*	7,314,400	7,612,9001971/72	508	941	7,651,100	7,963,3001968/69	2,181	$23,484,025	1972/73	491	923	9,388,800	9,772,0001969/70	1,933	22,829,000	1973/74	489	927	10,089,000	10,500,8001970/71	1,711	23,691,000	1974/75	479	921	10,762,600	11,201,9001971/72	1,639	24,205,950	1975/76	450	911	12,081,900	12,575,0001972/73	1,624	32,994,000	1976/77	441*	901*	12,415,100	12,921,9001973/74	1,657	39,305,000	1977/78	468	939.5	12,105,400	12,599,4001974/75	1,629	40,099,000	1978/79	breakdown not available	13,309,772	13,853,0281975/76	1,515	37,889,000	1976/77	1,449.5	36,802,900	[DOT]Estimates based on prorated decrease.	1977/78	1,407.5	34,334,400	1978/79	1,393.5	37,722,600	notes: ([DOT]) Figures to 1976 are based on actual strength rather than number of man-	
years allocated.
(2) No provision made for casuals, students, or other special program man-year allocations.
5 and 6. Breakdown of Scientific and Professional/Support Staff in Canadian Forestry Service, by year, with Corresponding Budgets.


Mrs. Holt: 1.	What is the name, primary trade or profession, original hometown and salary of each member of the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission?

February 8, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2.	From January 1976 to November 1978, what was the cost of each trip and sitting in British Columbia?
3.	What was the cost of the (a) hotel (b) food bills, individually and as a group?


Mr. Crawford Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows:
	Primary trade		
Name	or profession	Original hometown	SalaryDr. P. Camu (Chairman)	Geographer	Montreal, Quebec	$51,900-567,700C. M. Dalfen (Vice-Chairman)	Lawyer	Montreal, Quebec	$45,400-561,200Dr. J. J. Fortier (Vice-Chairman)	Mathematician	Huberdeau (Argenteuil) Quebec	$45,400-$61,200R. A. Faibish	Broadcasting	Regina,	$35,700-548,700(Member)	Executive	Saskatchewan	J. L. Gagnon (Member)	Journalist	Quebec, City, Quebec	$35,700-548,700P.	H. Kingle, Q.	C. (Member)	Lawyer	Three Hills, Alberta	$35,700-548,700Mrs. J. M. LaSalle (Member)	Law Professor	Riviere Bleu, Quebec	$35,700-548,700Mrs. P. M. Pearce (Member)	Journalist-TV and radio-critic	Belfast, Ireland	$35,700-548,700R. J. P. H.	Professional	St-Cyrille de	$35,700-548,700Therrien, P. Eng. (Member)	Engineer	Wendover, Quebec	All ExpensesVancouver	February 1-3/76	$32,390.39Vancouver	March 1-3/76	$35,216.58Victoria	May 26-27/76	$ 9,148.57Vancouver	January 25-28/77	$21,497.94Vancouver	March 21 -April 6/77	$53,972.67Victoria	Nanaimo	Delta	Vancouver	May 2-5/77	$31,801.40Kamloops	February 19-21/78	520,737.17Victoria	February 20-21 /78	$ 6,167.10Vancouver	February 21-24/78	$21,496.29Vancouver	May 12-18/78	$14,666.07Vancouver	October 24-26/78	$49,680.213.	Individual costs not readily available without searching each travel claim. As a group total cost for(a)	Hotel $34,815.19(b)	Food $17,941.52


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Has the government decided to reduce money allocated to forestry and wood products research and to turn some of the research over to private industry and, if so, will the government cut the forestry research budget as proposed, if privatization by April 1, 1979 has not proved realistic?
2.	What steps are being taken to ensure that private industry is encouraged to take over forestry research?
3.	Will the government see that all employees cut from its own forestry research programme are given every assistance in finding places in the private sector in Canada?


Len Marchand: 1.
The money allocated to forestry research will be reduced by approximately $1 million in the fiscal year 1979/80. For forest products research, the federal budget will be reduced by $3.3 million. Co-operative arrangements are being developed to ensure direct financial and program management input by industry, while retaining federal financial and other involvement. It is expected that all steps to achieve these changes can be taken or firmly established in principle by April 1, 1979.
2.	The Department of the Environment is involved in negotiations with the private sector regarding the establishment of a jointly-supported forest products research organization. The chairman of an interim board of directors has been appointed.
3.	In the case of the forest products program, it is expected that the entire research staff will be employed by the new research organization.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Did the Minister of State (Environment) state on CBC radio at noon on November 3, 1978, that every effort will be made to locate those laid off from the National Forestry Institute of the Canadian Forestry Service in Petawawa and Ottawa and, if so, how many vacant positions does the Minister expect to have available within his department before March 31, 1979?
2.	Are such positions suitable for those public servants being cut from the Forestry Service and, if not, for what reason?


Len Marchand: 1.
Yes. It is anticipated that approximately 300 vacant positions will become available with Environment Canada before March 31, 1979.
2. Of these 300 positions, approximately 65 may be suitable for those public servants being cut from the Forestry Service. The basic requirements of the remaining vacant positions are not compatible with the degree of forestry specialization common to both professional and technical employees who may be adversely affected by the organizational change.
Every employee who is declared surplus or laid-off will be accorded every opportunity for reinstatement in the Public Service in accordance with the Public Service priority clearance system.
February 8, 1979


Mr. Forrestall: As a result of the consolidation of the Forest Fire Research Institute and the Forest Management Institute at the Petawawa Forest Experiment Station, what is the exact number of employees of the Ottawa Institutes who will be laid-off or dismissed?


Len Marchand: Thirty-five employees of the Ottawa-based National Forestry Institutes of the Canadian Forestry Service have received notification that their positions are surplus to departmental requirements.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the proposed privatization of the Forest Products Laboratories, which private interests, if any, have expressed to the government a willingness to donate funds for the continuation of the research work of the (a) Vancouver Lab (b) Ottawa Lab?
2.	Which private interests, if any, have indicated an interest in extending contracts for specific research work to the (a) Vancouver Lab (b) Ottawa Lab?


Len Marchand: 1.
The chairman of an interim board of directors has been named to establish a new forest products research corporation, to be jointly funded by public and private sector interests. An active program is in place to determine future funding, and an announcement will be made when plans are finalized.
2. See answer to Part 1.


Mr. Jones: What is the Department of National Defence doing about the NATO report of 1977 that the U.S.S.R. submarines have found a passage under the Polar ice to enable them to transit from their Northern bases to the ice-free waters of Greenland?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: The
Department of National Defence cannot comment on the existence or otherwise of a report as stated in the noted question. However, the department recognizes that such a possibility exists and conducts an ongoing surveillance program in Canadian ocean areas.


Mr. McKinnon: In their final submissions for the new fighter aircraft contract, how many of each type did the manufacturers of the (a) F-14 (b) F-15 (c) F-18L (d) Tornado propose for $2.3 billion?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: In
so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: Cost proposals submitted by competing manufacturers to the government in the fighter aircraft competition are proprietary information and public release of this information, either directly or indirectly, would be a breach of confidence. It can be said, however, that three of the unsuccessful proposals (i.e F-14, F-15 and Tornado) were unable to offer sufficient aircraft to meet the Canadian fleet size requirement of 130 to
Order Paper Questions
150 aircraft. The fourth unsuccessful contender (F-18L), although it may well have been available in sufficient numbers, was dropped from the competition for reasons not related to fleet size.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many persons are employed by the Corporate Systems and Technical Services Branch of the Public Service Commission and what is their classification in each case?
2.	What is the percentage of employee lay-offs scheduled for 1979 for each classification?
3.	Is the technical component of this Branch to be cut by half?
4.	Will the Commission sell the equipment used by the employees to be laid off, transfer it to another department, keep it in storage, lease it out or other?
5.	Does the Commission anticipate that work will have to be contracted out as a result of the lay-offs and, if so, what is the estimated cost that the Commission will budget for such a contingency?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1 and 2. The number of persons employed by the corporate systems and services branch of the Public Service Commission and their classification, together with the percentage of employee layoffs scheduled for 1979 for each classification is as follows:
Number	Classification	Percentage of lay-offs10	AS-1	027	AS-2	010	AS-3	05	AS-4	07	AS-5	010	AS-6	01	AS-7	02	AS-8	08	AT-1	03	CR-1	051	CR-2	3.9100	CR-3	890	CR-4	4.426	CR-5	3.81	CR-6	015	CS-1	011	CS-2	010	CS-3	03	CS-4	01	CS-5	0I	CM-3	08	DA-CON-2	02	DA-CON-3	01	DA-CON-6	04	DA-PRO-3	05	DA-PRO-4	03	DA-PRO-5	01	DD-2	01	DD-3	03	DD-4	02	DD-5	01	DD-7	05	ED-EDS-1	09	ED-EDS-2	07	ED-EDS-3	01	ED-EDS-4	01	ED-EDS-5	01	ED-EDS-6	0144	ED-LAT-1	0
February 8, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Number	Classification	Percentage of 126	ED-LAT-2	03	ED-LAT-3	012	EL-3	41.63	EL-5	33.31	EL-6	01	ES-4	05	FI-1	09	FI-2	06	FI-3	03	FI-4	05	FI-5	07	GL-ELE-2	03	GL-MDO-4	04	GS-STS-2	02	GS-STS-3	05	GS-STS-4	01	GS-STS-6	07	GT-1	28.532	GT-2	43.732	GT-3	28.112	GT-4	16.63	GT-5	01	GT-6	05	IS-2	04	IS-3	06	IS-4	05	IS-5	02	LS-1	02	LS-3	01	LS-4	02	OE-BEO-1	0I	OE-MSE-I	01	OE-MSE-2	01	OM-1	02	OM-2	03	OM-3	01	OM-4	0I	OM-5	04	PE-2	017	PE-3	012	PE-4	02	PE-5	02	PE-6	01	PE-7	01	PG-1	1003	PG-2	01	PG-4	04	SI-1	05	SI-2	01	SI-3	04	ST-OCE-2	01	ST-OCE-3	05	ST-SCY-1	07	ST-SCY-2	04	ST-SCY-3	01	ST-SCY-4	02	ST-STN-2	04	ST-TYP-2	02	SX-1	01	SX-2	0895	
N.B. ED-EDS & ED-LAT belong to the Career Orientation Program which program comes under Personnel under the Corporate Systems and Services Branch.
3.	The technical component of the branch, composed of employees in the EL and GT categories, will be reduced by 31.1 per cent.
4.	Equipment used by these employees will remain in use.

5.	The commission does not anticipate that work will have to be contracted out.


Mr. Mitges: Does the National Film Board have a multicultural programme and, if so (a) how long has it been in effect (b) by year, what (i) portion of the budget was allocated to it (ii) projects have been sponsored under the programme?


John (Moody) Roberts: 
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of National Defence 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?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.
2. In so far as fiscal year 1979/80 is concerned: No.


Mr. Howie: As of December 1, 1978, how many members were in the Armed Forces Reserve in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
Primary Reserves strength 21,681; (b) Primary Reserve strength, N.B. 1,105.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has any pressure been brought by the government in the distribution in Canada of the book entitled "KGB" by John Baron and, if so, what is the name and job designation of each person involved?
2.	Has any government official at any time been involved with the matter of printing, distributing or censoring of the book in Canada and, if so, what is the name and job designation of each person involved?
February 8, 1979

3.	To the knowledge of the government, has any provincial government been involved in the same regard as mentioned in Parts 1 and 2 and, if so, what are the details?
4.	(a) Were inquiries made to the Department of the Secretary of State's Information Office and, if so (i) by whom (ii) on what date (b) were such inquiries referred to their Legal Branch (c) did the Legal Branch refer inquiries to the Cultural Branch (d) did the Cultural Branch refer inquiries to the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise Branch?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the
Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. No.
4.	(a) Yes. (i) Mr. Geoff Johnson, Ottawa Citizen Columnist. (ii) December 11, 1978. (b) (c) and (d) Yes.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 31 and 232 could be made orders for return, those returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1976-77, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of the Environment?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Return tabled.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	By department and by community, how many positions have been made or will be made available under the Federal Labour Intensive Programme?
2.	By department and by community, how many persons have been hired to date (a) through Employment Canada Centres (b) not through Employment Canada Centres?
Return tabled.



POINT OF ORDER


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry I have to get up so often with regard to the government's not providing answers to questions on the order paper. On October 17 last, I placed question No. 283 on the
Health Resources Fund Act
order paper. It is with regard to ten international airports not being up to standard. All week Your Honour has heard repeated questions with regard to air safety rules not being enforced. Therefore, I feel it is time that the Ministry of Transport answered my question with regard to these ten international airports in Canada that are not up to standard.
What concerns me more is that, after placing this question on the order paper, the minister's office telephoned to ask if 1 could provide them with a copy of the transport document which details these ten airports that are not up to standard. That is alarming. I feel they should inform the House and the public as to whether these ten airports have been brought up to standard.
In addition, a directive was sent out last year to air safety inspectors asking that they be careful about enforcing safety regulations as it might embarrass the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I hope that it is not the reason why my question is not being answered, the fact that it might embarrass the minister. I ask the parliamentary secretary to take immediate action on this question.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether it is true that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) called the hon. member. I can look into that. With regard to his question, I can assure him it was sent to the authorized persons; as soon as an answer has been received from the department or departments concerned, it will be transmitted to him without delay. We shall endeavour to give him as complete an answer as possible, as we always do.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to resume my comments on Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act to remove $84 million over a period of two years from medical funding programs in Canada. This bill

February 8, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
reflects the callousness and irresponsibility of this government, not to mention its lamentable management ability.
When my time expired yesterday, I was recounting a few of the landmarks in medical research that had been achieved in Canada. I pointed out that the cost of a medical research breakthrough is negligible in terms of the benefits derived from such discoveries. I mentioned the discovery of insulin and polio vaccine in this context.
The potential for further discoveries of this magnitude exists right now here in Canada. In my constituency of St. Boniface, heart research of an internationally recognized high level is being conducted at the St. Boniface General Hospital. This group receives thousands of dollars from the public through the St. Boniface Research Foundation. Its work has been recognized by some of the most prestigious medical pioneers in the world. Dr. Jonas Salk, who developed the polio vaccine and Dr. Christian Barnard, the heart transplant genius, have both visited and spoken on behalf of the St. Boniface Research Foundation in an effort to raise funds for the prolongation of heart research at that institution. Just last year the Duke of Edinburgh spoke on behalf of research at that institution.
The same is true of the biomedical engineering program in that the dollar efficiency of funds invested in this area is very high. My colleague from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) in a previous presentation cited a comment by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) when he was minister of national health and welfare to the effect that the handicapped must be given the opportunity to participate fully in our society. This goal, and it is a very worth-while one, can only be realized through advances in biomedical engineering.
Some three quarters of the health resources fund was earmarked for construction of facilities for training health professionals and acquiring research equipment. This latter specification would indicate that the cuts announced will affect support for biomedical engineering research. What has happened to the government's pledge of 1973 to help the handicapped become independent of institutions which had never been more than palliatives for their problems? Let me quote from a report in today's Globe and Mail in which doctors at several teaching hospitals are quoted. The article states:
Tight budgeting by Ontario's health ministry has left teaching hospitals hurting most and complaining loudest about their inability to keep pace with advances in medical science. Recent interviews with senior staffs at four teaching hospitals and two community hospitals in Toronto, Timmins, Ottawa and London have revealed that an absence of money for new programs and equipment is at the top of a list of concerns arising out of the budget squeeze.
Further, Dr. Wilbert Keon, chief of surgery at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, is quoted as saying:
Academically, doctors see no new horizons ... Many new methods and techniques are happening in the medical field that you would like to apply but no way here. It gets discouraging.
And so on. These reports show that the statements originally made by the minister when presenting this bill that medical research and medical funding are up to requirements are not accurate. They demonstrate that experts in the medical field

are already being hurt by budgetary constraints, that their work is being hamstrung and that they are falling behind. Now the federal government is proposing further cuts which will be heaped on top of the provincial health cuts.
Canada possesses expertise in health research, especially in biomedical engineering. Our interest in the subject is borne out by the fact that in 1980 the city of Winnipeg is hosting the Rehabilitation International Congress to which some 6,000 handicapped persons will attend. I submit that our expertise in biomedical engineering as it bears upon rehabilitation will not be fully exploited if legislation such as Bill C-2 is allowed to pass. How can we be sincere in conducting a conference on rehabilitation when our own efforts in the field are so constrained?
I should like to speak for a while on research efforts with which I myself am particularly familiar. In my own research field of nutritional biochemistry I was privileged to have been involved in some of the earlier work leading to the discovery of vitamin B-12, originally known as the unidentified growth factor. It has been shown that in the absence of this vitamin a condition of pernicious anemia cannot be overcome. In other facets of biochemistry and nutrition it has been shown that microfactors are important in the health control of individuals. Consider the position of a patient in hospital who has a particular deficiency. How would hon. members feel if it were shown that, because of lack of equipment or because a research finding was not available, that patient suffered severely? In many cases the result is the death of the patient. When are members on the opposite side going to get themselves out from under the yoke of this present flip-flop direction under a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who arbitrarily alters his horses in the middle of the stream? Possibly, the answer to my question will only be given by the people at the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Jack Hare: We trust this will be soon. On Bill C-2, it is obvious that the Liberal members feel some pangs of conscience. Although 23 speakers have come from this side of the House, only three on that side have spoken in support of the measure. This measure, a Draconian one, is weakly described as housekeeping. I suspect they are sitting on their hands, reluctant to be seen supporting it but afraid of opposing it because of repercussions in the caucus. I challenge members opposite to search their consciences, because any further action of this type affecting medical research is not going to be good for the future of our country.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the previous speaker. It is unfortunate that he did not discuss the legislation before us, though I must say he is not alone in that omission because the speeches I have read and the speeches to which I have listened bore little relation to the piece of legislation before us. I hope that if the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare) is ever called upon to make a speech in Manitoba on
February 8, 1979

grain, he does not deliver a speech on apples. That, in effect, is what he has done today and it is what many members on the other side have done in the course of this debate.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Hugh Alan Anderson: Might I have a minute? I realize hon. members have been dominating this debate, but might I at least have a minute?
The legislation before us is very simple. What does it say? It proposes to end an agreement which was initiated in 1966. Perhaps for the benefit of hon. members opposite I could throw some light upon the situation.
The legislation of 1966 was aimed at construction, acquisition, renovation and purchase of equipment and buildings for the individual training of health personnel. People are probably listening to this debate and wondering what members over there are doing, talking about research, when there is absolutely nothing in Bill C-2 which deals with research. The opposition has obviously not read the bill.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but in the course of the speech which I gave I referred to a specific document, signed by the minister, which indicates that $75 million had been assigned to research of national significance. I challenge the member to deny this.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am reading the bill very closely to make sure there is no mistake as to what we are doing, and just for the benefit of the hon. member I will read it again. We are dealing with the construction, acquisition, renovation and purchase of buildings and equipment for the training of health personnel. I realize that hon. members opposite, unfortunately, have not been talking about this piece of legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). I hope this does not turn out to be a point of disagreement.


Paul Yewchuk: I find it rather astonishing that the hon. member should insist on trying to mislead the House and I hope he will smarten up.


An hon. Member:: That is really dumb!


Hugh Alan Anderson: To judge from the debate so far, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's remarks are in keeping with those made by his hon. friends on the other side-absolutely foolish and totally uncalled for. When the health services fund was established in 1966 there were 12 schools of medicine and 800 doctors graduating. What has happened since then? We are now graduating 1,700 doctors per year. We have spent considerable amounts of money upgrading medical schools and increasing their numbers. We have at the present time the capacity to accommodate 2,500 doctors in classes in the universities and similar establishments, but 1,700 are actually in place.
Health Resources Fund Act
The opposition is saying that what we should be doing is spending millions of dollars to put up more buildings and provide more equipment in order to graduate more doctors. The situation is such in the medical profession, for example, that we could graduate an additional 800 because we have space for them. What the opposition is saying is that we should not see how many people we have there, let us just spend the money. The fact that we have now produced the plants and the facilities for doctors that are in keeping with the demand apparently has no meaning to the opposition. They say that regardless whether we have full plants in operation to meet Canadian needs, what we should do is to continue spending money on the expansion of these facilities. 1 find that very hard to accept from a party which claims it is looking for ways to cut down government expenditure, the same party which now says that regardless whether we have fulfilled our obligations, which we did, we should continue with that program even though the facilities are not needed.
It is a fact that the total number of dentists who graduated in 1977 was 350. That number has increased dramatically to the point that we are one of the best served nations so far as dentists go.
With regard to nurses, 7,000 graduated in 1966, and now 10,000 have graduated. The fact that we have probably no more jobs available for nurses due to the fact that we have one of the highest nurse-patient ratios apparently has escaped the hon. member who rose on a point of order. His proposal is, I suppose, that we should continue expanding nursing schools even though we do not need more nurses.
I point this out only because we are not proposing to cut down on essential services to people. Quite the contrary, the Liberal government established in 1966 a significant program to assist the provinces in providing facilities for doctors, dentists, nurses and dental assistants. The Conservative party and others say that regardless whether or not we achieve that, we should keep spending money to increase it. I say to hon. members that if they wish to debate the particular point of the necessity for added facilities for training doctors, nurses and dentists, then they should come up with statistics to show it.
I ask the hon. member who spoke before me this. I wonder what provinces have come forward since a telex advising the provinces of this program was sent out in September demanding that the federal government continue the expansion of teaching facilities. The silence is deafening. However, apparently this does not stop the opposition parties which say that we should still go on with the program.
I intervened for a few minutes for one reason only. Since we are dealing with an equipment and construction program which has served the people of Canada well, is it not foolish to continue with a program which is not necessary at this time? It might be necessary at some time in the future; additonal facilities might be required at some time. However, at this time when we as a government are attempting to be responsible in assessing where money is most needed, that particular area is not one with a high priority.

February 8, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, if we can skip the last speaker, I should like to say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to follow the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare). In relation to the last speaker I should like to express my absolute and total surprise that someone would come to this House and make a submission that we have already spent all the money to give us the adequate number of doctors and dentists, and that we have a full complement of nurses, no more being needed. Certainly he must be a person who has not visited a senior citizens' home or a nursing home in recent years or he has not been around medical institutions recently. Because if he had, he would have recognized that what he said is a blatant misunderstanding of the facts of Canadian life. I might say that what he misunderstands are the facts of Canadian ill health in terms of the situation we would have, the need for nursing homes and the like.
He said that we had some of the Finest medical facilities but that all this party wanted to do was to spend money. The truth is that it is not a question whether or not the federal government is spending money; it is a question whether or not the federal government is getting out of a commitment. This government has a commitment with the provinces of this country which it should live up to.
While the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) stands in his place and states that the government has no need to fulfil that commitment, that it spends money wisely-as is shown by Mirabel airport no doubt-I submit that it is not by chance that not one of the medical doctors on the government side of the House has chosen to speak on this bill. I think it should be pointed out that there are three medical doctors on the other side of the House. There is a doctor from the constituency of Halton (Mr. Philbrook), a doctor from the constituency of Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and a doctor from the constituency of Welland (Mr. Railton). Not one of them chose to speak. It will be interesting to see whether or not they are in the House when the time comes to vote.
What is more important, they have to ask themselves the serious question whether they will vote yes to restrict medical services in this country, being as they are in the profession of medicine. Because we have before us a bill to cut the contract by $84 million. The new title for the minister should now be the "minister of wealth and hellfare". Hers has been a Robin Hood attack upon the poor, leaving the rich to fend for themselves because, in her view now, they are the only ones who can.
This bill breaches humanitarian purposes. It is a bill which reflects bad faith in negotiations and contracts with the provinces. It restricts health services and facilities, and it has callous disregard for the health needs of this country.
The position of the government party has been that they are doing this out of a concept of restraint. Since we on this side have been a party which has always favoured restraint, the government party tends to say that there is a conflict therein. The problem is that there is only one taxpayer, whether he pays municipal, provincial or federal taxes. When services are needed, the options are simply these: either the federal govern-

ment will pay for them or the provincial government will have to pick up the tab. If the provincial government does not, then the citizen at large will have to pay. The funds come from the same source anyway. If the citizen at large does not pick up the tab, you will have the simple and obvious result of inadequate health services.
I submit that what we have here in this bill is not a question whether we are saving or losing money, but whether or not we have a government that is in breach of contract. This is a government which has promised the provinces it will fund until 1981 a program which has some $84 million yet to be spent. The government is saying that it will now cut off that program without giving notice.
The fact that the government did not give notice caused some considerable damage. I should like to refer to some of the damage which has occurred across the country. Now the Government of Canada is faced with a more expensive situation than it would have faced if it managed to keep the program going. For example, at the time the program was cancelled, a druggist in Alberta had 14 prescriptions for native and Indian people, 13 of which were for children under the age of six. Because the program was cancelled, those people were unable to get their prescriptions filled. On the average the prescriptions cost $12, but because they are unable to get the prescriptions filled, their choice is a day in hospital costing $120. If the government assumes that this cutback will save money, it is just another example of not knowing the facts of the situation. Only two days' notice was given to the druggist that the plan would be abandoned, and the native people received no notice whatsoever. That is an example of harsh and callous treatment by a department in the medical health services field. Its principal objective ought to be a humanitarian one.
I could not agree more with the article which appeared in the Toronto Star on April 13, 1978 at page 10. It is entitled: "Research support 'scandalous' ". It fully documents that Canadian research is scandalous. Also I agree with the article entitled: "Boss Begin's in trouble" which appeared in the January 27, 1979 edition of the Toronto Star. It attacked the administration of the Department of National Health and Welfare, now renamed the "department of wealth and hell-fare". In part that article reads:
-but disdain for her inab lity to provide direction and fiscal control.
It continued:
-her department is floundering under her scattergun approach and her indecisive dodging.
Further on it reads:
But they all suggest it is not easy working with a minister who is so nervous that she has specifically ordered senior officials not to discuss her, who is suspicious of all those who hold opposing points of view, who often blames others for her errors and whose tremendous personal warmth and intelligence is marred by bursts of impatience and erratic concentration.
February 8, 1979


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The hon. member is reading from a newspaper article. The fact he is reading it does not mean the content is true. 1 think that should be understood.


Arnold John Malone: This is the first time I have heard a government member indicate that something appearing in a newspaper was not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: For some weeks now the government has been enjoying quoting from newspapers. Whether the article is true or not-


Mrs. Holt:: If that is your only research, perhaps it is not very good.


Arnold John Malone: I hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mrs. Holt). The manner in which the government treated research means that now members of parliament do not have enough money to conduct any research. The government has abolished research in the country by cutbacks. There is no such thing in Canada any more.


Simma Holt: I am talking about newspaper research.


Arnold John Malone: The federal government has a new scheme for saving money. It exports our best talent to the United States, which saves federal government research money. That is the-manner in which the government keeps up the balance of payments. If there are any qualms about my research, it comes back to the fact that no funds are available for research in this country.


Mr. Friesen:: The minister cannot translate documents, let alone do research.


Simma Holt: You are a member of parliament. You should be doing your own research.


Arnold John Malone: As a member of parliament I can do my own speaking. Referring back to the January 27 article, it continues:
"But she's incompetent to run a department-she's making bad decisions because she doesn't have a sense of how to take charge and because she wants to be nice to everybody and not hurt anybody."
Rumour has it that the minister is now blaming her parliamentary secretary for the particular document from which I just read. Also the Toronto Star made some interesting observations in relation to research, which will be of great interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare rises on a point of order.
Health Resources Fund Act


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member made mention of the fact that rumour has it that the parliamentary secretary was responsible for the profile of the minister which appeared in the Toronto Star. Categorically I say that I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.


Arnold John Malone: I can only say that I categorically believe the hon. parliamentary secretary. I said rumour has it. I do not accept that he is that type of fellow. I would be the first one to indicate that the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) is not in that category.


An hon. Member:: Don't be a rumor-monger.


Arnold John Malone: Returning to the article dealing with Canada's position on research, it reads:
"No other nation of the western world has treated biomedical research in such a disastrous way"-
The author of the article is referring to Canada. It continues:
-the budget of the Medical Research Council of Canada declined from .38 of the gross national product in 1967 to .26 per cent in 1976.
There is a continuing decrease in our research budget. It continues:
In the same period, the percentage spent on biomedical research of the total spent on health care in Canada went down from 1.12 in 1969 to .46 in 1976-
In other words, it was not cut to half, it was cut to approximately a third in less than a decade. The article continues:
"One of the results of this policy was that between 300 and 400 biomedical research workers were lost in the fierce competition for funds"-
Earlier the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) said that we have plenty of people, but interestingly enough he was not aware of Canadian medical needs. The hon. member is quite content to submit to an adequate situation when researchers are chased out of the country because of the $84 million cutback.
It is interesting to note that only a few Liberal members have spoken in favour of this piece of legislation, yet not one medical doctor on their side has risen. Also it will be interesting to see what the hon. member for Halton, the hon. member for Hull and the hon. member for Welland will do when the vote on this particular bill takes place.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) stated that the half-life of a physician's knowledge is somewhere between five and seven years. 1 would like to add that the half-life of a government minister is about six months, and it is just that-a half-life. This government though seldom awake is now celebrating one. In 1976 the federal government gave its word to the provinces through the health resources fund that there would be adequate health facilities, adequate funding for personnel and research and for the provision of a necessary health delivery system. With that commitment the provinces set out their programs.

February 8, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
I am sure we all know that there comes a time when you back off if the situation warrants it and you have mutual agreement. The fact of the matter is that the provinces were not consulted here. It is interesting to go through the data, province by province from the Pacific to the Atlantic, because therein you will find that virtually not a single province was consulted by this government on its decision to withdraw the remaining funds under this program. Sure, they received phone calls from someone who said: Hey, guess what; we are cutting the program. There was no consultation about a phaseout, or advance notice of the suggestion that this government was going to cut this program off at some future date, with a date specified.
What in fact has happened is that the provinces from sea to sea have made plans one or two years ahead for the construction of facilities. They have hired architects and put staffs into position on the basis of a commitment by the federal government in respect of ongoing funds through to 1981. The government now is simply slicing off $84 million with the net result that, while there has been consultation to the extent of phone calls, the provinces are left in the disastrous situation of having to curtail programs for which they have already committed the funds. What we have in essence is a game in respect of which the rules have been changed in mid-play.
This government has dealt a raw, rough and callous blow to the provinces of this country. The situation could have been different had things occurred as suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and that is with consultation with the provinces and agreement to cut the program back. That would have been a very different situation. However, to allow these provinces to go ahead and commit funds-I will document that in a few minutes-and then cut off the money without consultation, leaving provinces such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and the rest carrying the burden of the cost of projects to which they have committed themselves, can in no way be considered a savings for the taxpayers of this country.
The federal government has chintzied out of its obligations by saying it is saving money, only to force the taxpayers to fund these projects from another pocket because of provincial commitments. That is not fair, and certainly it is not fair government. It is about time this kind of tactic of pretending the government is cutting back, when all it is doing is shifting the burden of expense, should be made clear to Canadians from coast to coast, so that at the time of the next election they will know that if they put this government back they will have unfair government.
What this government has done is cut down on the number of dollars available for health care. As a result of this cutback the people have been given a choice. The burden must now be shifted to the provinces, municipalities or to family budgets, or, in the alternative, the public must put up with inadequate health and, in the final analysis, death itself. That is really what will be the result of this government's cutting down on funds available.
Since we are debating a bill relating to health, I should like to say it is very unfortunate that in the consideration of health care we have adopted programs that have been intact for years and essentially look after the health of Canadians from the epiglotis down. In other words, they look after you from your epiglotis to your toenails, but they are unconcerned with the human head. Our health programs do not look after the teeth or the eyes, will not provide a hearing aid if that is what an individual needs, and do not take care of psychiatric expenses. Under the Canadian concept one can have a perfectly healthy body but health programs do not cover the head.
It seems to me this has derived from some medieval thinking that if for some reason an individual is insane he should be put in a basket and spun about because this condition is not covered by health care. If this government thinks that is some reason for cutting back, perhaps it is time we started providing medical care from the larynx up, or started looking after the whole human being including teeth, eyes, ears and psychiatric needs where there is evident necessity.
I have often condemned this government for its failure to consult with the provinces. Let me refer to what some of the provincial ministers of health have stated in relation to the question whether there was consultation on the part of this government before it decided to cut $84 million from provincial services. According to Mr. Collins, minister of health for Newfoundland, he was informed only and not consulted. He said he was quite unhappy about Bill C-2 because Newfoundland has no more money now to help out with the health services centre at the university in St. John's. That is very unfortunate because this is money which the province has already committed. That will now become a burden on the taxpayers of that province.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a short point of order. It is my understanding that all agreements signed prior to September have been fully honoured. If the hon. member has any further information in that regard I would be pleased to hear it.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the hon. member would raise that point of order when I have dealt only with Newfoundland. Since I am starting from the east and working west, with ten provinces there will be occasion for nine more points of order.
Let me now go to New Brunswick, because that province claims it was not consulted. The operations consultant of the province of New Brunswick, Mr. Swift, has said that they have received all their allocated money and that one project was under way with $4.8 million committed. That was money committed to the Saint John Memorial Hospital at the time this government decided to yank out its support.
Let me go to the province of Nova Scotia where Mr. Ruby is the acting deputy minister.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct one point the hon. member made with

February 8, 1979

regard to Newfoundland and funds required for the memorial-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that parliamentary secretaries and hon. members will give the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech, following which they can in turn seek the floor.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, just to make it easier for hon. members on that side, and so they do not have to raise so many points of order, the phone number of the last person to whom I have made reference is 424-7570. The hon. member can check directly with him. He said that programs for training and research under way or in the planning stage will have to be modified or eliminated. He said that Nova Scotia objects strenuously, and that they will lose $2.2 million on projects. I have only referred to three provinces and they all say they do not like this, because in the belief that this money would be available from the federal government until 1981 they went ahead as usual.
One does not build hospitals or hospital facilities overnight. One hires architects, does facility studies and need studies as to where the buildings ought to be located at least a year in advance. Money has been committed, but the federal government simply yanks it away, leaving the provinces with the alternative of letting the money go down the drain completely or picking up the entire bill themselves. If the provinces choose the latter, then this government is being dishonest when it says that it is cutting taxpayers' dollars, because what they are really doing is merely cutting their commitment, leaving it to the provinces to pick up the tab.
I would like to quote what the province of Manitoba said in this regard:
We were notified but not consulted, very upset and attempted to meet with Ms. Begin, but no co-operation.
As a result of the change in plans by the federal government, Manitoba expects it will have a shortfall totalling $7.2 million, money which is presently committed in the planning stage of proposed development.
Mr. R. H. McClelland, minister of health for British Columbia, said in a telegram to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin):
New children's hospital and the Grace Hospital included in B.C. five year program has not been approved yet. The projects are committed. Provincially on the basis that the health resources fund were available. A shortfall of approximately $4 million on this new medical teaching complex presently under construction at a cost of $51 million.
The taxpayer is not saving money, he is merely paying out of a different pocket because the province of British Columbia- and I note that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) has now decided to leave the Chamber-will have to pick up the tab. The fact is that that province will have to pay out $4 million in committed funds because the federal government is not going to follow through on their commitment to the provinces.
Health Resources Fund Act
Mr. Gordon Miniely, minister of health for Alberta, said that he was informed but not consulted. He goes on:
The southern Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary is in the middle of construction. Originally they were advised that it would qualify for commitment.
The federal government did not follow through on that commitment and as a result Alberta will have a shortfall of $3.5 million. The message from the other side is that the federal government is saving money.


William Kenneth Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just mentioned that the Alberta children's hospital in Calgary was denied the sum of $3.5 million. That is totally wrong in that a project was approved-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary is also totally wrong. In due time he can rise to his feet, seek the floor and make a speech of his own in which he can put forward his own interpretation. At the present time it is the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) who has the floor.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I say about the province of Alberta. I will not mention the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the others, except to say that the central message is that they were informed but not consulted. I will not document the particular facilities which they were planning on the basis of a contribution from this fund. Just about every province in Canada has made long-term commitments for development on the basis that the dollars would be coming, but the federal government in its callousness simply pulled the rug out from under them, leaving them financially high and dry and stuck with the bills to which they were already committed.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in her speech in the House with regard to this particular bill:
The government of Canada has a difficult decision to make in applying a major, traumatic, restraint on its own expenditures.
The government is not cutting back on expenditures, it is simply shifting them to another part of Canada; but the money will still come from the same taxpayers.
In closing, I would like to say that we are coming to the end of the debate, but not the end of the issue. This bill should be voted against for its failure to support medical research, which is disastrously weak and unacceptably low in Canada, and for its failure to consult with the provinces, which has become a habit of this government that has reached epidemic proportions. The government's approach is simply to telephone the provincial governments and tell them what they have unilaterally decided, and then turn around and call it consultation. Bill C-2 should be defeated for its attack on the poor, the aged and the invalid, all of whom are victims of Bill C-2 because they can least afford this cutback. This bill affects the very people who should be least affected in any way at all.
This government talks of a new constitution in which it would like to include a charter of human rights. There is no such thing as human rights when one does not have good health. The freedom to speak is really a useless right when one

February 8, 1979
Health Resources Fund Act
is in bed with fever. The freedom to worship is of little value if somehow your health has completely deteriorated. The freedom to assemble is of little value when one is confined to hospital.
Good health is a right which we should expect in this advanced technical and democratic society. I am totally amazed that the government would choose people's health as an area of restraint, throw the burden to the provinces and then pretend that it has done its duty. It is a facade which the people of Canada will see through and will say to the government that they will not accept this kind of nonsense any longer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.

[Before the taking of the vote:]


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question, may I make two very brief announcements to the House. I think the House is aware that I intended and was ready to make a brief pronouncement on the discussion of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 this afternoon. However, the point of order was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and he is unavoidably absent today. We will arrange to do it the first time he is back in the House.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-Economic Development-Current account deficit-Government action to reduce; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Air Transport- Use of emergency locator transmitters in aircraft; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon)-Lotteries-Promotion of Loto Select.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-2, to amend the Health Resources Fund Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978 MEASURE TO CHANGE RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROVISIONS
Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-12, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12, like most pension documents, has a rather intimidating technical appearance. In spite of this forbidding facade, hon. members will find that the objectives of the bill are relatively simple and straightforward. Briefly stated, the main purposes of the bill, are, first, to implement the public service indexing modifications that my predecessor outlined in the House on March 9, 1978; second, to give effect to the agreement that the government reached in 1976 with the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers' Association that it would ask parliament to provide pension for the unique conditions faced by air traffic controllers who spend many years working in the stressful environment of air traffic control towers; and finally, third, to alter existing arrangements for amortizing actuarial liabilities, and to deal with a number of other technical matters.
Before discussing the substance of the bill, I would like to say a few words about the government's intentions with respect to the proposed effective date of the bill. As it now reads, Bill C-12 proposes that the amendment advanced in the bill take effect on January 1, 1979. When Bill C-12 was introduced in the House on October 26, 1978, it was the government's hope and expectation the bill could be enacted before the end of the year, so that it could be applied to the January 1, 1979, pension adjustments. This could not be achieved. So, the January 1, 1979, pension adjustments had to be calculated in accordance with existing statutory provisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there an understanding about the disposition of business for the private members' hour? Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being agreed that we call it six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hon. members will recall that on December 12, 1978,1 gave an undertaking to the House that the government would not attempt to alter public service pensions indexing arrangements in a retroactive manner. To give effect to this undertaking I will be proposing a number of amendments to the bill at an appropriate stage in the consideration of it. Virtually all of these amendments will concern themselves with effective dates: an effective date of January 1, 1980, for the introduction of the triennial pension supplementation arrangements described in the bill so that the first review and decision on these arrangements would apply to the 1980-82 period; an effective date of April 1, 1979, for implementation of the proposals respecting the deferral and prorating of pension supplementation payments and the commencement of the collection of extra current service employee contributions required by air traffic controllers for the improvement in their pension benefits which is proposed in the bill; and that all
[Stage Direction]
February 8, 1979
Pensions
other proposals come into effect upon Royal Assent of the bill. Finally, I should like to mention that the delay in parliament's consideration of the bill has given the government an opportunity to carry out a general review of the bill. Accordingly, a few amendments will be introduced to clarify and improve several areas of the bill. I should add that none of the proposed amendments in this category involve pension benefits provisions.
Now I should like to turn to the objectives of the bill which I listed at the outset of my remarks. The most important one by far, in terms of principle and the number of people it affects, is the one concerned with modifying the arrangement under which the pensions of former public servants, military and RCMP personnel, and members of parliament now are automatically indexed with changes in the consumer price index. Bill C-12 proposes that the existing arrangement be changed in two fundamental respects. It proposes the removal of the automatic feature which now exists, and the removal of the continuing requirement that the adjustments be calculated in accordance with the consumer price index.
In my view these changes will go a long way toward resolving the central controversies in the public service pension debate. I think I speak for most members of the House when I say that resolution of the key public service pensions issues has been hampered seriously by some of the emotional and distorted arguments inflicted upon Canadians over the past few years on the costs and economic consequences associated with treating pensioners in a fair and humane manner.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: For example, arguments have been advanced that if pensioners are allowed to purchase the same goods and services in times of inflation as in times of no inflation-and when boiled down to its essentials, that is what pension indexing is all about-it would be the death knell of Canadian industry, and it would create such immense inflation that it could bankrupt the nation. It is a tribute to the good sense of Canadians that there has been a general rejection of the shrill call to arms raised in some quarters that Canada should fight inflation by sacrificing the victims of inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: I regret to say we have not seen the end of these emotional distortions. Indeed, we have just witnessed another one of the National Citizens' Coalition periodic newspaper ad diatribes on the subject. This latest outburst of the coalition indicates that the government has received a new report on public service pensions. The ad suggests attempts have been made to suppress the report which the coalition describes as a "shocker", because, in its view, it demonstrates public service pensions are costing or will cost taxpayers an extra $5,160 annually for each public servant, in short, an extra annual cost of over $1.5 billion, for a total over-all cost of $2 billion. What a pile of rubbish!
Let me outline briefly the facts of the situation. The report mentioned is not a new one. It was submitted to the govern-

ment in December, 1977, and released to the public on March 9, 1978. The suggestion that the report was suppressed is ridiculous. Copies of the report were circulated to all members of the House, the Press Gallery, unions, business firms, interested associations, and many libraries across Canada. Even today, more than a year after its completion, the report is being sent to individual Canadians upon request.
The statement that public service pensions will cost taxpayers $2 billion annually is sheer nonsense. In this regard I merely point out the employer contributions underwritten last year by taxpayers for both basic public service pensions and their indexing amounted to $490 million. That works out to 10.8 per cent of payroll, not 34.4 per cent. Furthermore, if Bill C-12 were enacted, it will ensure that over-all employer contributions for public service pensions will be restricted to 10 per cent to 12 per cent of payroll, the average level wich prevailed during the 1950s and 1960s before public service pensions were indexed. In terms of its impact on taxpayers, in short, Bill C-12 turns the public service pension clock back to the same stage as they were in the 1950s and 1960s,
It is important to recognize the latest coalition ad for what it really is: a mathematically orchestrated exercise, replete with partial truths and innuendoes, to persuade Canadians to fight inflation on the backs of pensioners, widows and the disabled. This is a most odious and reprehensible form of discrimination because clearly pensioners, widows and the disabled, are the victims and not the cause of inflation. I am confident Canadians will reject the call to fight inflation by victimizing the victims of inflation. Indeed, I should like to take this occasion publicly to urge the coalition to use its considerable energy and resources to join other Canadians in working toward a fair and humane deal for all pensioners, widows and disabled Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: The most serious consequence of the highly publicized campaign conducted against the indexing of pensions has been its effect in polarizing extremist opinion on the subject. This polarization has had the unfortunate result of distracting public attention from the more thoughtful and quietly expressed opinions of those with a genuine concern for both the welfare of pensioners and the Canadian economy. Those who have taken this balanced approach in the indexing debate have been correct in drawing attention to the fact inflation brings about increases, not only in the consumer price index but also in interest rates. This simple fact means that properly managed employer pension plans have a considerable built-in financial capacity to repair the damage inflation creates in the incomes of pensioners.
The fact inflation has an effect on both the costs and revenues of an employer pension plan effectively exposes the Achilles heel in the position of the indexing doomsayers. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that while extra earnings realized by properly managed employer pension plans, in times of inflation, go a long way to answering the concerns about indexing costs, they do not answer these concerns completely.
February 8, 1979

It must be stressed that inflationary pension fund earnings are capable only of meeting inflationary pension costs entirely if interest rates and other investment returns keep in step with the consumer price index. If inflationary earnings cannot keep up with inflationary costs, and if employer and employee pension contributions ear-marked for indexing are insufficient to close the gap, the inevitable result is a deficit which usually must be financed by employers. And when the employer pension plans are operated by government, the financing of these deficits falls upon the taxpayer.
The underlying thrust of Bill C-12, hon. members will recognize, is directed at meeting this concern by ensuring that the extra earnings of the pension program are sufficient to meet supplemention costs. To achieve this objective, the bill proposes to convert the pension adjustment features of the program into a money purchase approach along the lines that were described in the House on March 9, 1978. In other words, the bill proposes that public service employee pensions, in future, be adjusted according to the degree of supplementation that can generally be financed or purchased by the funds becoming available from extra interest earned on pensioner money in the program, and the special employer and employee contributions that have been made for indexing. The bottom line result of this approach is that it will provide taxpayers with a statutory assurance that the government employer contributions required of them to finance these supplements will be reduced and restricted to the order of 1 per cent of payroll. This, in my view, will place the program on a more financially responsible and equitable basis from the points of view of both those who will be receiving the supplements and those who will be paying for them.
Since the intentions of the government to adopt this new principle in public service pension arrangements were announced, there has been an encouraging show of support for this proposed concept. In this regard, I take particular satisfaction out of the degree of all-party support that was demonstrated in the House when the concept was first described here in March of last year. In addition, shortly thereafter, I was pleased to learn that the approach that was being proposed for the federal public service was similar to an approach being advocated for the private sector by the Cofirentes Plus Committee of business and government officials which has been examining public and private pension arrangements in the province of Quebec for the last few years. According to the April 8, 1978, edition of the Financial Post, the Cofirentes Plus Committee concluded that the dilemma of uncertainty that indexing creates for employers and that its absence creates for pensioners might be resolved by the introduction of legislation, and, I quote:
-to require at least partial indexing of private pension plans to the cost-of-living. The committee recommends that excess interest over the assumed actuarial rate on funds invested for pensioners should be used to improve pensions.
The approach also appears to have struck a responsive chord amongst some sections of the actuarial community judging
Pensions
from a statement that a prominent Canadian actuary made before a group of actuaries last summer when he said:
-it is now the perceived, conventional wisdom among private employers that only governments can afford it (indexing). The facts, I think, are rather different. Of course, indexing, especially open-ended unlimited indexing for the full increase in the consumer price index, is expensive, and the cost is not only significant but highly volatile because the incidence of inflation itself is so volatile. However, the cost is finite, not infinite, and the volatility can be controlled through appropriate limitations on full indexing and through a commitment to devote the inflationary element of investment income on pensioner liabilities to meeting whatever the costs may be.
That cheer from the lobby obviously means that the Canadians have scored a goal in the Russian-NHL Challenge Cup game. I can tell that I am running tough competition tonight.


An hon. Member:: We should have shut down.


J. Judd Buchanan: As I mentioned a few moments ago, Bill C-12 effectively puts public service pension supplementation arrangements on a money purchase basis, and so deals head-on with the issue of cost uncertainty that is generally associated with indexing arrangements. Consequently, if Bill C-12 is enacted, I think we will see a change occurring in the key question that is usually asked about the indexing of public service pensions; that is, with the enactment of C-12, the question "How much will indexing cost?" should gradually give way to the question "How much indexing will there be?" Indeed, like other members of the House, I am finding that this change is already taking place in the correspondence I am receiving on the subject.
Given the prospect that pension supplements would have to be curtailed if earmarked revenues are insufficient for full indexing, I feel it is important that other features of the program be re-examined so that we can assure ourselves that the supplementation arrangements, taken as a whole, are fair and equitable in terms of their over-all impact on different groups of pensioners. When such an examination is carried out, I think it must be concluded that some features of the program are not as fair as they could be.
One feature of the program that is widely regarded as being unfair is the provision which gives public servants retiring at the end of the year the same post-retirement adjustment as those retiring at the beginning of the year. No reasonable person, I believe, could take issue with the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on March 9, 1978, when he said:
This idea that a person can retire on December 29 or 30 on full pension, and then get a year's indexation two or three days later, just does not wash.
Bill C-12 proposes to correct this situation by prorating the first adjustment granted to new pensioners according to the length of their retirement in the first calendar year. With the amendment I will be proposing, new pensioners will in effect mean individuals becoming eligible for pension benefits on and after April 1, 1978.


Walter David Baker: 1979.


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, 1979. I am glad to note that you are following this with such close attention.

February 8, 1979
Pensions


Walter David Baker: I always follow the minister with close attention.


J. Judd Buchanan: The savings resulting from this change will obviously make more money available for the supplements of other pensioners.
Another feature of the program that requires re-examination is the provision which, in some instances, allows individuals receiving pensions before the age of 60 to receive immediate indexing payments. Generally speaking, individuals drawing pensions before the age of 60, because of their younger age at retirement, will receive pension payments for a longer period than those retiring at age 60 or later. In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves if it is fair that those who draw basic pensions for the longest periods of time should, on top of this advantage, also be allowed to collect pension adjustments for a longer period than those who retire at age 60 or later. In other words, is it fair that "those who have, get, and those who don't, don't?" Bill C-12 deals with this situation by proposing the general deferment of pension supplement payments to age 60.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends on how long they live.


J. Judd Buchanan: That is true, but actuarially they should all live the same average number of years.
Fairness, however, dictates that some exceptions be made to this change, and that the change itself be implemented in a fair manner. Accordingly, Bill C-12 proposes that payment of pension supplements not be deferred for individuals who have already retired; nor for current and future recipients of disability pensions or survivor benefits. The bill, with the proposed amendment 1 have described, also provides that the change be implemented gradually so that for those who leave the public service this year, on and after April 1, 1979, 56 would be the earliest age at which the supplements could be collected; for those who leave the public service in 1980, the earliest qualifying age for receiving the supplementation payments would be 57; for those who leave in 1981, the minimum qualifying age for receiving pension supplements would be age 58, and so on. The savings resulting from this change, like those resulting from the prorating change, would have the general effect of minimizing any curtailment that may be required in the triennial supplementation arrangements, particularly after 1982 when the change would be fully operative.
I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say that the principle of fairness among pensioners is the principle that the government also intends to follow whenever the three-year reviews, which are required under the bill, produce forecasts of revenues from extra pensioner interest earnings and indexing contributions as defined in the bill that will be insufficient to finance fully indexed supplements. The bill provides that when such situations arise pension supplements must be curtailed to match income revenues. The simplest way of doing this, of course, would be on an across-the-board basis, that is, for

example, by authorizing supplements equal to 90 per cent of the expected increase in the consumer price index if that is what triennial forecasts indicate is all we can afford. Although simple and easily understood, such an approach, in my opinion, would not be an equitable one for those on the lower end of the pension income scale.
As we all know, pensioners with low incomes have a particularly difficult time in coping with a reduction in the purchasing value of their incomes. Consequently, when revenue shortfalls require a curtailment of pension supplements, the arrangements established cannot, in my view, be determined solely on a cold balance-sheet basis. In short, I believe that fairness and equity require a measure of full indexing up to some minimum benefit level.
The periodic establishment and review of an appropriate benefit level for full indexing must, of course, begin with a realistic assessment of the amount of money that will become available from the earmarked sources defined in the bill. Once this assessment is made, some account must also be taken of the fact that employer pension plans are not designed and looked upon, primarily, as instruments for redistributing income among individuals. Many Canadians, I think, regard employer pension and savings plans as being generally similar in their objectives, and so consider that the benefits provided by employer pension plans should bear a recognizable relationship to the contributions, financial and otherwise, that individuals make to these plans and their sponsoring employers.
This notion of pensions being a return on the contributory savings of employees and pensioners is, of course, being reinforced by Bill C-12. In summary, I feel that the triennial supplementation arrangements that are authorized for public service pensioners must reflect a humane understanding of the situation faced by low income pensioners. At the same time, I think it must be recognized that there are limits on the degree to which supplementation payments can be divorced from the pension savings of individuals, and the earnings realized on their pensions savings or contributions.
I presented to the House earlier this month the proposed supplementation arrangements that would have been put in place if, in fact, this particular bill had received royal proclamation prior to the end of last year. Hon. members will recall that $7,000 would have been the proposed point for division. There would be full indexation up to earnings of $7,000, and above that the figure proposed was 8 per cent in 1979, 7 per cent in 1980, and 6 per cent in 1981.


Walter David Baker: Does that move back a year now?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks if that now moves back a year. It moves back a year in the sense that the triennial period will be 1980, 1981 and 1982. I believe I touch on this matter a little further down, but we think that the arrangements which can be made for pensioners could possibly be a little better at that time. My personal inclination is to look first at the report we receive from the government's
February 8, 1979

chief actuary in the latter part of this year. The thought is that we may be able to move it up from $7,000 to $7,500 or perhaps $8,000. However, we will not be able to determine that until later this year.
Bill C-12 indirectly also requires that the triennial reviews and establishment of pension supplementation arrangements be carried with an eye to the future. This need arises from the requirement that any surplus or deficit realized with respect to any three-year period must be carried forward to the next three-year period. Consequently, triennial arrangements that are overly optimistic in one period could produce relatively restrictive arrangements and disappointment for pensioners in the future periods because the bottom line provision of Bill C-12 is that pensioners, not taxpayers, must meet any pension supplementation deficits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the reverse?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks what about the reverse. There could not be a reverse. This fund is earmarked for pensioners. In other words, is the hon. member asking if we would go above full cost?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Suppose that the calculations were too pessimistic.


J. Judd Buchanan: I don't think that would happen. It might be that one could change the arrangement in mid-stream, but the fund is earmarked and is, in effect, the property of retired pensioners. If they did not receive as much in one period, then they would receive a larger amount in succeeding periods. It is their fund, in the sense that it is earmarked for this special purpose. It is clearly identifiable and, therefore, if there is an inadequate amount paid out in one period, then we would have the option to make changes during that period or, certainly, the funds which had not been dispersed would remain in the fund and be available for future supplementation.
In practical terms, this means that to achieve fairness in treatment between current and future pensioners, it will be necessary that three-year reviews of supplementation revenues and benefits avoid optimistic and pessimistic extremes.
Taking all these factors into account, I am confident that when the review is carried out in the second half of this year of the revenues that will become available over the next three years from the pensioners' share of extra interest earnings and the special contributions that have been made by and for pensioners to the indexing account, it will be possible to establish an arrangement whereby the first $7,000 of annual public service pension, disability and survivor benefits, could be fully indexed in 1980, 1981 and 1982. If this were done, it would mean that over 95 per cent of recipients of disability and survivor benefits would have their pensions fully indexed. In addition, I am confident that the supplementation revenue picture will be such that it will still be possible to provide higher income pensioners with a reasonable return on their contributions to the program.
Pensions
Much of my confidence in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is based on the healthy growth in interest earnings being achieved by the public service pension accounts, and the clear evidence that this growth will continue into the foreseeable future. Also it is based on the forecasts being made by reputable financial institutions for a moderation in inflationary pressures over the coming year. We believe that the meld of these two factors should allow us, as I mentioned a moment ago, to present a more attractive picture at the end of this year for the following three-year period. The actual amounts of supplementation authorized for 1980 to 1982 cannot, of course, be determined until the forecasts of revenues available for the supplements are received this fall from the government actuary.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the remaining portions of the bill. These portions of the bill directly affect less than 1 per cent of public servants, with the vast majority of them being air traffic controllers. The proposals contained in the bill to establish special pension provisions for air traffic controllers are designed to ensure the continued maintenance of high safety standards for air travel in Canada, and to provide income protection for air traffic controllers who may be detrimentally affected by the application of these standards.
These provisions are the product of an agreement which was reached with the air traffic controllers' union in 1976 to deal with the situation of air traffic controllers who failed the rigid examinations they must regularly take to retain their licences as air traffic controllers. The program agreed to with the controllers encompasses the provision of special training to prepare controllers for other work, the partial drawing down of pension benefits and, as a last resort, the payment of early retirement pensions earned by air traffic controllers who are compulsorily retired after a minimum of ten years' service in an air traffic control tower. In addition, the bill would allow air traffic controllers to draw unreduced pensions upon voluntary early retirement if they are at least 50 years of age and have a minimum of 25 years' service in an aircraft control tower.
I want to stress that all of the service requirements for these special pension provisions for air traffic controllers involve service in an air traffic control tower. In other words, if a 50 year old air traffic controller had 27 years of service in the public service but only 20 years' service in an air traffic control tower, he would not qualify for an immediate unreduced pension upon voluntary retirement. I also want to add that in return for these special pension features, air traffic controllers will be required to make an extra 2 per cent pension contribution, and this extra contribution will be matched by the government as employer.
The bill also contains a provision which would allow the government to follow the private sector practice of amortizing unfunded actuarial liabilities over a 15-year period instead of over a five-year period in the event the chief actuary should alter his economic assumptions or the actuarial method by

February 8, 1979
Pensions
which he carries out his evaluations of public service superannuation accounts.
The remaining provisions of the bill are directed at overcoming administrative difficulties and correcting benefit anomalies in various pension statutes which in total involve less than 50 individuals.
1 would like to conclude by reminding hon. members, as my predecessor did on March 9 of last year, that the introduction of this bill does not represent a finalization of the government's review of public service pension arrangements. The scrutiny of these arrangements will continue, with future analyses and decisions taking account of the actuarial valuation of the program which is now being carried out by the department of insurance, the total compensation analyses which are being carried out by the Treasury Board secretariat, and the results of the government's review of the retirement income situation facing all Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the minister referred to the National Citizens' Coalition. All I can say is that because of the government's indecision and hiding of facts we have been lambasted, at least since 1976, because it was as a result of the government's lack of initiative in putting the true facts before the Canadian people that groups such as that coalition, in my view, have no understanding as to what is going on and take an irresponsible approach to a very sensitive subject.
We on this side realize that this matter is not as simple as the minister makes it out to be. There are a number of questions which have to be asked. I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has had questions on the order paper since October 17, 1978, dealing with the actuarial niceties of Bill C-12, and they are unanswered as of this date. I do not think that is fair.
The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) is an actuary, and he is extremely interested in this bill. He has had questions on the order paper since November 9, 1978, because he wants to know what is going on with regard to the actuarial soundness of this plan and its costing.
There is confusion. The minister tabled a document-I believe it was some time in November-and on the last page of that document there is scenario "E" which shows that if inflation were to continue to the end of 1980 at a level slightly above the experience of the past year, there would be a shortfall of the order of $30 million.
A member of the government party, for whom I have a great deal of respect, has been sending out newsletters. I can understand his concern because he represents a number of public servants. For that reason he obviously must take an even greater interest in this than I would.
I would like to quote from a recent postscript in the Ottawa Journal of February 7, 1979. I want to put this on the record because the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) believes there are billions around and that there is no need for this bill. This matter is not as simple as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) indicates. I appreciate the

words the minister used. He says there will be a humane approach and that after study and if possible, the limit for people in the $7,000 bracket will be raised to $7,500 or even $8,000. That is all very good, but I want to put on the record what is causing all the confusion around here. I want to read from the Ottawa Journal for February 7. Under the headline "Fund Flush or Folding?" we find the following:
It is difficult to figure just what kind of shape the public service pension fund is in. But maybe some of the answers will surface this week when a bill comes up in the House for second reading. Until then, it's anyone's guess whether the fund is embarrassingly flush or nearing the bottom of the barrel.
In a document tabled in the House last week, treasury board president Judd Buchanan warned that the public service pension fund would be between $4 million and $30 million in the red within the next three years if a limit was not put on cost of living increases. That's a pretty scary prediction and one not universally accepted.
With all due respect, I know the interests of the hon. member, and we are going to have to get to the bottom of this. The article goes on:
For example, in his January report to voters Liberal MP Lloyd Francis tells his constituents: "There is a serious question about the fund itself being over-funded and within a very short time the Government of Canada is going to be embarrassed by the amount of money in the fund.''
Francis says there is more than $9 billion in the superannuation account at the moment. He suggests that if no changes are made in the pension plan and factors such as inflation and wages increase at the rates predicted, the fund could reach more than $40 billion by 1990 and more than $1 trillion 200 billion by the year 2025.
Granted, figures can be used to prove any argument, but the difference between Buchanan's and Francis' calculations is incredibly puzzling. The answer may be revealed in the House this week and it should prove quite interesting.
Well, we have not received the answer from the President of the Treasury Board. We will have to go to the committee to get all the answers, and I can tell the minister that I will be asking him many questions. I will be asking those which have already been asked in the two questions put down by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. Many of us will be asking questions because the minister has not given us any information whatsoever as to the soundness of the plan, what it is costing, where the money is coming from, or whether he disagrees with his colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West. We will get to that.
The Auditor General has been involved with a threepronged thrust; as he puts it, the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. He is including as well value for money, waste, and management. He is very concerned about financial management and control. At this time we must determine what happened in the past. But we have to determine what we intend to do for the future and what it is going to cost.
It seems to me that the President of the Treasury Board has accepted the thrust of the Auditor General and accordingly has now picked-and I have another word that 1 will use later-on the public service. What was the scenario as far as members of this House and public servants were concerned? There was a scenario prior to the speculation of the last election. Do you recall when the code of ethics was brought in
February 8, 1979

Mr. Speaker? Canadians were concerned about how public servants act. The vast majority are doing a tremendous job, at some sacrifice and inconvenience. But the public pressure, through organizations something like the coalition, had the government running scared. It was going to go to the people, so the government said: "We will tell them how to operate." Then, what was the next thing? The government brought in Bill C-12. That was months ago. The statement of the then president of the treasury board was back on March 9. Then came Bill C-28, which is now known as Bill C-22, that monstrosity which it could not bring forward because the government knew that it had concerned the opposition and the public service. Therefore it had to be changed. The government changed it in significant ways, but there is still some concern about that bill. The government was attempting to show strength before an election. But what it was doing, Mr. Speaker, was simply public service bashing. That is all there is to it.
We on this side of the House reject public service bashing and it being made a scapegoat for government incompetence and mismanagement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: And fire 60,000 of them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There he goes again. The minister says that we are going to fire them. We have never at any time used the word fire. This is the usual Liberal nonsense propaganda. We talk about attrition, and Bryce Mackasey tried to use public service firings as a platform here in Ottawa and lost the by-election. People in Canada do not buy that nonsense. You are the ones who are fired-


An hon. Member:: Fired into flight.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Time is getting short and 1 will continue with my remarks. 1 wish the President of the Treasury Board would sit still and shut his mouth, as I did when he was speaking, so that I can get on with my few words because I have not yet started.
I want to let the President of Treasury Board know what our objectives are. These may sound like cliches. There is something wrong when we find out about the antagonism that exists between this government and the public service, and between the government and the trade union movement in particular.
Our objectives are to gain mutual respect, to consult, and to co-operate, to treat as a partner and not as an enemy, to develop and maintain good will and to maintain good faith. Those are basic principles which this party puts before the House, the people of Canada, and the public service.
What does the public service say when it talks about good faith? I want to read from a brief that was submitted to the miscellaneous estimates committee by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada dated November 18, 1978. This gives some indication why the public service does not trust this government. 1 cannot think why anyone in this country would trust this government. At page 13 it says:
Pensions
The Institute feels that it cannot avoid expressing its concern and disappointment that a tacit agreement reached during discussions that took place within the forum of the Preparatory Committee on Collective Bargaining during 1963 to 1965, has been breached. There was no formal written agreement, and no formal record made, but a clear understanding was reached that, in return for the loss of the right by employees in the Public Service to negotiate any matters relating to superannuation under the Public Service Superannuation Act (the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act did not then exist), the government undertook not to make any unilateral amendments to the superannuation benefits. Clearly, if the SRBA had existed at that time, the understanding and agreement would have embraced it.
What we are talking about here, and what PIPS is talking about, is a breach of faith. That is why they have no trust in the government in terms of its initiative and its thrust. I feel sorry for the President of the Treasury Board because he has just recently been handed this portfolio and he will have to prove himself. He has not proved himself yet to me, but I am patient, and I know with proper coaching and with the staff that he has he will come up with what I can perhaps call a credible performance as President of the Treasury Board.
I want to read from a communique put out by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. There are some statements in here which I want to place before hon. members in order to let them know what the public service was thinking about, particularly the Professional Institute, which I believe speaks on behalf of all public servants because they all have vested interests in this bill. I am reading from a document dated March 3, 1978, entitled "Communications" published by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. It says:
Members should differentiate between the various opinions or comments being made by public figures, and any notice of intention to amend the acts by means of bills to come before the House of Commons. The one is part of the continuing debate, whereas the other constitutes warning of an impending change.
The impending change has to do with the indexation part. It goes on to say:
There are several pension studies in progress now, some federal and some provincial, relating to the over-all subject of pensions in Canada, with particular reference to comparisons between public service and private sector pensions, and including the Canada Pension Plan. The public service pension plan is a part of this over-all debate, and the subject is complex, not only in terms of the above noted comparison, but also in terms of what pension benefits should exist for Canadian citizens as a basic expectation. It is likely, therefore, that there will be continued considerable coverage of this subject in the news media, with many opinions being expressed. It is not likely that the subject will be resolved within a short time, even in respect of the public service pension plans alone, since this is only a portion of the much broader debate going on.
I kept rereading that particular paragraph. I was wondering whether we are even in a position to deal with Bill C-12 because the whole topic of pensions, within the public service and without, is under continual discussion, without any conclusions having been reached at all. What is important though is a question that was asked in this same document. It reads as follows:
A part of these discussions lies in settling the basic question of whether private sector pensions should be upgraded, essentially to give broad comparability with public service pensions, or whether public service pensions should be downgraded to give broad comparability with private sector pensions.
As I said before, and I have no hesitation or any equivocation whatsoever, this government-and I notice Mr. Speaker is nodding his head in the affirmative-has gone about bashing

February 8, 1979
Pensions
the public service. I asked a question of the then president of the treasury board on January 30, 1978. I asked whether it would be on an ad hoc basis or in what form they would bring it in light of the Tomenson-Alexander study. I read the reply from the then president of the treasury board:
Our position will require a great deal of analysis and thought. We have a commitment to consult with the bargaining agents and the advisory committee on public service pensions.
I do not know whether that consultation took place. In order for us to determine whether that commitment was met to consult further, if indeed there was any, we will ask for witnesses. I have a pretty long list here. The government is not going to bamboozle us with this bill as it did in 1973 and 1974.
We want to hear from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of Public Servants, the Association of Air Traffic Controllers, Canadian Forces Long Service Pension Association, the chief actuary, a representative from Tomenson-Alexander, management consultants, representatives or spokesmen from the RCMP, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Life Insurance Association and the Business Council on National Issues. Under that I believe is a Mr. Sydney Jackson, now the president of the Manufacturers Life Association, formerly president of the Canadian Life Insurance Association.
We want to hear from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the National Citizens' Coalition. That is one we must have. In fact, they should be first. My whip says bring in Brown. I do not know whether he will come or not. I hope he will. The propaganda being spread around this country is intolerable. I do not have any preference as to who is first or last. We are not only asking but demanding that these witnesses be called, as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. I would like to hear as well from the advisory committee on public service pensions and from a couple of other gentlemen for whom I have a great deal of respect.
I would like to hear from Mr. Leslie Barnes, who has written some excellent articles on this very serious issue. In my view, he has a lot of credibility and expertise. I would not mind hearing from Ed Finn, another person with a certain amount of expertise. That is the time schedule.
At a time when my House leader was absent from the House, I asked the government House leader what was happening with Bill C-12. I forget when it was 1 asked him. However, he stated that he wanted it before Christmas. I said there was no way he would get it before Christmas. I think I asked him that in October or early November. I gave him some indication as to the witnesses we wanted to hear. That is why the bill was not brought forward. The government knew that we were going to probe. We had the questions, we wanted the answers, and they were not prepared to go through that oratory.


An hon. Member:: Ha, ha!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear the ha, ha! All I know is the bill was not introduced and the government did not get it before Christmas. I do not know whether it will get it before April. With all due respect to the President of the Treasury Board, he has not told us a doggone thing. The questions we have are exemplified by those on the order paper. I hope the President of the Treasury Board realizes we have a lot of work to do before we even start on clause 1.
We have come a long way from the days when pensions first appeared and were viewed as a reward for long and faithful service. Pensions are no longer a reward but a form of deferred compensation. They are no longer a privilege but a right.
I am glad the minister has indicated that he appreciates the fact that those in the $7,000 and $8,000 bracket make up 95 per cent of those about whom we are talking. We are talking of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
One of the major problems that currently exists is the remarkably uneven nature of the changes that have occurred. Some persons must rely on CPP, OAS or QPP. Others have additional pensions. Some even have indexed pensions. This unevenness has created the current pension debate.
Accordingly, we should also direct our attention to the 60 per cent of the labour force that does not belong to any private pension plan and must rely on CPP, OAS and so on, and those who make private pension plan contributions but collect no benefits as a result of the problems of portability and so on. We must, as well, be concerned about mechanisms to allow the private sector to offer indexed pensions more easily. Therefore, that must be investigated. That is why I listed the many witnesses who would be able to give us that expertise.
What disturbs me is why we are having this debate now. I remember the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) going around this country and walking in and out of this House of Commons talking about how inflation had been licked, how it had been wrestled to the ground. Neither became a reality. We have inflation of about 8.5 per cent. I understand it is going to get worse. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) does not know what it will be. He has upped his November figure from 6.5 to 7.5 per cent. He does not know what is going on.
When government ministers brought in wage and price controls, or whatever they called it, their incomes policy, they told the Canadian people it would be down to 4 per cent by 1978. If they had done their job in terms of cutting government spending, we may have been closer to that figure. If they had stopped printing money, we would have been closer. However, they did not do that. They kept on printing money and spending. Not only that, but they continued to waste money. I need only refer to the Auditor General's condemnation regarding the government's management of fiscal and monetary policy. Therefore, inflation just took off.
We are nowhere near 4 per cent, and all economic indicators point to the situation getting tougher. Even the Minister of Finance and the governor of the Bank of Canada have implied that, although the minister likes to say that the situation looks great. He knows it is not great. We have 1,250,000 people out
February 8, 1979

of work, and he is trying to con me? I have been around too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A lot of Canadians just do not accept that nonsense. As a result of not reaching that 4 per cent which was guaranteed by the government, they have had to ask Canadians to trust them. They do this even though they flip-flop. They deceived the Canadian people during the 1974 election. At that time they said wage and price controls would not work. They said they did not work in Great Britain and in the United States and, under no circumstances, would they freeze wages.
People therefore became concerned about the form, extent, and cost of indexing in the public sector. Because of government incompetence and mismanagement, the alleged uneve-ness and inequity became more worrisome, bothersome, and frustrating.
It is necessary to go into the history of indexed pensions in order that we be better advised as to the background and what must be done for the future. Before 1970, the pension benefits of retired public servants in Canada were adjusted on an ad hoc basis. The persistent and relatively high levels of inflation in the late sixties led the federal government to review its policy. An advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act examined various proposals for a special contributory plan and concluded that such a plan, financed by equal contributions of the government's employees, was feasible. The objective of the plan was to finance the cost of partially protecting the value of the government sponsored retirement and other benefits to the public service on a continuing basis.
An act to provide supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund was adopted in 1970. It provided that, commencing in the month of April, 1970, a supplementary retirement benefit would be paid to every recipient of pension, the amount of benefit to be calculated by means of a particular formula. The maximum supplementary benefit payable to public servants was tied to the indexation of the Canada Pension Plan as it read on January 1, 1970.
The benefit index of the supplementary pension plan was connected to the pension index of the Canada Pension Plan. The latter act defined the pension index as the average of the consumer price index for Canada as published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, as it then was, under the authority of the Statistics of Canada Act, for each month in a 12-month period ending June 30 in the preceding year or 1.02 times the pension index of the preceding year, whichever was less. In this way supplementary pension benefits of public servants were partially indexed to the cost of living, but only partially because the maximum supplementary benefit was limited to 2 per cent of the basic pension of the preceding year. The supplementary retirement benefit for public servants would be financed equally by the government and by the employee, each
Pensions
contributing half a per cent of gross salary to a special fund out of which payment would be made.
The 2 per cent limit to pension increases was eliminated by the Statute Law Supplementary Retirement Benefits Amendment Act, 1973, and the amendment substituted a new definition for pension index. I will quote it:
Pension index with respect to any year means the average for that year of the consumer price index for Canada as published by Statistics Canada for each month of the 12-month period ending on the 30th day of September in the immediately preceding year.
Accordingly, any increase in the consumer price index would be fully reflected in escalation of benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. I think it is important that this should be put on record.
Introducing the amendment to the House at the time, the Hon. C. M. Drury noted that the government had agreed to assume the cost of all escalation for all those who had retired before 1970 and, the balance of the cost of the escalation of pensions of persons retired since 1969, which had not been covered by matching contributions made by those persons and by the government in respect to them. Aside from this, the government intended to adhere to the principle of equal employer/employee contributions. Initially, this would increase the cost to both of providing the supplementary benefits from one half of 1 per cent to 1 per cent of gross salary, with a strong likelihood of future increases. As a matter of fact, the position of the government of the day at that time was, and I quote:
In the long run the contribution of half of one per cent together with the government's matching contribution would almost certainly be insufficient to cover the cost of escalation for employees entering the public service with an average working life of 30 years in the service ahead of them. There is an assumption that it would be necessary to increase the contribution made in the very near future if, such an employee is to pay half the cost of his pension escalation after retirement. The assumption is that it would not be necessary to do so for a few years. The government is proposing to adopt a phased approach under which the present rate of contribution is to be raised by half of one per cent each effective January 1, 1977. What further increases might be required in later years will be determined by future parliaments.
I want to pause here to say that a public servant, a top level public servant with a high rank in the armed forces, called me to ask why, if it was thought the program was in trouble, the government had not asked the employees to pay a further one half per cent. I said I did not know. A moment ago I heard the hon. member for Ottawa West say it was not needed. 1 am simply throwing out the question. Why all this rigmarole? Why all the complexity? Why this frustration and uncertainty? At that time the basic reaction of the opposition to the legislation was that it was long overdue and not enough.
Rather than question a provision which was generally unavailable in private enterprise, a number of opposition members advocated indexing public service pensions to a wages and salaries index, or to an index based on the gross national product, much more expensive options than indexation to the consumer price index. I was here. Many members now in this Chamber were here. Most of us were here. But we really didn't know what was going on. We were conned in 1974 but we are not going to be conned again. I am not saying the minister has

February 8, 1979
Pensions
conned us. I am saying that what happened in 1974 led us to an impulsive conclusion. So we are now at the stage of full indexing.
It is no secret that the present provision of indexed pensions has, in recent years, come under increasing criticism from the general public and, of course, the public service is concerned about the attitude which the general public has expressed. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, we must get at the truth. Rightly or wrongly, the public perception is that the Public Service Superannuation Act in conjunction with the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act provides public servants with pensions which are among the best in the country. Essentially only large financial institutions are providing similar initial benefit levels. Exceptions exist at lower earnings levels for the very large industrial organizations.
Furthermore, on January 1 each year public service pensions are increased by the change in the consumer price index. Only about .6 per cent of workers in the private sector have pensions that are comparable. The increase on January 1, 1978, was 7.2 per cent. I am not too sure what it was on January 1, 1979, but we must always remember, Mr. Speaker, that there is a contribution by the public servant of 6.5 per cent of salary as a basic pension and one per cent for indexation, with matching done by the government.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate just how pleased we were to hear what the minister had to say. I want to quote him again. He indicated what would have happened had Bill C-12 come into effect when they thought it would come into effect on January 1. I will read this out as a result of my House leader asking that extremely important question. This is what the minister indicated:
Basically our intent was to give full indexation for all pensionable incomes under $7,000, which I think amounts to something around 75 per cent or 80 per cent. Regarding amounts above $7,000, during the year 1979 we intend to index those at 8 per cent, in 1980 at 7 per cent and in 1981 at 6 per cent. 1 should point out, as hon. members will see when they look at the report from the chief actuary, that this was based on an inflation assumption of 8.8 per cent when in fact it turned out to be 8.4 per cent, so we are better off than we thought we would be. With a little good luck this provision hopefully will be even more generous for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982.
We now know that the ad hoc arrangement will not take effect until January 1, 1980. This does make a difference and we welcome that, but I do not think the minister had any choice. And I still have to think about the April 1 deadline which the minister wants to introduce. As well, there will be provisions he wants to bring in by proclamation. He is going to have to show us, though, why he did not go all the way with it and whether there are savings because in truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not trust the figures that this government throws out. Most of them come from the Minister of Finance and his department, and he's been wrong ever since I've been here with respect to growth, with respect to unemployment, with respect to inflation. We need, for example, other people to tell us what the inflation rate will be. We need other people to make guesses with respect to the wage rate and the interest rate. All of these things will have a bearing on this bill.

One of the major criticisms levelled against the indexing of public service pensions is that the current contribution rate- one per cent of salary by the employee and a matching contribution by the employer-is not sufficient to cover the cost of indexing when inflation rates run as high as they have in recent years. This is the issue.
A second major criticism of public service pensions relates to early retirement. Under the present system a person can retire with a fully indexed pension if years of age plus service equal 85. This system encourages those eligible to retire at the age of 55. Many of them have taken this option and have subsequently taken jobs with private industry, perhaps even as consultants selling their services to the government.
A third major criticism concerns a loophole in the existing legislation which allows a person who retires in December to collect a full year's indexing the following January.
This is what makes me so angry with the government. The Treasury Board initially reacted to the criticism of public service pensions by publishing in October, 1976, a brief about the basic facts on pensions in the public service in Canada. In this brief they attempted to prove that in the long run the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act would be sound. I want to quote from that document because some aspects of it have been forgotten. It is dated October 18, 1976, and is entitled "Basic Facts about Pensions in the Public Service of Canada". This is what is stated at the bottom of page 14:
In other words, employer pension costs for the federal public service are expected to be reasonably stable, as long as the relationships observed in the past between rates of inflation, interest and salary increase remain substantially the same. Even with continuing inflation at 8 per cent-an improbable hypothesis- financial requirements for the public service pension plan would not diverge significantly from past exjjerience if the normal long-term relationship between wages, interest and inflation were to be maintained.
On page 15 they give a couple of conclusions as follows:
The public service pension plan is financially sound. All basic pension payments-about 80 per cent of the total outlays recently-are financed on what actuaries call a fully funded basis, through employee and employer contributions. The remainder of outlays-indexation payments-are partially funded with the funded elements expected to increase gradually over the years.
Item number 6 on the same page reads:
New liabilities arising from the indexation of public servants' pensions are unlikely to increase the to;al pension costs of the government as a proportion of payroll. For one thing, the level of employee contributions to the indexation account is rising, and the average period of contribution is lengthening; for another, the basic features of the public service pension plan have been fairly stable, so that extra interest earnings might well be sufficient, in the 1980s, to meet actuarial deficiencies for basic pensions.
Perhaps that is what the hon. member for Ottawa West was talking about. But that was back in 1976. It was true then. That was the gospel, the bible. Now it is no longer the bible. That is why I say that I cannot trust this government.
On March 9, 1978, the Tomenson-Alexander report was tabled which points out that if the public service pension plan, including indexing, were placed on a fully funded basis, the plan, in addition to employee contributions, would require continuing government-employer contributions of 15.3 per
February 8, 1979

cent of the payroll for current service and would face an initial unfunded actuarial liability of $5.9 billion for past service, most of which arises from the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act.
We will have to find out whether that is true. I will not just accept that. They will have to tell us how they arrived at that conclusion, why they arrived at it and what are the solutions. The report further indicated that if the unfunded liability were amortized over 15 years, an additional employer contribution of 19.1 per cent of pay would have been required in 1976, decreasing to 5.2 per cent in 1990, and to zero thereafter.
Besides the funding problems, Tomenson-Alexander also compared the public service plan with the private sector and found that while 80 per cent of plans in the private sector have provided some post-retirement adjustments, averaging 66 per cent of the change in the CPI, only 5.8 per cent are covered by formal plan provisions, and only 0.6 per cent by full indexing provisions. The average annual employer contribution per employee in the private sector in 1975 was $676 compared to $1,020 under the PSSA and SRBA for the same period. Under full funding, the employer contribution under the PSSA and SRBA would be approximately $4,350 per participant. Further, they indicated that most private sector companies will be unwilling to grant open-ended indexing and will not want skilled employees to retire at age 55 as is possible in the federal public service.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, let me read from Hansard of March 9, 1978, at page 3634. As reported in Hansard, a question was raised with respect to the private sector. Now that we are dealing with the public sector, we should be concerned as well about the private sector. A Liberal member of parliament asked the then president of the Treasury Board the following question:
Does he have anything to say at this time about this other great concern with respect to indexed pensions, namely, the exemplary effect they might have on the private sector?
The then president of the treasury board indicated:
1 say quite candidly that they will have difficulties. It is one thing to say it is fair and just and should be done, but there is the other reality of the availability of funds and the method of paying for it. I cannot indicate to the hon. member yet what the findings of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Health and Welfare are, except that I hope they will be available very soon and will give some stimulation to the private sector.
It seems to me that the private sector cannot meet the standards set by this bill even at this time. I indicated earlier that the provinces are studying this problem, the federal government is studying it, and the Department of Finance is studying it. Everybody is studying the problem but no one has the answer. We still need mechanisms for the private sector. Where are the reports from the Minister of Finance and from the Department of National Health and Welfare?
In any event, the then president of the treasury board responded on March 9 by stating that the government would introduce legislation to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. The purpose of the amendment would be to place a curb on some undesirable practices that have crept into the program, to close off some loopholes in the program, and to
Pensions
fortify the financial liability of the program against unexpected financial setbacks that could conceivably arise in the relatively distant future.
The government had also introduced legislation in the last session, a bill to deal with total compensation comparability, Bill C-28. I think that is all tied in together, and of course we must know what we are talking about when we talk about total compensation comparability because pensions and indexation of pensions are part and parcel of that.
I think it is necessary to summarize the contents of the bill. The major provisions of the bill are as follows. Pension indexing would no longer be automatically tied to the consumer price index but would be determined three years at a time on an ad hoc basis. If sufficient funds are not available for full CPI indexing, the pension increase would be based on the amount credited to the fund, based on employer and employee contributions as well as interest earnings. Over the next five years, indexing would be progressively deferred so that by 1983-I do not know what the date would be now-public service pensions would not be indexed until age 60, rather than at age 55 as is presently the case if the public servant has 30 years of service. A pensioner's first indexing adjustment would be prorated to the month of retirement, rather than paying the full adjustment in January, regardless of what month retirement occurs as is presently the case.
The proposed legislation would also establish the special pension program agreed to in 1976 by the government for air traffic controllers in operational or tower service, bringing them increased pension benefits. An additional 2 per cent of salary would be contributed by controllers and matched by the employer to pay for these benefits. The bill, which contains a number of technical amendments, also proposes that the government be permitted, as in the private sector, to amortize unfunded pension liabilities, in some instances over a 15-year period, instead of requiring that all unfunded public service pension liabilities be amortized over five years.
We have been waiting for 11 months for the government to present its detailed proposals on indexed pensions flowing out of the general principles and policies laid out last March 9 by the then president of the treasury board. During the debate which took place last March, I indicated on behalf of my party that we agreed with the government's intention to endorse a form of indexing if it was actuarially sound. That has always been the position of the Progressive Conservative party and still is our position. As a matter of fact, on May 4, Mr. C. L. Lockhart, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, was advised in writing as follows:
My party is committed to the principle of maintaining the purchasing power of pensions. We have been concerned that people on fixed incomes, particularly those living on small pensions, can least afford to be caught by inflation, for which they are not responsible.
The letter stated further:
However, protection against inflation must be achieved in a way that guaranteed an actuarially sound pension plan. The pension plan must be made to meet all future commitments to those who have made contributions and recognize the legitimate concerns of taxpayers.
3048

February 8, 1979
Pensions
But, even more important, the letter went on to say:
When specific legislation is introduced, my colleagues and I will work to ensure that there is full consultation with the public service on specific proposals.
The above views are those of my leader and are accepted by the members of the Progressive Conservative party. In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the position of my leader and my party with respect to the principle of indexation. However, I went on to say in my March speech that while the Progressive Conservative party supports the government's broad intentions, support for its specific proposals will have to await the tabling of the bill itself. Of course the bill cannot spell out all of the day to day details on how these principles and policies will operate in individual and special situations. This is extremely important, and the minister just touched on it. The bill cannot ensure that the changeover to the new rules will be carried out in a smooth and equitable manner.
There will be other hon. members of my party who will address themselves to a specific concern regarding the armed forces and the RCMP. It will be necessary for my party to lay out in some detail the background information which parliament requires in order to arrive at an informed decision on the proposals contained in Bill C-12 in terms of costing and financial implications. Of course this will be done. Further, we will have something to say on the proposals related to air traffic controllers. We accept the thrust and direction, but the hearing of witnesses is important to determine if the government's provisionary ad hoc approach is feasible, just, and sound.
Let me say at the outset that my party wants to see all of the relevant facts and figures brought out in the open. When full indexing was established in 1974, clearly parliament was not provided with sufficient information. If it had been, we would not be back here this evening altering the formula which was put in place approximately five years ago. We do not believe it is right that a person's pension, which he believes he is paying for with every pay cheque, should be forever dependent upon the whim of future public and government opinion.
Parliament and the public service have a right to know, before the bill is passed, just how much indexing can be provided in the future, not just three years in the future, but 15, 20 and even 30 years in the future, when the bulk of public servants working today will be reaching retirement age. The government's calculations and assumptions should be a matter of public record before the bill is passed, so that public servants will know with some certainty to what extent their pensions will reflect changes in the CPI when they retire.
In his speech on March 9, the then president of the treasury board referred to the proposed changes by stating they:
-are designed to firm up the financial undertakings of the program to ensure that we are not stirring up future trouble for taxpayers and public service pensioners.
Indeed this bill must achieve that goal. The minister must make public the actuarial calculations which lead to that conclusion. It is inconceivable that the government would
(Mr. Alexander.]
introduce legislation, or that the House would be asked to approve legislation, without some idea of what will happen in the future. The type of information parliament requires will be spelled out more clearly by the hon. member for York-Scar-borough, who is an actuary. He knows a lot about this bill and what it means to have something actuarially sound. I hope the minister or his officials do not expect to con or bamboozle members on this side. We have a top flight man who understands figures and how they can be manipulated, the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


J. Judd Buchanan: You are the first speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I am the first speaker. That is my right. The minister's speech was written by his officials. He did a very good job in that regard. I wrote my own speech. I want to put the position of my party on the table. I want the minister to know that I am not finished yet, and that a lot of questions require answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: tions, as well as interest earnings. I am pleased to say that the first ad hoc arrangement would commence in the year 1980. The Progressive Conservative party is interested in the principle, but we are left with a large number of unanswered questions.
The Tomenson-Alexander report on indexed pensions tabled last March by the former minister recommended that an actuarial costing be undertaken and published before any major changes in the pension program are legislated. To my knowledge the minister has not given this information. Also, the report recommended that while the chief actuary might undertake the study, it should be reviewed by an independent group of three actuaries. We demand that the government provide parliament with this basic information, if it has not done so already.
On March 9 the then minister spoke of a desire to eliminate undesirable financial setbacks in the future. This is our concern also. We do not want to be back here in five years, or even 15 or 20 years, being asked once again to legislate possible reductions in public service pensions. We want to know now that this proposal is financially viable. We want to see the results of the actuarial costing recommended by Tomenson-Alexander. Indeed these results are crucial for the drafting of such legislation. We want to see the government's three-year projections, as well as its long-term ones. We want to put to rest once and for all the suspicions that this is a stop-gap measure, and that parliament might have to be called in to make further reductions in the future. We want the facts and figures necessary to give public servants some degree of satisfaction that these provisions will not lead to a situation where their pensions will be reduced drastically in the face of continuing inflation.
If there is a major problem with the bill, it relates to the decision to replace full CPI indexing with ad hoc adjustments to be made every three years. This provision requires that the President of the Treasury Board, with the advice of the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance, shall estimate the funds available for indexing in each three-year period. If the minister discovers there is not sufficient funds, he will advise the governor in council on the amount of indexing which should occur.
The problem is twofold in this regard. First, the minister can make this decision without seeking outside advice. Because of the number of actuarial assumptions which must be made, including an assumption about future interest rates, this gives a great deal of freedom to the minister. Slight changes in the assumptions can yield very different results. For instance, until last year when outside actuaries and accountants got into the act, the government was convinced there was not a problem with the indexing of public service pensions and, with appropriately chosen assumptions, it made it appear that there was no problem.
This leads to the second problem-the possibility the minister could use this provision for political purposes. The assumptions he chooses, and consequently the amount of funds available for indexing, could be quite different in an election year
Pensions
than in a non-election one. Accordingly we believe that amendments should be introduced to the bill. It should be ensured that the three-year actuarial valuation will be subject to review by independent actuaries as recommended by Tomenson-Alexander in its report. It should be ensured that any valuation will include long-term as well as short-term estimates. It should be ensured that any actuarial valuation and review are tabled in the House prior to October 31 for the purposes of the following three years.
My speech is somewhat lengthy because we are not going to have that many speakers. We are prepared to expedite the debate at second reading so that the bill can be sent to committee where it can be examined carefully, where expert witnesses, some of whom I mentioned earlier, may be called upon to give testimony, and where all facts can be brought out in the open. Also we will be asking for information about the proposals to deal with air traffic controllers which provide them with early retirement features at increased contribution rates. We will want to see actuarial valuations to support these proposals. Also we will raise questions concerning some of the technical amendments during committee hearings.
While the Progressive Conservative party is prepared to begin clause by clause study and hearing the witnesses, I must warn the government that future total support will depend upon the answers we receive in the days ahead. Sincerely we hope the facts and figures behind the bill will prove the bill accomplishes the stated goal of the minister to fortify the financial viability of public service pensions. Public servants should know with some degree of certainty that they are paying for and are entitled to receive pensions which reasonably reflect changes in the CPI, and that this will not impose any undue burden on the taxpayer.
At this time I should like to state that the provisions regarding air traffic controllers arise from an agreement reached in 1976 and are modelled after similar provisions in the United States. One provision deals with workers in control towers who work under stress. That is why I think you will be hearing from the armed services and the RCMP, because they also work under stress and at some risk. Accordingly, there was a certain provision made for control tower people. Under such circumstances regarding controllers, and if retaining or the obtaining of alternate employment fails, they could receive early pensions.
The provision provides for voluntary retirement at full pension at age 50 after 25 years' service in an air traffic control tower. If retirement is involuntary, it provides for an immediate pension based on the number of years of service after ten years, with no penalty at age 45 with 20 years. This will be financed by a 2 per cent increase in the contribution rate of air traffic controllers and a matching employer contribution.
There are a number of unanswered questions which must be answered regarding this bill. Tomenson-Alexander recommended that an actuarial valuation of the combined pension program be undertaken before any major changes are made.

February 8, 1979
Pensions
Has the government undertaken any actuarial valuation of the combined plan? If so, what actuarial assumptions were used, what amount of indexing will be available to the public service, Canadian forces and RCMP in the three-year period from 1980 to 1982? What amount of indexing will be available in subsequent three-year periods?
The bill creates three separate funds for the public service, the armed forces and the RCMP out of which indexing will be paid based on an estimate of the funds available for each three-year period starting with 1980-82.
If estimates are too high in early years, could this lead to a situation where pensions will be reduced in the face of high inflation in later years? Will the amount of indexing for everybody coming under the SBRA be based on the calculation of funds available in the public service account? If so, is it not possible for one account to run out of money before the others? Alternatively, different groups might receive different amounts of indexing. Who will pay for any deficits? Who will pay for any deficits which might arise with regard to other recipients, members of parliament, judges and diplomats?
The bill proposes to transfer excess interest on the retired employee's share of the public service superannuation account to the supplementary retirement benefits account. What is the expected annual increase in cost to the government in respect of the public service superannuation account as a result of this decision? At present, the government credits interest to the accounts based on the interest rate on long-term government bonds. Will future interest rates be based on a more fair interest marker reflecting investment opportunities which would be available in the market? I think that is what the minister indicated. What asset mix will be used?
One of the greatest concerns with public service pensions relates to the problem resulting from phanton funding. In other words, all excess contributions each year go into consolidated revenue, and payments are made from consolidated revenue. There is in reality only a paper entry, not a real fund. Has the government considered actually investing part of the assets of the public service superannuation account in non-government securities and, if so, what portion of the funds is the government considering in this regard?
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I think I should conclude now because I want my friend from the NDP-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You might as well keep on going. I can make my speech on Monday.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All right. The hon. member wants me to keep on going so I will pick up from where I left off.
By virtue of Bill C-28, now Bill C-22, the government has spoken a great deal about total compensation comparability, the principle now known as equitable comparison, with the representative selection of employers in the private sector. Has the government undertaken an equitable compensation study comparing public service compensation with private sector compensation? Does the government agree with the Tomen-son-Alexander study which indicates that the excess value of

the combined pension program over the average in the private sector is of the order of 9 per cent of pay? What impact will the amendments proposed in Bill C-22 have on that calculation? If an equitable compensation comparability is instituted, will unions be allowed to bargain changes in pension benefits?
The bill attempts to deal with the problem of early retirement by starting indexing at age 60 rather than age 65. What is the average age of retirement in each of the years 1972 to 1978? How does this average vary by annual salary level? What is the estimated impact that this provision will have on average retirement age, and is this fair in cases of non-voluntary retirement?
The bill provides an early retirement provision for air traffic controllers who work in control towers in high stress situations in return for a 2 per cent increase in their pension contributions. Has the government undertaken an actuarial valuation of this proposal and, if so, what were the results of such valuation?
Another problem which we must face relates to the conversion of the Post Office to a Crown corporation, and this leads to a number of questions. Will the Post Office employees continue in the public service superannuation plan, or will they have their own plan? How much money will be transferred if a new plan is created? How will Post Office employees who are now retired be handled? Will they move to the new plan or remain in the present one? What impact will all this have on the valuation of the combined public services plan?
Mr. Speaker, you can see how important this bill is and you will note that we do not treat it lightly, like some hon. members who were laughing because I was taking my time trying to put forward several questions which they cannot answer, in order that all of us in this House can determine whether the approach, the direction and the principle the government has taken are satisfactory, just, equitable, and actuarially sound ones. We are prepared to give this bill second reading in order to get it to the committee where we can hear witnesses and get the expertise and advice that I think is required before we can come to a rational conclusion in terms of whether this bill is on the right path. The public service demands this, we demand it, and the people of Canada demand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening-


An hon. Member:: Call it ten o'clock and we can watch the third period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At what stage is the game, in the third period? Earlier this evening I felt I would be able to make my entire speech before ten o'clock, but as things rolled on I felt I might as well have gone into the lobby to watch the hockey game.


An hon. Member:: Everybody else is there.
February 8, 1979


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 suppose this is one time when, if I suggested we call it ten o'clock, 1 might get unanimous agreement. However, this is a very serious issue and I am happy to speak briefly on it tonight with the understanding that I shall probably have to adjourn the debate at ten o'clock and continue when we get back to this bill next week.
There is one thought expressed by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) and by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), in which I thoroughly concur; with them 1 decry the campaign, and particularly the nature of it, which has been against the indexing of public service pensions.
There are or have been enlightened insurance executives like Sydney Jackson of the Manufacturers Life, and the late William Anderson of North American Life, who have realized that pensions are not pensions unless they are indexed, and that the private insurance industry must address itself to that problem. I earnestly hope, with that kind of enlightenment on the private side, we will move in the direction of winning for all people in Canada adequate pensions and the indexing of those pensions, instead of having to listen to a campaign against public servants such as we have experienced for quite a considerable period of time.
I have referred to enlightened insurance executives. I am afraid that the others, those who wage the kind of campaign that was exemplified in an advertisement in the papers today, must face the suspicion that in times of inflation insurance companies gain if the pensions are not indexed, because they do not have to pay any more, but they make a lot more money in the interest that they earn on the funds which have been entrusted to them. The three of us who have spoken thus far are agreed on this issue. We have no use for the campaign which has been waged against the indexing of civil service pensions.
It is not particularly relevant at this point in my remarks, but having mentioned a couple of names, there are a couple of others that I would like to mention favourably. We are well served in the Government and Parliament of Canada by our public servants, and I know that it is a bit unfair to single out any particular individuals, but 1 think it would not be inappropriate for me to say that in this field, the whole question of the indexing of pensions and many other aspects of pensions, we were well served for many years by Mr. Hart Clark and the staff that surrounded him, and we are being well served today by Mr. W. A. Kelm and his staff. 1 hope it is not inappropriate for me to say that with Mr. Kelm in the gallery. After all, he has been there several days waiting for this bill to get started, and at least he should get credit for that.
1 approach this subject as a firm believer in the right of older people, not only to have pensions for their retirement years, but also in their right to have those pensions keep up, at least, with the cost of living. I emphasize the words "at least". In my view that does not go far enough. The fact of the matter
Pensions
is that in their working years our people get a certain measure of the increase in productivity which takes place. They seek and have a right to seek wage and salary increases which bear some relation to the gross national product. It is not good enough to say to older people who have retired, "All we shall do for you is to make sure that your income will keep up to the cost of living so that at age 70, 75 or 80 you can buy the same basket of goods and services you were able to buy at the point when you retired."
The standard of living is increasing for everybody else in society, and one of the reasons for increased productivity is the contribution made by those older people. I hope the day will come when, instead of having to defend indexation in relation to the rise in the cost of living, we will be joined in the battle to get it improved so that it is based on the gross national product and therefore will enable retired people to enjoy their rights as full members of the Canadian family.
I suspect that members are getting used to, if not a little tired of, hearing me make personal references in these debates on pensions, but one of the facts of life is that I have been involved in this issue for a long time. I well remember that in 1944 I asked my first question about the pensions of retired civil servants. They were referred to as civil servants in those days, not public servants. I did so because some older persons who had been retired for a number of years came to see me at my home in Winnipeg and laid their plight before me. They convinced me that this was an issue that one should pursue, so I took it on in 1944. The members who were here a few years ago-there are no members here tonight who were here in 1944, the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) was here but does not happen to be present in the chamber tonight-will remember the many times during question period, in debate, and during the late show, when I pressed this issue.
One of the few times in this House when I found it difficult to speak was toward the end of 1969. It was 25 years after 1944, and I was able to stand up in this House to welcome the announcement made in December, 1969, by the then president of the treasury board, the Hon. C. M. Drury, that the escalation of the pensions of retired public servants would be put into effect. I sometimes tell that story to some of my younger colleagues who say they have been around here for a full term or a couple of terms and have not accomplished much yet. I say, "Stick around a while, some things take a quarter of a century." The reason for throwing in that personal reference is to make the point that I believe thoroughly in this, and the fact that it took such a long time to win it, and the fact that we won it, I think, gives a certain moral sanctity to it.
Along the way we won the beginnings of the escalation of other kinds of pensions. It was in the mid-1960s that we got the Canada Pension Plan which had in it a provision for indexing pensions up to a ceiling of 2 per cent. We began the indexing of old age pensions, again up to a ceiling of 2 per cent.
I was here, too, in the famous years from 1972 to 1974. They have been mentioned by other members tonight, but I

February 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
would like to mention that those were the years of a minority parliament when we got those 2 per cent ceilings removed and got the indexing of public service pensions, RCMP pensions, Canadian Armed Forces pensions, old age security pensions, guaranteed income supplement pensions, pensions of veterans on disability payment, and so on, up to the full extent of the rise in the consumer price index.
I know that I have indulged in this bit of memory and reflection a number of times, and I make no apology for doing so because I think that the Parliament of Canada has been at its best when it has done these things to make life better for our older people. By mentioning those other pension plans to which I have referred, I emphasize that my concern-and I hope the concern of all members of this House-is not just for public servants but for all the people of Canada. Our job is not to backtrack on this program but to go ahead with it. I thoroughly dislike, and I decry, as the two previous speakers have, the campaigns of those who try to turn back the clock in so far as the indexing of pensions is concerned.
I take my stand along with the two persons I already named, my friend, the late Bill Anderson of North American life, and Sydney Jackson of Manufacturers Life, who realized the social responsibility of private industry and of the private insurance business to move into this field. That is what we should be doing, not having to cope with a campaign against the indexation of pensions, but moving in two directions; first to see to it that indexing applies to all pensions, public and private, and, second, to see to it that this indexing is made more in line with the rise in the standard of living and the rise in gross national product.
I will be happy to say more on this matter on Monday, or whenever we come back to Bill C-12. In the meantime, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, tonight's debate arises from a question I put to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) two months ago. At that time I asked the Deputy Prime Minister what minister in his cabinet was going to put in place-like today-a new plan to arrest the current account deficit in this nation. The question was necessary because of the unsatisfactory answers received the day before from the super economic minister, sometimes known as the President of the Board of Economic Develop-

ment Ministers (Mr. Andras). That minister has simply said that the current account deficit was a problem of medium and long term and would have to be solved in that context. That is not good enough.
Unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister reiterated at that time that the problems were medium and long term, but gave no indication as to how to solve them. He did refer to the travel account deficit as being part of the problem and said that that problem was one which would have to be solved in a medium term sense.
The travel account deficit amounted to $1.8 billion last year compared with $29 million in 1968. Imagine, within ten years we shifted from a rather nominal deficit on the tourist account of $29 million to $1.8 billion last year, yet all the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers have to say is that that is a medium or long-term problem.
The fact is that the travel deficit alone represents 40 per cent of the current account deficit this year. Expressed another way, in the past four years the deficit on the travel account has represented $5.3 billion. Many authorities feel that that deficit may continue to increase. If we are looking for reasons why our diving dollar continues to dive lower and lower, we need look no further than the current account deficit of some $4.5 billion which we ran up last year.
Sometimes I feel that the government is unaware of the magnitude of what we are talking about. Let us look, for example, at what the Financial Post says in the current issue. It says that a foreign investment study in Florida has revealed that Canadians are the largest single group of foreign investors in that state. The study listed 45 Canadian controlled firms in land development in Florida and another 17 in which Canadians are partners. The reason I link the tourist deficit with the capital investment which is taking place in Florida is not just that the people are going down to sunny Florida as tourists; they are taking their money with them. They are investing Canadian dollars in that state in amounts which are estimated at $450 million at the present time, and it is anticipated that in the coming 15 years that amount will exceed $1.3 billion, yet here we have the Deputy Prime Minister and the superior economic minister opposite saying that this is a long-term or medium-term problem and, in effect, "Why bother with them?"
The magnitude of the travel account deficit, the interest and dividend deficit, and the resulting current account deficit, is that in the last five years we have actually had a total current account deficit of $18 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) sometimes glibly says that we have always had that deficit. That is a straight misrepresentation. In the previous five years, the first five years if you like of this emperor's reign, there was a surplus. The surplus was something over $300 million per year, and yet here we have a government faced with a deficit of a current account nature for the last five years aggregating $18 billion and it has the audacity to tell us somehow that is a medium or long-term problem that it is not prepared to address at the present time.
February 8, 1979

Let me touch once more on that important question of the net direct investment outside this country. In the first six months of 1978, for example, we find that that net direct investment amounted to $725 million. That was in just six months. In other words, on average per month the net amount of money flowing out as opposed to coming into Canada was $100 million a month. That compares to net direct investment in Canada in 1968 of $365 million. In short, it is not just a coincidence-


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


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on December 8. Let me begin by pointing out that historically Canada's balance of international payments has been characterized by a significant deficit on current account and a surplus on capital transactions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is just not true, and you know it.


Alan Gray Martin: Current account deficits for Canada are neither new, in fact they are the rule, not the exception, nor are they in themselves a bad thing. In order to finance high levels of capital formation and enhance economic growth, Canada has traditionally supplemented its domestic savings by recourse to foreign capital markets. Deficits on current account are the necessary counterpart of this.
Nevertheless, under present circumstances the government would view a reduction in Canada's current account deficit as a favourable development. We are optimistic that this will occur in the future. The deficit in the third quarter was influenced by some rather disappointing figures for Canada's international balance on merchandise trade in July and August. There are grounds for believing, however, that the merchandise trade figures for the summer months are not indicative of a trend. Taking a longer perspective, since the first quarter of 1976, we have experienced a substantial improvement in our merchandise trade account and we expect further gains. Our competitive position in international markets, which earlier had been a cause for concern, is much improved and this should exert a positive influence on our current account balance over the coming quarters.
In our view, as has been mentioned on many occasions, attempting to affect the pattern of Canada's international payments by artificial devices would be counterproductive and would be treating the symptoms rather than the causes of a problem. Effective adjustment in the balance of payments is best promoted by following sound macro-economic policies, not by taking ad hoc measures in reaction to erratic movements in reported data for a particular quarter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You say $18 billion is erratic?
Adjournment Debate


Alan Gray Martin: By concentrating on the fundamental economic problems of the country, by maintaining control over the money supply, by slowing the rate of growth of government expenditures, and by promoting structural adjustments where needed we believe that we have laid the foundations for an improvement in our economic performance which will be reflected in a balance of payments structure appropriate to our situation.
Turning to the claim that the current account deficit is the reason behind the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, surely this is an incomplete analysis. It completely ignores the role of capital account transactions, which, in Canada's case are of fundamental importance. I should point out, as well, that an examination of the historical record reveals that, on occasion, Canada has experienced simultaneously a current account deficit and a rising exchange rate.
Finally, with reference to the question on the expenditure of international reserves intervention in the foreign exchange market has been carried out with a view to maintaining orderly market conditions rather than defending any particular level for the exchange rate. During a period of adjustment in the balance of payments, intervention may be sizeable compared to a more tranquil period.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Questions of privilege cannot be raised during the late show.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He has misled the House, Mr. Speaker, shamefully.


AIR TRANSPORT-USE OF EMERGENCY LOCATOR TRANSMITTERS IN AIRCRAFT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak with regard to a question I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on Monday, February 5. I say at the start that the minister is guilty of a complete lack of concern for the safety of the flying public. He is arrogantly stupid. He is unwilling to act to safeguard the flying public. He is guilty of wilful and wanton misconduct in carrying out the duties of his office, and guilty of a cover-up that endangers the flying public. He is kamikaze minister. The difficulty is that he is not careless about his own life and safety, just the life and safety of everyone else who flies.
I will give the reasons why I say that. In 1975 the Department of Transport ordered private pilots to instal approved emergency locator transmitters on their aircraft. They had to have that completed by July 1, 1977. These ELTs or black boxes switch on automatically when a plane crashes. They then beam a powerful signal for up to 50 hours which enables

February 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
rescuers in other aircraft to search and find them, even if they are completely hidden by trees, snow or whatever.
In October, 1977, the department ordered the complete removal of ELTs or ELT batteries from all aircraft. The reason was they had discovered that in two aircraft on the ground the lithium batteries which were used to power the ELTs had exploded, and that they might explode during flight. This, apparently, was due to a corrosion problem. If they corroded, they might explode.
That meant all aircraft, including the Churchill Falls jet, had to remove their ELTs. On December 9, 1977, when landing at Churchill Falls, the aircraft crashed about two miles short of the runway. There were two pilots and six passengers. It turned out subsequently that six of them died in the crash. The two who survived the crash died as a result to exposure to the cold.
The aircraft did not have an ELT. Two helicopters took off from Churchill Falls immediately. Because there was no ELT in the downed aircraft, and because it was snowing that evening, they could not find the aircraft. The aircraft was not found for two days. It was not discovered until December 11. The two survivors had frozen to death because they had not been discovered right away.
That was a bad mistake DOT made in ordering ELTs out of the aircraft, making a mandatory order that this be done. The Canadian Owners and Pilots Association says the department should have consulted with the industry and aircraft pilots and owners to find a quick solution to the problem. What they should have done was warned pilots and aircraft owners to check these lithium batteries and continually monitor them. It would be safer to have these ELTs on board, taking the small risk of the lithium battery exploding, something that would not happen if there was a constant check for corrosion.
In February, 1978, DOT changed its requirement and said that on a voluntary basis pilots could reinstate the ELT with a dry cell battery until a lithium battery was perfected. It is now a voluntary matter. That decision could have been made in October, 1977. If it had been on a voluntary basis on October, 1977, the CFL Co. aircraft would still have had the ELT and these two people probably would not have died due to exposure. Instead, it gave the order that they be all removed.
On Monday the minister confirmed to me that this is still voluntary. A year and some months later after this crash, aircraft are still not required to have ELTs on board, even the American type. All aircraft in the United States must have an ELT, but not here in Canada.
There was a magisterial inquiry into this crash which started in November in St. John's. Mr. H. Glynn-Reid of Moncton, chairman of the MOT operations group for air aviation safety, testified that the two who lived through the crash might have been found alive if the plane had been equipped with an ELT which would have given out automatic signals to aircraft. Another witness from MOT, Mr. W. R. Bowie, chairman of the flight recorder group, explained why the ELTs had been

removed. There were two cases where batteries exploded, though both aircraft were on the ground at the time.
I brought this matter up in the House. I was the first to reveal it publicly on August 23, and I have been campaigning about it ever since. The minister's department changed the report of the Accident Investigation Bureau, changed the report of the Safety Bureau and the Independent Review Board, changed the wording-something which I will not go into tonight-so that the report no longer clearly blamed the department for ordering those ELTs off the aircraft and so the minister, on November 6, had to tell the House that he had made it clear to officials that they could no longer change reports coming to them from the Safety Bureau or the Independent Accident Review Board. The minister has gone that far.
Then, further in the magisterial inquiry, giving evidence several days ago, Captain Powick, in charge of air search and rescue at Halifax, said he could not think of one dangerous incident involving ELTs in military aircraft. He said, further:
It is costing the taxpayer millions of dollars to search for aircraft which do not have ELT's on board. From my personal point of view I can see no reason not to have ELT's aboard the aircraft... sufficient time has elapsed to have found a suitable replacement (for the lithium battery).
All this illustrates the minister's complete disregard for the safety of the flying public. He shows no sense of urgency. More than a year after these incidents occurred they still have not found a battery. The reason the minister gives is that lithium batteries are not good in very cold weather. The weather in Canada is not always cold. If these batteries are good enough for the United States they are good enough for us, now.
The minister told us in this House on Monday that he could be "very assuring in terms of the performance of our airlines, our pilots and everyone operating the air travel system so Canadians need not be concerned." He said they need not be concerned about safety in the air, that Canadian safety levels are very high. Yet today there is a report in his department which says that air safety regulations are unco-ordinated and haphazard, that there is widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of the rules. A devastating indictment is contained in the report of his own department. Notwithstanding this, the minister comes to the House and makes misleading and false statements. I contend that he should resign immediately. As soon as that CFL Co. aircraft went down and it was discovered that there were two survivors who later died from exposure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have equal time so that I can reply to the hon. member more fully. However, it will be noted that in the preliminary part of his presentation the hon. member discredited himself by the remarks he made with regard to the
February 8, 1979

minister and the ministry. We see this all too often. Perhaps I may, through you, Mr. Speaker, make a friendly suggestion to the hon. member. If he would drop that approach he might enjoy more credibility when dealing with such a serious matter.


John Carnell Crosbie: Answer the point!


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member fails to mention that Canada enjoys the best reputation in the world for demanding the highest safety standards in the air in terms of any operation conducted in this country. I think this should be mentioned.


John Carnell Crosbie: Tripe!


Maurice James Harquail: To respond to the hon. member's question, the airworthiness directive requiring the removal of all ELTs powered by lithium batteries is still in force. As the status report on this subject shows, replacement battery packs (with no lithium batteries) are now available for approximately 90 per cent of the current emergency locator transmitter systems in operation. Once all battery packs can be replaced, the original air navigation order calling for installation (where applicable) of a functioning ELT in aircraft will be back in force.
I am sure the hon. member is very much aware of the need for removing lithium batteries from aircraft. There are documented cases indicating the danger of using this type of battery for ELTs, although fortunately, there were no casualties in any of the reported cases. It was decided that lithium batteries used in ELTs presented an unacceptable high risk for use in civil aircraft. Therefore, an airworthiness directive was issued ordering their immediate removal.
In view of the serious situation arising from the removal of ELTs, and cognizant of the safety factors that guide our ELT policy, it has been the objective of the Canadian Air Transportation Administration to restore ELTs to service as quickly as possible.
There is evidence now that no alternate lithium based call would be available or proven safe for civil aircraft application in the immediate future. Consequently, the seven manufacturers of ELTs, who hold Canadian type approval, were formally asked to submit a proposal for a program to retrofit their manufactured ELTs with a substitute non-lithium battery. Five of these companies have received approval for a battery retrofit program. They represent about 90 per cent of the ELT population. There is the potential that the majority of ELTs will be returned to service over the period extending into later this year.
Returning ELTs to service represents an interim phase in upgrading their effectiveness. But it should be pointed out that the ELT system will be deficient in at least two areas during this interim period. The modified ELT with a non-lithium battery will not meet the operating requirements of minus 40 degrees centigrade for 100 hours. The ELTs prior to their
Adjournment Debate
removal from the civil aircraft fleet were experiencing numerous technical problems other than those involving their batteries. These deficiencies will continue to affect over-all ELT proficiency.
Operational efficiency of ELTs is a North American problem which has precipitated intense activity in the industry. Lead times required for research and development, regulatory change and implementation, mean that it will be some time before the desired high performance of the ELT system can be realized.


LOTTERIES-PROMOTION OF LOTO SELECT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, during the question period on December 21, 1978, I asked two questions of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo), in her capacity as minister of lotteries. As reported on pages 2344 and 2345 of Hansard I asked about the purchase and disbursement by Loto Canada of some $17,000 worth of foil-wrapped chocolate candies. I also asked why and at what cost an American author has been commissioned to write a book about Canadian lottery winners. Why an American author?
1 expect the parliamentary secretary will give full answers to these questions this evening. However, it was the closing assertion of the hon. lady which provoked me to call for this debate. She said:
Canadian lottery winners are extremely intelligent in their investment in Loto Canada because they are able to maintain most of their dollars in their bank accounts.
I am afraid I do not understand the minister's reference to "intelligent investment", but I certainly have to question the intelligence of the decision makers at Loto Canada. How did they ever blunder into this foolish and ill-fated Loto Select fiasco? The losses due to unfulfilled contracts could run as high as $37 million. Indeed, one has to question the competence of the minister in view of her scandalous mismanagement of this multimillion dollar adventure into the world of organized gambling.
Why was Loto Select terminal equipment for the "dollar a shot" lottery ordered in such great haste last June? Why was a $23 million contract placed for 2,000 slot machines from General Instrument Company of the United States? Why were tenders not called, recognizing that there were at least ten Canadian companies fully capable of supplying such equipment? Why, when this hypocritical government was spending tens of thousands of advertising dollars urging us to "buy Canadian", did it go to the United States? Why did the cabinet not seek the concurrence of the provinces and of parliament before embarking on this foolish project? Why has the minister consistently refused to explain this remarkable circumstance to the House of Commons?
In addition to the millions wasted on the leased lottery equipment, other millions were spent to renovate, furnish and equip two major data processing centres, one in Vancouver and the other in Montreal. I have visited the Vancouver facility,
3056

February 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
which occupies an entire floor of the Bordiguon building, about 10,000 square feet. The renovation cost was over $300,-
000.	Telephone trunk lines were brought in from all major cities in western Canada, costing about $1 million. A five year lease for the premises, at $9,000 per month, cannot be broken until next August, when a penalty of six months' rent amounting to $54,000 will have to be paid. Today, the Vancouver facility sits vacant except for more than $200,000 worth of furnishings now being sold off.
Over 50 employees were hired. They worked at Loto Select for only a few weeks. Each is receiving a severance allowance of about $10,000. At least one employee is back at his previous job, having picked up $10,000 in compensation without ever reporting for work with Loto Select.
The hon. minister regularly insists that Loto Canada plays a major role in supporting amateur sport in Canada. But what has Loto Canada really provided to the benefit of amateur sport? In 1977 the lottery took in $225 million, of which only $3.7 million or 1.6 per cent went directly to promote fitness and amateur sport. That is about 17 cents per capita. Of the balance, $25 million went to advertising and promotion, with the remainder going to wholesalers' commissions, prize money, and the Olympic debt.
It is high time for us to undertake a reassessment of the role and impact of Loto Canada. Does gambling organized by the state represent a veiled form of taxation which appeals most to those who can least afford to "play the games"? Those lower income Canadians who are more inclined to take a chance on the "big jack pot" are often those who impose the greatest burden on our social welfare systems. Personally I believe the federal government's involvement in lotteries is unnecessary, improper, and serves only to create a distorted sense of values, especially among our young people. Also it diverts the talents and energies of government ministers, such as the hon. lady, from the many really important problems which should be attended to in Canada today. I am pleased to see that at least two members on the government benches share my view, as expressed in the motion under Standing Order 43 moved last Friday by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) and seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni).


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on December 21, 1978, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) raised from what he considered to be reliable sources the innuendo that chocolates have been absorbed by the staff. Also in his supplementary question on the same date he alleged that an American college professor was engaged to write a promotional book.
The reliable sources of the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta have proven neither reliable nor accurate. Perhaps he would like to tell us the source. Contrary to the member's allegation, the gold foil wrapped chocolate coins had nothing whatsoever to do with Loto Select. It was a marketing promotion only. It was part of the regular Loto Canada $10 draw which had a prize of $1 million in gold.
The charge that Loto Canada absorbed huge quantities of the chocolate coins is probably sour grapes. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta is just complaining because this promotion scheme ended just before the cross-Canada gold bar tour reached British Columbia and the area which he represents. As far as costs of this promotion measure are concerned, the Crown corporation paid $11,000 out of an original $17,000 estimated cost for the project. Thus, the member's allegations are totally without accuracy. This is not the type of preparation we expect for questions by members of parliament.
With regard to the hon. member's supplementary question, yes, an American college professor was hired to write a survey report-not a book-on Canadian lottery millionaires. As a matter of fact, Mr. H. Roy Kaplan was chosen by the other three members of the survey team, who are also Canadians, because of his expertise in the field. Other members of the survey team were Daniel Koenig, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Victoria, Dr. Victor Tremblay of the University of Montreal, and Ms. Marjolaine Martin, a sociologist also from the University of Montreal.
Of course the hon. member has raised many, many more questions this evening which were not part of his original question and supplementary one. I suggest perhaps he will wish to have another late show question at a later date.


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 10.29 p.m.

Friday, February 9, 1979