1979-03-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to Canada and the Commonwealth.
In light of the fact that today, March 12, has been declared Commonwealth Day, in view of the importance of the Commonwealth as a cornerstone in Canada's external policy, and because of the important role the Commonwealth can and ought to play in world affairs, not to mention the importance of the heads of government meeting to be held in Lusaka next August, I move, seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That this House confirm Canada's deep attachment to the Commonwealth and its determination to take all steps that will strengthen the ties between the countries of this unique international organization.


Mr. Speaker:: Although I will not put the question, I hope the hon. member will be satisfied that I will be making a statement just before question period that we are holding a reception in the building to mark the occasion. I hope that will do the job adequately.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the announcement of contract awards made last week by the Department of Supply and Services disclosed that a $292,440 award to Decision Dynamics for an evaluation study of gun control legislation was charged to the budget of the science department and not to the Solicitor General's Department, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this House disapprove of badly needed science dollars being allocated for an expenditure clearly within the Solicitor General's jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be put forward, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that because of government restraint and high inflation in this country the voluntary, non-profit sector is undergoing great difficulty in order to survive, and in view of the fact that the agencies and organizations in this sector have grown tremendously in the last few years and are performing many functions which would have to be done otherwise by some level of government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Government of Canada initiate greater and special measures to protect this vital and necessary sector in our Canadian society.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the government is dedicated to programs of restraint, so-called; whereas the mandate of the postal department is to provide postal services for all Canadians; whereas many areas of Canada are in need of door-to-door delivery

March 12, 1979
service; whereas restraint only means the cutting out of excess, not necessities; and whereas all Canadians pay taxes and postal rates on the same basis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher):
That the postal department implement immediately and forthwith door-to-door delivery service for Canadians in all urban and surburban areas of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of such a motion for debate at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Owing to the rash of reports of problems being encountered by veterans seeking admission to former veterans' hospitals, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the government declare forthwith a moratorium on the transfer of veterans' hospitals to provincial jurisdiction until the consequences arising from previous transfers have been reviewed.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time, in accordance with Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In consideration of the book released by the Chief Electoral Officer, entitled "Guide to Electoral Districts", being an index of cities, towns and villages in Canada showing the federal ridings in which each one is located, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations, Manitoba's custodian in cabinet, make immediate inquiries as to the omission of 274 towns and villages in Manitoba and instruct the Chief Electoral Officer to revise this book to include at least some of the larger towns that have been omitted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
In view of the recent success of the series of mini forums and public forums held in western Newfoundland as part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's endeavours to consult and involve the general public in developing programming for the CBC, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That this House congratulate the CBC and in particular its employees in western Newfoundland for its recent efforts to provide a forum for consultation with the public and, further, that this House urge the government to give its full support to the concept of public forums and provide the necessary funds so that this process of consultation can be extended to every region of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 43, such a motion can be introduced at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Since the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance has been closed since February, 1976 with a loss of some 500 jobs, and remains closed despite statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in October of 1976 that the refinery would be operating the following year and on September 15, 1977, that he had meetings with three reputable companies to discuss the possible takeover of the refinery, and that there were a number of options open to the government, including discussions with the United States for supplies of oil products to the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
March 12, 1979

That the Government of Canada cease its policy of indifference to the reopening of the refinery and give high priority to negotiations with the U.S. so that refined products can be sold to the eastern U.S. by eastern Canadian refineries, and that the government make available to the First Arabian Corporation, or whoever makes a successful bid to take over and operate the refinery, the government wharf at Come-By-Chance on nominal rental terms to encourage the reopening of the refinery, and guarantee no interference with export contracts of the refinery for a period long enough to ensure financing of the repairs and reopening of the refinery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Because of cost factors, east coast shipyards cannot compete with foreign shipbuilders in tendering for fishing trawler contracts for Canadian companies. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall):
That the Minister of Finance be directed to consider accelerated tax write-offs or deferrals for Canadian taxpayers who construct fishing vessels in domestic shipyards so that Canadian shipbuilders can compete internationally.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMONWEALTH DAY
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning question period, may I invite hon. members to join with me in calling attention to the fact that today has been designated Commonwealth Day. This is an annual event which hon. members will know owes its origin to a Canadian proposal, made during the 1975 Heads of Government Meeting, that the second Monday in March should be so designated in order to underline in Canada and in all other Commonwealth countries the importance that we attach to this unique association of 40 countries of great diversity in terms of size, race, colour, creed and culture, and at all stages of economic development.
Oral Questions
Across Canada, special programs have been planned today, especially in schools and public libraries, to mark this special occasion. Yesterday, special interfaith services were held in various centres across this country to mark Commonwealth Day in Canada. Hon. members will have observed the display of flags of all the Commonwealth nations in Confederation Square. This evening, all members of this House are guests at a special reception hosted by the Commonwealth High Commissioners, in co-operation with the Speakers of both Houses, in the Confederation Room in the West Block to mark this very important occasion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister is quoted as having said a month ago, "I hope we can announce certain new measures shortly"-to counter rising food prices. Since that time we have had the announcement of the National Commission on Inflation, and nothing else.
Could the minister tell the House, now, since he promised a month ago that he would be introducing these measures shortly, what these measures are and why they have not been introduced?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Leader of the Opposition is correct; we did announce the establishment of the National Commission on Inflation. I also announced we were bringing back a new, revised competition bill to replace Bill C-13 which was tabled during the last session. Further, I believe the Minister of Agriculture and some of the people responsible for marketing boards did announce increased production quotas for 1979, and the government increased beef quotas by seven million pounds.


Charles Joseph Clark: Outside the House, the minister was quoted as saying he was planning a three-pronged attack on prices. As part of that three-pronged attack he indicated the government would come up with measures to deal with supply shortages and bottlenecks. What specific proposals does the government intend to make to deal with supply shortages and bottlenecks?


William Warren Allmand: These measures will be announced by the responsible ministers in due course. The supply situation is continually under review, as I mentioned in my first answer to the Leader of the Opposition. Some production quotas have already been increased for 1979 as against 1978, but the
800S0-41

March 12, 1979
Oral Questions
ministers responsible for the different food producing sectors will be reviewing these things and making announcements when appropriate. I understand there will be further announcements in this respect during the coming week.


Charles Joseph Clark: For five years now, ever since the Speech from the Throne which opened this over-long parliament, the minister and the government have been proposing a national food strategy. A month ago, the minister said he would be proposing certain specific measures. Now he says there may be various proposals coming from other ministers at some date in the future.
Would he tell the House on what date we can expect a detailed announcement of a national food strategy which would bring relief to Canadian consumers faced with ever-increasing food prices?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the national food strategy was never intended to culminate in an announcement at one time. It was a process whereby the many departments in the federal government concerned with food, and in the provincial governments, would get together and work out policies which would be announced from time to time. One example was the recently announced revision of the regulations governing the National Farm Products Marketing Council and the appointment of a new chairman who had experience both in farming and in the consumer movement.


PRODUCTION INCENTIVES FOR FISHERMEN AND FARMERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister surely knows this is a subject which concerns all Canadians-the rise in prices and the failure of the government to do anything about them.
One of the things the minister said outside the House in the course of his cruel, ongoing deception of the Canadian consumer was that the government proposed to bring in measures to provide new incentives to fishermen and farmers to increase production. Will the minister tell us precisely what new production incentives he is talking about?


William Warren Allmand: I have already answered that question. I said there were policies announced from time to time dealing with the supply of food. I stated clearly that the major problem with respect to food prices is, in a sense, beyond the control of the government inasmuch as we must buy a good deal of our food in the winter time from abroad. Consequently, to a certain extent we are stuck with the difference in the value of our dollar as compared to the value of foreign currencies.
The other major cause of increased food prices has to do with the beef cycle; because beef prices were very low a few years ago, we are now faced with short supplies and higher prices. In the long run, we hope to work with the producers to make sure we get more stable production and better prices for both consumers and producers.


James Aloysius McGrath: This kind of ongoing gobbledegook on the part of the minister is doing nothing to relieve the minds of the people.
Let me ask him this. He has placed great emphasis on phase two of the competition bill which has been dragged out in front of parliament every time an election scare is on. The Prime Minister has said that this parliament will not have time to deal with it. In view of the fact that the new National Commission on Inflation has not been given any guidelines by the government, and in view of the fact that phase two of the competition policy cannot be brought in until the next parliament, what steps does the minister intend to take when he is faced with evidence of price gouging or profiteering which reflects badly on the producers of this country and which, in fact, is causing great concern in the marketplace in the absence of guidelines? Does the minister have any guidelines? What, in his estimation, is profiteering and price gouging?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that the reform of competition laws would be a short-term solution to the high prices we are experiencing now, but I did say in my remarks in the House that in the long run the guarantee of fair prices in the marketplace would be an open and competitive marketplace.
With respect to the comments of the hon. member, he and his party last week had an opportunity to put forward their proposals with respect to food prices when the New Democratic Party put its motion before the House. The official opposition had nothing to suggest but that we call an election. I think the hon. member's response to high food prices is to bluster and to make a lot of noise.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the people of this country would certainly welcome an election so that they could get rid of this tired, worn-out government. If the minister wants proof of that, all he has to do is go to any supermarket check-out counter on any Saturday afternoon and he will get the message loud and clear. This do-nothing minister has assumed responsibility outside this House, but then tries to shrug it off inside.
When can we expect some action from this government, which promised action when it opened this parliament in 1974 when it promised incentives and an adequate return to producers and fair prices to consumers? We had a strategy on food prices last February. When are we going to get some action from this government?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not understand very well, but I said that in the short-run, especially with imported fruits and vegetables, nothing can be done. Nothing much can be done in the short-term with respect to those other than to have a good information program which would help Canadians understand that there are many good, nutritional alternatives available which are much cheaper.
Our department led the way in encouraging the introduction of no-name generic foods which are a good price saving with
March 12, 1979

respect to many foods, and also the development of no-frills stores which are also a very innovative development which will help bring down food prices. There are many other things and I would be glad to discuss them with the hon. member.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that there are also nutritional alternatives to this government.
My question also deals with the problem of prices, but it is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It deals with the price of medical care in Ontario. It arises from certain questions which my leader asked the Prime Minister, in the absence of the minister, on Friday.
The minister knows that both the Medical Care Act and the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act of Canada provide certain clear criteria for federal contributions to provincial medical care programs. We know that Canadians must have equal access to medical care and that no charges can impede this access either directly or indirectly. In view of the number of doctors who are leaving the plan to charge higher fees, will the minister agree to meet immediately with those responsible for the medicare plan in Ontario to see that it meets these requirements of federal law?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, over the last six months or so we have observed different signs that the medical care plan may be eroding. It is surely very fragile right now. I am not referring only to Ontario. I am also thinking of talk of deterrent fees. Other provinces have been testing public opinion in that regard. Of course, we are witnessing the opting out of physicians in Ontario. In Ontario, 17.9 per cent of the physicians have opted out of the medical care program. I have instructed my department to develop guidelines, through consultations with provinces and to make the results of these discussions public, with a view to defining where barriers have developed which prevent access to medicare for Canadians.
I also want to say that on the agenda of last week's meeting of March 6 and 7 of all the deputy ministers of health in Canada, this question was thoroughly studied. I want to reassure everybody that, of course, the federal government will not see eroded the benefits which Canadians derive and enjoy under the national medicare program.


Bob Rae: My supplementary question to the minister is this. In Ontario, the number of doctors leaving the plan has increased by at least 40 per cent. As the minister has just said, this departure of doctors from OHIP not only takes the gut out of medical care but also represents an inflationary attack on
Oral Questions
patients because patients are now paying $600 or $700 for operations and only getting about $400 or $450 from OHIP.
My question to the minister is this: What do these surcharges do to the principle of fairness and to free access to medical care for all Canadians, and what will she do about it apart from simply carrying on investigations and consultations with the provinces?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline that the situation is serious. So far as I know, it is one of the most serious situations for social security in all of Canada. For instance, Alberta, so far as I know, did not have an opting out provision and extra billing but has now permitted it. That is very dangerous in terms of eventually breaching the universality and accessibility of medicare for all Canadians. The hon. member might think this is a very easy question to solve, but Ontario does not have information to describe what that extra billing represents on which only partial information exists up to now.
As I have said-perhaps I did not put it clearly enough-I have instructed my department not to wait for the provinces to give us that data. Instead, we should seek out all information we need directly to decide whether, yes or no, it is time to withhold payments and eventually give notices to provinces.


Bob Rae: If we in this party appear skeptical as to how seriously the government is taking this problem, it is because it was only when it was raised by my leader that the government responded at all or even said it was a problem in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Wake up.


Bob Rae: In view of the information which the minister has given us, which we can supplement, that nearly 50 per cent of doctors in Hamilton and over 50 per cent of doctors in Peterborough and Orillia have dropped out of the plan, will the minister undertake to give to the House detailed information, not only as to the level of medical service but also as to what the cost of medical service is and how much it is going up as a result of the surcharges which the doctors are now charging in Ontario?


Monique Bégin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I am willing to give information, but the hon. gentleman has just asked a very vague and general question. He is obviously brand new to the topic, because months ago we discussed that very problem in the House. If we had a description of the situation of all the provinces on the agenda of the meeting a week ago, I would not wait for the leader of that hon. gentleman to wake up and speak of medicare.

March 12, 1979
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the deficit relating to goods and services reached a record level of $8.73 billion in 1978 and economists are generally predicting a deficit of over $9 billion in 1979, I want to ask the following question: As Canada's prosperity depends on our capacity to produce new technologies to improve the competitiveness of our industry, but since, as the deficit relating to goods and services indicates, we are losing ground in this area would the minister explain what he intends to do to correct that situation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we expect an improvement in the situation with time because as the hon. member may realize, the trade surplus increased considerably from $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion last year. For the month of January of this year alone, we had an increase of $100 million. We are also hoping the tourist deficit we have been experiencing for the last several years is going to improve. The growth of these deficits was arrested in the last part of the year and the more competitive Canadian dollar gives us reason to hope that the deficit will start to come down in that area in 1979. So I believe the situation will improve in coming years. We are confident our new competitive position on world markets is going to help us considerably with our trade surplus, and at this time the high level of our balance of payments is not alarming when related to gross national income. The proportions are generally the same as in past years.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister because he is always optimistic when he talks about the deficit but at the end of the year we note that his forecasts are always proven wrong. That is regrettable. While there is general agreement to identify the deficit for goods and services with a poor technological performance why is the government constantly reducing its support for research and development as that sector could probably restore, at least in part, a positive balance with respect to goods and services?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the last two budgets that I gave in this House considerably increased tax incentives for research and development and that my colleague, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, is now conducting a study with all departments to increase the efficiency of the services provided by the Canadian government to industries and universities for scientific research. I know that in the last few years the government has made considerable efforts to promote research and development in the Canadian economy.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is once again unfounded optimism since the OECD clearly shows that Canada has one of the lowest rates of participation in research and development among its member countries, with a fantastic yearly contribution of 1 per cent of its gross national product.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have just given explanations about the previous budgets. 1 imagine that the OECD studies mentioned by the hon. member were made before these new initiatives were taken by the federal government. We want research and development to be carried out in private industry and this is why we increased tax incentives to help achieve this goal.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by a member of the New Democratic Party concerning the medicare scheme.
I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she is aware of the fact the average income of a doctor in Canada is substantially less than that in the United States, and whether the minister has been able to determine if this has been a factor in 800 well established Canadian graduate physicians having left this country for the United States in the past year?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is of the profession, he may be naturally asked by his friends to be a lobbyist in the House in favour of higher fees for medical doctors.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame.


Monique Bégin: Of course, the wage structure of the United States is much higher than that of Canada for all classes of occupation.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: As far as I remember, medical doctors in Canada are still at the top of the list of average wages in the annual publication of Revenue Canada. This matter has nothing to do with the House and should be asked in the proper legislature. I would very much like to know what the hon. member has to tell the House about what just happened in Alberta concerning the manner in which fees were settled.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the inflation rate last year in Canada was somewhere in the range of 9 per cent or 10 per cent, and that the increase per visit for the family doctor was from $7.20 to $7.35, for a grand total of 15
March 12, 1979

cents, can the minister indicate whether she thinks this is an outrageous increase and it is fair for the medical profession?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can repeat only that it is not for this federal Elouse to pass a judgment on provincial settlements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: However, I should like the hon. member to explain why Alberta has not permitted physicians to opt out, and why extra billings have risen so much recently that the public is complaining and that the commission issued 10,000 questionnaires to look into what is happening?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my initial question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises from the new publication of the Conference Board in Canada entitled "Industrial Relations 1979 Outlook and Issues". This publication came out of a round-table discussion where seven experts passed on our industrial future during this year. At page 2 of the release, referring to the anti-inflation program of the government, it reads:
The program was not effective in controlling prices, but was clearly effective in reducing wage settlements. The experience of declining real income for over a year cannot be expected to induce moderate demands at the bargaining table.
Would the Minister of Finance indicate if he agrees that real incomes on the part of wage earners in Canada fell during 1978?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures in front of me, but it could be that it was the situation in 1978. If we take the longer view than that, we will realize the net increase in take-home pay by Canadian workers over the last three or four years is above the growth of the gross national product in Canada, and much more than the take-home pay of their colleagues living south of the border.
It is extremely important for the Canadian economy, in order to maintain the competitive position of Canadian businesses and goods, if in 1979 everyone decides to be reasonable and collaborate with the federal and provincial governments to maintain a competitive cost in Canada so that we can take full advantage of the new competitive position of the Canadian industrial sector.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who indicated that there was a real income drop for wage earners in Canada last year.
As the Conference Board in Canada indicated that the wage settlements in 1979 will have to be in the 8 per cent to 9 per cent range if real incomes are not to continue to be eroded,
Oral Questions
would the minister indicate if he sticks by the guidelines he brought out in February, 1978, dealing with Canada's economic middle-term projections and targets? At that time the minister indicated that average wage settlements in Canada should be 7 per cent, based on prices rising only 5 per cent.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not issued any guidelines this year. We have said that everyone must show restraint, and in negotiations with our own employees we attempted to achieve a good level of settlement, but we want to make sure we are not leading the country into a new period of inflation. That is why I am pleased to report that the public sector, both federal and provincial, by the end of 1978 was two points below the private sector. This is a good change from the situation in 1974-1975, when the public sector was the leader.
Everyone must show restraint. Sometimes circumstances can warrant lower than the federal level, or higher, but I think everyone should keep in mind that we must maintain the competitive position of Canadians in world markets.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. So that we may get a better handle as to where the minister and his government see the Canadian economy evolving, I should like to direct the minister's attention to page 62 of his economic projections in February 1978, at which time he indicated that the share of the gross national product going to wages and salaries would fall during the 1978 to 1981 period, while profits would rise from their 1977 level during that same period.
Will the minister confirm whether it is still the government's position that the wage share of the GNP should fall somewhat, while profits should go up?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think, Mr. Speaker, that in the last four or five years the share of profits in relation to the total Canadian economy has fallen very substantially. I hope that with more profits, those profits will be used for reinvestment so we will improve the capacity of production in Canada, creating more jobs for the workers who are looking for employment.
I do think there is a realization that we need some profits for reinvestment in Canada. For example, a group of workers in my province has settled quite reasonably because they want the pulp and paper industry to reinvest in more modernization and productivity so it will maintain its competitive position. I would like to congratulate that union for taking that responsible stand.

March 12, 1979
Oral Questions


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The house insulation program has been very successful in the Gaspe area. I have received representations asking that this program progressively be made applicable to houses built before 1970. Can the hon. minister tell the House if he expects to make any changes to the house insulation program to increase the amount of grants and change the criteria so that tenants or owners of houses built before 1970 can benefit from this program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that these two excellent suggestions are now being studied by my department in co-operation with the department of my colleague responsible for energy, mines and resources. A decision in this matter should be made within a few weeks.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, who spoke in Alberta Saturday night to a vanishing breed-Alberta Liberals. He said at that time, and 1 want to ask him about this:
We wail about our weak economy, we talk about too much government and inflation and unemployment.
The minister said that the reason for all of this is that "Canadians are suffering from crabbiness" and that we do not have a positive outlook on a healthy economy. Is it the minister's position that our economy is in the shape it is, with high unemployment, 9 per cent inflation and a 21 per cent increase in food prices, with a decline in the value of the Canadian dollar-that all of these things are caused by Canadians' crabbiness and that the government has nothing at all to do with it? It is just that we Canadians are too crabby; is that his theme?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off on the wrong wicket. I was not in Alberta on Saturday; I spoke to a very enthusiastic group of Liberals in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: John, you are still confused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that some Canadians are crabby-and I see a lot of them across the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: But many other groups in Canada do not accept the doom and gloom philosophy that is preached by some members across the floor, because they recognize the underlying strengths of this country. 1 pointed out that a lot of businessmen are putting their money where their mouths are and reinvesting, as the Minister of Finance just indicated.
I pointed out that a lot of Canadians are travelling and buying. I pointed out that a lot of foreign investors are interested in this country as a good investment, and I pointed out that about 800,000 to one million people from other lands fight, plead, request and apply to come to this country. I suggested that I would place my bets with the people who see this country as a land of great opportunity, in good shape economically now and for the future, rather than with those who are crabby, some of whom I have pointed out.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the minister spoke in Saskatchewan to a group of Liberals, he must have spoken in a phone booth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is this. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) has told Canadians that "the fat times are over". The Minister of Finance in September, 1977, blamed Canadians for "bitching", and the Prime Minister said "Canadians are a bit soft, and they have to be told they're soft".
Is this the official policy of the government, that we are too crabby, too fat, too bitchy and too soft; that it is all our fault- and will the government now give the Canadian people a chance to defend themselves by calling an election?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this is a kind of interesting exchange. We did not need a phone booth; we had to take two extra rooms, I believe, in the Hotel Saskatchewan to accommodate the overflow of people who wanted to come and hear some common sense rather than the kind of nonsense they are hearing from the hon. member. I think he was really giving himself a self-description when he made that comment on the kind of Canadians I was referring to as being crabby and lacking confidence in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STEPS TO ROLL BACK UNFAIR PRICES AND PREVENT FURTHER INFLATION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance based on the study issued
March 12, 1979

recently by the Conference Board in Canada. However, I am not concerned about a review of statistics or predictions the minister may have made in the past; I am concerned as to what he is going to do now.
In view of the fact that the Conference Board says this is likely to be a tough year in industrial relations because unions are trying to catch up with rising prices, and in spite of the by-play we have had about this sort of thing, will the minister give serious consideration to the finding of ways to roll back unfair price increases so that we can protect the consumer and save this country from another round of inflation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible in an economy like the Canadian economy to control just one small sector. It cannot work this way. We decided in the fall of 1977, when I became Minister of Finance, that we were to get out of controls and put our faith in the market economy, and that is what we are doing at this time. We are trying to make sure that there are no abusers. We have created a commission to look into this problem in order to help the workers of this land.
In the last budget we increased very substantially the tax incentives to those people, through indexation and through other tax cuts, and I do think the take-home pay of Canadian workers has increased regularly over the last few years and they appreciate that, particularly if they compare their situation with the situation in the United States. They want at the same time to make sure that they do not contribute to another round of inflation which could lead us to more controls. If everyone will take his responsibility, we will all be better off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the minister made the assertion that the federal government cannot exercise its powers in respect of just one sector of the economy. I would point out to him that the Conference Board in Canada said precisely that the anti-inflation program was effective in holding down wages but did not control prices, so that is the answer to the minister's statement.
May I put the question to the minister again? In view of the fact that the issue facing our economy at this time and throughout this year is unfair price increases, especially in selective areas, will the minister not get serious with this matter, forget his constitutional and his technical problems and find some way to deal with this very real problem that faces the people of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very startled by the assertion of the hon. member that I should not be worried about the constitution of Canada. There are some limitations in the constitution that do not permit the federal government to establish controls unless we are in a crisis situation, and we have to accept that fact.


An hon. Member:: You did it for wages.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For the hon. member, with his experience, to say that is very surprising to me, particularly when he suggests that I should not pay attention to the constitution. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to take the
Oral Questions
Conference Board as his bible, I would point out that the Conference Board predicted last summer that unemployment in Canada this winter would be 9 per cent, and it is only 8.1 per cent; so I would rather not rely on them all the time.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Each year, $4 million in wages and several thousand workers' jobs are lost due to employer bankruptcies, and, some claim, many times more.
Could the minister assure the House that he will try to ensure that employees will continue to have first claim on back wages owed to them, rather than first claims being given to secured creditors such as banks and mortgage companies, or merely establishing a limited fund for employees?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy reform bill was introduced in the Senate last week. It provides that wage earners will rank at the top of preferred creditors with an increase in their preferred claims from $500 to $2,000 for each employee, but they do not rank ahead of secured creditors.
On the other hand, we have provided for a study to determine the feasibility of a funded insurance program which would protect employees of bankrupt companies. That seems to be the best response to that kind of problem.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the status of women. He will recall that in January of this year the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women suggested that she was quite disturbed at the exclusion of women from the employment strategy of the Department of Employment and Immigration. In particular, she asked whether there were any women on the regional working groups of the department.
Since the minister indicated in his report tabled last Thursday that there will be some inclusion of women only on subcommittees with respect to the federal-provincial discussions and strategies on employment for women, could he indicate whether this represents a failure in attempting to persuade his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to allow women full participation rights on a

March 12, 1979
Oral Questions
very important aspect of employment strategy as formulated by his department?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the proposals that have been put forward are quite clear and women have full participation rights on those committees.
I might mention to the hon. member that the Advisory Council issued a press release last week indicating that they are particularly satisfied with two elements contained in the report which represents many areas where important steps will be undertaken within government and interested groups, in particular in the area of data collection and a study of women in the economy. The Advisory Council adds that it is pleased that the federal government has produced a plan which includes many of the council's recommendations which have been already submitted to the government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since, in the words of the minister, the Advisory Council seems pleased with some of the recommendations, could he indicate whether he has had any response, or has he consulted with the Advisory Council on their action, along with the six provincial bodies on February 22, to appeal the discriminatory aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to part-time workers?
The minister refers twice in his report to the importance of part-time workers both to the public and private sector, yet there is no recognition of the discriminatory aspect of recent legislation on the part of his colleague. Can he indicate whether the Advisory Council is satisfied that this objection has been met, or what action has been taken in view of the appeal that is presently before the Human Rights Commission?


Marc Lalonde: I repeat to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that the Advisory Council has indicated its satisfaction with the plan of action put forward by the government last week. That plan of action is going to be further examined and studied by the Advisory Council at its next meeting. I have no reason to believe that the steps announced by the government are not meeting the full support of the Advisory Council.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I believe he will be aware of reports in the past few days that criminal investigation branch and security service officers have for a number of years had access to the confidential records of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Pursuant to a direction or instruction of July, 1964, these officers may have believed, giving a broad interpretation to that instruction, that that activity had in fact been authorized or condoned by their superiors.

Is that instruction or directive still in force? Is this activity, wherein confidential documents of the Department of National Health and Welfare are available to these law enforcement officers, still being carried out?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has created a great deal of ongoing interest in all members of the House. The hon. gentleman will recall that last year 1 indicated to the House that a directive had issued from the commissioner of the RCMP at my request, so that there was no doubt but that all activities that did not strictly conform to the letter or spirit of any law were to cease. I understand that directive was issued in August, 1978.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure that the Solicitor General's response would lead me to believe there has been an abrogation of that particular instruction or directive.
Apparently, the access to the confidential records of the Department of National Health and Welfare has been for the purpose of tracing missing or wanted persons. Let us assume that is a vital or important law enforcement tool. Can the Solicitor General tell the House why legislative or regulatory authority has not been sought from him or his predecessors by the various law enforcement agencies? If it has been sought during the past 15 or 20 years, what has been the response of the Solicitor General or his predecessors regarding permission to legalize this rather dubious activity?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of any requests that have been made to any of my predecessors. There were no requests made of me.
I might indicate that the question of the process relating to the investigative instruments that are made available to the RCMP, and how these can be made available to them either by the regulatory process or by the legislative process, is one of the issues that the McDonald commission is charged with deliberating on and making recommendations.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It concerns the recent exchanges between the minister and the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the Halifax shipyards.
It is my understanding that the minister has recently expressed great reluctance on the part of the government to move ahead with further aid to the Halifax shipyards. Could the minister indicate in a specific way why, in face of the Nova Scotia government's clear indication of accepting their share of any further developmental capital so that the yards can get into new construction, at this time the federal government is reluctant to cost-share in the needed improvements?
March 12, 1979


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I expressed these few doubts it is because we are now reviewing the whole Canadian government shipyards assistance program and what I am now considering is an application by a company for development and some modernization. We received all the information only in early March. In fact, I have had the information at my department only since the first week of March, a few days ago. We therefore had certain reservations. Before making a decision about the file now before us, we want to know precisely what will be the commitments of the provincial government to support development and operations of the seaport and Nova Scotia shipyards, especially in Halifax, because we cannot proceed only on the basis of a commitment by the Canadian government.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What measures has the government taken, or what conversations has the minister had with his colleagues, the Deputy Prime Minister and the president of the super board, with respect to ensuring that Canadian shipyards and, in this case, the Halifax shipyards, have fair access to the six or eight new trawlers that National Sea Products Ltd. are going to build?
Has there been any discussion with National Sea Products Ltd., with the province of Nova Scotia and his colleagues in the government to determine or develop a move which would make it possible for Canadian shipyards to receive the business of building the six new trawlers?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that consultations have been held and are even now under way with a view to establishing clearly how to program our undertakings with the shipyards in various cities of Canada. In the case of Halifax, I think discussions are now in progress. As I have indicated, we have a specific application for assistance from the Halifax shipyard and the hon. member is well aware that we are now looking into how best to help the specific project submitted to us. Of course, all that has to be considered in the context of the global project of much greater importance because in the case of Halifax, one project alone will not be enough. Consideration is being given to other expansion projects I am very familiar with.


UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT FILLING WITH FUEL AT CANADIAN AIRPORTS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and relates to a problem I brought to his attention last week. I spoke of
Oral Questions
the practice of U.S. airlines filling up their aircraft completely with fuel in Canadian terminals such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, which is very wasteful of fuel. They are taking on more fuel than is required, because of the apparent shortage in the United States. I wonder what the government intends to do to stop this great inefficiency.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all clear that there is any particular legislative authority that the government has to interfere with a normal commercial transaction. The airline companies have had their sources over the years, of course. But I will be pleased to take a look at the matter.


FINANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I saw him speaking with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and maybe at long last veterans will get a break from this government. However, that remains to be seen.
I want to bring to the minister's attention, again, the employment tax credit program that was the panacea that was supposed to create 50,000 jobs. To date, as I understand it, only 15,742 jobs have been created, which means that this program is a complete, disastrous failure in my opinion. The government has been tinkering with the program since its introduction.
What special steps does the government intend to take to make this program more attractive? It is the only wage subsidy I know of where people are not running after it in order to pick up the money. There is something wrong somewhere. Can the minister give me the answer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we put this program forward a year or so ago, we indicated to the House that, according to experience in other countries, there is a time lag between the moment it is put forward and its implementation. I have received information that over these last months the program gained much speed and a much larger number of Canadians showed an interest, and hopefully the question put by the hon. member will make a larger number of businessmen aware of this program, under which they can get an income tax credit of up to $2 an hour when they hire a new employee.
I think it is a good program. Unfortunately, employers did not take advantage of it as soon as we had hoped, but the program is still available and we have reason to believe it will be increasingly used over the coming months.
4042

March 12, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Raines


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, that answer is complete boloney. We heard the statement about six months ago, I think by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, that he was going to go with the program. Does the minister not realize that this is a cash flow situation and the employer cannot wait for his money?
Is the minister giving serious consideration to the possibility that the employer will get the money when he takes on an employee, rather than waiting six or seven months? That is the problem and that is why the program is a complete disaster.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that is another attitude of the opposition which complains about the level of expenditures of the government. Today they are proposing another scheme by which we would be spending more money and further increasing the level of expenditures of the federal government. I think the tax incentive that we are giving is a good system. Of course, some people have to wait until they file their tax returns.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the problem. But we have decided, Mr. Speaker, that we have to limit the expenditures of the government. We want to be responsible. We are not going across Canada, like the Tories, promising up to $6 billion in all sorts of incentives and at the same time complaining about the level of the deficit.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are full of boloney, sir, and you know it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of privilege concerning an article written by Canadian Press and also a publication put out under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc).
My authority for raising this matter of privilege is as reported in part by Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice Nineteenth Edition. At page 153, under the heading "Misrepresenting Members' Proceedings", it reads as follows:
-misrepresenting their proceedings in parliament, is a breach of the privilege of this House, and destructive of the freedom of parliament.
Also I want to refer to the proceedings of the House of Commons for Monday, March 5, 1979. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) placed a motion under Standing Order 43. I have no quarrel with the reporting in Hansard. The motion as passed read:
[Mr. Chr6tien.J
That this House reaffirms the right of Canadian sealers to go about their legitimate pursuit under the strict supervision of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, free from harassment and interference.
The motion appeared on page 3795 of Hansard. Further down the page it says:


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
My quarrel arises from a published report the following day in the Ottawa Journal for March 6, 1979, which has just been brought to my attention and which reads:
Meanwhile, in the Commons MPs gave unanimous approval to motion giving full support to the sealers taking part in this year's hunt.
I did not give support to that motion, Mr. Speaker.
Further, there is a publication entitled "Questions and Answers on the Seal Hunt". This publication has also just been brought to my attention. This pamphlet is produced by the information branch of Fisheries and Oceans at Ottawa, Ontario, and comes under the aegis of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. On page 1 of this booklet at the bottom of the page it says:
In March 1977 the Canadian House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming the right of Canadians to hunt seals.
Every member of this House of Commons is not in unanimous support of that. Therefore, I feel the proceedings of this House have been misrepresented. I ask that this pamphlet be withdrawn by the Ministry of Fisheries and that that matter be placed on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised this matter by way of a question of privilege. He may have a point of discussion that he wants to pursue but he has not been individually wronged by that report; he is not mentioned in it. In addition, the pamphlet reported an event which occurred one week ago today in which all members present in the House unanimously approved that resolution. I do not know how else they could report it. In order to be fair and to report it accurately it would have to name those members who were here and those members who were not here. That would be a more difficult situation than the one which the hon. member has addressed himself to already.
Therefore, while I say the hon. member has a point of interest and discussion, it surely does not constitute a question of privilege.


MR. YEWCHUK-RESPONSE OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from a response which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) gave me in answer to a question I had put to her. I think her attitude was rather despicable in that she accused me, or seemed to impute motives in my question. She suggested I was here as a lobbyist for the medical profession. In my view, that was a rather cheap shot on her part. It was not up to her to attack my integrity as a member of this House by suggesting that because I am a member of the medical profes-
March 12, 1979

sion 1 am in some way in a conflict of interest situation each time I ask a question in the health field, and particularly when my question relates to the medical profession itself.
It has been a long established practice in this House that medical doctors who are members of parliament are interested in the health field and they ask questions on all aspects of the health care delivery system. If the minister is allowed to get away with this, I do not see how any doctor in this House can get up freely as a member to speak on health issues. If he does imputations will be made in the same way.
To carry this one step further, if a medical doctor cannot speak on health subjects, how can a veteran who is Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), or how can a farmer who is Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), or how can a lawyer who is Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), not be accused of being in a conflict of interest situation since they speak in areas in which they either have had direct connections or still do have direct connections? I can also mention the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is a old age pensioner and frequently raises questions dealing with pensions; yet for some strange reason that seems to be quite all right.
I would say that if the minister is allowed to get away with this imputation of motives we are going to be left with a situation where only members who have no medical background will be allowed to ask questions concerning the health field and those knowledgeable in the health field will not be speaking in this House.
I ask that a ruling be made on this matter. I have been faced with this problem on a number of occasions in the past. As Your Honour will recall, a similar question of privilege was raised on behalf of members of the press gallery.
In my opinion, the minister should withdraw that imputation of motives. With all due respect to you, sir, if she does not 1 would suggest that we take at least a day to review the blues to make sure that this question is properly settled once and for all, so that I will feel free to perform my duties in this place as every other member is entitled to do.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to withdraw. I think my answer was extremely clear. As the hon. member will read tomorrow, I never used the expression "conflict of interest". I logically concluded that the hon. member, being a member of the medical profession, had a natural interest, not at all a conflict of interest. My answer was extremely clear. I did not impute any motive other than the natural and logical interest the hon. member has for the members of his profession, which is a good profession. I simply asked him a few questions regarding what was going on in his province. I did not at all infer what he wants to use in order to do something politically.


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is that the minister said she could understand how the member may be in that position. I do not have the recollection that she indicated a direct accusa-
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
tion of any sort. However, I have to go by memory. The minister says she wants to review the transcript. When the hon. member and all of us review it, we will find if there is anything wrong. We will review it and see tomorrow if any matter deserves to be pursued on the basis of what is contained in the transcript.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I might recall to the minister now the words that I heard her use. Being a fair minister, she might be prepared at this time to bring this to a conclusion. The words she used were "being a lobbyist for the medical profession". In the context that that word was used, and on the basis of the way the answer was given, there can be no other rational conclusion than that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) was asking his question with motives that were ulterior and improper. Maybe the minister did not intend to put it that way. However, what I got from it is quite clear. Maybe on that basis the minister might withdraw. As the hon. member for Athabasca said, we will have to put ourselves in the position where we come into this House, like some people I see from time to time, with no expertise about anything.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, if those words were used, the minister should examine section 16 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. She will find that she not only imputed improper motives, but imputed an activity to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) which is contrary to that statute and contrary to the law. The minister admitted in the course of the interchange that she did use the word "lobbyist", which certainly has an ulterior aspect to it, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested. If she is not prepared to withdraw it today, I believe the matter should be held open so that you can examine the question, particularly in view of the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that I did use the word "lobbyist". If politicians are afraid of that word, 1 just do not understand the context of it any more.

I think the situation is clearly degenerating into a game. I invited the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) to check the official report himself tomorrow: he will see that I never used the expression "conflict of interest." We are all lobbyists since we are all politicians and the quibbling in this House is going beyond any imagining.


Mr. Speaker:: Once again I think the only sensible course is to examine the transcript and see if the matter needs to be pursued in any way tomorrow.

March 12, 1979
Petition



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(2), I wish to table four notices of ways and means motions and ask that the orders of the day be modified to allow us to discuss them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising from the tabling of these documents by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I believe the minister asked for some time to make a statement. I wonder if that can be confirmed. Will we be getting a statement concerning these tariff changes affecting various food products?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 had no intention of making a statement. I am following the normal procedure of tabling a ways and means motion in the House. 1 do not think it is necessary to make a statement. I am willing to send a copy to the hon. member.
with our old age pensioners. If anyone wants to accuse me of lobbying for a better deal for our senior citizens, I plead guilty. I have been at it since 1942.
This petition is presented on behalf of the Saskatchewan Senior Citizens Action Now Association. It is signed by about 8,000 persons. The petition requests an increase in the amount of the old age pension, a lowering of the eligible age, steps to make it possible for senior citizens to remain in their own homes, as well as other improvements for our older people. I have the honour to present the petition and I recommend it to the consideration of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 943, 945 and 1,161.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



CRIMINAL CODE


J. Robert Howie: for leave to introduce Bill C-466, to amend the Criminal Code (right to counsel).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes and defines the right of an individual to legal counsel after arrest or detention, sets out a mechanism for obtaining it and provides penalties for those who wilfully violate this right.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a petition. It has to do



INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Crosbie: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78, under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Industrial Design Assistance Programme (IDAP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP), what was the number and total value of contracts (i) between $0 and $5,000 (ii) between $5,001 and $10,000 (iii) between $10,001 and 25,000 (iv) between $25,001 and 50,000 (v) between $50,001 and $100,000 (vi) $100,001 or more (vii) in total?
2.	For the same years, what were the expenditures of the Department under the Industrial Design Assistance Programme (IDAP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP) in (a) the Textile and Consumer Products Branch (b) the Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Products Branch (c) the Chemicals Branch (d) the Electrical and Electronics Branch (e) the Machinery Branch (0 the Resource Industries Branch (g) the Construction and Consulting Services Branch (h) the Transportation Industries Branch (i) all branches?
3.	For the same years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the Department under the Industrial Design Assistance Programme (IDAP) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP)?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Please see tables for response.
Industrial Design Assistance Program
Approvals by Range of Contracts
0-5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001-25,000 
1974-1975	1975-1976
No. of Projects	Dollar Value	No. of Projects	Dollar Value
	$		$
-	-	-	-*4	63,316	5	88,420
Industrial Design
1976-1977	1977-1978
No. of		No. of	
Projects	Dollar Value	Projects	Dollar Value
	$		$
2	15,111	1	6,5006	102,826	4	65,925
March 12, 1979

Industrial Design Assistance Program
Order Paper Questions
Industrial Design
1975-1976
1977-1978
Approvals by Range of Contracts	No. of Projects	Dollar Value	No. of Projects	Dollar Value	No. of Projects	Dollar Value	No. of Projects	Dollar Value25,001-50,000	6	$ 217,933	4	$ 142,208	3	$ 128,483	6	$ 197,11250,001-100,000	2	118,448	3	224,312	1	51,300	-	-100,001 and over	1	143,416	1	127,387	1	124,055	1	107,000Totals	13	543,113	13	582,327	13	421,775	12	376,537
Expenditures by Branch
Name of Branch	1974-1975 1975-1976 1976-1977 1977-1978
$	$	$	S
	Agriculture, Fisheries and Food							
Products	-	-	-	-	Chemicals	-	7,343	10,326	1,067	Electrical and Electronics	27,008	82,448	90,217	8,627	Machinery	191,552	69,920	141,446	35,236	Resource Industries and	Construction	4,054	80,498	78,679	11,862	Construction and Consulting	Services	Beam Program only	Transportation Industries	44,443	142,787	86,809	75,000	Textiles and Consumer	Products	112,595	17,004	68,439	31,238	Branch Total	379,652	400,000	475,916	163,030	Approvals by Province	Industrial Design	1974-1975	1975-	1976	1976	-1977	1977	-1978No. of	No. of	No. of	No. of	Province	Projects	Dollar Value	Projects Dollar Value	Projects	Dollar Value	Projects	Dollar Value$	$	$	$British Columbia	-	-	1	19,112	-	-	-	-Alberta	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-	3	27,429	-	-Manitoba	2	67,626	-	-	-	-	-	-Ontario	8	402,969	7	194,893	6	279,929	6	180,787Quebec	3	72,518	5	368,322	4	114,417	6	195,750New Brunswick	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-Newfoundland	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-



THE POLICE FUNCTION IN CANADA AS A CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Has the government and/or any department prepared or had prepared a document entitled The Police Function in Canada as a Control and Enforcement Agency and, if so, by whom and for what purpose?
2.	To date, has the document been circulated and, if so, by name, position and location, who has received it, for what purpose and in what manner have the terms of the document been used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No.



SPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION

Mr. MacKay: Was assistance given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the form of loans, grants or other government assistance, to Space Research Corporation of Highwater, Quebec, or any companies or agencies affiliated with it and, if so, what was such assistance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: assistance given to Space Research Corporation and its affiliates by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP) is as per the table below.
DIP * Approvals and *'Expenditures Type of
Assistance Prior Years 1977/78	1978/79
Valleyfield Chemical Products
Approvals
Expenditures
Space Research Corporation
Approvals
Expenditures
Contribution
830,000
Contribution	621,752
8.325.000	- 5,036,840 2,455,660
1.500.000	-
118,747	1,118,252

March 12, 1979
Points of Order DIP 'Approvals and ''Expenditures
	Type of Assistance	Prior Years	1977/78	1978/79
**'Shefford Electronics				
Approvals							
Expenditures	Grant	32,107	-	-Loan	32,107	-	-Total	Approvals	830,000	9,825,000	Expenditures	685,966	5,155,587	3,573,912* As Approved by Treasury Board ** Expenditures to February 28, 1979	
'"Shefford Electronics took over the assets of Beaconing Optical including the
contract for the equipment towards which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had provided assistance.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I notice on the order paper there are about 1,200 questions to be answered. At this speed, 400 days will be required to answer all the questions at three questions a day. I hope the parliamentary secretary will see that the government does a better job than this so that we can at least have another 200 or 300 questions answered before the election.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I placed some questions on the order paper last October; questions Nos. 73, 74 and 75 on October 11, 1978; No. 215 on October 16, 1978; No. 297 on October 18, 1978; Nos. 320, 323 and 324 on October 19, 1978. I have received no reply to these questions. I see no real reason why these questions cannot be responded to. I ask the parliamentary secretary to use more than due despatch to get these replies to me immediately, as they are of some concern to my constituency.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, although I did have a question on the order paper answered today for which I am very grateful, I wish to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,167 which I placed on the order paper on February 19. I hope to have an answer to that within the next few days.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 I placed a question on the order paper directed to the advertising campaign by Post Office Canada entitled "It Hurts". I take it the only reason I have not had an answer is because the answer hurts the government. I wonder when we could have that reply.


Roger Carl Young: I am a little surprised at the comments made by the hon. member from Edmonton. There may be some 1,200 questions listed on the order paper, but as he and the House well know a great many questions have been answered in addition to the three which were answered today. All I can say

is that we do our best to provide these answers as quickly as possible.
I might add that I could come up with the names of, say, three members of this House who among them account for 20 or 30 per cent of all the questions on the order paper. It is not possible to answer all these questions in one day but we do our best to provide answers to them.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, it is my intention to call Bill C-42, the energy supplies bill, today. However, as a result of discussions which have taken place it would be my intention at eight o'clock to call the housing bill, Bill C-29, which almost received final approval on Friday. A number of members have an interest in this and if there were agreement that we could call third reading and dispose of it not later than ten o'clock, I would seek the approval of the House to alter the order of business and call that measure after the dinner recess this evening.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to that order of business, and as so much work has been done by my hon. friend for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) and others with respect to improving that measure it is now in a position to be dealt with almost immediately. I am grateful to the government House leader for proposing to call that bill at eight o'clock this evening. The order that it be completed by ten o'clock is quite proper in the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) used the phrase "and others" I am sure he was referring to my hon. friend, the member for Broadview (Mr. Rae).


Mrs. Pigott:: Absolutely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Discussions have taken place as stated and we are prepared to agree with these arrangements. I do not ask that it be made an order, but I express the hope that the speeches tonight will be short so that as many as possible of those who wish to participate in the debate on third reading will be able to do so.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, the government leader informed me earlier of the desire to change the order of business, so that Bill C-29 could be discussed at eight o'clock this evening. I understand the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) is anxious to have this bill passed. As far as we are concerned, we will have very brief comments to make at the third reading stage, and have no intention of impeding its going through by ten o'clock this evening as desired.
March 12, 1979


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not privy to these discussions but I prefer to give consent because of the need to get this bill through. It should have gone through last week.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, then, that the House is giving its consent to the presentation of a motion which will indicate that the order of business should be changed so as to take the report stage of C-42 followed at eight o'clock by consideration of Bill C-29, and that at ten o'clock this evening all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading of that bill will be put. So part of the order is that the House take Bill C-29 under consideration at eight o'clock on the understanding that it be disposed of by ten o'clock. Though it is not part of the order, the suggestion is that speeches be brief so as to accommodate as many hon. members as possible. Surely the spirit of that suggestion will be taken into account.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members are aware, there are six motions standing on the notice paper to amend Bill C-42 at this stage. I have had an opportunity to give them some consideration. Three of them, Nos. 1, 2 and 5, deal with separate subjects and ought in my opinion to be discussed separately and voted upon separately.
The remaining three, Nos. 3, 4 and 6, all of which are in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), deal with allocation and it is my impression, subject to further suggestions which may be forthcoming from the House, that they should be grouped together for discussion. Presumably, a vote on motion No. 3 would dispose of motions Nos. 4 and 6. Of course, as the debate progresses 1 am always open to suggestions that this arrangement be varied; if it appears that a motion required some other treatment I am always in the hands of the House in that regard. However, as I say, my original impression is that the three motions in the name of the hon. member for Peace River may be grouped together and that a vote on motion No. 3 would dispose of Nos. 4 and 6.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think you are probably correct, Mr. Speaker, I would point out, though, that we are
Energy Supplies
dealing with different types of order here; one is an amending order and the other is an allocation order. However, I have the impression that if the government is unreasonable with regard to the first one, ministers opposite will continue to be unreasonable with regard to the other motions, so we would be saving time by following the arrangement you have proposed.
1 was about to rise on a point of order in any event. During your consideration of my three motions your Honour will no doubt have observed that No. 3 is set out in more detail than Nos. 4 and 6. My thinking was that if the government, in one of its rare moments of reasonableness and lucidity, was prepared to accept the first motion, then because the provisions of Nos. 4 and 6 are to some extent based on the fact that No. 3 might be accepted, I put them forward in a somewhat abbreviated form. Your Honour may have noticed this. At the time I was drafting them I received a memorandum from on high calling for the conservation of paper, otherwise I might have set them out at greater length. My meaning, though, is quite clear.


Alastair William Gillespie: That Bill C-42, An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The Board shall study and keep under review all matters relevant to a full understanding of the international petroleum supply situation and shall from time to time report thereon to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources together with such recommendations as appear to the Board to be appropriate and relevant to ensuring that Canada is fully prepared to meet any petroleum supply emergency with well prepared and timely plans for action.
(5)	Canada's representation on the Standing Group on Emergency Questions within the International Energy Agency shall, if the emergency oil sharing system provided for in the Agreement on an International Energy Program is activated, be under the direction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who shall appoint Petro-Canada to be Canada's representative on that Group.
(6)	Petro-Canada, in fulfilling its function under subsection (5), shall be responsible to the Chairman of the Board and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
(7)	The Board and its members are".


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to question whether these amendments in the name of the minister are in order at this time. The other evening in the committee when we were able to get any information at all out of the minister there was certainly no indication that these amendments would be anything like the amendments which came forward in the committee. This is now the report stage of this bill. I suggest that where amendments change the very intent and meaning of the entire legislation-and I hope to be able to prove that to the Chair very briefly-this is not the time or the place for amendments like that to be entertained by the House.
There are two main purposes for this bill. One is to have a legislative framework to give the government the authority to declare a national emergency with regard to energy supplies,

March 12, 1979
Energy Supplies
distribution and usage in the event of a national emergency which may be completely domestic in origin. The second main purpose is to have a legislative framework in place for the allocation of oil supplies in this country in the event of an international stoppage or an emergency in the oil supplies and petroleum supplies industry.
These two amendments go to the very heart of those two purposes, and in my submission they change very drastically the intent, meaning and administration of the bill which was passed by this Elouse at second reading. There was no hint that these very important amendments were coming either from the minister, the government or any representative of the government in the very prolonged and late hours we put in on Thursday night when the committee dealt with and passed this bill.
The first amendment would give the allocation board set up by the bill the power to study and to keep under review all matters relevant to a full understanding of the international petroleum supply situation. This is directly contrary to what many of us believed, following the word of the minister, in the committee the other evening. The implication was that this board would be run only by part time individuals who would not have very much to do unless the government of the day declared a national emergency or in the event that our responsibilities were triggered under an international agreement.
The first amendment, as I read it, would give the board the responsibility, the function and the duty-whether or not there was a national emergency-to set up facilities and staff to study and keep under review all matters relevant to a full understanding of the international petroleum supply situation and to report from time to time to the minister. That was not the meaning or the intent which was conveyed to the committee the other evening by the minister himself. I cannot quote the actual words the minister used last Thursday evening because as far as I know those proceedings have not yet been printed or published. We simply do not have that information here. However, when questioned about the make-up of the board, the minister indicated that there may be no person involved with the board other than the chairman and that the other six members of the board might not even be appointed. The minister said he wanted it that way so that there would be flexibility.
According to the minister's remarks at second reading and according to his clearly enunciated intention in the committee the other evening, this board really would not come into full force and really would not have very much in the way of duties, staff or budget unless there was a national emergency, and a national emergency would be proclaimed by order in council. Only then would the board's powers and the bill itself be brought into full force and effect. That is in contradiction of the amendment which is being brought forward at this late stage by the minister.
My submission is that the first amendment is very clearly out of order. If the minister wants to withdraw the amendment or if he wants somehow to return the bill to the committee where there could be proper questioning and a proper explana-

tion of the amendment, we would be very happy to oblige. At that time perhaps the matter could be dealt with, although I do not really believe that a government amendment of this magnitude and importance with respect to a bill such as this should be introduced even in the committee. However, we could argue that point in the committee. I think we would all be happy to hear the minister in the committee and to ask him questions in the proper atmosphere and in the informal manner in which that type of interrogation should take place.
My submission is that an amendment which completely changes the administration, the purpose and the intent of a board which was to have full powers of administration only when a national emergency was proclaimed by order in council should not be introduced at the report stage.
The second amendment in the name of the minister is of the same nature. The secondary purpose of this bill is to set up some type of domestic allocation scheme as part of our responsibility under an international agreement Canada signed in 1974, if your Honour can believe it. One of our responsibilities is to have in place a legislative framework so that in the event of an international shortfall in petroleum supplies the government will have in place some domestic allocation scheme under the aegis of the International Energy Agency. Indeed, it was that 1974 agreement which set up the agency and an allocation scheme.
At no time previous to this has there been any intimation whatsoever that the Canadian state-owned oil company, Petro-Canada, was going to be Canada's representative to that agency set up under the international agreement. Nor was there any intimation by the government or the minister that Petro-Canada was going to fulfil its function by being Canada's representative, thereby having full control over allocation and the administration of this very important agency and this very important scheme in the event of an international crisis or an international shortfall in energy supplies.
I think the minister will agree that this is a very important amendment. It is not the type of amendment which should come before the House for the first time at the report stage of a bill after committee stage. It surely should have been presented in the committee the other evening by the minister so that we could have the benefit of his views and get into questions and answers in respect of the amendment.
The minister may be perfectly right that the bill is meaningless without these kinds of amendments. The minister may be perfectly right that it is part of an important government policy that Petro-Canada play the leading role in the event of an international oil crisis. I do not believe that but, nevertheless, the minister may believe that. If he does, certainly the time for him to spring this mammoth change in government policy should have been prior to the report stage of this bill.
My submission to you, sir, therefore, is that the minister withdraw these amendments, or perhaps the minister would like to indicate that he would like to see the matter referred back to the committee. In either case we would be happy to
March 12, 1979

oblige. But at the report stage to bring these amendments to the Elouse, to hon. members, to the public, to the industry and to other governments which have not been consulted in respect of any of these matters, is a surprising turn of events. I would also suggest to you that it is completely out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we must be clear on one fundamental point, namely, that there is no procedural deficiency in these amendments simply because they were not introduced in the committee. We must be clear on the fact that the right to take advantage of proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 75 in respect of report stage amendments is in the Standing Orders, and therefore if the motions are otherwise in order, the fact that they were not introduced or that there was no indication in the standing committee that they would be introduced might have something to do with propriety but has nothing to do with procedural regularity.
However, that does not end the discussion and I am prepared to listen to arguments that the motions might be out of order. But they have to be so on the merits of the argument, not simply based on the fact that they are introduced at the report stage and were not introduced in the committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assist in your consideration of whether motion No. 1 is in order. First, 1 would draw Your Honour's attention to the proposed new subclause which, as my colleague has just pointed out, deals with Canada's representation on the standing group on emergency questions within the International Energy Agency, and in turn indicates that the minister will exercise direction with respect to what will be our role if that program is activated. It then goes on to state:
-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who shall appoint Petro-Canada to be Canada's representative on that group.
The point 1 want to make initially is that if we read the royal recommendation with respect to Bill C-42 we find that it deals entirely with matters within Canada. There is no suggestion that the royal recommendation covers anything of an international nature. It states:
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled "An act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages of market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada."
I suggest that when we read subclause (5) we find it deals with an entirely different subject. It deals with the question of what shall be Canada's representation on the standing group on emergency questions within the International Energy Agency, which, as my colleague has pointed out, is an agency which was first referred to in 1974. So I believe that unless you find that the royal recommendation has anticipated this type of clause, on that score alone the motion should be ruled out of order.
Second, I should like to point out that it is proposed that the minister exercise direction regarding what our participation in the International Energy Agency shall be, and that he shall appoint Petro-Canada to be Canada's representative on that
Energy Supplies
group. It is fundamental in law that an agent cannot in turn appoint an agent. Yet we have here the suggestion that the minister will appoint as his agent Petro-Canada to sit at some type of council table. Petro-Canada cannot sit to negotiate at a table; it has to negotiate through a representative or through its own agent. On that basis as well the clause should be ruled out of order.
If the minister had wished to say that he would appoint a representative of Petro-Canada or the chairman of Petro-Canada, or if he had used some such terminology, perhaps the clause would be in order, but on its face the suggestion that this parliament would empower the minister to appoint Petro-Canada to a body must fall because Petro-Canada as such cannot take a seat or in any way be represented other than through an agent or a representative.
I suggest that on those two counts the motion should be ruled out of order with respect to subclause (5).


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to contribute to this debate a few brief comments because I agree with my colleagues that motion No. 1 is most certainly out of order. You are well aware of citation 773(1) of Beau-chesne's fifth edition, which states:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope or governed by or dependent upon amendment already negatived.
It is my view that this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. I endorse the arguments of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), as well as those of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) who indicated that there was absolutely no indication in committee, after an hour's debate, that an amendment such as this one would be coming up. So it came as a surprise to see this motion on the order paper.
Regrettably, I did not have time to look up the Petro-Canada Act but I am certain that an amendment was introduced by this side of the House after a great deal of strenuous debate that Petro-Canada may receive policy directions from the governor in council. The original bill as presented by the government contained the provision that the minister could direct Petro-Canada to obey his written instructions, but the act was amended so that only the governor in council could give policy directions to Petro-Canada. The reason for that was to remove day to day interference.
Subclause (5) of motion No. 1 indicates that the minister shall have responsibility for the emergency energy program and that he shall appoint Petro-Canada to be Canada's representative on that group. In order to fulfil his responsibilities, therefore, he would have to give directions to Petro-Canada in a way that is contrary to the provision to which I referred in the Petro-Canada Act. Those kinds of day to day instructions are simply not permissible under the act.
My other more general point has to do with the International Energy Agency. The International Energy Agency is an outgrowth of an agreement on an international energy program, which is a treaty signed by a number of so-called western industrialized nations, including Canada. It is not an

March 12, 1979
Energy Supplies
act of this parliament, not a treaty sanctioned by this parliament, but an international treaty which can be changed by an international agreement. It is a treaty from which Canada may well want to extract itself if we achieve self-sufficiency. Indeed, we would be wrong to carry on international obligations beyond those that are to Canada's benefit.
It seems to me most inappropriate and going beyond the scope of the bill to include a motion which addresses itself to appointing Petro-Canada to be a representative on an international group. The title of that group could very well change by mere amendment to the international agreement which was not sanctioned by this parliament. The agreement could lapse very quickly without any sanctions from this parliament, and yet, if this motion is passed, parliament would be directing the corporation to take up membership in a group which may or may not have any longevity and which is created as a result of an international agreement from which we might want to extract ourselves in the near future.
I submit respectfully that this energy agreement was negotiated by the governor in council and the standing groups were as a result of international agreements at government level. I submit that is a quite separate and distinct question from the scope of the bill, which deals with setting up allocation and rationing procedures in Canada if and when the need arises.
Any amendment to Petro-Canada's authority and responsibility rightfully belongs in amendments to the Petro-Canada Act and not in an act dealing with allocation and emergencies. The Petro-Canada Act spells out the responsibilities, obligations and authorities which Petro-Canada receives from the minister. In essence, the motion amends the Petro-Canada Act. Clearly that is not included as part of the royal recommendation or any other part of the act.
As I have indicated, I endorse the reasons put forth by the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. Therefore, I submit the motion is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There are other hon. members who wish to discuss this matter, but I do not want to leave the argument just presented by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) without saying that I think his last point is the most telling. Other points were made relating to proceedings in committee and as they relate to report stage, and there were arguments concerning the international aspect of the matter. I am not as concerned with those because the board will come into existence in a certain manner and for a certain purpose. Obviously the board has domestic responsibilities and it will be constituted for the purpose described in the bill. Without being constituted for its purpose, the board has no powers at all because it does not exist.
Once being constituted in conformity with this statute and all parliamentary aspects contained within the statute, whether it is wise or unwise to give it the power or responsibility to examine international situations as an incident of domestic
responsibility is not my question. At least, it is sufficiently incidental to the functions of the board, once it is set up under the act, that I would have great difficulty in finding the motion procedurally out of order on those grounds.
The argument put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre is one which has troubled me since first the point was raised, and that is whether this is the first introduction of any activity by Petro-Canada into the statute. As the hon. member argues-and I will have to examine that question-if in order for Petro-Canada to assume its responsibility it must be given powers which it does not have under the Petro-Canada Act, which in other words would constitute an amendment to the Petro-Canada Act or an effort to amend the Petro-Canada Act by amending the statute, then that amendment would be clearly out of order. Of course, there will be arguments in support of the other side, and I will have to reserve and examine the matter, but that is one point raised by the hon. member which concerns me.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned if Your Honour were to brush lightly over the fact that the committee dealt with this matter in almost indecent haste. We met until midnight or one o'clock in the morning to discuss this matter and to accommodate witnesses who came from all over the country. If we were to accept these amendments on report stage in the House of Commons, really we would make a farce out of the committee system. The minister was questioned repeatedly in front of other witnesses as to his intentions regarding the setting up of this permanent board. We were concerned about another bureaucracy. The minister assured us that the board would not be activated until there was a clear emergency declared by the governor in council.
We asked the minister why the bill was structured in that manner, and he said that there would be a chairman, a secretary, and he was very vague about the other appointments. As a matter of fact, there was a suggestion by the New Democratic Party that Petro-Canada should be appointed to that board. The minister had no objection to that, but he could not commit himself to appointing special members or special interest groups to the particular board.
Contrary to the minister's testimony before the committee, with this amendment before the House the board will be a permanent one. It will monitor not only domestic but international developments in the energy field.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we ought to be very clear on that point because it seems to be in some question. I read the amendment to give to the board, obviously once constituted, the incidental power of inquiring into the international situation in order to discharge its functions of emergency supplies, allocation, control and things of that sort. Obviously the board cannot have that function or any other function until it is called into existence for the purposes and in the manner set out under the statute. Perhaps we ought to be very clear on that.

March 12, 1979


Frank Oberle: With the minister's amendments, the board will be brought into existence now. We are not waiting until an emergency happens; the board will be set up now. At one point we had a bill before us to establish the framework in which the governor in council could react to an emergency. Under certain circumstances he must call parliament into session after a certain point in time. That was the intention of the bill, but now it goes further; it establishes a permanent board without an emergency. That is an important factor.
Witnesses representing the oil industry appeared before the committee. Imperial Oil did not attend, but certainly both national petroleum associations attended before the committee. In questioning the minister assured the committee that Petro-Canada does not play any preferred role in the petroleum field in our country; it is to compete in the marketplace like any other company. Also the minister indicated that it was never the intention of the government to establish this company with a preferred position.
Now Petro-Canada will be the agent on which the minister will rely to tell him, first, when there is an international or domestic crisis, and second, to advise him on how he or the governor in council should react to such crisis. If that is not a preferred position of one competitor in the business, then I do not know what is. Surely this goes far beyond not only what the bill intended in the first place, but far beyond the testimony the minister gave before committee. It makes the committee system a farce and it deceives the witnesses who appeared before committee in good faith. I would ask Your Honour to consider this motion on those grounds.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to point out that clause 3 of Bill C-42 reads, "There is hereby established an Energy Supplies Allocation Board-". The board is established by the statute. I gather programs will be referred to it and it will be examined by parliament from time to time; but clause 3 indicates that it is hereby establishing an energy supplies allocation board. Thus, by the passage of the act the board is established. Futhermore, there was an amendment in committee to clause 3 indicating that one of the members shall be a senior official of Petro-Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Petro-Canada, not "Perro-Canada."


Mr. Speaker:: It reads "Perro-Canada", but I am sure it is Petro-Canada. Surely the notion that the board will be established by the statute is not a new one. The manner in which it is given a program of allocation may come into play in discussion; but the board is established upon passage of the act, or at least it is enabled to be established by the passage of the act. Thus, that cannot be a new consideration.
Respecting the role of Petro-Canada, as I said to the hon. member for Calgary Centre that may be an extension of the powers of Petro-Canada. If it is, I will have to examine it and see if it is out of order. However, obviously the position of Petro-Canada must have been considered because the amend-
Energy Supplies
ment passed by committee is that one of the members of the board shall be a senior official of Petro-Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will not go over the same ground which Your Honour has observed already. As hon. members opposite have mentioned, it was a late evening. Some of us stayed right to the bitter end and some did not. It may well have been that some of the concerns of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) respecting these kinds of questions might have been answered if the member had been able to stay to the bitter end. I am not blaming him for not staying to the bitter end; it was a long evening and we did a lot of work. But it is quite clear the hon. member is under some misapprehension even as to the nature of the act itself.
As to the whole question of the creation of the board itself, you do not need to have a war in the Middle East in order to create the board; the board will be created. I think that point has already been covered by you, Mr. Speaker. The board will come into existence with the passage of the bill.
The second aspect which I think is very important relates to the submission made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) to include Petro-Canada on the board with a reference specifically to the chairman. That was amended at the committee and the bill before us now contains the words "a senior officer of Petro-Canada". There was no argument by opposition members at that time about whether this was procedurally correct. They voted against that particular provision, and I give them their due there; but there was no procedural question about whether Petro-Canada could be added to the emergency supplies allocation board, any more than there was any question about when the emergency supplies allocation board would be created.
There have been suggestions that the report stage should deal only with amendments which have already been considered by the committee; I think that was the burden of the remarks of the hon. 'member for Northumberland-Durham. Clearly that is not the practice of this House, as evidenced by the fact that a member of his own party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has introduced three amendments that are before us now but which were not introduced before the committee.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He gave notice.


Alastair William Gillespie: I acknowledge that this amendment we are producing was not dealt with before the committee, but nor were the three the hon. member for Peace River has introduced. He is not a member of that committee.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham says we were given notice. I do not know in what form we were given notice. He may have made some general statement that there would be other amendments, but there was no indication of what the nature of those amendments would be.

March 12, 1979
Energy Supplies
There has been a charge that Petro-Canada for some legal reason should not be nominated as a representative of the standing group on emergency questions and as part of the senior administrative body of the emergency oil sharing agreement of the International Energy Agency, of which Canada is a senior member, I suggest that Petro-Canada is a corporation and the hon. member should be the first to realize that as such it is a legal person and therefore can be nominated. There was some suggestion that this would be beyond the confines of Petro-Canada, that this was somehow extending the powers of that corporation. I would think that a reading of the act would indicate that Petro-Canada has very wide powers in respect of representing Canada on international questions. Indeed, Petro-Canada has been acting for and representing Canada on international matters, whether they involve international oil companies or discussions already going on with the International Energy Agency. Indeed, I have reason to believe that the International Energy Agency would welcome Petro-Canada's association with the operation of the emergency oil sharing agreement.
There are a number of committees set up under the oil sharing arrangement by the International Energy Agency, and I will deal with those in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, when we get to the substance of the amendment if you rule that it is in order.
Quite clearly the International Energy Agency set up under this emergency oil sharing arrangement will have to rely on the competence and knowledge of multinational oil companies, and I think it is in Canada's interest that our national oil company be alongside to protect Canadian interests when the implementation of this oil sharing arrangement is undertaken.
In committee Petro-Canada was added to the membership of the emergency supplies allocation board itself, and it seems to me to be even more important now that Petro-Canada be included and designated as our watchdog with the other multinational corporations that will be involved in the implementation of that oil sharing arrangement. After all, all hon. members will remember it was not so very long ago when one of the international oil companies, Exxon, involved itself in the diversion of crude which was destined for Canada. It is in that kind of situation that I think it is important that Canada should be involved, in order to guard against this sort of thing.
There were other allusions by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) about the domestic rather than the international nature of this, which shows, once again, it seems to me, that the opposition is not really seized of energy questions today. Hon. members opposite somehow seem to think that these matters are self-contained in Canada and are not created internationally. That hon. member obviously has not read my remarks on second reading; nor has he followed the details of the discussion during the committee stage. Had he done so he would have recognized that one of the reasons it is necessary to have this bill now is that the international situation may create circumstances under which the International Energy Agency will be called upon to act. That is why the powers are being sought at this time.

Petro-Canada has been involved in international questions. I submit this is not beyond its mandate, and that these amendments are fully consistent with the practice of this House.
I cannot see that the other questions which have been raised require further attention. I think it was argued by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham that we were in some way changing the powers and the duties of the board. That is correct; we are amending the powers and duties. That is the purpose of this amendment, just in the same way as hon. members themselves amended the membership of the committee with the addition of a senior officer of Petro-Canada.
I submit that this particular amendment is in order, and I submit it is essential that Canada be represented on the International Energy Agency by the Canadian national oil company in order to protect us in the implementation of a program which would otherwise be implemented almost exclusively by multinational oil companies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter has been rather thoroughly argued. There are two or three points I have to consider, one of which I may have to take under advisement for some time, depending on the arguments advanced during the debate. There are some I think I can deal with now.
Report stage proceedings as described in Standing Order 75 are independent of committee proceedings and, therefore, I cannot find motions at the report stage as being out of order simply because they were not previously presented. Report stage is, in fact, independent to a very large degree of the committee stage of a bill. As long as the Standing Orders and the precedents in respect of report stage are adhered to, I am in no position to interfere on a procedural ground simply because a motion may be raised for the first time at the report stage. Therefore, I cannot set this motion aside on this ground.
The second point has to do with the scope of the bill and whether the motion introduces a new concept that goes beyond the original scope of the bill, thereby rendering it out of order. With respect, I think I must conclude, as I mentioned during the course of the argument for the benefit of those wishing to make further contributions, that it is not for the Chair to attempt to decide the full effect of the consideration or the passage of any clause by the House when making an examination of the procedural regularity. Certainly the Chair must be bound by the conditions as they are found, as there may be some complication as a result of the details once an amendment of this sort is passed. I have to address myself only to the general question.
The purpose of the proposed statute is to establish a board for the purpose of dealing with emergency energy supply problems. The purpose of the motion that is before me now seems to be that, in the course of addressing itself to the domestic supply situation, the board shall look into the international aspects of Canada's oil supply. I cannot find that function so different from or unrelated to the function given the board under the statute that I should rule the motion out of order. It seems to me to be an incidental function. It is not for me to decide whether it can or cannot be done or whether it
March 12, 1979

may lead to complications. 1 have to decide whether that function is sufficiently incidental to the basic function given the board under the main statute that 1 am to consider it a procedurally regular amendment to the bill.
I do so find that it is so related to the function put forward for the board in the bill that this incidental function which is described in the amendment is one to which the Elouse ought to address itself in debate and decide. Therefore, the motion in that respect cannot be found to be procedurally out of order.
It was argued that the effect of this amendment was to establish the board now, whereas previously the statute had only the intention of establishing the board in the face of a national emergency. To me, the clear language of clause 3 provides that the board is established when the bill is passed. It may be activated in certain ways-by the triggering of an emergency or other things done by orders in council-but, nevertheless, the clear language under the statute is that the board "is hereby established". Therefore, I have to put that argument aside.
It seems to me this leaves me with only one argument, that put forward by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). To find in his favour may put the Elouse in a rather awkward position. The Elouse is faced with clause 3 which reads as follows:
There is hereby established an Energy Supplies Allocation Board consisting of a chairman and up to six other members to be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure and one of these members shall be a senior official of Petro-Canada.
If I were to accept the hon. member's argument that service on this board, or in turn on the related international committee which is referred to in the amendment, by someone from Petro-Canada or by Petro-Canada itself as a legal entity constitutes an extension of the function of Petro-Canada, presumably 1 may have to rule that part of the bill out of order as well and that might put the House in a rather difficult spot.
In any case, I have indicated to the hon. member that I am concerned about the point he has raised. I think I have to reserve that point and examine very carefully the substance of the debate on this motion to see if during the course of the debate I can be satisfied that in fact this function by Petro-Canada is an extension of its functions as described in its own enabling statute and requires an amendment to the Petro-Canada statute. If it does, then I would agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre that, if an attempt is being made here to amend the Petro-Canada statute, the amendment in that respect is out of order and I would have to strike the Petro-Canada provision from it. On the other hand, if it is simply a function which may be additional to what Petro-Canada is doing now, but not requiring additional statutory authority, then I would think that the amendment could probably stand.
I will therefore examine the arguments on substance and before the question is put to the House return to rule on the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Energy Supplies


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted quickly to address this question of clause 3 which was amended in committee. The original amendment put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr. Symes) specified that the chairman of the board of Petro-Canada would be a member of the energy supplies allocation board. The consideration of extra duties for Petro-Canada occurred to me and I took the view that that was directing an individual, not an organization. It was not dealing with new duties for Petro-Canada per se, but for an individual. The language was amended by members of the government to "a senior official of Petro-Canada." I think the argument would still hold that we are talking about extra duties for an individual, whereas paragraphs (5) and (6) of motion No. 1 proposed by the minister impose additional responsibility on Petro-Canada, the organization.
The Petro-Canada Act laid out in detail the responsibilities and obligations of this new Crown corporation. To add additional obligations and responsibilities to this Crown corporation, which paragraphs (5) and (6) of motion No. 1 do, is, in essence, amending the Petro-Canada Act.
That would be the basis of my point of order. I do not think we are in trouble regarding the assignment of a senior official of Petro-Canada, an individual, which is quite different from assigning new responsibilities to a Crown corporation whose responsibilities are spelled out in detail in an act specifically directed toward that goal.


Mr. Speaker:: If I understand that last point correctly, then, I would take it that in the view of the hon. member for York-Simcoe and the hon. member for Calgary Centre it is not a matter of the principle that is involved here-that if subclause (5), instead of the words "Petro-Canada", had "the chairman of Petro-Canada", and in subclause (6) the same, that it was "the chairman of Petro-Canada" and not "Petro-Canada," the matter would be procedurally in order.
It seems to me that it is a self-defeating argument. If we are worried about introducing a new element or function for Petro-Canada, what is the difference between introducing new functions for the chairman of Petro-Canada, who is, after all, created by the same statute, and for the Petro-Canada corporation itself? In other words, it seems to me that the hon. member is saying that he is not objecting to it on the grounds that there is an extension of the powers conferred in the Petro-Canada statute so long as it is done in respect of the chairman but not in respect of the corporation.
I have to worry about whether it requires an amendment to the Petro-Canada statute. Surely if it requires an amendment to the Petro-Canada statute to do it for the corporation, it will equally require an amendment to do it for the chairman whose existence is as a result of the statute.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have been distressed about this last point for the last few minutes, and if I may I should like to go back in order to give assistance to Your Honour.
We as a parliament clearly gave to the National Energy Board power over the judicial function of managing the oil

March 12, 1979
Energy Supplies
industry in Canada when we originally passed the National Energy Board Act. We also gave the board the policy function of advising the government or carrying out government instructions in the policy field. That bill became an act of parliament in 1959.
Since that time there has been a battle within the civil service to take away or reduce in measure the powers of the National Energy Board which parliament had put in place to control the world-wide operation of our oil industry by the "big seven". This was a Canadian effort to give control over import and export of energy to the National Energy Board only.
Coming back to this particular bill, we find that on two occasions specifically, if there is a clash between the board that the minister is setting up and any law or regulation of the National Energy Board, this bill has priority.
When we saw the royal recommendation we thought this was purely a bill for emergencies within Canada. We said the measure should be in place in case there was an emergency. I would point out that if that is so, if we are trying to sneak Petro-Canada on to this allocation board-which in the eyes of the National Energy Board is simply a Canadian company, and nothing else-to give it priority of place in decisions dealing with the duties of the National Energy Board on the import and export of oil for energy, we are moving into a very dangerous political field.
I do not think my observations to you bear exactly on the point of order totally but I think they strengthen the position originally taken by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), namely, that in this whole matter we as a parliament must be clear.
In 1959 we gave certain powers to the National Energy Board. Over and over again in the last 20 years there have been efforts to reduce that power. Now there is another clear attack on that power in the setting up of an energy supplies allocation board ostensibly to control emergencies in Canada. It is giving to that one oil company Petro-Canada-which is simply one of the clients or companies in Canada that takes direction from the National Energy Board-either through its chairman or through the allocation board itself, the power to overrule for national purposes the function parliament has already given to the National Energy Board.
I think that if this background were in Your Honour's mind as you were considering the point, it might help you to see it in perspective. I do not envy you your job of trying to decide.


Mr. Speaker:: There have been several arguments left with me already. I am anxious to have the debate commence so that we can get into the merits of the matter as to the function of Petro-Canada within this context. I do not think I can usefully

consider the procedural aspect of it any further at this point. I would like to get on with the debate. I have reserved on the procedural regularity on the basis of whether the introduction of Petro-Canada into this agency constitutes an extension of the Petro-Canada function that requires statutory control. If that proves to be the case-and I think I will get some enlightment on that aspect during the course of the debate-I have already indicated that I would hold that part of it out of order. If not, then I think it ought to stand.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to some of the questions you have raised.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order which has not yet been made. Perhaps the minister might want to reply to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) want to make a contribution. Perhaps I can hear the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, then the hon. member for Welland, then the hon. member for Algoma and conclude with the minister. Everyone has introduced arguments already. If I hear one member a second time, surely I should hear everyone a second time. I do not know to what extent we can carry this on. I would like to have all the arguments in hand before I try to decide the matter. I do not see how I can decide the question of the position of Petro-Canada until we get into the debate and hear from the minister what Petro-Canada is going to do.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is rising. There are other members. I will hear them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House appreciates your patience and tolerance. I am sure Your Honour is aware that the committee dealing with this matter sat until a very late hour on Friday last. It was on Friday, under the rules of the House, which obviously have to be changed in respect to this matter, that amendments had to be put in. Because of the weekend which intervened none of us in this House have had an opportunity to look at these amendments and the notices of the amendments. These came to our attention just this morning.
There is one other point which should be raised at this time. When Your Honour is doing some research into the powers and the authority of Petro-Canada itself, could you also take a look at the make-up of the International Energy Agency? This was set up under a 1974 treaty signed by this government and there are now 18 other signatories to that agreement. Basically the administration of the International Energy Agency is carried on at three different levels, as far as representatives of government are concerned. Of course, there is the secretariat which handles the administration, but the three levels of decision-making within that agency, as I understand it, are as follows. I quote from Article 50 of the treaty:
The Governing Board shall be composed of one or more ministers or their delegates from each participating country.
March 12, 1979

As a matter of fact, I believe our own minister is on the governing board, or used to be. Certainly that is a clear indication that the governing board of the International Energy Agency itself has to be composed of people at the ministerial level as far as their being representatives of the countries that are signatory to the agreement is concerned. The next level down is the management committee. In this case I am referring to Article 53, which reads as follows:
The Management Committee shall be composed of one or more senior representatives of the government of each participating country.
Obviously this means that a representative, if not from the ministerial level, should be chosen from at least the top civil servants of the government of each participating country. The third and final level is that of the standing groups. Subsection 1 of Article 54 of the treaty says:
Each Standing Group shall be composed of one or more representatives of the government of each participating country.
I suggest that in actual practice, and in regard to the technical language of the International Energy Agency, the persons who are representatives of governments in respect to the standing groups, where the minister's amendment purports to place a representative of a state-owned oil company, are composed of one or more representatives of the government of each participating country. Under the language that is almost the same for each one of these levels of the agency itself, it is inherent that the representative or representatives of this country on the standing groups of the International Energy Agency should be members of the government, senior civil servants or members of the bureaucracy. By that I mean civil servants and not necessarily public servants.
I suggest to you, sir, that research should be done to decide whether Petro-Canada itself has within its incorporating statute the power to be a representative of the government or whether it is independent of the government. In my opinion, it is not possible to send anyone else but a senior civil servant, or a civil servant, to be a member of Canada's representation on the standing group of the International Energy Agency. Again, to do so would be out of order because Canada is a signatory to that agreement.


Mr. S. Victor Raiiton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I will not enter the argument about who will represent us on the International Energy Agency. In my opinion, it is important to mention the duties given Petro-Canada when the act was passed by parliament. It was to enter into the retail, wholesale, distributing, drilling, and exploration fields just like any other multinational oil corporation. As for serving on a national committee, there is no good reason why it would not be eligible from its incorporation preambles in the bill, as far as I remember them. The appointment of an official, after all, depends upon his acceptance. The government cannot insist that the official designated has to act. It is purely a courtesy. I see no reason to get into an argument as to who will be appointed, whether he is a member of Petro-Canada or not. If that is mentioned in the bill and it is the government's policy to do so, I think that is quite in order and I agree with that.
Energy Supplies
On the other point, I believe that some research should be done.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on the argument concerning the use of Petro-Canada, the act establishes the energy supplies allocation board. The minister in making his speech indicated that there would be representatives of producers, of consumers, of provincial governments and so on. It seems to me it would be most unusual if Petro-Canada, which I understand is the eighth highest gas producer in the country and is high on the list as an oil producer, was set up to be a window on the industry and was not represented on the board. There will be other senior representatives on the board including one from the oil companies as well as representatives of consumers and of the provinces. It would be most unusual if the government did not appoint one of its people from Petro-Canada to serve on that board.
I really cannot see any conflict with introducing Petro-Canada. It is the national petroleum corporation of this country. There are going to be representatives of the producers. Why could we not have a representative from our own producer, especially when that producer is not only producing oil and gas but will also be buying oil offshore from Mexico? If that is the group within the Government of Canada or its agencies which is concerned with that, obviously it should serve on that committee.
The other section of the minister's amendment, Mr. Speaker, as you have already suggested, is that this board should study supplies offshore. I can do nothing but agree with you that if this board is not studying the supply situation offshore and reporting to the minister, it certainly would not be doing its job.
I do not see the argument which the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has made, that this representative has to be a senior civil servant as opposed to a representative from PetroCan. The amendment proposes that the minister be the person responsible on this standing group on emergency questions, but this function would be delegated to PetroCan as the representative of the federal government who is intimately involved in the whole question of imports and supply from offshore, and production as well.
I really cannot see the conflict, certainly with the amendment that was made the other night. The minister has continually said that we would have representatives of the producers. In fact, the person who is chairman of the board of Petro-Canada now was the repesentative on some of the standing committees of the International Energy Agency for several years. He is probably more knowledgeable than many civil servants, certainly those who came from Ontario to harangue the committee the other night.
I do not see the difficulty here. The whole mechanism of the bill is to establish the board. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) did not seem to catch that.

March 12, 1979
Energy Supplies


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The only question that remains at issue is the idea of using Petro-Canada in this function. I have no more concern about Standing Order 75 amendments and the international function of this agency as being incidental to its function to ensure domestic supplies. There is no sense going over that ground again. There is only one problem on which I have reserved, and that is whether the choice of someone from Petro-Canada in this regard represents something for which an amendment to the Petro-Canada statute is required.


Maurice Brydon Foster: At that point it seems we have within Petro-Canada people working for the Government of Canada through a Crown corporation who are knowledgeable in this field. It would be natural for the minister and the government to appoint them to serve on this International Energy Agency, especially at a time of crisis, and also to have one representative from the Crown corporation serve on the energy supplies allocation board.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is interested in getting into the argument which has been going on for some time. I will hear the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for Bellechasse and then the minister, which will then conclude the matter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my remarks to the specific point to which you have referred. I simply draw your attention to a very significant difference in the wording of clause 3 which the minister referred to, which states that one of these members, meaning members of the supplies allocation board, "shall be a senior official of Petro-Canada". I suggest that all that is being stated there is that out of the virtually hundreds of people that the government might choose to go on that board, the bill that went through the committee says that one of those people should be a person who is also a senior official of Petro-Canada.
The reason I stress that has nothing to do with the powers within Petro-Canada. In no way does that indicate that Petro-Canada is being called upon to do anything. It simply states that an official of Petro-Canada shall be one of the people who will sit on that board. If you like, it is almost as if by coincidence, but for obvious reasons, in their wisdom the majority in committee felt it was wise to have somebody who is an official of Petro-Canada also act on that board. I stress that has nothing to do with the powers of Petro-Canada itself. It is as if the committee has suggested that included on the board should be a representatives from the National Energy Board. That is something they could say. In other words, the person would need to be wearing two hats.
I stress this because when we look at the proposed wording in subclauses (5) and (6), it very clearly is not a matter of putting an official of Petro-Canada on to this new board or on to the International Energy Agency. The minister is proposing that he will appoint Petro-Canada as his representative. That is why we then have to find whether in fact Petro-Canada has those kinds of powers. Can it act under any circumstances as an agent of somebody else?

The point I referred to earlier, if we found that they did have that power, is how, then, can Petro-Canada, in effect, carry out that power? Because Petro-Canada cannot speak unless it speaks through another agent which presumably would be an official or some other officer of Petro-Canada. Subclause (6) makes it abundantly clear that they intend Petro-Canada as an entity to act, and it must therefore have the power to act. Subclause (6) says that Petro-Canada, in fulfilling its function under subclause (5), shall be responsible to the chairman of the board. I feel that both (5) and (6) conjure up an entirely different role for Petro-Canada from clause 3, which conjures up no role for Petro-Canada other than the simple fact that a senior official of Petro-Canada shall also be called upon to be a board member as set out in clause 3.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, for my part, I understand quite well the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) to the effect that this amendment should have been moved in committee. Still, as custom would have it, it is possible to introduce amendments at this stage. We are dealing here with an amendment that would entrust to Petro-Canada, through the minister, the role of representative of Canada with the group that would eventually be appointed to supervise the distribution of oil so that all communities are better served.
I feel, therefore, that it would be wise for Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation, to have a mandate that differs from that of the other members. I have always claimed that when it comes to fighting for the interests of the multinationals, it is a bit like dealing with twin sisters, not like the Dionne quintuplets, but something like that. There were five of them at the time, and they got along just fine. Similarly, we would have a company representing Canada, in a position to keep the government and the minister advised on the way things are going, which would be given the required authority to do so efficiently. So, I feel that we should do so. That is how I see the situation, but the fact remains that the minister must have thought of it last week or in past weeks with his officials. He should not have waited till last weekend to introduce that motion amending Bill C-42. In any event, I have no objection to it whatsoever. I would even say that the bill should be amended in that way, precisely to better guarantee that the interests of all Canadian are protected.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to your invitation to deal with some of these issues. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) talked about the structure of the International Energy Agency. He talked about the governing board of the agency. That board deals with a number of matters, not just emergency oil sharing arrangements. In this bill we are concerned with the emergen-
March 12, 1979

cy oil sharing arrangements, not with the research and development aspect or other questions.
Emergency oil sharing arrangements are handled by a senior committee called the standing committee on emergency questions. Attached to that body is an advisory group called the industry advisory board. A number of international companies are associated with this advisory board and Petro-Canada might be associated with this advisory side, the industry advisory board. But there is a second level down. That is the office of the International Energy Agency allocation coordinator. The position of allocation co-ordinator is presently held by the executive director in a dual capacity. His office is concerned with guiding the allocation process. He, too, depends upon advice from the industry, the industry supplies advisory group as it is called. It provides information, it is involved with the co-ordination of the actions of the various companies and it is composed of a selective group of almost exclusively international oil companies. It is advisory, as I say, to the co-ordinator.
The next group down is the International Energy Agency secretariat which is concerned with the implementation of the process. This, too, depends heavily on the international companies. It is concerned with receiving and providing information. It is concerned also with implementing the emergency arrangements through the international companies. As one considers the hierarchy of levels of committees one can see that the international companies play a very important part not just in terms of advice but in terms of implementing the allocation.
We are dealing, then, with international allocation arrangements made by the International Energy Agency. The bill before us is concerned with that process because the agency could trigger the actual proclamation of an emergency situation in Canada as provided in our treaty obligations. Once that happens, the process of allocation will have been determined outside Canada, before the oil gets to Canada, by the International Energy Agency. It will have been determined by the standing group on emergency questions with the advice of international companies. This is why I believe it is essential that we should designate Petro-Canada as a representative of Canada, or as one of the representatives, on this important body.
The question has been asked: Would this in some way go beyond the powers of Petro-Canada itself? I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to section 3 of the act setting up Petro-Canada. Under the heading "Purposes of the Act" we find the following:
The purpose of this act is to establish within the energy industries of Canada a Crown owned company with authority to explore for hydro-carbon deposits, to negotiate for and acquire petroleum and petroleum products from abroad, to assure a continuity of supply for the needs of Canada ...
I believe Petro-Canada under the International Energy Agency would be doing precisely that-watching and guarding Canadian interests.
Hon. members will recall that it was not long ago that the Exxon Corporation diverted supplies in the order of 25,000 barrels a day of oil destined for Canada from Venezuela
Energy Supplies
through that corporation's subsidiary, Imperial Oil. They were diverted despite the fact that Venezuela had stated it wanted them to go to Canada. An international company acted on that occasion against the wishes of the country of origin, Venezuela, and against the wishes of Canada. It is to protect ourselves against activity of that kind-international companies deciding things for their own purposes, not necessarily for the purposes of the system-that we need a watchdog. That is why we consider Petro-Canada to be so important.
We have witnessed increasing activity on the part of the International Energy Agency and international companies in this regard. Very recently the agency decided it would be important for us collectively to reduce world demand by two million barrels a day, roughly 5 per cent of consumption in the IEA countries, and once again the international agency will be depending upon the international companies. I repeat that this is why it is essential for Petro-Canada to be one of this country's designated participants at the top level of the allocation's process, where the allocation process starts. It starts with the international companies. Such participation is fully consistent with Petro-Canada's own act, as well as with the bill we have in front of us, and I hope a sense of urgency, which has not always been apparent on the other side of the House, will impel us to go forward without delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The argument is reduced, then, to this. If I accept the proposition that the introduction of Petro-Canada is the introduction of a new element into this bill or that by placing this clause in the bill we would, in effect, be amending the Petro-Canada statute, those aspects of the amendment which relate to Petro-Canada will have to be held to be out of order. On the other hand, if the functions of Petro-Canada are already sufficient under its own enabling statute to permit it to do what is proposed here, then I would have to find that the motions, on the face of them, are procedurally acceptable.
There is another difficulty which I have to face, and that is that there is a limited extent to which the Chair on procedural grounds ought to be inquiring into and interpreting other statutes. So if I am to make a finding in that regard, it is going to have to be a rather fundamental finding, not based on some opinion on the basis of the Petro-Canada statute but, rather, on the obvious face of the terms of reference of Petro-Canada.
Finally, I have to take this into account: If I strike the Petro-Canada provisions from the clause, what I would do is, having found that the international study or the international examination of oil supplies is in fact incidental to guaranteeing domestic supply in emergency situations-I have found that, and therefore I have found that the House ought to debate the clause regarding setting up this international study function of this board.
Then I go on to subclause (5) which says, and I think it quite in order, that the representation on the standing group on emergency questions within the International Energy Agency shall, if the emergency oil-sharing system provided for in the

March 12, 1979
Adjournment Motion
agreement on an international energy program is activated, be under the direction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If I were to find the Petro-Canada portion out of order, my inclination would be to stop the clause there, and then I examine it and indicate that, if I stop the clause there, it would seem to me that the purpose of the clause would be to leave it to the minister to appoint whomever he pleases, and obviously one of the appointments which would be open to the minister would be Petro-Canada. If that is the case, how can I then conclude, not on substantive grounds but on procedural grounds, that the undertaking to appoint Petro-Canada in the statute becomes procedurally unacceptable? It may be substantively so or matter of disagreement, but I have a little trouble there.
So those are the matters I will take into consideration. I do not believe the House will resume consideration of this matter until some time tomorrow afternoon. I presume that the great likelihood, since we are under an order to proceed to the housing bill at eight o'clock and there is every indication that that matter will need all the time through until ten o'clock to finalize it at third reading, is that the House will return to this matter only at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. At that time I will endeavour to finalize this matter so that debate can go on in an orderly way.
With the permission of the House we could conveniently call it five o'clock now, if that is what is desired, and that would give me the opportunity to decide this matter before we go on.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Status of women-Alleged failure of government to provide equal opportunity for women in public service; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Air transport- Settlement with union to avoid further deterioration of air safety; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk)- Health and Welfare-Health care of native peoples.
It being five o'clock, I believe the House is of the disposition to proceed to private members' business and to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Public Bills:
October 30, 1978-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of Bill C-260, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (air crew proxy voting).-Mr. Forrestall.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the House proceeds to the motion standing in the name of my House leader, 1 would like to ask Your Honour if I might withdraw a bill from the order paper, private member's Bill C-260, a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act dealing with air crew proxy voting. I neglected to do this after the matter had been included in amendments to the Canada Elections Act, and I now ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to withdraw Bill C-260 from the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Since the matter is in the possession of the House, the hon. member needs the consent of the House to withdraw his bill, which is Bill C-260 with respect to air crew proxy voting. Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to withdraw that bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Walter David Baker: That this House urges the adoption of Standing Orders which will ensure the government's accountability to the House of Commons for its management of Canada's finances.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not give you heart failure as you were in the chair worrying that I might not be here. I certainly intended to be here today to deal with this important subject, one which has plagued parliaments and democratic governments in the free world. The matter to which I refer is the lack of control over public finance which seems to exist. When we consider what has happened in this country, we find that government spending has increased from about $11 billion in 1967 and 1968 to an estimated $53 billion in the next fiscal year. It is more and more difficult to obtain effective democratic supervision over such tremendous amounts of money,
March 12, 1979

and this situation, which is acknowledged everywhere, forces us as parliamentarians to ask some very serious questions about the effectiveness of our control over such spending.
Two important factors must be taken into account when discussing this particular problem. How do we create financial organization within the government itself? That is one question. Second, how can we create more effective methods of scrutiny and control in parliament?
The purpose of this motion is to deal with the latter portion, namely, control mechanisms within parliament itself. I respectfully submit that public expenditures should be presented in a form which will aid members in their critical assessment of public spending. Indeed, that is the reason members of parliament come here in the first place.
Canada is not the only country in the world which has had to face this situation. Let me mention two others as examples which show the directions which have been taken in dealing with this problem. In 1947 the United States Congress formed special budget committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. These committees study the President's budget and recommend changes in fiscal policy and spending priorities. The newly created congressional budget office provides technical support to both those committees. I do not have to outline to this House nor, particularly, to the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board (Mr. Lefebvre) the difference between Canada and the United States in terms of fora, but it is interesting that this has been done.
Similar efforts to control public spending were established in the British parliament based on the 1969 recommendations of its procedure committee. First of all, in Great Britain the traditional supply estimates are accompanied by an annual white paper which gives parliament specific information on government plans for an immediate three-year period as well as provisional planning for a future period of two years. In other words, parliament has an advance look at the priorities of government in a way which we really do not have in this country. The second aspect is that the old estimates committee has been reorganized to form the newer expenditure committee in the British parliament. That committee is divided into five specialized subcommittees and one general subcommittee. This reconstituted committee takes a much more comprehensive approach to government spending and is better able to assess programs from a long-term policy basis than we are here.
In Canada we have taken some steps as well. In 1969 we established the standing committees of this House as an integral part of the operation of parliament to examine estimates, which are now referred to the standing committees rather than being dealt with in the committee of the whole.
I would be the last to advocate a wholesale return to dealing with estimates in the committee of the whole, although I would be prepared to deal with experiments from the point of view of some estimates from some departments. I know there is some agreement in that regard. Moreover, internally the government introduced the office of Comptroller General for Canada and
Financial Accountability
expanded the resources available to the Auditor General himself. This has also aided the process of budgetary control.
However, with all those steps taken in the last little while- they have been significant steps-there are still strong misgivings in parliament about the ability of the ordinary member of parliament to monitor the financial management and accountability of the government. Parliamentary supervision is one of the cornerstones of our system, and with respect to giving more than lip service in terms of the size of the problem we have not proceeded very far. I suggest that we do not have in the House that kind of control or supervision mechanism that is envisaged by the motion. All the good will in the world will not help us in this task unless we are given the effective tools to utilize in carrying out the task.
In our parliament we need at present more detailed and understandable information on government spending, and that is admitted on all sides of the House. Second, we need a more effective parliamentary committee structure to help us assess the information and make responsible recommendations based on such parliamentary supervision. I use the word "responsible" because I think that gets us out of the field of instinctive reaction, and that reaction of parliament and parliamentarians to this should be based on sure knowledge.
The Auditor General has given a great deal of attention to these points. For example, he underlined in his last report the two main roles of the estimates as follows:
One is to enable parliament to assess the government's proposed allocation of resources and the second is to establish the basics of future accountability by showing why funds are needed, what resources are needed and who is to be accountable.
To improve the financial control, the following modifications are suggested:
-reorganization of the presentation of estimates: a summary volume which shows how resources have been allocated and departmental volumes showing the planned performance of each department.
That was the first suggestion he made and it is a good one. He goes on to say:
-More information in support of statutory appropriations.
Those are the payments that are made and funds which must be gathered to carry out the intentions of the laws passed by parliament.
Such expenses now account for 60 per cent of the budget. We cannot have control without having more information about these expenses.
That is the second recommendation that he made and it is equally sound. Then he went on to say:
-More information on Crown corporations. Parliament should be able to review their yearly activities.
Crown corporations have assumed a larger and larger role in our system. We can debate that role in individual cases, but they are there and parliament should be able to review their yearly activities in a way which we cannot do now. Finally, the Auditor General suggested that:
-Parliament should have the same information as is available to the Treasury Board so that it can responsibly assess departmental programs.

March 12, 1979
Financial Accountability
I say, why not? If Treasury Board has certain information with respect to programs, why should parliament not have that kind of information?
These recommendations made by the Auditor General indicate the present inadequacy of the spending information parliament now receives. The Auditor General also suggests that, in addition to reporting on estimates and public accounts, parliamentary committees should simultaneously be asked to take into account the larger issues of government spending and program development. This is something that our present system does not allow us to do in the way we should do it and in the way the Auditor General felt parliament should have the power to do.
Many points can be made to indicate the problems of the present committee system in ensuring government accountability relating to public spending. These committees are not sufficiently specialized, they are perhaps too large and memberships rotate too often. I think that despite the work of the parliamentary staff and certain other staff, it is fair to say that specialized staff is lacking, the perception of the committee mandate is too narrow and, in the final analysis, the government's attitude towards estimates examination is negative. With respect to further information, I call the attention of the House to the fact that, notwithstanding that there has been a great number of promises, we are still waiting in the dying days of this parliament for a freedom of information act which would be a fundamental tool of parliament which would operate in this milieu.
With these points in mind, I will summarize a suggestion I made in 1976 to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I consider that it would contribute to parliamentary control of public finance and would put us in a better position to exercise our duty efficiently if we had a standing committee on policy expenditure and programs. Its terms of reference would be to consider the over-all spending priorities of government as well as to consider such estimates as the committee wished to examine on a long-term and extensive basis.
The purpose of this committee would be, in the life of an ordinary parliament, to go in depth into programs of individual departments of government and examine them on a long-term basis so that in a normal four or five year parliament we would be able to go through and examine a number of the important estimates, programs and directions that programs are taking to see whether they are relevant, whether they should be modified, or whether they are meeting the needs for which they were set up. This committee should have available the most complete information about the financial situation of each department and should have access to information which the Treasury Board would have. It would have extensive power, I suggest, with respect to the calling of witnesses. 1 think that this structure would enable parliament to do its job of monitoring the activities of government in a much more effective way.
There is a development occurring now within the government, that of program evaluation. It is in the state of infancy. The Comptroller General of Canada will have a large part to

play in the development of that program. It is something that in terms of the public service is relatively new, and I believe that the internal work with respect to program evaluation could be augmented with respect to the consideration of that work in parliament by a committee structure that would be useful in bringing to parliament those matters which are important to the Auditor General.
I point out to my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Treasury Board that in a phrase from the Speech from the Throne which opened this session of parliament-and I am sure he will remind the House of that in his speech-it is indicated that such a program would be presented to parliament. We are now in the last stage of this parliament and the program has not been presented here. There have been some discussions-I have been part of them and they have been very helpful-but I think that although it is one thing to create this kind of program within the public service to evaluate the programs that are being carried on, the real nub of our program is to have in this parliament a structure by which the work of the evaluation, in terms of the objectives of policy, can be examined by parliamentarians on all sides of the House.
In my respectful submission to the House-and I hope it will be agreeable to members-I suggest that this motion should be passed so that there will be an expression by the House that it is not our desire here to unnecessarily hold up or obstruct the programs of government. It is merely our desire to balance the right of government to proceed with its programs with the right of parliament and the people to make the government accountable to parliament and to the people for the kinds of programs it brings forward. Also it is our desire to engage the attention of members of parliament in looking at the relevancy of programs in a country which is complex and in a society which is pluralistic. The bottom line of the operation of a democratic government is the accountability of that government. That is the purpose of this motion, and 1 hope it commends itself to the House.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) accept a question?


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Harold Thomas Herbert: This is private members' hour, but nevertheless the hon. member is the House leader for the official opposition. Therefore I assume he speaks with some knowledge of what his party wants to propose as a party platform. I would ask him if he has had discussions. The hon. member has made some interesting suggestions. What type of reaction did he receive from his party to the suggestion that his party would be prepared to incorporate these proposals, if it was in the unfortunate position of being the next government?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is quite relevant. I speak in the House as a private member, but these matters were put by me as House leader of my party to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in September 1976 as part of the
March 12, 1979

program of my party to open parliament and return it to the people.
I commend to the hon. member an article written by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which appeared in The Parliamentarian, a magazine to which we have access that deals with parliamentary problems. The hon. member will see that the Leader of the Opposition alluded in the article to this kind of change. The answer to the question is yes.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting motion which has been brought forth this afternoon by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I for one welcome the opportunity to speak on it. 1 would like to take this time to remind all hon. members of a number of significant changes and initiatives taken by the government to demonstrate its concern with establishing an appropriate accountability framework in the management of government programs.
One of these initiatives was the establishment of the royal commission on financial management and accountability on November 22, 1976. The chairman of this commission, Mr. Allen T. Lambert, said the following:
One of the overriding objectives of the final report which the commission plans to submit... is to establish within the government a workable framework of accountability and control for individual departments and agencies in the management of their affairs, and to strengthen the system of accountability by the government to parliament.
The formation of the royal commission was an acknowledgement by the government that with the growing size and complexity of government today, not only in Canada but in all progressive democratic countries, there is a need to re-examine the means of accountability by the government to parliament.
The commission focused its attention on three main subjects: the role of cabinet and central agencies such as the Treasury Board secretariat and Privy Council Office in establishing priorities, allocating resources and maintaining broad control over individual departments and agencies; the role of the deputy head and the management of departments, and the system of accountability to the minister, the executive, the central organizations and parliament; and the system of direction, control and accountability of Crown agencies.
In the interim report of the royal commission published in November, 1977 some interesting questions were posed. For example, in the present day context can the minister alone continue to be held accountable to parliament for every aspect of the administrative performance of the department or Crown agency? This challenges the fundamental doctrine of ministerial responsibility. What information is necessary to enable parliament to carry out its role as protector of the public purse? Could the performance of parliamentary committees involved in the surveillance of government spending be made more effective? Should there be other means for conducting parliamentary review of the performance of departments and Crown agencies, apart from the consideration of the estimates and the public accounts?
Financial Accountability
The progress report of the royal commission directed its attention to the elusive meaning of the word "accountability". It indicated how it could be effective when the commission reported the following:
In its simplest terms, to be accountable means to be liable to be called to account for an accepted responsibility, but this definition is not practical unless it is extended to include a judgment upon the performance of that responsibility. Thus, meaningful accountability requires that there be:
-procedures for setting objectives and goals and assigning responsibility to
achieve results;
-a reporting system or systems that provide information on the progress
made toward the achievement of goals;
-a review of the reported results with the purpose of evaluating performance.
In effect, the commission suggested that there are two accountability frameworks which underpin democratic and responsible government. It indicated:
These are the way in which parliament holds the executive to account for the conduct of its administration of government and the way in which the executive in turn holds the senior managers of the public service and Crown agencies to account for their administration.
The government recognized the dual framework, and that is why it has continued to meet the challenge on two fronts: improving the management ability of public servants, and providing better disclosure of the spending plans and program results through the estimates and public accounts. Furthermore, major improvements in the parliamentary process have been made through such bodies as the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and special committees to examine specific matters.
Another initiative taken by the government to demonstrate its concern with accountability was its examination of direction, control and accountability of Crown corporations. As You Honour is aware, a blue paper was produced on this subject in 1977. The paper examined such difficult questions as to what extent Crown corporations should be used as instruments of public policy when the pursuit of policy objectives may detract from the financial performance of such corporations. Also it examined how increased responsiveness to public policy can be reconciled with the arm's length relationship which in theory a public enterprise requires government ministers and parliament to maintain with Crown corporations. The paper was published to encourage public discussion and comment prior to the introduction of a Crown corporations bill in parliament.
On the general subject of accountability I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the new Auditor General Act passed by the House of Commons on June 29, 1977, and subsequently passed without amendment by the Senate. A key change in the scope of the responsibilities of the Auditor General is contained in section 7(2) of the act. It reads as follows:
Each report of the Auditor General.. . shall call attention to anything that he considers to be of significance and of a nature that should be brought to the attention of the House of Commons, including any cases in which he has observed that. .. money has been expended without due regard to economy or efficiency; or satisfactory procedures have not been established to measure and report the effectiveness of programs, where such procedures could appropriately and reasonably by implemented.

March 12, 1979
Financial Accountability
As all hon. members are aware from reading the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, in exercising his new mandate the Auditor General has focused on procedures in cost effectiveness and value for money. Also his report contained suggested models for improving the information display of departmental estimates. These models will be taken into account in the joint Treasury Board/Comptroller General study of the form of the estimates which now is under way. Extensive discussions have taken place on this subject with the public accounts committee and with witnesses from the Treasury Board secretariat, the Comptroller General's office and the office of the Auditor General.
The government is continuously searching for improvements. It has established its own internal monitoring function to ensure that there will be sound management and control within the over-all government accountability framework. I am speaking, of course, of the establishment of the office of the Comptroller General and the appointment of Mr. Harry Rogers as Comptroller General. Mr. Rogers' appointment was announced in February of last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and he began his new duties on April 2, one year ago.


Walter David Baker: Supported by all parties.


Thomas Lefebvre: Yes, supported by all parties. The Comptroller General's responsibilities include financial administration policy as it affects departments and agencies of the government, the form of the accounts of Canada, the form and the content of the government's financial statements, including those of its departments and agencies. His responsibilities include also the methods and procedures of control that are followed by departments and agencies, including budgetary methods and budgetary control systems, functional responsibilities for financial organizations, departments and agencies, the professional development of financial officers, and all related areas of financial management and control.
In addition, the Comptroller General has two other major responsibilities in improving management and control, namely, performance measurements and program evaluation. It is through these two major tools that accountability can be explicitly stated. The Treasury Board policy on performance measurement was issued in 1976, and its policy on program eveluation followed in 1977.
The government recognizes in the face of a long-term period of restraint that major new policy decisions and programs will need to be financed out of existing programs. Organizational skills must shift from planning and implementing to managing and controlling. In this connection, the federal government has endorsed three key management objectives: first, improving economy in the acquisition of assets; second, improving efficiency in their use and in the administration of program expenditures; and third, improving the effectiveness of government programs in achieving their objectives. These objectives complement the objectives of maintaining high standards of

financial prudence and probity in the conduct of the government's financial affairs.
In addition to the work of the Comptroller General in bringing about needed improvements, a series of seminars has been given to enable deputy ministers and other senior officials to gain a better appreciation of the financial management process. The emphasis of the seminars is on senior officers' responsibilities in this important domain.
Therefore, it will be clear to this House that there is already a climate of good will both in the government and in the public service to continue our best efforts in establishing the most appropriate system of accountability in the management of this government's financial affairs.
Before closing, I should like to underline and once again bring to the attention of hon. members of this House the work now going on in the public accounts committee. For the past several weeks, with meetings and briefings, many times a week, this committee is and has been gathering ideas and suggestions from its members, with constant assistance from the Auditor General and his highly qualified staff, the Treasury Board secretariat represented by Mr. Larry O'Toole, and the Comptroller General of Canada, in order to put together what we of the committee feel will be a very important report to this House on what we believe should be included in the future form of the estimates.
The Auditor General has mentioned more than once that this working group, as he refers to it, is a fantastic breakthrough and a major step forward toward financial accountability and control. This study by the public accounts committee has been an example of co-operation by members of parliament from the official opposition-one of its members chairs the committee-and members from the government side, as well as from Treasury Board, the office of the Comptroller General and the Auditor General. Members hope that some of their recommendations will be evident in the estimates to be tabled next year and each year following until an almost new form of estimates is published, in order that they may become more comprehensive and useful to everyone concerned.
I feel confident that enough data is on the record of this committee's proceedings to ensure that there will definitely be a continual change for the better in the estimates, and when I say "better", I mean better for the parliament of Canada, the public of Canada, the public service and, of course, the Government of Canada.
The committee has not been able to arrive at a final consensus yet, especially on how the estimates should be handled by the House and its committees. It may be that this subject will be part of a study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I am sure I speak for all hon. members of the committee when I say that it has done a great many weeks of very intensive and hard work. I am sure the evidence of this work will be seen in the form of the estimates. If the committee can accomplish its work I hope that a report can be tabled in this House at this stage which will indicate what that committee has accomplished.
March 12, 1979


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for bringing this motion on today, particularly as he is the House leader of the Conservative party and may have some role to play in the next government. If that is the case I look forward to holding him to fulfilling some of the recommendations he has made.
I think it is safe to say that, as far as members of parliament are concerned, expenditures of government are totally beyond control in any way, shape or form. I listened with great interest when the parliamentary secretary indicated what the government intends to do. The government is always going to do something and it always has done something. It has carried out a great many studies and it has always had a great deal of input from civil service and other interested individuals and groups; but the situation has continually worsened.
When I first came here total government expenditures amounted to about $10 billion or $15 billion. I doubt if they were much higher than that. Today total expenditures have increased to $52 billion. Since the beginning of this parliament expenditures have more than doubled, having jumped from $23 billion to $52 billion. We were not able to handle expenditures very well when they amounted in total to $10 billion or $15 billion, and today we cannot handle them at all.
It must shock new members, as it must shock any thinking Canadian, that we are coming to the end of the month when we will pass those expenditures amounting to $52 billion without knowing what 90 per cent of the expenditures are, let alone whether they are needed. It is all right for us to say that the Auditor General is able to look into them on our behalf. I congratulate the auditor generals we have had for the work they have done. They have found horses on the payroll and a number of other major sensational abuses. I think there are about ten or 12 such sensational abuses each year. I would ask what members of parliament have been able to do about these abuses, the ten or 12 sensational ones that hit the headlines each year. I suggest they have been able to do absolutely nothing.
I suggest there is absolutely no machinery in place by which members of parliament can do anything about such abuses. We have a Comptroller General who may keep a few civil servants honest, and who may have been able in some way to control the manner in which some expenditures are made.
When listening to the parliamentary secretary a few minutes ago I was interested to hear him say the government is going to promote efficiencies and general control over the expenditures of the Treasury Board and the BED ministers. This government has decentralized, that is what it has done. For instance, it took the Department of Veterans Affairs to that minister's riding in Prince Edward Island, about as far away from the government as you can get. If this government stays in office for another five years we will probably have to go through another country to get there.
Financial Accountability
What have we done about buying pencils, for example? I often wonder what the Comptroller General and the BED ministers think about this if it is not in their ridings-we are buying pencils in Matane, for instance. The Department of Supply and Services increased its purchases tenfold in that area. That is not what I understand as efficiency. To be efficient you buy in bulk; you do not make purchases in every minister's riding. Can we control that sort of thing in the estimates? Are we in a position to do anything about those matters? The patronage exercised by this government is rampant. We do not know the levels where it exists. Patronage certainly is not efficiency. It is where somebody who cannot be elected to government or somebody who is related to someone who cannot be elected, is put in a responsible position where they do irresponsible things. That is surely not an economy.
One of the reasons I hope there is a change in government is that something might be done about some of these problems and not just more committees set up. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says we do not want to go back to the days of committee of the whole. I think we could gain something by going back to that. We might have to limit the time or, as they do in other countries, set three months aside for it.


Walter David Baker: I left the possibility open.


William Arnold Peters: I realize the hon. member left the possibility open. I know the reason he did not do more than leave it open is because he may be responsible for some department and does not want to have to bribe people like the member from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to get his estimates through. That may be an abuse, and I take full credit for it.


Mr. Francis:: Surely that is not bribery.


William Arnold Peters: It is a parliamentary arrangement. If I get a bridge, the minister gets his estimates, or if I get a concession in something, he gets-the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has been doing that ever since he came here. His vocabulary may be larger than mine, and he may call it something with a more fancy name.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to give consideration to what he has said. The allegation that I have somehow received improper rewards for my constituency in turn for holding up or allowing passage of estimates is uncalled for, I think.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not imply that the hon. member got unfortunate rewards. He got very good rewards. He has got the rewards he is sent to get and which he believes in.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


William Arnold Peters: I do not see what I have to withdraw. I am giving the hon. member full credit for having done this. Let me give an example. I have heard him many times on the question

March 12, 1979
Financial Accountability
of veterans affairs, and when he won a point after considerable effort I thought it was a good reward for his people. I am sure he did not do it for other reasons. I hope hon. members will agree that I did not do it for other than a good reward on behalf of my constituents.
I sympathize with the member who interjected. He has not been here long enough to remember when we really had some control over estimates. When we had control over estimates, using the time factor, many amendments were made. How many members can say today that they are able to change anything in the estimates when they are brought before parliament by civil servants? The government does not really understand what is going on. In many cases I am sure the estimates make provision for civil servants operating in concerns of branches of departments that the government does not know exist, and which are self-perpetuating.
It is not going to be easy to supervise the expenditures of parliament. It is not easy in other countries either. It is not easy to control statutory expenditures. We pass a piece of legislation and in perpetuity provide gratuities to agencies that are never questioned. I am sure that if some of them kept very quiet and did not rock the boat, did not start muck-raking or department building, they would find themselves in no difficulty unless they asked for additional statutory expenditure. I am sure the same thing is true of Crown corporations. We really never supervise them. I agree with the parliamentary secretary who says that we probably have to keep at arm's length from them because, if we do not, they would only be departments of government. But we must examine their costs and the direction they are taking.
The charge has often been made that a Crown corporation cannot use money efficiently. The Canadian National Railways is a good example. It is a wonderful organization now because it is making money. The thing is, it always made money but we charged so much of the debt to it that was incurred 50 or 100 years ago that the interest was never paid off, let alone the debt. Now that the debt has been written off we are no longer in the difficulty.
The Canadian Pacific Railway was the only beneficiary of that bad accounting system. When we could show that CN was in debt we could always work out the railroad tariff on the basis that it was not making any money and, because of that, CPR got the benefit of all the subsidization that had to go into making the CN a viable operation.
Recently in the news, Canadian Pacific was screaming about the fact that Air Canada, a Crown corporation, was cutting air fares to a degree that would bankrupt Canadian Pacific Air as they do not have the lucrative lines Air Canada has. Several years ago Air Canada was only a stepchild of the Canadian National Railways and their debt structure was tied to it. Now that we have established Air Canada independently it is a very successful corporation. Maybe most of our Crown corporations would be financially sound if we set up the right kind of structure for proper accounting so that members of parliament would know whether they were operating efficient-

ly and serving a need. The machinery is now in place for us to examine that.
I am not sympathetic with the way the government has handled this problem. All it has done in the last eight or ten years is create more Crown corporations, and establish more controls and committees. It has a committee or royal commission or something to handle every problem that parliament should face itself. If we faced them we would at least know what we are trying to accomplish, rather than establishing all these backroom controls, with the proliferation of civil servants, patronage, and decentralization. Decentralization only seems to satisfy those ministers whose areas are affected.
In my opinion, this government is not efficient. It is not prepared to provide members of parliament with information on which to base reasonable decisions. How many members really understand why the government is able to take money out of the treasury, or borrow at a rate of 12 or 13 per cent in order to stabilize the Canadian dollar? When the Conservatives tried to do that with huge expenditures they were able to stabilize it within about two cents of what it would normally have been. And yet we are allowing the government to make those huge expenditures in the billions of dollars. This is money borrowed which we will probably never be able to pay off in our lifetime. This will saddle our children and their children with a debt for absolutely no purpose.
If the government really wants to do something about stabilizing the dollar, why not peg it? This dirty float is a totally dishonest way of calculating expenditures because there is no statutory control. There is certainly no way in which members of parliament can do anything, except through the public accounts committee. This committee looks at bad debts after they are incurred and wonders how in hell we got them and for what. It has nothing to do with controlling expenditures. In addition, it does not teach us very much because civil servants have a new word for control. The next time they try something else again.
We have set up all kinds of commissions to decide how to make the expenditures of the nation more controllable. In the final analysis we do not need to delegate control over the expenditures of our nation. That is the responsibility of elected members of parliament. This should be exercised in the House of Commons and it should be carried out on the basis of every bit of the information the government has used in making its decisions. If the government makes bad decisions, if it makes them on the basis of poor information, and says that it had done the best possible, members of parliament should be able to look at the information that is available and decide whether the expenditure is justified and whether the information being provided is sufficient. Then they should be able to do something about it.
This government has abused its majority. It has abused its majority every time it has had one. The only time we have had good government in Canada since I have been a member of parliament is when we had a minority government. Why, Mr. March 12, 1979

Speaker? Because in the final analysis all members of parliament look at the problems for themselves, decide whether there is a good or bad solution, and vote accordingly. Each member looks at the question and makes a decision. With a majority government, all they do is stand up and say, "Are you ready to receive my assistance for the next election, and God willing, 1 will be elected." They have decided nothing on their own. The decision is made as a block because they have a majority in parliament. No one can stand up and say they are honestly interested in allowing parliament to control expenditures.
I would like to mention the blue book. When I first came here one could look in the blue book, which contains the estimates of the expenditures for the forthcoming year. This book is not much thicker now, but it has certainly become a lot less useful. What is written in under the headings of each department? It is propaganda. It describes what the government proposes to do in that department and what it hopes to accomplish. Who cares? We are supposed to be looking at the expenditures in the departments and deciding if we think they will be able to do whatever they want to accomplish. We bloody well can't do that with the estimates we have.
At one time there was a list of all these high-falutin' people who got more than $20,000. Now the ones getting more than $50,000 are not listed nor are the ones getting more than $75,000. No matter how high the salary goes these people are not listed any more. At one time we were able to look at this list.
When I used to look through these lists the high-paid ones were usually alcoholics or something else. These were people who were stuck into a corner in a department where they did not have to do anything.
1 made a complaint about something that happened in a department. I was told not to go to the director because he had a bunch of toy trains in his desk and all he did was play with toy trains. I am sure many members here know who that is. There was another one we referred to; we found out that his secretary put him back in his chair 37 times in one month.
At one time we were able to phone a department for information. There was none of this "b.s." that you get from Manpower today. The five top people in these departments, without exception, are at meetings every day. It is not possible to get those people unless someone is conscientious and stays after four o'clock because the rest of the time they are at meetings. There are even meetings that last all day. We know this goes on, and when we look at the book and cannot find out who the director is or get information on expenditures, it is very sad. The only thing that is brought up to date is the telephone book, and that is changed every four months. That is probably not more than eight months out of whack.


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


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speaker who has just sat down used two initials to represent two words which were ruled last week as being unparliamen-
Financial Accountability
tary. I would like to know whether we can get away with using the initials instead of the full words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I will check the record and make a decision later.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us urges the adoption of Standing Orders which will ensure the government's accountability to the House of Commons for its management of Canada's finances.
The entire thrust of the motion is in terms of the rules and procedures of this House on the assumption that if we behave in a different way or follow a different or modified set of Standing Orders we can achieve that great goal of accountability to which all parliamentarians aspire.
The Auditor General, and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), have pointed out very well, that there cannot be any accountability unless we resolve the very basic problem with the kind of information we are going to have. I suggest that while there is a structural problem, members of this House who are really concerned about accountability take on a chore, and it is a chore, of attending the Public Accounts Committee and reading the documents. The documents are lengthy and they are not always easily understood. The people who are working with the Auditor General are attempting to provide parliament with the tools parliament needs if it is ever to manage properly the funds it votes.
The government has supported the Auditor General and given him the necessary resources. By his own admission there has never been a question or any shortcoming in terms of his budget or the specialized manpower required to do a job to the extent to which it was required. I believe there has never been a more qualified group of management consultants and technical experts assembled in Canada than has been assembled by the present Auditor General in an honest effort to come to grips with some very fundamental problems.
Basically with regard to every government department there are three sets of documents which have to be examined. There are estimates on the basis of which parliament votes supply. This is the mechanism by which the resources for the fiscal period anticipated are described and allocated. There are the public accounts which are the story of what has happened, the story of how the money was spent. In nearly every case there is a departmental report, frequently in narrative form, with appendices at the end, from the estimates or from the public accounts. But the Auditor General has documented chapter and verse of cases where one cannot go from one to another in a logical and consistent way. The form, breakdown and content are really quite incomprehensible in the way in which they are placed before us as parliamentarians and the nation at large.

As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) indicated, he has pointed out the deficiencies in the consistency of treatment of the estimates. If you cannot go back and forth from one to the other, you are lost before you start. The
4066

March 12, 1979
Financial Accountability
Auditor General pointed out that matters relating to statutory votes are frequently not even in the estimates. They are not even provided. Something like $20 billion of that $50 billion is statutory.
He pointed out again that when he examined the Crown corporations in great detail, he found a great difference in range. Some Crown corporations were doing a good job of setting out their accounts in a form which was understandable, but a large number were not.
We are now having Treasury Board undertake a major revision of the Financial Administration Act and the schedules by which the Crown corporations are to be classified. We have been given illustrated models of the way in which it would have been possible for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to present its estimates. This would have been in a form that is comprehensible, one which would have permitted parliament to make a rational examination of the priorities assigned to that Crown corporation, how its plans related to what had been done the previous two years, and what is anticipated two years ahead.
Those of us who had the opportunity of looking at what might have been the way in which the information was presented were struck by what we saw and heard. It is quite clear that this is the direction in which we must go. The question of how the estimates are to be prepared in a form by which parliament can properly use them is a very fundamental question. Traditionally, the estimates have been the tool of Treasury Board, and one branch of Treasury Board by which they allocated resources.
In a recent period of restraint, cabinet ministers were called in and told to chop $100 million here, $200 million there, and that they must stay within these over-all limits. The estimates were looked upon by Treasury Board in a proprietary way.
When Treasury Board was told by the Auditor General that the form of the estimates may have been good enough for resource allocation but was not good enough for accountability to parliament, the Public Accounts Committee had to break ground. It was very interesting to see. I regret that the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is not here. For his work as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I want to pay him tribute in this place. I believe he has done a good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those of us who have understood what the Auditor General was trying to do worked in a non-partisan way. My colleague from Pontiac is one of them. We say the Comptroller General has an interest in the estimates because he cannot really be sure that the proper Financial control procedures are in place unless the estimates are in such a way that he can use and understand them. We say that members of parliament have been interested in those estimates. We say that the public accounts-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock p.m. At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


André Ouellet: that Bill C-29, to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments, be read the third time and do pass.


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


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in my final speech on third reading I wish to direct attention to certain matters which have been neglected in the course of our deliberations, or which have not been emphasized with sufficient force.
The announcement the minister made last May has had a disastrous affect not only upon the co-operative housing program but upon the neighbourhood improvement program as well as upon projects envisaged by cities, towns, and municipalities across the country. Great uncertainty was created by that announcement. The minister admitted that the central government would be backing away from previous commitments and policies.
It is worth recalling that in 1968 the then minister of housing, Mr. Hellyer, was supposed to devise a new housing and urban policy for Canada. That urban policy and that housing policy involved the federal government. It took him some time, and he switched parties before anything was done, but the thrust of that policy was that the federal government had a role to play in the solution of the urban problems of Canadians. It had a role to play in planning and the assembly of land in order to prevent speculation. It had a role to play in the designation of certain areas in the cores of our cities- improvement areas-in order to get at the problems of poverty and the physical decline of the centres of our cities as well as lack of opportunity for many of our people. That was the thrust and direction of the policy, which was expanded during the minority government of 1972 to 1974.
March 12, 1979

With the co-operation of the New Democratic Party the Liberal party at that time was prepared to bring in income supplements for many Canadians. It was prepared to bring in programs to provide funding for some co-operative housing, and it recognized for the first time the principle of non-profit ownership in the development of our housing policy. If those were the days of the new liberalism, we are now in the final dying days-and I say this despite the defection of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart)-of the new conservatism.
If the hon. member for Cochrane sees the Liberal party as moving to the left, the only conclusion there can be is that he is suffering from political dyslexia because what I see is precisely the opposite movement. I see a movement to the right. The federal government is saying to the cities that it cannot get involved any more. It is saying to our co-operative institutions that it is not prepared to fund them any longer. It is saying to urban Canadians that if they have problems they will have to direct them to the provincial governments. This is the standard of leadership we can now expect from the Liberal government.
This motley collection of amendments which we have attempted to improve, and which to some extent we have succeeded in improving, is the end result of this policy, this hodge-podge, this attempt at some kind of appeasement of what the Liberal party sees as a conservative mood amongst the voters of Canada.
What does this bill do? It amounts to a full-fledged retreat by the federal government from the solution of our housing and urban development problems. It amounts to a full-fledged retreat, and when the time comes to look at the role of the federal government, I hope the voters of Canada will see that the federal government has put its toes in the water, with respect to trying to solve some of our problems, quickly decided to pull its feet back and daintily returned to the comfortable beaches of the new conservatism. That is precisely the direction in which this government is headed. It is headed, not toward the political left as my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane, stated last week, but toward the political right.
These amendments are the direct result of a shift on the part of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Now we have the government becoming a banker. It is not the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation any more. It is the central insurance and banking corporation because the federal government will no longer be directly involved in housing. The government has said it will not get involved, that it will leave housing up to the private sector and that it will assume that trust companies, lending companies and banks will play the role, in terms of innovative social policy, the government was supposed to start playing from 1972 to 1974. We on this side know that that is not exactly what is going to happen, and the time will come once again-I foresee it readily-when whatever party forms the government of this country it will have to recognize that the urban and housing needs of Canadians will have to be met directly by means of
Housing
government intervention. That intervention will come at the federal level as well as the provincial level. Both levels will have to work co-operatively, recognizing that they both have roles to play in meeting the social needs of their citizens. We know that will happen again because a need will have to be met, and that need simply has not been met by the policies of the current government.
The new Jerusalem was announced by the minister in May. Unfortunately, it took eight or nine months before the legislation was brought before the House, so the governments of the cities and towns of this country, the real governments for most of our citizens, the governments to which they look first, did not know where to turn. That is the housing crisis the minister has not recognized. It is a crisis created by the minister's own inability and the cabinet's own inability to decide what to do.
Today the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) talked about the benefit of his policy of encouraging no-name products in the consumer field. We have no-name products for cabinet ministers today because the average Canadian does not know who is in the cabinet. Cabinet ministers cannot make up their minds about what social policies to bring before the people of Canada. The crisis created by this government is such that communities and municipalities are crying out for federal government policies. They are crying out for money to build recreational facilities, to build sewage facilities, and to deal with the urgent problems they face because they do not have capital to deal with construction problems.
The minister forced us into agreeing to put these amendments through quickly, but a condition was that he recognize that we also had amendments and ideas to be considered. What we got was not the best, because we would have much preferred to be able to bring before the committee of this House which deals with housing, representatives of the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Welfare Council, national poverty organizations, provincial organizations, co-operative housing organizations, and the private lending institutions which are going to fill the gap. I would like to have heard precisely what plans they had for replacing the vacuum which has been created by the policies the Liberal party adopted from the Conservative party. Instead, we were forced into a position where we had to accept in the committee of the whole at very short notice a series of amendments which three parties in this House agreed would be necessary to get the kind of consent required to get the measures through quickly.
If we look at the level of funding which is being provided, the bottom line, the dollars and cents which are going into these programs-the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Community Services Grants Program-the level of funding is down. This government is masquerading a series of amendments as being progressive and as amounting to a positive policy, when what they amount to are an excuse for cutbacks. The minister knows this. Mr. Hession certainly knows it because he has written to the minister about it. The minister said that RRAP is going to be made universal. Well,

March 12, 1979
Housing
264 times nothing is still nothing, and that is what we have been left with, 264 ridings with practically no money for residential rehabilitation.
The Community Services Grants Program replaces ten programs with three, and that means that the level of funding will not be adequate. As I said many times in the committee, we will not get the funding which is needed for community development or for recreational facilities, and all the money which goes to the provinces will be used for the hardware of urban development.
I am not saying that hardware is not important; it is vital. People need to have the kind of sewage treatment which is fundamental to healthy living. I recognize that, and my party recognizes it. But we do not accept what the minister is saying when he says that all our urban needs will now be satisfied by the money which is being provided to the provinces, when we know that the level of funding under community service grants is far lower than it was under all the old programs under which the cities, towns and municipalities would go to the federal and provincial governments and attempt as best they could to barter their future needs. So we reject the approach of the Liberal government, we reject the cutbacks, we reject the $350 million diminution in the CMHC. You can call it the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or you can all it anything you wish, you can masquerade it, tart it up any way you want, but it amounts to the same old charade, and that is more grandiose programs with less money to fund them, which means that the urban needs of our communities will not be met.
I say to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that the way in which the government has presented these programs has been irresponsible. Ministers have put themselves in a position where they have had to force the House to consider these proposals hastily because they have created a need in the municipalities which was not there until they cut off their program and until they engaged in this so-called avenue of cutbacks and decreased the expenditure as a result of the miraculous conversion which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has suffered following his trip to Bonn in the summer of 1978. We in our party have attempted to bring forward amendments which would have a constructive effect. We have attempted to say: Let us put a damper on this lemming-like rush toward cutbacks and let us try to provide something for our cities, let us give them the leeway to assemble land and to provide affordable housing, let alone the non-profit motive to work; let us put the co-operative motive to work.
Well, it is an odd assembly of events that has brought us here tonight. We have a housing crisis in Canada and we have the government's amendments, and the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The government's amendments are brought about as a result of its determination to cut back on government spending, nothing more or less than that, and the housing crisis in Canada is created today by the fact that we have had an inflation in housing prices which has gone on

for the past ten years and with which the government has been incapable of dealing, and we have an inflation in the cost of money which the government has deliberately created by government policy.
We say it is high time the people of Canada were given the opportunity in a free election to decide what they want to do about that crisis. Do they want to adopt the policy of the government which is to let things ride as they are, in the hope that the best will work out and for the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs to present a striptease to the Canadian public saying, "If you are good boys and girls, maybe in two or three years we will give you a tax credit"? Is that what the people of Canada want? No. On the other hand, we can take the policies of the Conservative party-


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: No, you cannot take them.


Bob Rae: You can keep them.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Saskatchewan wants them.


Bob Rae: What do those policies say? They say that in order to get a tax benefit in our society, you have to own a house.


Walter David Baker: You have to want to own one.


Bob Rae: That is not so, Mr. Speaker. You are sacrificing the present demands of the Canadian public for a tax cut on the altar of some future event which may or may not take place, that is, the buying of a house. We on this side of the House say that if you want to deal with the problem of the cost of money, you should deal with it directly instead of pussyfooting around the side of the problem and trying to make it palatable. You do not make high interest rates palatable; you get the high interest rates down. And if you want to deal with the cost of land, you start controlling the cost of land by getting at speculation which has more than doubled the cost of land in surburban areas of our major centres in the past five years, which has meant that many Canadians have become millionaires as a result of a pure hazard, that hazard being whether or not they happen to own acres of land.
We in our party say: provide tax relief but provide it for all Canadians, do not make it selective and do not make it depend on whether or not you own a house. There are senior citizens in apartments and there are senior citizens in homes. They both deserve a tax break. Do not be discriminatory and prejudicial; deal with all the people of Canada fairly. We say: if you want to get at the cost of money, do it directly; do not pussyfoot around the side of the problem. If you want to deal with the cost of land, deal with it directly; do not pussyfoot around the edge of the problem; get at the root of the problem, which is speculation and monopoly conditions in the ownership of land. Those are the problems that you face in the country. They have nothing to do with the amendments brought forward by the minister with respect to these problems.
March 12, 1979

There will be many opportunities in the coming months for us to discuss, on various platforms and in various ways, the programs of our party. I have said many times before in the House, particularly in this debate, that the people of Canada will decide who has the right approach, who are talking out of both sides of their mouths, and who is promising the world and delivering nothing. But it is important to recognize-I have said this before-that promising benefits to Canadians will not make it easier for a single Canadian to buy a house. Buying votes or renting votes, as seems to be the propensity of the Liberal government, promising something and taking it away six months later, will not buy a single vote and will not buy a single home, and it is time the people recognized it.
This bill does not deal with the housing crisis, nor is it intended to deal with it. The fact that it and the housing crisis have come up at the same time is simply the result of the government's inactivity and incompetence.
We have attempted to improve the bill as a result of our amendments in committee, and 1 pay respect to the minister of State for Urban Affairs and to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), for having taken the time to try to work constructively with me and with representatives of other parties in an attempt to get a better bill. We have a better bill now than we had before, but I suggest it would not be very difficult.
The housing problems of Canadians are serious, and the affordability problems are serious because there are far too many Canadians who cannot afford to buy a house and there are far too many Canadians who are paying too much for their shelter needs. These needs will not disappear, and this bill will do absolutely nothing to solve the problems. That is the approach that I have taken to this legislation from the time it was announced in November and December to the time we discussed it on second reading, to the time we went through it in committee, and now, and that will be the approach we will be taking in the months to come.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleagues in the House for the excellence of this debate. I believe that some very constructive things have been offered, and I am sure the minister is paying rapt attention to them.
Areas of poor housing are a reality, as are unemployment and poverty, unchallenged workers and under-educated people and poor living conditions. Disillusioned youth and senior citizens waiting out their golden years in idleness are realities too. The awareness of these injustices and the determination to end them are also realities. With wisdom, courage and determination we can overcome these difficulties, or we can hide our heads in the sand, talk about programs which we know will not be funded adequately, and leave ghettos of frustration, worry and neglect, areas of disillusion and disenchantment, and future problems of tremendous magnitude in terms of hatred and bitterness.
Housing
The Athenians taught us that greatness is not related to size. Large cities have taught us that ghettos within and strip development without are enemies of the quality of life, and that we must focus the attention of all levels of government on the very important concept of involving citizens in the future design and composition of the communities in which they will live, work, and have their being. If a city is just to be banks, stores, finance companies, schools, parks and cinemas; if it is just to be houses, cement, streets and roads, then we have betrayed the trust of thousands of people who have worked to make our cities a place where people can live in dignity, security and harmony, and where the great achievements of civilization, culture, hopes and dreams for our fellow citizens should be available to all. If these are to be the goals and objectives of this parliament, we will need all the programs which are possible under the bill before us, and many more. We shall have to identify successes in other areas and focus our purchasing power into realistic programs in the field of housing.
I do not know how many wealthy people have large mortgages and pay high interest rates on them. Some government spokesmen seem to know a lot of these people, but I know very few. I do know a lot of people in the lower and middle income groups who have large mortgages, and pay high interest rates and high property taxes. I know the ability to deduct interest payments and property taxes from their income tax would make life a little more like living and would enable them to take their place in the community with greater security. Also I know that it would open up the opportunity and privilege. Imaginative programs like this one and constructive suggestions should not be overlooked simply because they come from the other fellow. Most certainly they should not be the subject of windjamming rhetoric by small-minded politicians and their political hacks.
The country needs the outpouring of imagination, ingenuity and hard work, not just to provide houses but to provide homes for people. We must encourage human dialogue, common experiences, purposes, understanding and respect, which tie Canadians together. Our municipalities must be encouraged to pay greater attention to neighbourhoods, civic pride and the feeling of community.
The sense of community and belonging enhances the feeling of security and a sense of one's own worth in the over-all championship of others. This is the feeling most of us share as Canadians in our Canadian experience. But it is a feeling shared to a far lesser degree by thousands of Canadians who are denied the opportunity of owning their own homes, and by others who suffer daily the ravages of poverty in inadequate housing situations. 1 hope the minister, in the course of his remarks, will assist me by indicating where in the legislation we can find the magnitude of thrust which is essential to meet this challenge.
The complexity of administering a nation or a great city is very much a deterrent to providing the quality of life essential to the feeling of community in our larger municipalities.

March 12, 1979
Housing
Members of parliament representing large urban ridings will agree they know very few of their constituents on a first name basis, and that only a very small proportion of their constituents know each other or talk to each other. The facilities for children to play, and for adults to work together in larger centres are not only inadequate in number but are difficult to provide.
Every time our great democracies have been faced with a challenge involving maximum danger, the people of the nation, having a strong sense of community, have risen, met the challenge, and defeated it. That has been very much the history of Canada. Yet in our larger centres this feeling of community is disappearing. It is disappearing at a time when its strengths and leadership are needed badly.
In my community the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program have worked very well to supply some of the dynamics I have mentioned. The difficulty has been that the programs have not been operative in all our urban areas and have no impact in our rural sections. Marysville, Barker's Point, Nashwaaksis, and some portions of Devon in my community have not qualified for the program at all, or they have qualified for it in a diminished way. Municipal authorities and I have been pressing as hard as possible to have the program expanded into these areas.
The minister announced modifications to the RRAP program as of May 16, 1978. The purpose of the modifications was to make more widely available loans and forgiveness grants based on income. The positive modifications involving elimination of the need to live in a designated area to receive assistance, and the priority to people with low incomes and in areas with housing more in need of repairs, are commendable. The expansion of the list of improvements which may qualify for assistance is a good one. But the elimination of subsidized interest, and the indication that housing co-operatives are no longer eligible for assistance, are negative moves. Over all the modifications represent a net reduction in the government's financial commitments to residential rehabilitation. The total budget for RRAP this year is $9 million, and that really limits it as a universal program.
The new low income housing program announced last May to replace the public housing assistance program, the non-profit housing program, is another good feature. The negative aspects are that the RRAP program and the rent supplement no longer apply to co-op housing. The minimum rent to income rates of 25 per cent may mean that senior citizens, the disabled, and low income earners in public housing projects, will face an increase in their existing rents. Certainly I hope they will not. The interest subsidies do not last for the duration of the projects. They rise with the rental incomes of the property. Thus, with rental incomes increasing as a result of the 25 per cent minimum role, the interest rate after one year probably will accelerate.
The replacement of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the municipal infrastructure program and the municipal incentive grant program with the new Community Services

Grant Program, represents the re-organization of existing programs which appear to deal with the same municipal public works aspects as the former programs. But the block funding aspect, through the provincial governments, will have to contemplate the regional disparities which exist in the country, to be effective, or, like so many other federal programs, it will be welcome but not effective in helping to close the gap between the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada.
In summary, I find the legislation before us has some good points and some bad ones. The greatest deficiency is its failure to stimulate community services and social programs in our rural areas. There are some stimulating elements and some good program vehicles for our urban centres, but the bottom line is, "You only get what you pay for". The dedication of the government to community life and housing, like the resources it puts into it, is not yet an inspiring record.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous speakers and on several occasions I followed the discussion of the bill in the House. I am however rather surprised to note that in our country where we have almost everything such as concrete, lumber and manpower, many unemployed, some carpenters, we often have to tackle housing problems. Considering that we are living in a system which I feel is all wrong, we are trying, I understand, to make the best possible use of a bad condition and this is why we are considering Bill C-29 this evening.
Following many studies and consultations with provincial governments, the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had already suggested some amendments to the housing policy of the federal government. Later on, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) announced some budget cuts which required amendments to the National Housing Act.
Amongst those changes, we note that the government, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will no longer be a prime lender. It will delegate that task to the private sector. On the other hand, the corporation will guarantee loans of up to a maximum of $40 billion. That figure represents the total amount of loans for which insurance policies will be issued under the act and will absorb part of the interest costs through subsidies. The corporation will be a lender of last resort for public and conventional housing.
In a speech given by the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs at the convention of the Quebec Home Builders Association, on November 24, 1978, the government explained its housing policy. First, it would intervene progressively less. We believe that private enterprise can meet the challenge quite well, and meet adequately on its own future needs in the field of conventional housing. Our role will, in the future, be restricted to contributing to the maintenance of a stable market that is competitive and dynamic,
March 12, 1979

without intervening in fields which rightly belong to free enterprise.
Through this bill, the government therefore withdraws from the field of mortgage loans. It will subsidize housing projects of a social nature by reimbursing part of the interest. The government wants to put more money into housing for low-income Canadians and give more responsibility to the private sector in residential financing. Priority will no longer go to housing units intended for the average-income home owner. That will have a bearing on such programs as the assisted home ownership program and the rental housing assistance program since all subsidies are being cut to produce housing for people of average means. However, maximum sale prices under those programs, as well as the maximum guaranteed loans, will be supervised.
The federal government seems to want to simplify the complex workings of federal and provincial community housing and services programs. The administration of joint programs will be simplified thus, in practice, eliminating often costly and inefficient overlapping and duplication. The new non-profit housing program is aimed at the non-profit corporations, be they private, provincial or municipal, and at the non-profit housing co-ops. It is specifically geared towards low-income earners. The government wishes to make this program more attractive for users and to reach a greater number of low-income earners. The goal is the construction or renovation, but especially the renovation, construction being left in the hands of private enterprise, of some 30,000 housing units, compared to the present level of 19,000 units. This is indeed a praiseworthy effort and it is most desirable that these goals be reached. The federal government will be assisting the non-profit housing program through contributions. Eligibility for these contributions and the manner in which these can be allocated under governor in council regulations will be determined by clause 14 of the bill. In practice, the government will pay a large part of the interests charged on money borrowed from the private sector by means of grants, thus reducing the real rate of interest to 1 per cent on loans covering up to 90 per cent of the project's value, and to 2 per cent on loans covering 100 per cent of their value. Both types of loans will be amortized over 35 years.
Furthermore, the government will give subsidies up to $75,000, as a starting fund, to those who want to provide low cost housing, depending on the size and the complexity of the project. It will enable developers to make proposals which may produce viable projects. The accent will be put on the improvement of existing units rather than on the building aspect. Public, co-operative and non-profit units will be offered to low income people, the rent being a percentage, 25 per cent, of incomes or of market rents, whichever solution is the most advantageous. There will be a purchase option for people residing in non-profit and co-operative housing developments, all projects being subject to the standards and regulations of
Housing
the National Housing Act. The federal government will continue to deal directly with co-operative and non-profit organizations. Provincial and municipal non-profit corporations will no longer be under the responsibility of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as far as selection, review, approval and inspection of the projects are concerned. Instead, the corporation will accept a provincial certificate showing that the requirements of the program have been met in order to determine eligibility for contributions. I will turn to loans and insurances issued by federal authorities, the Corporation's information leaflets. The government will encourage a greater use of the rent supplement program under which the federal and provincial governments support occupancy of a portion of housing units in private sector projects by low income families. Up until now, mortgage insurance was available only for the purchase of a new home. It will now cover the purchase or improvement of a rental housing project and the conversion of a non-residential building into rental housing. Also, certain loans issued by approved lenders will be 100 per cent insurable. This policy will apply to non-profit corporations wanting to buy, improve, build or modify rental housing projects or home or pension type housing facilities, and also to co-operative housing associations wanting to buy, build or modify housing projects.
For the first time, private sector lenders will issue and insure loans to residents of Indian reserves, whether to an idividual or to an Indian band or group, but only with the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner). In this case, Indians are as defined by the Indian Act. This loan may serve for the building or rehabilitation of reserve housing. The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation used to lend money to owner-lessors. In view of CMHC's new policy of opting out of the loans market, loans issued by the private sector to owner-lessors, under the residential rehabilitation aid program, will be insurable. Under clause 15, lenders will be able to obtain a rapid settlement of loans insured under the National Housing Act, in cases of default.
Clause 4 provides that insured loans can be made to co-operatives provided the majority of units are occupied or owned by the members or shareholders of the co-operative. Previously, 80 per cent occupation or ownership was required. Under clause 1, the corporation could insure certain loans based on other securities than a first mortgage. That security could be note for a second mortgage or any other security depending on the size of the loan. Clause 2 says that loans made or guaranteed by provincial governments under this law will be exempt for mortgage insurance fees. Let us remember that the total amount of all mortgage loans the corporation will be able to insure will go from $25 billion to $40 billion. The essence of the changes with respect to the rehabilitation program is contained in clause 7.

March 12, 1979
Housing
Private sector financing is made available to owners, nonprofit corporations and Indians as amended by clause 7. Furthermore, the need for designated areas is eliminated. All restrictions are set aside or withdrawn. As a result of the budget restrictions of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, loans will no longer be made to landlords for rehabilitation purposes. They will have to get their loans from the private sector. As previously stated, these loans will be insurable under the act.
Clause 8 suppresses the limit of $500 per unit on the rehabilitation on homes for the elderly or boarding-house types of housing facilities. That program helps landlords or nonprofit co-operatives and associations. For an occupying owner, this assistance comes in the form of a loan which may be forgiven altogether. The maximum loan is $10,000. The borrower whose adjusted family income does not exceed $6,000 is entitled to a loan forgiveness of up to $3,750. If the adjusted family income is $ 11,000 or more, the loan must be paid back in full. Owners of rental housing can obtain loans of up to $10,000 per housing unit. Payment of 50 per cent of the loan, up to a maximum amount of $2,500 per housing unit, can be forgiven if the owner consents to rent control. Non-profit organizations can also obtain loans of up to $10,000 in which case forgiveness of payment goes up to maximum of $3,750. New projects involving purchase and repairs are not eligible under this program. When the assistance is granted for the creation or the improvement of the hostel or dormitory type of housing, this assistance can represent up to $4,000 per bed, of which payment of $500 can be forgiven.
There is also the graduated payment mortgages program. Clause 5 introduces the notion of graduated payment mortgages, which is rather complex. This aims at simplifying the acquisition of low-cost housing. What is it exactly? Simply an ordinary mortgage for which the monthly charges start at a relatively low level and go up progressively until they reach a certain ceiling. I have here some evidence about this type of graduated payment mortgages. Of course, this concerns public housing, or low-cost housing projects, and it involves a loan of $1,487,700 for the construction of a public housing building. I see here that the residents of the community where this project is being built will have to pay $5,856,206.32 in interests alone in a 50-year period. The amount that they owe is $1,487,700. This is what we must watch out for in graduated payment mortgages.
The payments for the principal and the interest charges of a graduated payment mortgage start at a lower level than for a conventional mortgage. However, these monthly charges will increase by 5 per cent a year until the end of the tenth year. They will then stabilize at this level for the rest of the repayment period, which means that during the first years of repayment of a graduated payment mortgage, you are not paying current interests on the borrowed capital.

This will increase the total debt on a 1014 per cent rate, $35,000 mortgage with 25 year term by $10,000, as compared to a fixed payment mortgage. If this be an advantage, this system will allow earlier ownership. So here is the option: Earlier ownership with a $10,000 larger indebtedness, or later ownership with more money in the pocket. Is it really worth it to get lower debt because one is anxious to own a house?
The difficulty, as always, is borrowing. There are a lot of poor people who have difficulty in obtaining a loan, and interest charges are much too high. If we calculate payments the owner will have to make in 20, 25 or 30 years from now, we often find he will have to pay the cost of two or three houses before he can get out of debt.
The only amendment to the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation Act in part two of Bill C-29 is the change of name to "Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation." This comes within the Canadianization program of the federal government, and is aimed at stressing that the corporation is an arm of the Canadian government. Unless the minister is planning early amendments to payment arrangements with reduced interest rates, a better name in the circumstances would be "Canadian Mortgage and Debt Corporation," because the loans help getting people into debt for years to come. I have here ample evidence of that.
The housing co-operatives had this to say about the new federal housing programs: "The new federal housing programs are aimed at helping builders start with hard-to-sell houses rather than assuring the construction of a larger number of units": Le Droit, May 25, 1978. It will be remembered the federal government wants to stress renovation rather than construction. Co-operatives would therefore be "forced to use existing buildings rather than building new ones. Some buildings could not be sold because of poor design or poor location". Should it become almost impossible to build we must expect that people interested in co-operatives, as they make the management of building projects possible, will no longer be interested in that type of organization.
The CMHC is asking for total control over housing co-operatives by establishing in advance the type of restoration and the cost of rent. Those "electorally profitable austerity programs" make a complete farce of voluntary participation of members, one of the basis of co-operatives. The complete loss of autonomy is one of the most discouraging aspects for co-operatives. On November 13 1978, a press release from the Quebec City housing co-operatives urged the government to give priority to the needs of co-operatives by establishing special programs. According to that press release, the government should put directly at their disposal all funds required to finance their projects at a preferential rate compare to that of the private sector.
Housing co-operatives want tenant-co-operators to pay no more than 20 per cent of their gross income instead of 25 per cent as proposed by the government; that interests rates for
March 12, 1979

mortgage loans be fixed instead of variable; that housing co-operatives do not offer purchase options as it is a co-operative of tenants. The government, through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, changes its position by supporting totally co-operative housing and abandoning the private housing market to concentrate on housing for low wage earners.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, will mostly benefit Quebec: nearly 45 per cent of the $145 million earmarked for this program will be allocated to Quebec which is showing the deepest desire to rehabilitate its old houses. But the minister has been accused in this House of operating for electoral purposes in promising to expand housing programs whereas the government does not have the funds needed to implement them.
Indeed, ministerial advisers are concerned over the shortage of funds needed to meet demands under the promised expanded housing rehabilitation program. Moreover, the RRAP program is likely to change housing conditions in Quebec; but if money is not available, this might become an electoral commitment without foundation since the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program actually is almost starved of public funds.
Evidently, any housing rehabilitation program in Canada becomes a monetary problem in this unsettled financial system of ours. We have all the material required; millions of well disposed workers now without a job and many families who need decent housing. But too often budgetary restraints forbid construction. This results from a broken down financial system which we should change soon as it brings about many useless complications that, in my opinion, could be avoided.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have entered the debate on Bill C-29. I have followed with great interest the proceedings prior to second reading, during second reading, at report stage, and now at third reading. I enter the debate at this late hour because of a number of events which have transpired throughout the handling of this bill. There are two specific areas that have not received the attention they should, namely, the problem of housing as it relates to the native community, specifically the Indian and Inuit people; and also as it relates to senior citizens. In my view this bill does not address itself to these areas in a responsible or adequate manner.
From the outset the minister has been toying or playing political games with the provinces and municipalities. 1 say that because the minister has refused until this late date to introduce this important bill. This is legislation which required far more time, not only at second reading but during committee stage, report stage, and again at third reading.
The minister knows perfectly well there are provinces and municipalities all across Canada which have been acting in
Housing
good faith in arranging programs. They have been waiting for this legislation to be introduced and passed so they could proceed with the programs they had been contemplating and hoping to have implemented within a reasonable period of time.
1 find that an interesting scenario. The minister has travelled across Canada and made important pronouncements about this program. He has prodded and encouraged municipalities and provinces to go ahead with plans for various programs. Then he delays the introduction of this legislation for almost a year. As I indicated, we have had very little time to debate what I consider are some important aspects of the bill. We have not had an opportunity to enlarge on various areas of housing which this party considers extremely important.
Notwithstanding some important elements in the legislation one has to ask the question, why would the minister follow this particular course of action? Why would he talk about this legislation for over a year and then introduce it at the last moment at a time when this House could dissolve imminently? There are probably several reasons for this. The minister is aware of numerous horror stories within that department and I am sure he is aware of various allegations that have been made with regard to the mismanagement of funds, possible patronage and corruption that have existed within that department and various programs. Of course this is not uncommon in other areas of government.
The minister knows there are certain aspects of this legislation that are inconsistent with his public pronouncements. These have been questioned by different segments of our community. I will not go into those, Mr. Speaker, because my colleagues have covered a number of them in the past. However, I feel there are specific areas of housing which have been virtually ignored in this debate.
For a moment or two I would like to talk about senior citizens and the importance of housing to them, and the inadequacy of housing for the native population, specifically the Indian and the Inuit people across Canada.
It is important to put in perspective the extent of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds which are the responsibility of the minister responsible for this bill. It is important for at least three reasons. I am sure there are others, but there are three that I want to emphasize. Initially it reconfirms the position that has been expressed by this party on numerous occasions regarding the excesses of this government, its mismanagement and fiscal irresponsiblity in handling programs. I would suggest that if they were eliminated that could be done without impairing services to Canadians. That is not a partisan position.
I recall being at the public accounts committee hearing when the Auditor General made his report in November, 1978. In issue number five of the minutes of the public accounts committee for November 23, 1978, at page 5:21, the Auditor General, in response to a question regarding the principle of value for money, said:
4074

March 12, 1979
Housing
But I think this value-for-money auditing, Mr. Chairman, is going to catch on like wildfire, in some places anyway, perhaps not with a great enthusiasm by the auditees but we would welcome it. In any event I do feel that what we are talking about here this afternoon perhaps within the next several years can be looked back upon as Canada's "proposition 13:" Obviously, you can see, I am pretty enthusiastic about the prospects.
I believe that is a fundamental principle involved in this entire debate. Indeed if the mismanagement that has been demonstrated in so many programs under the auspices of this minister were removed, the services could be provided to Canadians rather than seeing so many programs cut back or eliminated. I will give some examples of this in a moment.
I must mention also that many of these horror stories associated with the ministry unfortunately have been perceived to be related to the failure of innocent victims. This is not new in this House of Commons. I am sure members in this House will recall that two years ago at the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development we discussed the Indian economic development fund. We demonstrated during an opposition day in this House that there had been at least $50 million mismanaged by that particular department for this one program. Yet the impression was left that it was the Indian community in Canada that had failed. I suggest that same ingredient exists for similar programs that have been handled under this ministry.
Because of the government's inability and its failure to administer programs in an adequate way, it has become immobilized and it has actually become paralysed with respect to many programs and it has lost the ability to govern in that respect. Let us take a look at one department as an example. A moment ago I mentioned the program of Indian economic development, and the government's mismanagement of it. That was confirmed in the Auditor General's 1978 report. What has happend since that time? The entire program of economic development which we consider crucial to Indian problems across Canada has virtually been ignored and there is no program in that sense of the word.
The Indian arts and crafts control marketing service, a program which I consider to be outstanding as an outlet for Indian arts and crafts across the country, was terminated by this government at the end of last year because of its mismanagement of the program. I can assure you that that project will be pursued very actively when the estimates are before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Again, there have been cutbacks on health care to Indian and Inuit people across Canada. Perhaps I could put this in its best perspective by relating a brief part of a conversation I had with the Nova Scotia Indian Brotherhood about two weeks ago. They were talking about the delivery of services to the various reserves and settlements in that province. They came up with a very interesting figure which they could document. It showed that the federal government is spending $8 to deliver 75 cents worth of services to the Indian people on those reserves and in those communities. That is the type of problem about which I am talking. It is the type of issue that has been ignored throughout the debate.

As I indicated earlier, the implications of this legislation virtually ignore senior citizens across the country. I will come back to that in a moment or two. A number of my colleagues have gone into the horror stories with regard to this program over the years. I mention in passing the problems with York Place and similar projects of that nature such as the luxurious hotels, something that is common knowledge to all hon. members of this House.
I was most interested in a brochure with regard to one of them. It describes, and I quote:
-the ambience throughout Hotel Le Quai d'Orsay is most distinctive and reflects the mood of 20th century aristocratic living.
I can assure hon. members the people I am speaking for and talking about, the senior citizens across this country, certainly those in my area, and the native people, are not interested in aristocratic living. They simply want a roof over their heads and reasonable homes in which to live. I will come to those statistics in a moment.
My colleagues talked about the disasters in the area of AHOP and the graduated mortgage program. I was most impressed with the five-part series published by the Hamilton Spectator during the period January 27 to February 1, 1979, regarding the disasters with respect to CMHC. I have no intention of quoting extensively, but there are two of extreme interest to me because they relate to two of the issues I referred to earlier. One was "$500,000 for 12 basements". The other issue was entitled "RCMP Probing Housing Disaster, Sutton Project Cost Us $300,000". Those two projects relate to the rural and native housing program. As I indicated before, it demonstrates the mismanagement on the part of this government, the misappropriation and misallocation of funds. Because of that this government has not been able to live up to its mandate to provide the type of housing that is needed in this area.
I want to make a comment or two about senior citizens' housing. I must be honest. I am not impressed nor am 1 convinced that the legislation before us is responsive to that particular need across Canada. Why is it important? I had the fortunate opportunity before coming to the House of Commons of dealing to a great extent with senior citizens across Canada, particularly in my area. Senior citizens are not really a demanding group. However, if there is one aspect that stands out when dealing with senior citizens it is the problem of loneliness. It is probably the single most important medical problem they face.
Senior citizens are interested people. They want to remain in their own homes, near their families and in their community among their friends. I recently attended a ninetieth birthday which demonstrated this in a most eloquent and sensitive way.
I knew this individual who was celebrating her ninetieth birthday. How wonderful it was that the entire family could be at this nursing home to celebrate it with her. The sensitivity was experienced by all of us. It was not only felt by her family and those friends around her, but by all the inhabitants of that small community. This is a very important aspect.
March 12, 1979

The reeve of a small village in my area wrote to me in January after hearing about this bill. He was concerned that senior citizen housing would not be available for the small village of Thamesville. 1 quote from his letter:
Council learned from the Ministry of Housing that the village would have to form a chartered public non-profit making organization. Ninety per cent of the capital funds would have to be raised privately just to be eligible for rent subsidies. We would also be responsible for planning and carrying out the project ourselves with only the advice of the Ministry of Housing.
I talked to the reeve of that small village of about 1,000 about this problem. I simply draw to the attention of hon. members the last portion "responsible for planning and carrying out the project ourselves". As I said, this is a small village of about 1,000 people. Do they have an architect? Do they have individuals who can do the type of planning that might be done in metro Toronto or some other large city? That involves a very substantial cost for a town of that size. The government did not address itself to that in this legislation.
I have received letters from that and other communities wherein senior citizens have reflected on the problems and the necessity of our addressing ourselves to those problems. 1 quote from one letter:
-we understand they found $ 18 million to help four cities with hockey arenas. Is this more important than having shelter for the people that played a large part in the building of this country .. . Every year we have seniors that have to leave their larger homes or farms and friends and go to other centres to find shelter. This is very upsetting to older people.
Another woman wrote to say she had lost four friends in the last year. They moved to larger centres because of the absence of senior citizen housing in that area.
I know my time is running out, but I must say a few words about the problem of Indian housing across Canada. I suppose this could be best demonstrated by the experience in Assumption. I am sure hon. members are cognizant of what has appeared on the national news and in newspapers across Canada with regard to the fact there have been at least three deaths in the past two weeks of infants in that small community, due to bronchialitis, which is related to substandard housing in that community. This can be documented across the country.
On our allotted day on November 18, 1976, this party outlined in a very responsible manner the problems related to housing for Indian and native people across this country. Let me just take a moment or two to give some indication of the severity of that problem. On that day we talked about the Indians, the Inuit and, indeed, the native problem itself.
As I recall, today is the fifth anniversary of the rural and native housing program and of the government's commitment to build 50,000 homes for that community. How many homes have actually been built during that period? Not more than
7,000,	plus or minus one or two hundred. On the anniversary date, a government which talks about a positive housing policy for the Indians and Inuit has built less than 1,000 homes during the whole five-year period. It is estimated that over a period of 30 years, 31,000 houses were built for Indians; of
Housing
that number 14,000 were considered substandard in 1976, 9,000 required rehabilitation on a major scale, and more than 7,500 were beyond repair. The figures have not improved. If anything they are worse today, and there is nothing in the bill before us which addresses itself to this problem. Ten per cent of those homes consisted of no more than one room, often with ten to 15 individuals crowding into it.
Seventy per cent of the Indian population were without water, 25 per cent were forced to use water known to be contaminated, and 40 per cent had to rely on surface water- imagine the health hazards there. Ninety per cent had to use outside pit toilets for sewage disposal.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on describing conditions in the Inuit community. The situation in the Inuit community is no better. We know there were buildings put up in the north in the southern style, which virtually disintegrated over a five-year period. They were unsuited to the lifestyle of those who lived in them and were inconsistent with climatic conditions in the northern regions. Fifty thousand homes were promised five years ago, and only 7,000 were delivered, as I have stated, under the government's native policy.
I can recall bringing the attention of the House to the seriousness of this problem on an earlier occasion, while this subject was under debate on November 18, 1976. I can recall the minister's comments on that day. If I may say so, he demonstrated no interest in native housing policy on that occasion; he was more concerned about other matters. To show the seriousness of the problem let me quote from page 1145 of Hansard for November 18, 1976:
In many areas houses are so worthless that residents seldom bother to spend money on improvements or make an effort to repair them. Broken windows are patched with cardboard boxes.
Rusty cream cans are used for water storage. It is rare if there is more than one bed and more than one or two chairs. When a visitor eats at home he usually is given the few dishes and silverware, while the family eats out of the tin pans or even tin cans. Most homes have electricity. Kerosene lamps are the only source of light. In many communities, water is scarce and has to be hauled long distances. Often it is unfit for human consumption.
I could go on. However, I entered the debate at this late stage primarily because of my grave concern, my feeling that the government and the minister have ignored two extremely important areas as far as housing is concerned. I am not satisfied that there has been a positive response from the government to the needs of senior citizens, and I am not satisfied that the government has demonstrated any interest in native housing in Canada or developed any policy to deal with it.


Mr. Penner:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a brief question?


John Robert Holmes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


B. Keith Penner: I listened with great interest to the hon. member, whom I consider to be one of the more responsible members on that side of the House who sits on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. During his address he quoted a figure which I am sure he

March 12, 1979
Housing
would like to explain more fully to the House. If he is unable to do so tonight the matter will be pursued at great length in the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


B. Keith Penner: The question is coming, if the hon. member would be patient. It takes a little time and a little elaboration is required, so contain yourself.
The question relates to a figure which was given by the hon. member; he told us that 75 cents worth of service was delivered to the Indian people at a cost of $8. That statement requires a great deal of explanation, and because the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) is intelligent enough to know that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development delivers to the Indian people services amounting to $711 million, he may wish to ask his caucus this week whether his colleagues would support an increase in this amount-I think he would find a great deal of opposition on the part of his fellow members to increase expenditures on programs for the Indian people. The hon. member will also be aware that there are another $200 million from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works program, which could be added to that figure of $711 million.


An hon. Member:: Order. He is making a speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member is on a point of order but I suggest he get to the question.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been given permission to ask a question, but I could have been recognized for the purpose of making a speech. However, I wanted to use my time to ask a question. We are now dealing with a total of $911 million; out of that $44 million is used to administer the Indian programs. I would ask the hon. member to explain how the expenditure of $44 million in dealing with that volume of services could be equated with the statement he has made suggesting that 75 cents worth of services cost $8 to deliver. There is obviously a great discrepancy between the figures given by the hon. member and those I have advanced. Responsible as he is, I am sure he would not wish to leave the chamber without justifying them.


John Robert Holmes: I appreciate the recognition by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) of my interest in Indian and Inuit problems. That is precisely what prompted me to enter into the debate this evening. In my view little attention has been paid to this area. I am sorry the hon. member was not listening very carefully to my speech. If he would look at the transcript he would find I indicated I had met with representatives of the Nova Scotia Indian Brotherhood who had stated, in the course of a presentation, that in respect to certain programs in their area $8 of federal funds were required to deliver 75 cents worth of services. That information was given in a presentation to members of my party, and I would be more than delighted at a later date to provide the hon. member with those figures.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to rise for the first time in this debate. I expected to participate earlier, but because of the tragedy of miners being killed in my riding I had to spend a much longer period of time than I anticipated down home in connection with that terrible catastrophe as well as with other problems.
I browsed through the Debates so far because that is really all I had time to do. The minister seemed preoccupied in his lengthy speech in this debate with dispelling the idea of a housing crisis in Canada. At this late hour I do not want to get into a semantic discussion because I want to give at least one member of the official opposition five or seven minutes. However, whether we call it a crisis or not, the situation is close to a crisis by anybody's definition except, evidently, the minister's. CMHC figures as recently as last year indicated that approximately 1,225,000 households in this country are suffering from some form of housing deprivation. This breaks down into 180,000 families living in inadequate dwellings, 298,000 overcrowded dwellings, and 547,000 families paying more than 25 per cent of their total income on shelter. These are dry statistics, but they have a very serious meaning for the human beings involved. What I am saying is that a million households being affected means that several million Canadians are affected by these conditions, and if that is not a crisis it is something of which this country should be ashamed.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) quoted Mr. Teron's speech in Calgary of two years ago, which is an additional piece of evidence from CMHC despite the seemingly loose connection Mr. Teron still has with CMHC or what is to be called "the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation" because of these amendments. In November of 1976 Mr. Teron said and I quote, "that when 280,000 families in Canada pay more than 50 per cent of their family income for housing"-and that is shocking to me-"550,000 families in Canada pay more than 45 per cent." Imagine that in this day of high food prices and high prices for everything else. Imagine shelling out that kind of money for housing. Mr. Teron said that 820,000 families at that time paid more than 25 per cent, and two thirds of Canadians in need of housing could not afford to buy or rent without a subsidy from their fellow man. He said that we had a fundamental problem. Whether in the minister's mind we have a crisis or not, we certainly have a fundamental problem. Mr. Teron went on to say that, and I quote, "we must take reasonable action now or more drastic action later".
In connection with one part of this whole housing problem I want to pick up the theme of Mr. Teron when he referred to a national housing crisis. The minister might use some other word. With regard to the national housing problem which besets this country I want to speak of one element which relates to my home constituency. I have been dealing with the minister on this for some two years and with his predecessor before that. This problem relates to the inability of the Resi-
March 12, 1979

dential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Neighbourhood Improvement Program to do certain jobs in certain areas.
In the mining towns which make up a major part of my constituency some housing is 70 to 100 years old. Marx and nineteenth century socialists would call this housing proletarian housing. Private companies have dug pits and built coal mines, and built houses around them. Around these pits or collieries, as they are called in other countries, people were crowded into company housing. After these companies get their money out, they leave. I do not want to digress too far, but the only country in the world which has a real private mining industry is the United States. To me it is no coincidence that United States mines have had over the years the worst safety features of all in the western world and, as far as we know, even parts of eastern Europe such as Poland which is light years ahead of the United States in that respect. I say that by way of digression. However, there is an essential problem.
I am not saying that the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, even in these mining areas, has not been good, because it has. However, the program has been slow and cumbersome. I have correspondence here which dates back to the time I came here. This correspondence is with one minister after another. It deals with Devco, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the former minister of housing now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson), and others. This correspondence shows that all of them, including CMHC and Devco, ran around the problem and continually told me that there were other programs or that they could not get into this type of thing.
CMHC told me that it did not want to initiate action. I feel that CMHC is not flexible enough. I do not say that about local officials, but I do say that about policy-making and its application. I agree with the fundamental argument of our party-and I push it forward-that we want centralization of the monetary and fiscal policies of this country to remain in federal hands. If the federal government does not want to give the provinces a bigger share in the management of housing policy within their regions it could at least be more flexible in application with regard to its universal program in areas like mine, and, for example, Sudbury and Timmins which have old housing. This old housing is the legacy of these areas, and it is the worst part of their past. Something should be done to correct that.
I suggested to the minister, CMHC and Devco, that in an area of high unemployment rehabilitation should be promoted. That rehabilitation should be for the benefit of senior citizens and widows who are now living in much of this older housing. It should be made better for them. I suggested that would be a real investment in the future and that it would reduce the amount of new construction for public housing and senior citizens housing. I proposed a special rehabilitation agency for an area like Cape Breton. I have been kept dancing around by these Crown corporations and these ministers on this issue because they just have not been able to co-ordinate or did not have the will to do so. They have not been flexible, and no
Housing
initiative has been taken to correct the serious deficiencies in the areas to which I referred.
The reason I am so upset about this is that this year RRAP does not include something which may not seem important to some members of this House but which is very important to a member like me, that is, that no foundations are to be included under RRAP this year. I have been asking for a new rehabilitation agency, and that foundations be put under what were formerly company houses now owned by miners since the post-war period, lived in by miners, pensioners, widows, and low income people. I would like this housing to be upgraded by the addition of foundations. We have come to the conclusion it would cost about $8,000 per household. I asked the present head of Devco, who was then interim head, Mr. Steve Rankin, to try to get CMHC going on this and to use the growth component of the Canada Works program, but again things are so slow there, and the explanations given to MPPs are so inadequate that it is difficult to get any of these things off the ground.
I appeal to the minister tonight to tell CMHC officials in Sydney, "Look we have taken in people from Kentucky", which they did. We held meetings and we found there are no parallels whatsoever between the problem in Kentucky and the housing problem in our mining areas and former mining areas, including the area where our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was born. We could take 60 houses as a pilot project at $8,000 each, which comes to roughly $480,000. With the present delivery system, we could put foundations under these houses and people could contribute something small out of their incomes, which would come to roughly only $7,300 on average. In that way we would make a contribution which RRAP is not able to make because it is so slow and cumbersome and because of the fact that it does not now include foundations.
I make that special pitch to the minister tonight. I see the minister in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, the Minister of Regional Economic Development (Mr. Lessard), here tonight. He knows that since he has been head of that department 1 have been bringing up this matter in meeting after meeting. Surely to God places like Cape Breton, which have the legacy of a coal mining area which was exploited to the ultimate by private companies which have then pulled out, deserve, beside employment, to have their houses improved in order to make up for the failures of the past. I want to be fair to the government and state clearly that I do not accuse them of doing nothing because the fact is that they have neglected the area's housing for so long that in the 1970s they have made some kind of an effort, but it is not sufficient and where it especially needs to be made.
I could speak on many other aspects, Mr. Speaker, such as the one relating to the development of co-operative housing and my concerns about co-operative housing under these amendments. But once again I appeal to the Minister of Regional Economic Development to get together with the

March 12, 1979
Housing
Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and the minister of housing so that those people who have contributed a great deal to Canada in the past and some of whose tragedy we have recently witnessed across this nation, will not suffer in the future, such as the elderly and, pensioners making $7,500 at an average, and that they will have decent shelter from the cold in the meantime. It is better to supply some people with interim employment than to hand out unemployment insurance to people who basically do not want it. Longer term problems of employment of course should be tied up with coal, steel and fisheries development and any diversification that may come from that.
I should like to conclude my remarks now because I know the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), the hon. lady from the official opposition who is on my right, would like to say a few words. I hope the ministers involved will take my admonition seriously.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: They do not care.


Andrew Hogan: I cannot believe that, fundamentally. I think they do care and they will do something about it for the sake of those people who need this kind of housing so badly.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure, at this stage of the debate on Bill C-29, to take the floor and indicate in public both my desire and the satisfaction it gives me to support a bill which will have three major effects. These, I feel, would bear repeating to the Canadian population as a whole.
The first major effect of this bill sponsored by the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) will be to double the output of public housing in Canada. This noble objective is worth stressing and all to the credit of the minister's social conscience. The second desirable effect of Bill C-29 will be to increase-
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I hear the hon. member chatting with the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott). Maybe they could pursue their conversation behind the curtains. Personally, I wish to address myself to the Canadian public without being disturbed. We, on this side of the House, have always respected hon. members opposite when they take the floor by refraining from interrupting them. I would like to be extended the same privilege, Mr. Speaker, especially when we are discussing a bill of such serious nature which will have such important consequences on the poor, the category of people the Progressive Conservative party systematically forget about in their attitude and I will have the opportunity to prove that in a few moments.
The second desirable effect of Bill C-29, as I was saying, will be to increase very substantially the rate of rehabilitation of housing this year, to double that performance in 1980 and to triple it in 1981. The third effect worth mentioning will be

to encourage-and that is fundamental, Mr. Speaker-municipalities in their community services projects. When one considers these three objectives or the three effects Bill C-29 will have, one wonders how the official opposition can justify the attitude it showed at all stages in the consideration of the bill from second reading, through discussion in Committee of the Whole House up to now, at third reading.
Mr. Speaker, several hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party wrongly pointed out and insisted that the bill had been introduced a year too late. Yet the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs in the speech he made when he introduced his motion for second reading said stressed this, and I quote from page 3467 of Hansard for February 21, 1979. He said:
-it is obvious that in its most important aspects this bill implements the new orientation the Canadian government intends to give housing. That orientation is being adopted as a result of the meetings I have held with my provincial colleagues; together, as ministers responsible for housing in Canada, we formulated this new policy.
Mr. Speaker, it has been made quite clear at the outset of the discussion of Bill C-29 that there was no undue delay, that on the contrary the minister had felt proper to consult with the people more directly concerned before introducing in this House such an important legislation. The last federal-provincial conference of housing ministers was held last fall, and the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) had committed himself to consult with co-operative housing movements in Canada following the ministerial conference and before the introduction of this legislation in the House.
So, Mr. Speaker, before introducing his bill in the House of Commons, the minister had to respect the most fundamental democracy, namely to consult his provincial counterparts, as promised. This is what they did last fall. They also consulted co-operative housing movements in Canada following that ministerial conference. This is where the new co-operative program was developed, at the beginning of December, 1978.
Mr. Speaker, how can the government and the minister be held responsible for the one-year delay in the introduction of the bill when, as I have just mentioned, the conference of housing ministers was held last fall, when there were meetings with co-operative housing movements following that conference and when the new co-operative program was effectively developed at the beginning of December 1978? Mr. Speaker, I think that it is not serious, that in their speeches, the Progressive Conservatives misled the people by stating that we were not interested either in ending the study of that bill in a reasonable time or introducing it at the proper time. Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Public Works acted responsibly. He respected the people. He consulted them. He honoured his commitments. He introduced the bill at the very first opportunity.
March 12, 1979

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the proceedings on Bill C-29, we note that it was introduced into the House on December 8 therefore immediately after the new co-operative program was finalized following consultation with the housing ministers and housing co-operatives in Canada. So, on December 8, according to the official register of the House, we find on the order paper the notice of presentation of the bill and the recommendation of the governor general. First reading was given to it by the House on December 12, 1978 and it was only on December 21, 1978, late in the afternoon, that under unfortunate circumstances we were able to start the debate on second reading of this bill because of the dilatory, childish and irresponsible manoeuvre of the Progressive Conservative party.
Mr. Speaker, I need not remind you that the debate on second reading of this very important bill started on February 21, 1979, when the Progressive Conservative party deemed it timely to present a motion for adjournment which delayed-I hear the hon. member mumble remarks. I should very much like to hear them clearly and be able to answer them. If she has anything to say, I am willing to sit down and hear her out, after which 1 shall answer her. But I see that she is not in her seat. If she wants to take the floor, I will listen to her.
Mr. Speaker, I was here on February 21, and many Canadians through the televised debates were able to observe the irresponsible behaviour of the Progressive Conservative party which for a period of more than two hours prevented the House of Commons of Canada from functioning normally. It prevented the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs from delivering his speech at second reading on this important legislation which aims at improving the lot of those who are most in need in this country, by building as many housing units as possible at the lowest cost possible. This attitude prompted the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs to say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) behaved that afternoon like a little kid bent on playing hooky and that it was obvious he did not have the sense of responsibility one needs to take on the heaviest responsibilities in the land.
Today we heard Progressive Conservative members complaining about the fact that this bill was brought forward too late. How phoney on their part to say that, Mr. Speaker! They are precisely those who delayed the introduction of this bill by a manoeuvre which was totally disrespectful of this institution and of the urgency of legislating in the House of Commons by presenting a motion for adjournment in a childish manner and by preventing serious-minded members from working and legislating.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we only need to consider the duration of this debate at second reading on Bill C-29. We have never witnessed an official opposition so systematically trying to present a bill from being passed by protracting the debates for several days. I want to be specific and I will state some facts in support of my allegations. On February 23,
Housing
1979, that issue had been debated during the whole day at second reading, on February 26, 1979, on February 28, 1979, on March 1, 1979, on March 2-


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We had a very good spirit here on Friday. I am absolutely appalled. We agreed to make an order that we would finish the debate tonight. I think we made a fundamental mistake.


Marc Lalonde: That is not a point of order.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: The minister opposite indicated that we would have time tonight. The spirit of this debate has now gone with this type of tirade. We expected to get speakers on tonight who have not had an opportunity to participate.


Marc Lalonde: That is not a point of order.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: It is a breach of faith. So typical, so typical.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order; it is debate.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I hardly understand the attitude of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) who is trying to make us believe that the Progressive Conservative party is spontaneously in favour of this bill while for several days which I was just listing, they have done their utmost to prevent it from being passed within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Speaker, what the Progressive Conservative party was trying to do and especially the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, was an attempt to prevent the doubling of social housing production in Canada. It is quite unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and here they come today talking about a spirit of understanding after having thwarted us for days and after having misled the Canadian public by systematically opposing a rational debate on this bill, while the House of Commons-


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have never heard, even from this Liberal government, so many lies one after the other as I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest the hon. member should withdraw his last remarks about lies. Will the hon. member withdraw that remark?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Yes, I will withdraw the unparliamentary language of lies. But I will not withdraw the fact that I have never heard so many untruths spoken one after the other as we

March 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order; it is debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if Your Honour would advise hon. members of the nature of the House order earlier today. Is it correct that there will be no further debate on this subject after ten o'clock tonight, and that there will be no voting between now and ten o'clock? Is that the nature of the House order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: That is correct, that is the motion moved earlier today.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Then I should like to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Andrew Hogan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day it is my duty to interrupt the debate and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the bill now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped a moment ago until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) left the chamber that he was going to be here to reply to this question, because for over a year now I have been attempting to get some firm accounting from the minister in respect of the treatment by the government of its female employees in the public service. I hope, in the course of the next few minutes, to remind the minister, whether he is here tonight or has the opportunity to read this later, of the very serious allegations and criticisms which are contained in the latest report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women regarding the situation of women in the public service.
As members will know, in January of this year the Advisory Council on the Status of Women issued again, as it has done on an annual basis in recent years, a report on the progress

women have made in the public service. This report is entitled "Barriers to Equal Opportunity." I believe that this report is a veritable catalogue of discriminations and failures on the part of the government in acting on behalf of its female public employees.
As the report states clearly in its introduction, the government's direct responsibility regarding the employment of women is crucial because, as the report sets out at page 1:
First, as the largest single employer of women, it has a direct responsibility to provide equal opportunities for women in the public service.
That is a mandate and a responsibility which very clearly, as this report indicates, has not been lived up to. The government increasingly has treated women as a reserve pool of labour.
I do not have time this evening to point out all the detail, but I would be delighted to hear the minister's response in explaining how it is that as income difficulties have grown, as the report says at page 13, "the federal government, in its employment practices continues to treat women as if they constitute a reserve pool of labour".
I hope in the course of the next few minutes to point out very clearly how, again and again, this report indicts the government in terms of its responsibilities in respect of the employment of women in the public service.
At page 15, in terms of the situation regarding term appointments, one indication of the attitude that has actually been lived up to regarding the public service is stated in the report:
As of March 1978, 17 per cent of public servants were employed on a term basis. Approximately half of these employees were men and half women.
On the surface that would appear quite fair, as the report states. It goes on to state that the facts are that "fewer women are public servants." The report states:
As of March 1978, only 36.7 per cent of public servants, including seasonal and term employees, were women.
The tendency to place women in term appointments is growing, not diminishing. The percentage of term employees who were women increased from 45.2 per cent in 1976 to 48.7 per cent in 1977-
Further on at page 20 of this report it is pointed out with regard to the over-all improvement women have made in the public service:
Moreover, there has been little improvement over time. If we compare the 1977 quintile breakdown with quintile figures for 1973 and 1975, we find that the distribution has changed only minimally.
Further on it points out:
In the middle quintile, there was a reversal in 1977 of an upward trend between 1973 and 1975.
In respect of the recent lay-offs that have been taking place, and I think here we are reminded of some exchanges which took place between my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan), the report points out at page 23:
Between 1976 and 1977 the number of public servants laid off more than doubled from 1012 to 2347. In 1976, 470, or 46 per cent of the employees laid off were women. In 1977, 1243 women were laid off, representing 53 per cent of the total. This increase is shocking enough in itself, but when we remember that
March 12, 1979

women account for only 37 per cent of federal public servants, the discrimination becomes even more glaring.
Hon. members may recall that a number of questions were raised in this House a year ago about the number of women entering the career assignment program and about those achieving appointments in the upper and middle levels of management in the public service. On page 31 the report says:
Even in this program, the representation of women has dropped. Although, as the table below confirms, in 1975 women accounted for 30.6 per cent of the participants in the CAP, by 1977 they accounted for only 14 per cent falling behind the 1973 representation.
Finally, this part of the report concludes with a summation of the report that has been presented to the government. On page 44 it says:
The preceding statistics reveal that the federal government has failed to provide equal opportunities for women in the public service.
It goes on to point out that instead of being ahead of the private sector, it is trailing behind. Why is this? Why has there been this failure?
On page 46 the report points out:
-the government's failure to address the basic patterns which underly the historic inequality of women.
In effect the report recognizes that the government has not come to grips with the basic elements that would require adjustment or change if real discrimination were to be removed. The report points out on page 52:
Notably absent have been any concrete moves to make the recommended structural adjustments or to actively recruit women into occupational groups where they are under-represented.
It goes on to say at page 53:
It would appear then that inherent in the very programs designed to promote equal opportunities for women is either an unawareness of the historical factors maintaining the inequality or an inability or unwillingness to adopt an employment approach that can address the real issues.
This is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker, "an inability or unwillingness" to address the essential structure requires to end discrimination in employment in the public service. I hope that one of the parliamentary secretaries here this evening can give us some concrete reason why the government to this point is only prepared to dismiss a highly important and helpful report.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that in the three minutes afforded to me this evening it will be impossible to provide any kind of thesis or in depth response to the argument he makes relying on the report he has quoted so copiously. It will afford me, however, the opportunity at least to deal with a couple of the points he raised at some length and with some vigour. He suggests that the lay-offs taking place and the figures on which he relied, were shocking.
I would point out, as has the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) in response to questions put by the hon. member and others on that side of the House with respect to lay-offs, and "the last hired, first fired" statement that was
Adjournment Debate
made, that in fact those persons hired most recently are those who might be expected to be laid off first. Short of coming out with some kind of hybrid whereby there would be no opportunity for those with tenure enjoying more job security than those most recently hired, it would seem to be impossible, with a large influx of women into the labour market, not to have a disproportionately large number of them laid off when such large lay-offs take place.
The government has indicated that the argument may not be acceptable in terms of what is actually taking place. The difficulty we are dealing with is structural. When there is a larger influx of women, as has been the case in recent days, it might be expected that they would be the first to go when lay-offs take place.
In the time remaining perhaps I might be permitted to indicate by way of history that a cabinet directive No. 44 issued in 1972 requested that deputy heads of departments promote women in middle and upper echelon positions. Since that time numbers of women have been increasing in all categories except scientific and professional. The 1975 cabinet directive stated that every deputy head must assign an officer responsible for the EOW program. That has happened. I should like to be able to present more facts and figures but 1 am restricted by the time available.


AIR TRANSPORT-SETTLEMENT WITH UNION TO AVOID FURTHER DETERIORATION OF AIR SAFETY
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, with every department head having at least three female secretaries, why shouldn't what the parliamentary secretary has said be true notwithstanding what my colleague has just referred to?
My concern tonight is the plight facing air travellers in Canada. In particular it refers to a question which I raised on February 5, well over a month ago, respecting negotiations between the department and the air inspectors and their bargaining procedures. It seems six weeks after the question was raised that negotiations are in limbo, and while this is so there is a continuing demoralization of these individuals. Without question there is a lowering of the capacity of these people to apply themselves vigorously to their jobs and responsibilities.
Continuously in this House in recent months there has been a plea from the opposition for the government to move swiftly to remove any cause for concern on the part of those who use aircraft to travel across Canada. I sugest there is a failure on the part of the government to recognize that beyond the bargaining procedures there is a responsibility to make absolutely certain that there is no cause for fear or alarm among the air travelling public.
Failure of the government to do this prompted me to ask once again this evening if the parliamentary secretary could indicate the status of the negotiations. Could he tell us whether the principle of comparability, so eloquently espoused by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has

March 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
found favour among his colleagues on the Treasury benches? If so, as a result of that, can we anticipate any action on the part of the government to reopen the talks which seem to be somewhat stalemated at the moment? These are essentially the questions that concern us. We cannot continue to have a high standard maintained if the people who are asked to do the job are not anywhere nearly comparable in wages to those with similar training in the private sector. I will not dwell on that topic, but I am sure the parliamentary secretary appreciates and understands the implications of it.
Let me remind the parliamentary secretary once more, if I may, that the question of safety in transport, and the conflicts which arise therefrom, are not a new subject in this House. I can tell him that I have had a private member's bill prepared for his edification, and I know he has looked at it, which gets to the root of the problem when the regulatory agency continues to have to accept responsibility for the investigated or consequential result of that regulatory authority posed in a statutory manner. These things must come to an end, the charade like that which arose out of Cranbrook, with the attempt by the ministry to bury a report until such time as they have had a chance to prepare new regulations, authorities and tighter and tougher rules with regard to air safety. That is not good enough. The minister should look at his internal organization in the hope that the ultimate beneficiary will be the travelling public in this country.
I am a minor individual. However, 1 have just completed my 1,300th trip between this city and my city of Halifax. 1 am not unfamiliar with aircraft. When I board an aeroplane I like to know that the highest standards possible are in effect. We have the capacity and the trained personnel in this country. They are ready to work. What we need is an awareness and attitude on the part of this government to ensure that our air inspection officers are able to work to their fullest capacity and with the best interests of all Canadians uppermost in their minds. I repeat my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to say that members of the opposition party have brought up many times the question of the negotiations between the aviation inspectors and their employer, Transport Canada. I believe that it is not intentionally that the hon. member is bringing up this matter again, but I would like him to note, Mr. Speaker, that by bringing up this scarecrow every day or nearly every day-I have taken part myself in four late shows already to explain that negotiations are going on normally.
By bringing up this scarecrow regularly, as I said earlier, that is by saying that this could cause problems in air safety in Canada. I believe that the hon. member could cause, even
though unintentionally, unjustified fears among the Canadian travelling public. I would like to remind him that, as was said in the committee on transport and communications, since 1973 the ratio of air incidents to the number of flight hours or flights in Canada has steadily decreased. As for the question he raised about the investigation of aviation incidents, I would also like to remind him that a few weeks ago the minister stated the policy related to a reorganization of these air incident investigation procedures. To come back to the question raised this evening by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that is the current negotiations between the employer and the aviation inspectors, the employer feels that negotiations are progressing normally and that all procedures under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, either the services of a conciliator afterwards or the intervention of a conciliation board and all such mechanisms, Mr. Speaker, have not yet been exhausted. During the negotiations, the employer stated that he was ready to carry on negotiations while admitting the difficulties which the parties had to tackle. He believes, however, that negotiations should be held between the parties directly involved and that it is not proper to use the House of Commons as a platform for collective bargaining. This is what we said on several occasions and I am convinced that my colleague will agree with me in that regard.

In the meantime the civil aviation inspectors are still performing their assigned tasks without resort to slow-down or work-to-rule activities. The important function of enforcement of the air regulations and other legislation is still being actively pursued. The inspection of air carriers and the performance of the required pilot proficiency checks are still carried on. The investigation of aircraft accidents and incidents is still proceeding normally. The calibration of navigation and landing aids is still being performed.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the time allotted to me has expired and I hope that I have proved to the House that all regulations and necessary inspections for air safety are now enforced in Canada.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-HEALTH CARE OF NATIVE PEOPLES
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, you may recall that late last fall, around Christmas time and early in January, there was an outcry from the Indian people because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) had decided to withdraw certain health services from those people. The guidelines which she imposed at that time were based on a broad accusation that Indian people were abusing certain of the health services, particularly ambulance services, dental services, optometric services, and the use of prescription drugs. She made this broad accusation but to this date I have not heard from her one specific example of such abuse.

March 12, 1979

It seems to me that the minister, who poses or attempts to pose before the public as a humane lady, chose on this occasion to attack the poor and the weak-as we all know, the Indians in this country are, by and large, poor and certainly economically speaking, weak. As to their physical state, when we examine the statistics we see that the mortality rate for Indian children is much higher than the rate for the rest of the population; the life expectancy generally is much lower, and in many aspects of life the Indians are falling behind the rest of society. Thus it seems to me that it was a callous decision on the part of the minister to impose these guidelines which make it more difficult, if not impossible, for sick Indian people to get ambulance drives to hospital or to obtain the drugs they require, sometimes on an emergency basis. But she acted on the basis of a broad accusation that people were abusing the system.
As a result of representations from members of my party, the National Indian Brotherhood and other Indian organizations, she did, however, agree to suspend these guidelines for a six-month period. She explained she was doing so in order to have more time in which to consult with Indian people. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that so far she refuses even to talk with them. She has refused to set in motion any mechanism for the consultation process in which she told us she wanted to engage.
In support of this statement, I should like to read a telex which was sent to the minister by the National Indian Brotherhood. I may say I had a conversation with the president of the National Indian Brotherhood and the president of the Alberta Indian Association just this afternoon, so the information I have is very current. The telex reads:
It is unfortunate that you feel it is not applicable at this time to discuss the issue of health services and in particular the consultation mechanism established on January 24. You have my letter of January 28 outlining our concerns with the consultation mechanism. We have had no reply. My staff has been in contact with your office no less than eight times since January 24 attempting to set up a meeting with you to clarify the ongoing issue of health services to Indian people. The consultation process appears to be actually negating discussion and we have an executive council meeting and I am sorry I have to report that once again you have refused to meet to discuss and clarify the ongoing health issue.
It appears that the minister is stonewalling. It appears that her promise to negotiate was nothing more than a political ploy to take this issue out of public discussion until the election is over. It is quite clear that she has no intention whatsoever to carry out her promise to negotiate.
Another aspect concerns me very much insofar as her attitude is concerned. At the meeting of January 24 a representative of the National Indian Brotherhood presented the minister with a blanket as a token of esteem. It was a new Hudson Bay blanket. It was a very expensive and very good blanket. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if you think back, you will realize that it was a very nice gift for the National Indian Brotherhood to offer the minister.
The minister took the blanket, but the next day she had the gall to telephone the president of the National Indian Brotherhood to inquire whether the blanket carried disease or whether there was a curse on it to harm her in any way. The response
Adjournment Debate
the National Indian Brotherhood gave the minister was that it was given to her with only the best intentions and that the minister could send it to her own laboratories to determine whether it carried any disease. I am astonished by the attitude of the minister. It seems quite clear that she has either been badly advised or has committed herself with less than the best of intentions as far as negotiations are concerned. If it was her intention to get past the election with this ploy and if the universe unfolds as it should, my party will pick up the pieces, the consultation process will indeed continue when the election is over, and a humane way will be found to solve this very serious problem.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the suggestion of the hon. member that the minister attempted to use as a ploy for time an extension of six months with a view to escaping any obligation she undertook. I think this House and those who know the minister know that she is an honourable woman, and if she gave any undertaking she will indeed seek to do everything possible to fulfil it. I reject out of hand any suggestion by the hon. member that anything other than that is the case.
In addition, I suggest that the hon. member has used the late show to go rather far afield from the question he initially put. If he expects a response to a question he put earlier, he should restrict himself to that question so that any preparation for the purpose of making a response is directed to the initial question.
In any event, at the January 24 meeting the minister did meet with Indian participants who presented their views with regard to the department's guidelines regarding the provision of certain uninsured health services to Indian and Inuit people. I would like to take some time to outline the demands of the Indian people, but the time goes quickly. I can only say that on January 24 the minister indicated that primary health services and programs for Indian people on reserves would not be affected.
The minister explained the reasons for implementing guidelines for uninsured services, which include the provision of eyeglasses, dentures, prescription drugs, and transportation of patients for medical reasons. I think it is important that I state once again that, contrary to the incorrect information the hon. member opposite put on the record, the services we are talking about are not insured services, they are uninsured services. This is not a new policy which was implemented just recently by this government. It is a continuation of the policy which has existed since 1958 and which was put in place by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker). In fact this is not something that is new and different.
What the minister has indicated is that in fact there had been some abuses that had grown into the system and that, as a consequence, it was time for a rationalization of the system to ensure that proper insured services would be provided under the policy. Notwithstanding the fact that there was a rationalization, because of the misapprehension and misinformation

March 12, 1979
Adjournment Debate
that had crept into the debate she provided a six months' suspension so that there could be a further discussion and a further understanding of what was going on. She outlined at that time four guidelines or criteria which were made known to the Indian and Inuit representatives at that meeting. I can provide those guidelines to the hon. member again this evening, if he does not have them yet or does not understand them, and I will be pleased to bring all hon. members up to
date on the implementation of the policy pertaining to the health of the Indian and Inuit people, but I see that my time has expired.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.


Tuesday, March 13, 1979