1979-11-30

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the appointment of two new Privy Councillors. One is the former Speaker of the other place and the second is a distinguished member of this House. They will be sworn in at Government House today.

I mean the hon. Louise Marguerite Renaude Lapointe and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Senator Lapointe was called to the Senate eight years ago where she served as President for five years. Originally, Privy Councillors were either ministers or former ministers. The appointment of Senator Lapointe is in keeping with a precedent established in 1891 at which time the Speakers of both Houses were sworn in as members of the Privy Council. [English]
The appointment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a recognition of his singular service to this House. The nation knows his dedication to social democracy and, more particularly, to Canadians who are elderly or alone or in need. But colleagues in the House of Commons know another dedication of the hon. member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, and that is a dedication to the idea and the institution of Parliament. It is not simply that he was first elected here 37 years ago today, or that in his time he has learned a little about the rules: what distinguishes Stanley Knowles is that he has come to personify the best of Parliament and it was for that reason, on behalf of Your Honour, that I have recommended His Excellency the Governor General swear this distinguished parliamentarian to the Privy Council of Canada later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highiands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to express, on behalf of the Official Opposition, our congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to Madame Renaude Lapointe for their being called to the Privy Council. People make it in different ways, and probably it is nice to make it in the way that these two persons have made it, without that undignified scramble which sometimes accompanies appointments to the Privy Council.
I do not know, Your Honour, whether the action taken by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has been influenced by the fact that both the two proposed Privy Councillors accompanied yourself and myself on a trip to China. In any event, on that occasion we got to know both of them even better and grew to admire their interest in all new aspects that we discovered in China. Indeed, we were greatly impressed with the athletic ability of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as he ascended to the Great Wall of China. Of course, he was helped, as usual, by those Liberals who were on the visit with him!
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I served with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when we were both in opposition-as we are now-when I was a member of the government and he was in opposition, and when we were both supporters of the same government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand his qualities in all those capacities and I hope that this move today does not constitute a drift on his part toward closer links with the establishment than he had hitherto formed, and that it does not presage-as was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard)-an early accession to the Senate. Maybe it is a harbinger of the future that his companion in the swearing in today will be a member of the other place.
In any event, I wish to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by congratulating both new Privy Councillors and by expressing in all sincerity my congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because today is an opportunity for us to tell him, through the action of the Prime Minister, of the admiration and respect which he has earned for himself as a member of this House and of the lustre that he has added to our deliberations through all those years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Your Honour, the House leader of the Liberal party has almost turned a point of order into a question of privilege by his comments this morning.
I want to begin, Your Honour, on this auspicious day by congratulating Senator Lapointe on behalf of all my colleagues
1878

November 30, 1979
Appointments to Privy Council
here in the House. Although it is well known that the other place is not held in universal esteem by members of my party, Senator Lapointe is, indeed, held in the highest possible regard and we congratulate her upon her appointment today.
Your Honour, 1 want, on this particular occasion, to commend the government for its thoughtful and appropriate action today, of all days, in appointing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the Privy Council, appropriately-as the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) indicated- on the thirty-seventh anniversary of his membership in this most important body in our country. It is a just recognition, Mr. Speaker, of one of the finest Canadians, in my view, and the outstanding parliamentarian of our time.
[ Translation]
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) devoted most of his adult life to the welfare of others, the aged, veterans, the poor and women who have not yet achieved equal status in Canada.
[ English ]
In addition to this fundamental concern with the problems of certain Canadians who needed a strong defender, the other aspect of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which has stood out in all his years in Parliament is that he has been pre-eminently a civilized man, a member who, while debating strongly for what he most believes in, never fails to respect the essential human worth of all his opponents. At root, I believe this is what has caused him to learn and master the rules to a degree that excels all comparison in this House.
Stanley Knowles-and he will note that I break a rule in naming him-is neither mean, nor malicious, nor, to use an old word, vainglorious. To the contrary, he demonstrates daily in this House of Commons that the best kind of champion of the people is also the most civilized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to join the Liberal House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party in offering my sincere congratulations to the two outstanding members who are being appointed to the Privy Council. I would also take this opportunity to pay them particular homage. First, Senator Renaude Lapointe, who has been actively involved in various activities with great distinction. She has always been interested in public life. She was a career journalist and won the coveted journalist award in 1965, which was a great honour. She was appointed to the Senate on November 10,	1971 and became Speaker
on September 12, 1974. Such achievements are evidence that the right hon. Prime Minister and the government made a good choice in recommending her appointment to the Privy
Council. She will become part of a team of 112 other members.
As for our colleague in this House, I obviously have not had the opportunity to get to know him as well as those who have spoken before me, since 1 am new in this House. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been impressed by his continuous presence in the House and his untiring participation in the business of the House. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party has said, some people choose a career in public life, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has devoted his whole life to public affairs. This is why 1 believe his forthcoming appointment today is a recognition of all the credit due to him after his long parliamentary career.
His appointment is also quite timely, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was first elected to this House exactly 37 years ago today, even though he had what we might call a four-year vacation in 1958. The fact that he has served Parliament for so long is proof positive that he has received the unfailing support of his fellow citizens, and it is a very tangible and outstanding indication that he has learned to represent adequately his constituents who have realized that he promotes their interests. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the appointees and I know that this will not prevent their discharging their present duties. I asked this morning when the last meeting of the full Privy Council had been held, and nobody on the Hill could remember the date. Anyhow, I wish them a successful career.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that the House will permit me to add just a word in respect of these two colleagues.
[ Translation]
First of all, Senator Renaude Lapointe was Speaker of the Senate during the five years I was Speaker of the House in the last legislature, and we have assumed responsibilities jointly on several occasions for special events on Parliament Hill and also in connection with events outside Parliament, including interparliamentary relations. I am pleased to congratulate Mrs. Lapointe and to thank her most sincerely for her co-operation in the past, because she was a fine Speaker of the Senate during the five years of the last Parliament.
In respect of our colleague, the choice could not have been a better one. He has now become the father of the House of Commons, a title which I am sure he will carry with great distinction. It is on this very day that he celebrates his first election to Parliament 37 years ago-a remarkable achievement.

November 30, 1979

I want to repeat, very briefly, a true story. During the first month when I was Speaker of the previous Parliament, 1 was interviewed for the first time on a television public affairs show. In the midst of the program a question was put, as were other questions, for which 1 was quite unprepared. It was roughly as follows, "As a new Speaker, are you concerned that when you are in the chair some of the procedural experts in the House might trap you one day? What would you do, for example, if Stanley Knowles were to catch you totally off base on a procedural decision or a procedural problem?"
The answer I made at that time was, 1 hope, a proper compliment to the man who is being so honoured today. I replied, "My understanding of Stanley Knowles over the years that I have had the chance to work with him up to this point is that his love of Parliament would take precedence over his desire to get one up on anybody, including the Speaker. The chances are that he would probably prefer to have a private word with me to correct me. He would get more satisfaction out of knowing that he had thereby demonstrated his knowl-ege, which is well known, and at the same time had equally served the Chair and Parliament."
When I first saw him after that, I was flattered when he said he was most pleased with that answer. It was a compliment which 1 intended sincerely at that time. I hope it reflects the feelings of all hon. members at this moment of adulation of a man who could hardly be better deserving of the honour he is going to receive. We ail join in congratulating him at this moment.
Oral Questions
ing figure because it is the average age of the members of this caucus. If you believe in averages, then all of these members around me were just babies 37 years ago today.
What I want to say about service in this place is, not that if you stay around long enough you get honours such as this, but that it is extremely rewarding to hear from Canadians out there-pensioners, veterans, women, people facing poverty or other difficulties-that they appreciate the fact that they have a friend at court; they appreciate that one has tried to do things to make life better for them. The reward that I value most for my years of service thus far is the fact that many expressions of appreciation come to me from right across the country.
I am grateful for the honour that is being conferred today. 1 accept it, if I may, on behalf of my constituents of Winnipeg North Centre who have elected Mr. Woodsworth and me to this House for a total of 54 of the last 58 years. But I think of my constituency not just as those who live within the bounds of Winnipeg North Centre, but those all over Canada for whom 1 have tried to be a voice in this House. It is on their behalf that I am happy to accept this honour.
1 say again to my colleagues in all parties in the House that 1 am deeply touched by the warmth of their expressions to me on this occasion.
[Editor's Note: Members of the House stood and applauded.]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would certainly be something other than human if I were not deeply grateful for this day. I do feel that way, and 1 extend my warmest thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for the recommendation he has made to my old personal friend, his Excellency the Governor General. I am grateful to the Prime Minister, to the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), to my own leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy), the leader of the Social Credit party, and to Your Honour for the kind things that have been said on this occasion.
I am grateful not only for the honour that is to be bestowed upon me at noon today and for the kind things that have been said, but for the feeling of warmth that I have experienced in the last day or so-the news did seem to leak out: that happens around this place-from members of all parties in this House. It is nice that it is happening, but it makes it a lot nicer when so many friends are pleased.
I believe what 1 would most like to say is that service in this place is really a very satisfying way to live one's life. After all, I was 34 when 1 came here and I am 71 now, so I have spent most of my life in these halls. By the way, may I interject to say that my colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), said a moment ago that 37 is an interest-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and his party promised substantial tax relief to Canadian taxpayers. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance went to New York and told his audience that tax relief was out of the question. How does the Prime Minister expect anyone to have any confidence in his party's credibility, in light of this further major reversal of policy and the flagrant disregard for promises made to the Canadian people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it was our conclusion, after studying the accounts of Canada and the economic circumstances that the nation faces, that it would not be appropriate in this budget to bring forward the tax reductions which we had hoped would be possible earlier in the year.

November 30, 1979
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made by the Minister of Finance in New York, can the Prime Minister explain to the Canadian public why on the order paper of this House at this moment there is legislation for tax cuts, that we are being called upon in this House at this moment to pass a tax cut on mortgage deductibility which will apply only to a small section of the Canadian population and, unfortunately, not the poor ones?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the view of the Liberal party is well known, that the tax credit and that aid to Canadians who own or want to own a home is not something that they can support. We believe that it is something that is important; that it is a priority, now, in the nation. I hope that members opposite will change their minds and will give support to this measure which will be of such help to so many Canadians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In light of the very serious statement made by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the Canadian economy could not stand any tax cut at this moment, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to be serious in this situation and give confidence to the people that the Canadian economy is well managed and take the responsible step at this moment and withdraw the bill that is before this House?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to defeat legislation in this House, he will have to call upon his colleagues to attend here, and not ask the government to withdraw measures that we consider to be important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our view is the tax credit measure is of importance to the people of Canada now. We intend to carry it forward. May I address the other part of the hon. member's question. We have directed our actions since we were elected on May 22 precisely to creating the kind of confidence among investors outside this country, and Canadians inside this country, that there is now in Ottawa-as distinct from the situation prior to May 22-a government that takes seriously its responsibility to manage the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to pursue this question a bit further at this point. Last night the Minister of Finance said that any tax cuts at this point in time-he was talking of tax cuts of the same magnitude as the mortgage interest and property tax credit plan-would be ruinous to the economy. I would like to know from the Prime

Minister if the Minister of Finance was expressing a philosophy that this government is going to be concerned with giving tax relief to the better-off in our society while saying be damned to the rest.


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, last night the Minister of Finance indicated the exact and precise figures on the adverse impact of inflation, balance of payments, current account and the budget deficit of an across-the-board tax cut. We asked the same questions with regard to Bill C-20, and we could not get those figures. In fact, he said it would be good for the economy.
I would like to know if we are going to be asked, in the House, to pass a bill which is going to have exactly the same effects on the economy as those described by the Minister of Finance last night in New York with regard to across-the-board tax cuts for all Canadians.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it should be clear to the House that the statements made by the Minister of Finance last night were directed at the effect of new initiatives the government might take. The tax credit initiative is clearly proposed in Parliament. It is clearly in the range of intentions of this government. It is a matter we hope to have brought to a vote and to a conclusion very quickly. We hope there will not be tactics adopted on the other side that will stop Canadians being able to take advantage of this program next year.
The Minister of Finance indicated that, in large measure as a result of the failure of the former government to deal with the serious problems of economic management in this country, it is not open to us now to contemplate more significant tax cuts in the new budget.


USE OF ADDITIONAL PROFITS OF OIL MULTINATIONALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the discussions between the Government of Canada and Alberta over oil pricing which would, according to the government's own figures-of which I have a copy here-give the oil companies about $37 billion over the next four years, can the minister give us any guarantee that this enormous amount paid by Canadian consumers will be used for the development of petroleum resources in Canada?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know what document the hon. member has. I suppose it is one lent to him by the leader of his party. All 1 can say is that the government will ensure that we have sufficient funds to carry out our very exciting national energy projects in this country and ensure that the resources come on the basis of a taxation scheme that is fair and equitable.
November 30, 1979


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I was asking about guarantees that this money will be invested in Canada. I did not get an answer. The minister's own department's survey of the industry released yesterday shows that for the two-year period 1977-78 the industry spent some $1.8 billion for diversification, acquisition of other companies, as well as investment outside Canada, and since the report states, "Such expenditures contribute little if anything to the near-term development of Canada's petroleum resource potential and could represent a drain on the total funds available to further supply objectives", I would like to ask the minister what mechanisms he will put in place to stop this practice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the monitoring act which brings to the light of day information with respect to the activities of the petroleum industry in Canada. I take it what the hon. member is suggesting is that there be restrictions with respect to the flow of capital outside Canada. I also take it he is, in effect, saying that Petro-Canada should not be investing in the North Sea, Spain and off Vietnam.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Again the minister avoids the obvious problem. Consumers are paying the higher costs, and that money is not all being reinvested in Canada. Given the conclusion in his department's report which states, "If these patterns persist, there is a possibility that the structure of Canada's resource sector could within a decade or two be characterized by a handful of large resource conglomerates, most of which are foreign owned and controlled", is the government prepared to introduce legislation like that which exists in the United States which would prohibit such acquisition and diversification?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to say, with respect to some of the moneys being invested outside of Canada, without defending the flow of capital out of Canada, that some of these are in fact being invested in securing resources and sources of oil for us in Canada. Aside from that, our policy is one which is going to encourage increased participation by Canadians. It will be seen, in the energy package, that we are taking positive steps with respect to our energy policy which will, in fact, encourage Canadian participation and reduce the domination we now see upon us with respect to the multinational corporations in this country.
[ Translation]


DANGER OF SHORTAGE IN QUEBEC AND MARITIMES-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL ESTABLISH SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION OFFICE
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On March 21, 1979, the House passed Bill C-42 providing for the creation of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board and for the appointment of the executive director and members of this board. Given the growing concern in the province of Quebec and in the maritimes over the security of supplies, I would like to know whether the government intends
Oral Questions
to go ahead as soon as possible with that project and set up this Energy Supplies Allocation Board and appoint its members.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has often discussed what we intend to do about the board referred to by the hon. member. We are looking for people capable of being appointed to this board and we will announce their appointment in due course.


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. At a press conference held last November 8, the Prime Minister, referring to a letter he had sent me on November 6, made this statement:
We have indicated in the letter to Mr. Roy that we might consider the establishment of such a mechanism and its membership before a crisis period to ascertain that we would have the capacity to do advance planning.
1 should like to ask the Prime Minister, since we all know what the government intends to do, when his government will act, which is still more important.


Charles Joseph Clark: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker. I must stress that it is not merely an agency or a mechanism which is needed here. What is essential for Canada is to have an energy policy which could give Canadians the assurance of secure supplies in the future. In the past, because of the previous government's inaction, we have not provided for the security of supply which is essential and possible for a country like Canada. Our profound commitment has been to change the direction of energy policy and to give Canada a policy of energy self-sufficiency.


FISHERIES
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It has to do with a press release issued yesterday, a statement on the Atlantic salmon policy. I want to say we on this side feel we do not have a proper chance in the question period to raise the kind of questions we would like to ask. 1 should like to point out as a preamble-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should get to his point.


Bill Rompkey: The release the minister put out makes no mention of the native fishery. But I want to question the minister specifically. He said there would be a reduction in the level of commercial fishing and that the number of people fishing for the species will be reduced. He also says fishing will be reinstituted in certain areas.

November 30, 1979
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister where the reductions will take place and how they will be effected. I would point out to him how important Atlantic salmon are to those who live on the northeast coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador particularly. Is it his intention to make reductions there? Is it his intention to reinstitute salmon at all in any part of New Brunswick, Gaspe or on the west coast of Newfoundland?


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: As the hon. member knows, the new strategy for Atlantic salmon announced yesterday calls for a change from a global approach to a zone approach in monitoring. As we establish zones we shall be able to establish the TACs, or regulations governing both commercial and sports fishing. There will be a reduction in the number of commercial licences and, obviously, this reduction will take place in the only area where there is a substantial commercial fishery, namely, Newfoundland.
As far as New Brunswick is concerned, I cannot foresee any increase in commercial activity. However, we intend to give the new salmon management policy which will establish management zones and an over-all salmon board an opportunity to become operative before we make any hard and fast decisions. 1 can tell the hon. member that I cannot foresee any increase in commercial salmon fishing activity.


Bill Rompkey: The release said in a later paragraph that salmon will be fished mainly in their native province. We have heard a lot about provincial rights. We know that provincial premiers have rights-as a matter of fact, some provincial premiers have even more rights than the Prime Minister. But we did not know that salmon have rights.
I want to know, first of all, whether or not the salmon have been consulted as to whether they can be fished in their home provinces. The minister speaks, in all seriousness, of Atlantic salmon returning to maritime and Quebec rivers, and says they are currently being intercepted by Canadian fishermen. I want to know what that means. He says it should be possible to eliminate most interceptions by changing fishing seasons and by limiting fishing efforts through licensing. Can the minister clarify this point and explain to us how these salmon are going to be fished within provinces? Will he tell us exactly what he means by that statement?


James Aloysius McGrath: I did, in fact, consult with the hon. member yesterday; 1 briefed him on this statement. Obviously, it would have been more productive had I consulted with the salmon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: It seems to me that all the good will behind the briefing we made available to the hon. member yesterday was for naught, because he does not seem to understand the simple theme of this whole strategy. The central theme is zone management, and this is what will be put in place. He does not seem to understand that each run of salmon going up a river has its own identifiable characteristics. Obviously, this means that salmon running up provincial rivers, up the Miramichi

River, for example, or the Saint John River in New Brunswick, are distinguishable from the salmon running up the rivers of southern Newfoundland.
They will be managed with that in mind, remembering, as well, that in order for us to secure a meaningful international convention which will be effective in reducing the catch of salmon off the coast of Greenland by the Greenlanders, we shall have to put our own house in order. The theme is conservation and enhancement, which was obviously not achieved by the policy announced in 1972 by Mr. Davis.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the answer the minister has just given. If the restrictions to be imposed are to have a meaningful effect, then a more satisfactory arrangement with regard to the overfishing off the coast of Greenland will have to be reached. What arrangements has he made, or what negotiations is he conducting to achieve an agreement covering the overfishing of those salmon stocks off Greenland?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the EEC has management responsibility for the Greenland fishery, and we recently had a delegation in Brussels. We were able through ICNAF to get the total allowable catch off Greenland established at around 1,100 tons. We consider that figure to be too high and we want that TAC reduced. This is the objective we are pursuing.
What I say to the hon. member is what I have just said in response to his hon. friend: if we want to make a case for a meaningful international convention to control the interception of Canadian salmon on the high seas, we have to be seen to be putting our own house in order. That is the objective of this program. That speaks to stricter action against poaching; it also means getting the whole commercial fishery in order, an effort which involves a reduction in the number of commercial licences.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: To safeguard the salmon stocks, it is also important to increase surveillance over the rivers in which the salmon spawn. That is an expensive proposition. If the provinces are to have this responsibility, what arrangements has the minister made to meet the cost of this surveillance? Has he secured an agreement from the President of Treasury Board to make funds available for this purpose?


James Aloysius McGrath: We have offered to hand over to the provinces-and essentially we are speaking of two provinces, New Brunswick and Newfoundland-total surveillance responsibility on their rivers. They already have part of that responsibility. The hon. member should bear in mind that, of course, the provinces realize the full revenue from the licensing fees on those rivers; the federal government does not get a dollar. One province has replied positively, but we have yet to hear from Newfoundland.
If the provinces were to enter into such an arrangement with the Government of Canada, we would be prepared to agree to some kind of cost-sharing program over a prescribed period of
November 30, 1979

time, probably five years. We feel that one enforcement agency on the rivers of the Atlantic provinces would be more effective in enforcing conservation and in dealing with poachers.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL SOON ANNOUNCE DECISION ON COMPENSATION FOR SALMON FISHERMEN
Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Coming back to the statement he made yesterday about compensation for salmon fishermen, 1 would like to point out to the minister that it is extremely important for most of our fishermen because it is, indeed, the only way they can make their living. Can the minister tell us whether he will soon announce his decision on this matter, because of the uncertainty that is being created for fishermen? Further, can he ensure that before he takes his decision he will consult with the fishermen involved? And in case he decides to terminate this compensation program, what will happen to the licences granted to these fishermen?


James Aloysius McGrath: As the hon. gentleman probably knows, the decision as to compensation was taken last year. The compensation program was put in place in 1972 for a five-year period. It was extended to six years, then to seven years, and later to eight years-we are now in the eighth year. Treasury Board announced last year that this was the final year. So a decision has already been made. It is not my decision; it was made last year by Treasury Board. With respect to the position of those who are currently receiving compensation, I am having discussions with my hon. friend from Saint John and we shall be dealing with cases on their individual merits. However, the hon. member might be interested to know that 6 per cent of those now receiving compensation are over 80 years of age and that almost 20 per cent are over 70 years of age.


CATCH LIMITS-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WILL CONSULT PROVINCES AND SPORTS FISHING ASSOCIATIONS
Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and it deals with sports fishing. Since he said that he might set more restrictive limits to sports fishing catches in rivers, can he tell us if he has had consultations with the provincial governments and fishing associations on this subject and, if not, does he intend to follow the open policy of his government and consult them before taking a decision?
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the limits on the rivers will be established by zone management committees which will be put in place and which will work under the Salmon Board for the Atlantic provinces. It will probably vary from river to river. Some rivers might be closed next year, and there will be some rivers where there will be a maximum limit. This will vary from river to river and from zone to zone.


COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR FISHERMEN
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would not want to mislead the House. The fact is that last year Treasury Board officials indicated that compensation should not go on forever, but I never felt that that was a binding decision on the ministries of the government.
I should like to ask the minister a question. Since the removal of compensation is not met by a formula that would allow those who are not to continue receiving compensation and who had consistently been led to believe that some day they would return to a commercial fishery, and since the program does not seem to deal with this situation, has the minister done one of two things? Has he approached the provinces that are getting income from the sale of sports licences to see if they would buy out the commercial fishermen, including some of those to whom the minister referred as elderly-wUl they be dealt with fairly by the provinces-or will the minister put together some kind of program that will not leave those who thought they would return to a commercial fishery to find the door closed forever?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is my advice that the Treasury Board indicated quite clearly that this was to be the last year of the compensation program, this current fiscal year. I stand by that. 1 am sure that if the hon. gentleman searched his own memory, he would find that that is, in fact, correct.
With regard to the compensation program and those who will no longer receive compensation after this fiscal year, it is my intention, after consultation with the members of Parliament who are involved, and more particularly with my friend, the hon. member for Saint John, since the Saint John River is one of the principal areas affected, to work out some kind of system whereby these fishermen can be involved in a lucrative fishery. But that would require examining each individual case of the some 400 cases that are currently receiving compensation and have been receiving it for the past eight years.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite astonishing that the fishermen, especially those who have traditionally fished in Miramichi, would suddenly find that the hon. member for Saint John, as distinguished as he may be personally but whose knowledge of the fisheries is, I think, somewhat limited, should become the agent to defend the interests of the fishermen in

November 30, 1979
Oral Questions
the riding of the hon. member for Northumberland-Mirami-chi, who unhappily is not here to ask the question which I think he would like to ask were he here and not under medical care.
I cannot see how the minister can stand before us and tell us that the future of a large number of fishermen who have always thought that either they would be compensated for good, they would be bought out, or that they would return to a commercial fishery, should now be left to the vagaries and imagination of the hon. member for Saint John.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi had been in the House, I would have extended the same invitation to him that I extended to my colleague, the hon. member for Saint John, and obviously he will get that message. But may I say to my hon. friend that it would be our intention to try to re-establish those bona fide fishermen-and I emphasize, bona fide fishermen-who are still receiving compensation. That will be done after consultation.
I might say that the hon. member knows, perhaps better than anyone in the House, that the situation of the fishery in the Atlantic provinces has changed considerably since 1972 when it was a depressed fishery. It is now a very lucrative fishery, with tremendous potential, and there are certain areas where licensing can be extended. We intend to give these people who are receiving compensation and who are still able to fish every opportunity to get back into the fishery.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It has to do with the expansion of Hamilton civil airport. In view of widespread reports that yet another possible impediment to expansion at Mount Hope exists because of a formal federal environmental study, can the minister inform the House whether he has discussed this possibility with the Minister of Transport or whether still another environmental study is needed at all?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: The hon. member raises a matter of some importance to the people of Hamilton. A number of studies have been done, as the hon. member knows, with respect to the environmental implications of an expansion of the airport. I am now of the view that there is no need to go into any more formal environmental hearings, and my view is being communicated to the Minister of Transport.


INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED EROSION OF MEDICARE PROGRAM-REMEDIAL ACTION
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Given the mounting public concern over the erosion of medicare, as evidenced by a recent "Save Medicare" petition signed by almost 300,000 Ontarians, and in view of the Alberta doctors' determination to defend extra billing despite a recent 15 per cent fee hike, and considering that Tory governments such as in New Brunswick are slashing their health care budgets while apparently diverting a portion of their federal health grants to other uses, can the minister please inform the House whether his department-not the Hall review-is investigating the serious threats confronting our national medicare system and, if it is, why can immediate remedial action not be taken?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: May I indicate to the hon. member, and indeed to others who are concerned with the question, that the Hall review which I requested in September will deal with the whole of the matter. Indeed, as I indicated in the House at that time, it is very important that all aspects of the principles of medicare, in terms of the guidelines which are required- making sure that those principles are not eroded-are dealt with properly. That is why 1 asked Mr. Justice Hall to take on that responsibility. That is a good way to go now. That report will be available in April, all members will be interested in its recommendations, and I will make my recommendations at that time.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. I appreciate what the minister has said. Nevertheless, I believe that since, in some instances-such as this particular one- economic studies have proven conclusively that user charges such as the $10 per visit in out-patient fees in New Brunswick restrict-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, will he get to it.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I should like to ask the minister if he has done anything in particular about the $10 per visit out-patient fee in New Brunswick.


David Edward Crombie: All studies which pertain to the Medical Care Act of 1968 or the H1DS Act of 1958, all studies in a number of provinces have been referred to Mr. Justice Hall. There will shortly be one out, for example, in the province of Ontario about opting out in Ontario, which I think will have some quite wise things to say. The fact of the matter is that a number of provinces are dealing with their problems in their own particular way. They are carrying out studies, and Mr. Justice Hall will receive their reports.
I recognize that it is the wish of some hon. members that things be done immediately. Let me say that I am firmly convinced that the medicare program is the most popular
November 30, 1979

social program in this country and deserves proper care and attention and a review before action is taken. Sometimes in the past precipitous action has led us into situations in which we have not wanted to be; indeed, former members of former governments have indicated that as they rushed into good ideas, those ideas did not turn out to be very good. The Hall report, the review of medicare, deserves to be thoroughly done and properly accommodated.


TERMS OF REFERENCE OF HALL COMMISSION
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If, as he says, he attaches great importance to the best program in Canada, namely, medicare, and since Mr. Justice Hall has only been granted a service contract, without the tools necessary to hold public hearings and summon witnesses, and stated at the national SOS Medicare conference that he needs those tools for those purposes, would the minister be prepared to recommend to cabinet the establishment of the Hall commission under the Inquiries Act, since such a commission does not exist, regardless of what the minister may say?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, on a few other occasions the hon. member has raised that spectre. I do not think it is particularly helpful because, as 1 have indicated to the House previously, Mr. Justice Hall can have whatever he needs in order to carry out the study. The current instruments that Mr. Justice Hall is using are the ones he wants. If he wants to broaden them, he need only ask. I am accepting the advice of Mr. Justice Hall, which I would commend to any member of the House.


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Would the minister take a look at outstanding applications for Canada Works projects that have not been approved? May I suggest that he might make it a point to clear his desk of all Nova Scotian applications today before he leaves for his constituency, including the constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, of course, my desk is cleared each day as projects come forward from members. 1 am very happy to indicate to the hon. member opposite that the Canada Works projects which are in and which have received the views of
Oral Questions
members of Parliament and others will be approved hopefully by the end of next week in toto.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that from the minister. It seems to controvert the information I have that he has had a number of applications from my constituency on his desk for some days now, that he has moved with great alacrity to approve applications from government constituencies in Nova Scotia, but that he has been particularly slow in dealing with applications from constituencies represented by non-government members. I hope he can put my mind to rest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite well knows, the process of consultation is a complex one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Pepin:: It really is now.


Ronald George Atkey: Perhaps, like the previous government, the process is very wide indeed. While I have had very useful input from various members of Parliament who have had the good fortune to have an allocation to their particular constituency, the process of consultation is much wider. I will act with expediency when that process is completed.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: My question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the complaint made yesterday by the Premier of Quebec. In that respect, the right hon. Prime Minister stated this morning at a press conference:
Mr. Levesque might choose to have an ongoing confrontation with Ottawa. Should we decide to participate in that confrontation, we are going to establish the rules of the game.
Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime Minister intend to establish the rules of the game by his chronic inaction with respect to everything to do with Quebec in the six months he has been in power? Does he not realize that what he is doing is penalizing and provoking all Quebeckers, through his lack of understanding of the Quebec situation, and destroying all of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to find a backbencher of the former government repeating words indicating such a lack of success in the unification of Canada during the eleven years of existence of the former government. It is essentia] for us to approach the
1886

November 30, 1979
Oral Questions
problem differently. We now have a government determined to change the situation of perpetual conflict between the government of Ottawa and the government of Quebec on the presence of the government of Ottawa in the province of Quebec, and on the strength of federalism. I believe the strength of federalism was really demonstrated in the byelections, particularly as a result of the action of Mr. Claude Ryan, but also as a result of the attitude of this federal government.


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON REGIONAL DISPARITIES
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about a change of attitude. We are thinking of the Guy Favreau complex which is not operative yet, of the mapping centre in Sherbrooke, of the tax data centre in Jonquiere, of the endangered shipyards in Quebec, of the federal penitentiaries whose construction has been delayed for months, of the Laprade plant, of the $200 million in compensation that has not been paid to the Quebec government. Mr. Speaker, 1 am asking the Prime Minister to come back to reality. My question is this: Is this his vision of Canada? Is this his idea of a fair and equitable distribution of riches in this country, to deprive Quebec systematically at a time when GM is going to invest in Ontario, to have a $60 million ice-breaker built in Ontario? This morning, at a press conference, all the Prime Minister found to say was: "It is the first time in six months that Mr. Levesque has complained. Our relations with Mr. Lougheed are always excellent". What does he think of Canada? Is he ready to be fair with all regions of the country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the House that it is not the intention of this government to repeat, for example, the performance of the hon. member for Papineau who on four, five or seven occasions promised the contruction of Place Guy Favreau, while there is still just a hole there after all his promises. It is not our intention to continue that policy of empty promises like those which were made so often by the former government. We want to implement a policy in line with the developments in the province of Quebec. We had consultations with the Quebec government on priorities shared by both governments. Our government will, in the near future, make announcements regarding developments which will be followed by action instead in inaction, which was not the case for the announcements often made by the hon. member for Papineau.


DISPOSITION OF BILL S-2
Mr. Jake Froese (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. It concerns Bill S-2, an act to repeal the Canada-France trade agreements of 1933 and 1935, in order to allow the use of the

word "champagne" to designate Canadian wines of high quality. Given the fact that the Canadian government already renounced these agreements in March of 1975-


An hon. Member:: Write him a letter.


Jake Froese: -and given the fact that no opposition is expected in either House-


An hon. Member:: Just lean over and talk to him.


Jake Froese: -can the minister inform the House when the bill will be coming before this House, so that it can be debated and passed, in order to allow Canadian wine producers to operate without restriction in the promotion of their product?


An hon. Member:: Beautiful speech.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Give us a whisky answer.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, this legislation is before the other place right now. As soon as it is passed there, I hope that we will be bringing it before this House for proper debate, so that we can get on with the proper use of the appellation "Canadian Champagne" by wine producers in Canada.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to ask a question of the Minister of State (Transport). In light of impressions created recently in the media that the transportation of dangerous goods act addresses itself to rail safety and the prevention of events like the one at Mississauga, does the minister intend publicly to dispel this illusion immediately and say what actions the department intends to take prior to an inquiry, in order to prevent derailment of dangerous products?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State, Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has raised a very important question. It is one that is under consideration by the department. I will look into it and give the hon. member a more thorough answer within the next few days.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the events at Mississauga occurred some three weeks ago now. The Minister of Transport has the power, under sections 100 and 227 of the Railway Act, to make regulations limiting speeds and to require the railways to improve their equipment, such as hot box detectors and non-friction bearings. When does the minister intend to act and not just report to me on this question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 30, 1979


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY AS TO DIVISION OF REVENUES FROM PROPOSED OIL PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It relates to the details of the Canada-Alberta oil pricing agreement which apparently have been leaked to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Since the details reported so far indicate a virtual betrayal of the national interest in favour of Alberta and its heritage fund, can the Prime Minister reassure this House that the division of revenues resulting from any new oil price increase will put the national interest first, and that a major per cent-I repeat, a major per cent of those new revenues will be channelled to the benefit of all the people of Canada through the Government of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, naturally 1 am not going to announce details of the programs until they are ready for announcement. I would urge the hon. member not to take the declarations of the Leader of the New Democratic Parly on this matter any more seriously than he has on other matters in the past.
1 can assure the House that there will be respect for two fundamental principles, and one, of course, is the jurisdiction of the provinces over resources. Another that is fundamentally important is that this agreement will generate enough revenues for the Government of Canada to participate in and to encourage the funding of activities in the energy field, principally by Canadian citizens, so we can move dramatically from a situation we inherited from the old government, in which we were depending increasingly on foreign sources of supply, and move this nation toward a situation where we are taking full advantage of our unique resource wealth and build for the future of Canada.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the situation of the unemployed in northwestern New Brunswick who succeeded in having the unemployment office closed this week as a result of the vigorous protests which they have been voicing for over a month; given the insensitivity of the Minister of Emplo-
Oral Questions
ment and Immigration who refuses to deal with that specific situation while we are told that the regional director is going to announce next week in a release to the unemployed what recourse they have under the existing legislation; and given also the position of the Minister for Employment and Immigration who allows defeated Progressive Conservative candidates to announce Canada Works projects, could the Prime Minister, who likes setting up commissions and launching investigations, tell us whether he is going to have a peep at what is going on in the office of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and see for himself the extent of patronage activities in this office and also tell the minister that he should deal with the problems of the unemployed in New Brunswick and Vancouver which were ignored by the Prime Minister last week, and of the other unemployed people who want to work and are waiting for the announcement of government projects to go out and get jobs? What is the Prime Minister waiting for?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the difficult situation in Edmundston, and it has been difficult, is a result of protest against legislation that was introduced and passed by the previous government; that is, the provisions of what was Bill C-14. I must say that I share some concerns that are no doubt shared by those engaged in the protest, and for that reason I established a review process to look at those provisions, as well as others, to bring greater equity to the unemployment insurance program. That process of review is proceeding.
In so far as Canada Works grants are concerned, Mr. Speaker-there were two questions submitted-1 would indicate that all the applications for the province of New Brunswick have been completed and approvals are out. There is still one minor item in the riding of Madawaska-Victoria in respect of which I am still waiting for submissions from the hon. member and from others in the region. There is some $150,000 available to alleviate the unemployment situation in that particular region, and 1 will be pleased to respond as soon as I have the submissions from the region.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The situation in northwestern New Brunswick is very serious. Threats have been made. I do not ask the minister to express his concern but I ask him what he is going to do immediately to resolve the social instability prevailing in that area. Is he waiting for another Bathurst? Is he waiting for the situation to get out of control

November 30, 1979
Oral Questions
before doing anything? Is he going to deal personally with this problem?


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, all 1 can ask is, where was the hon. member in the last Parliament when those legislative provisions which are the subject of the protest were being debated? I would welcome his input to the review process. I will agree with the hon. member that it is, indeed, a serious situation there; it is one of instability. I have had consultations with the provincial minister responsible for the area and we are in the process of attempting to come up with some sort of joint program to alleviate the very serious situation which exists there. Nevertheless, I go back to the original point, Mr. Speaker, that the cause of the protest and the cause of the problem are the amendments introduced in Bill C-14 of the previous government, and that is where the blame will lie.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister; I see he has returned. In the recent federal election campaign his party promised the people of Canada that the Conservative government would give considerable financial assistance for the provision of urban transit systems. In view of the fact that the province of British Columbia and the lower mainland are very shortly going to be making a decision on whether to proceed with the development of urban rapid transit facilities, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell this House when his govenment intends to live up to this important election promise, and specifically what financial assistance will be made available to the people of British Columbia for light rapid transit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 apologize to the hon. member for being briefly out of the House. I was on my way to Government House, for reasons that should not alarm anyone in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You might as well get it over with.


Charles Joseph Clark: If there is enough encouragement here, gentlemen, I will. . . !


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I know that the hon. member is raising a serious matter; it is one that is under consideration by the Minister of Transport. All I can undertake to do at this stage is to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport the representation that has been made by the hon. member. We will naturally be interested in looking at matters that might be proposed by the

government of British Columbia or, indeed, other governments with significant mass transit potential.
I should also indicate to the hon. member that as part of the energy package we are proposing we will want to explore actively with provincial governments and municipal authorities across the country the possibility of increased reliance on mass transit as a means of encouraging energy conservation.


NATIONAL UNITY
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my question, although less vigorous, is for the Prime Minister and is supplementary to the one asked earlier by the hon. member for the beautiful riding of Drummond.
On November 1, to be very specific, the Prime Minister said in this very House he intended to give his impressions of the white paper of the Quebec government once he had time to digest it. Has he have time to digest it now, and in what form is he going to give his impressions of the white paper in the days or weeks to come?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I indicated immediately after the white paper was released that 1 do not accept at all its underlying principle. It is not a principle we can accept as a federal government because it rejects the concept of federalism. 1 do not intend to answer the white paper page by page, paragraph by paragraph, because I believe the position of the federal government is clear enough.


THE QUEBEC REFERENDUM-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBILITY OF ANSWERING EACH PROPOSAL IN WHITE PAPER
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
It would still be very useful for hon. members who intend to participate in that referendum campaign to have an answer paragraph by paragraph, concept by concept. Could the Prime Minister consider that need and perhaps make arrangements with the various departments so that those who intend to participate actively in the campaign can collect material, check a few hypotheses, get a few statistics they might want to use?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 can say we do not intend to answer the paper released by the government of Quebec paragraph by paragraph. I believe such a policy would not be useful to federalism, but I do believe it would be really good for all members of the House to have access to the facts and pertinent information of use in the fight
November 30, ! 979

and development of support for federalism. We want to distinguish between facts and propaganda and we intend to prepare information which will be available to federal members of Parliament, and which they can use to encourage Quebeckers to continue adhering to the federalist option.
* [DOT]* *
e (1220)


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) concerning a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 put by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The hon. member for Longueuil was supported in his submission at that time by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). I undertook to re-examine the language to determine whether or not my initial impression, which I expressed yesterday, was in fact accurate.
1 have re-examined the language and I can confirm to the House that that is the case. In fact, the language which was complained of is not contained in the preamble but is contained in the actual motion. I am not now deciding whether or not the language for which the hon. member demanded an apology was in fact unparliamentary; that is not necessary. Because it was contained in the motion-which must first be accepted before it can be debated-it would have to be very flagrantly out of order for me to take procedural action. Also, because it is contained in the motion it is not a declaration or an accusation by the hon. member but simply a matter for debate.
1 have examined the motion to see whether there is anything in it of procedural significance, and 1 can find no breaches of our precedents or practices, as 1 indicated yesterday.


MR. OUELLET-ALLEGED INACCURATE STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, during oral questions the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) implied that 1 had announced three times the construction of the Guy Favreau project and that, as the then minister of public works, I was responsible for the hole in the ground that now exists in downtown Montreal. In this I feel that the Prime Minister misled the House and, on a question of privilege, 1 would ask that at the first opportunity he make a correction. I would call your attention, sir, to the fact that I was appointed to the public works portfolio in 1978 and it was at that time that I announced the work resumption on the Guy Favreau project, which had been interrupted to avoid competing with the
Point of Order-Miss Begin
construction schedule of the Olympic facilities. So I announced the construction of the project once, and only once. The situation is as follows: When the Progressive Conservative party came to power in May last, work was in progress. At that time the new government ordered a halt. If construction had gone on all foundation work on the project would now be almost completed and structural work would have started at this point. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the hole in the ground is to be blamed on Progressive Conservative inaction.


Mr. Speaker:: Again we are in the area, essentially, of disagreement with respect to the content of answers. It is very difficult for the Chair to take a strict line on such a matter because it is very hard for me to determine the exact nature of the intervention until I have heard the proponents. In the future I would invite the co-operation of hon. members in being careful to determine whether or not they are simply in an area of disagreement, or really in the area of an inaccuracy which constitutes privilege, before raising a matter of this nature.


POINT OF ORDER
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I rise today for the fourth day in a row concerning a motion introduced under Standing Order 43 and agreed to unanimously by this House on October 24 last; tomorrow is December 1 and we insist that this government table forthwith the Lazar report on pensions. We have had stupid and ridiculous answers from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) who just does not seem to remember where the report could be. Does he want my copy? I should like to know whether the new government, with all its grandiloquent pronouncements about due respect for parliamentary procedures, is now breaking the rules of the House, or else on what exact date it plans to table the report.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think the undertaking I gave was that there would be an inquiry made. The inquiry has been made and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schel-lenberger) may be able to enlighten the House.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the report, it is in three sections and the English version is ready. The French version is being made ready. The printing presses are tied up with the budget which has priority.

November 30, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
As soon as we can get to printing the report, it will be printed and made available to the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, a motion under the provision of Standing Order 43 to have this report tabled was unanimously passed by the House. That was a long time ago, and day after day my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou keeps asking the same question and getting told that inquiries are being made. 1 respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the personal problem of the hon. member. The House of Commons has the right to have that report tabled; we made a decision, Parliament decided, that has force of law. 1 do not accept the explanations given by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) who passes the buck to a parliamentary secretary. And they would have us again believe that it is a matter of translation, a matter of printing, which is unacceptable. Parliament has ways of acting and doing so rapidly. In 1979, no one is going to have me believe that it is impossible to translate a document when Parliament unanimously decides to have it tabled. That was decided several days ago, Mr. Speaker. If it was a matter of two or three days, I would not raise the issue but-


Monique Bégin: Five weeks.


Yvon Pinard: My colleague points out that it is a matter of four to five weeks, which is totally unacceptable. 1 ask the Chair to give strict instructions to the government to take all necessary steps to have the will of Parliament obeyed and have that document tabled by next Monday at the latest.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken: there has been an order of the House. 1 will look into the matter and see whether or not the House might, therefore, insist that the document be tabled. I am sure that the answer will be that the document exists at the present time only in the English language. Therefore, the House would have to accept that tabling and undertake the translation on its own. That may be the more prudent course.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to raise a question of privilege regarding the rights and privileges of all members of this House on a matter of which, 1 am sure, you are already aware. 1 would like to draw your attention to two questions 1 asked earlier of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) concerning the guidelines authorizing RCMP searches for leaked documents.
Initially, by way of a news conference, we were told by the Prime Minister that he would make these documents public.

Later in the House the Prime Minister stated that there was some confusion as to the authorization of the guidelines. This past Monday we learned that the guidelines were never authorized and, consequently, it would not be the intention of the Prime Minister to table them.
On the matter of the raid on the home of an Ottawa journalist, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon) have publicly indicated their criticisms of the way in which this matter has been handled.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this. Yesterday I learned that the RCMP had requested permission from yourself to search my office for copies of a leaked document 1 have had in my possession. I do not believe that a member of Parliament is above the law, but as you, sir, pointed out to the RCMP when they contacted you, I am not guilty of any wrongdoing and, therefore, there should be no need for such a search. For your support and the support of the House leaders,
I offer my thanks.
But who is in charge of this government? The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence are opposed to this line of pursuit by the RCMP. The Prime Minister has stated that guidelines that permitted the earlier raid were never sanctioned by his government or the previous government. On what authority can the RCMP now request permission to search an office for leaked documents? Who is making these decisions?
1 believe that my rights and privileges will be affected by any search of my office for information it is not unlawful for me to have. Should any search be allowed, my relationship with my constituents will be adversely affected and so, too, will the rights and privileges of all members of this House. Was it the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence), the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence who authorized the RCMP to seek permission from Your Honour to search my office?
Is it the policy of this government, without prima facie evidence, to authorize RCMP officers to set out on fishing expeditions in the offices of members of Parliament? If that is indeed the policy of this government, it sets a precedent that breaks the deep-rooted traditions of this House concerning the very rights and privileges of members of this Parliament and the traditions that form the very cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) raises a matter by way of privilege which, of course, I will set aside as a privileged matter. 1 think if he re-examines the matter he will understand that he speaks of a potential risk. Indeed, he says himself "if permission were to be granted" or if a search were to be allowed of his office, that has not taken place, as he has already pointed out. He therefore raises the risk of an event taking place in the future.
1 could scarcely regard the very risk of that as a matter of privilege.
November 30, 1979

The hon. member will also know that I have exercised my discretion against the exercise of that warrant. 1 think I ought to pause now to indicate to the House briefly why 1 have done
so.
In so far as any involvement of the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) is concerned, I should indicate that to my knowledge the Solicitor General has not in any way been involved in the direction of these efforts. They remain ordinary efforts on the part of the RCMP which, I think, are part of their ordinary obligation and mandate in the investigation of what they may feel may be an offence, not necessarily involving the hon. member but obviously an offence involving the release of the documents in the first place.
To my understanding, the reason for the presence of any discretion in the Speaker is because, in this situation, the rights of the police force, which may be legitimate, come into collision with the rights of the member which are obviously equally legitimate. In many circumstances the member may be asserting a right. I am not saying now that it is in any way the obligation of the Chair to make a determination of the validity of the right of the member. The fact is that the member may be asserting a right that the possession of a document of this sort is within his regular duties as an elected member.
In fact, to use a most interesting example, the document may very well be in relation to the operation of the very police force itself. It has been considered to be on many occasions, and obviously remains, part of the functions of an elected member of this House to inquire into our national police force and many other organizations for which an elected member takes some responsibility. It is part of the mandate of this Parliament.
It could therefore very well be that a member may be asserting a right which he considers to be a part of his responsibility as an elected member. Obviously, since a discretion exists in the Chair, it must always be in the face of a right which the police force is seeking to exercise and which is also a legitimate right.
What I have done, therefore, is to take the position that, where no charge has been laid against a member and there does not appear to be the investigation of an actual offence against him, but rather an investigation which may be part of another set of circumstances, initially I have exercised my discretion against the execution of the warrant in these premises in the office of a member.
On the other hand, I would think that in the more extreme cases, where there is an allegation of an offence by a member and it is in the enforcement or investigation of a specific and formal charge against a member, I might be facing a different situation. Obviously that would depend on the nature of the charge and the actual circumstances.
In this case, therefore, when 1 was first presented with the warrant to which the hon. member has referred, 1 gave it some consideration and turned it back, exercising discretion in the way I have described and explaining my action to the RCMP. I invited them to return to discuss the matter further if they
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
wished and, in fact, to bring the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General and have him involved in the discussion if they wished. They returned yesterday and brought with them a letter asking for further clarification of my discretion. I hope this expose this morning will suffice to comply with that request.
In my opinion, that is where the matter now rests. I have now formally brought the matter to the attention of the Solicitor General. In addition, I have given some consideration to seeking, and I will now indicate to the House that I will seek, a further formal opinion from our parliamentary counsel so that we will have that on the record as well.
Any party that wishes to carry the matter any further is welcome to discuss whether this is a proper exercise of the Speaker's discretion in the way I have described it. This is the way I see the responsibility of the Speaker when there appears to be a conflict between the legitimate rights of an elected member in the pursuance of his duty as such, and the legitimate rights of any police force in pursuance of an investigation which is not an investigation of a formal charge against that member, namely, that my discretion ought to be exercised, in those circumstances, against the execution of any warrant to search the premises of a member.


Mr. Nystrom:: Further on the question of privilege-


Mr. McKinnon:: I should like to speak on that privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon) is rising to participate in the question. As I said at the beginning and I will reiterate, because the hon. member raised the possibility of this matter occurring, I cannot find that he has a question of privilege. In fact, what he says gave rise to the question of privilege did not occur. Had the discretion been exercised the other way, I would think that he would want to raise it in the House and I would certainly give him ample opportunity to do so. So long as I have exercised my discretion against the execution of the warrant, however, I cannot accept within its very terms, as a question of privilege, the possibility that the execution of the warrant may take place, because up to now I have seen to it that it will not.
Were I ever to change that decision, however, I would of course give the hon. member ample opportunity to raise the matter as a question of privilege, facing the actuality of it. Other hon. members may want to participate at that time. But for the moment I cannot find that we have here an actual question of privilege. There is possibly a potential one but not an actual question of privilege. Unless and until that question of privilege arises, I would think I ought not to open it up for discussion.
As a final word, however, if hon. members feel, after examining what I have said this morning, that my actions might in any way raise privilege at all, they are free to examine those words and upon proper notice raise the matter by way of privilege in order that we can have a full and proper discussion of it in the House. Perhaps members would want to

November 30, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rompkey
examine what I have said this morning and give notice if they want to raise it again.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise because, in the hon. member's point of order under the guise of a question of privilege, he insinuated that three cabinet ministers may have had some part in authorizing this raid or search warrant or whatever-the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) or the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) or me. Your Honour has more or less exonerated the Solicitor General.
As I have said several times outside this House, I had nothing to do with turning it over to the RCMP in the first place, or with any subsequent raids either on the journalist's premises or any thought of raiding the member's office. 1 wish he would stop casting these innuendos as he is so fond of doing in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).


MR. ROMPKEY-STATEMENT OF MINISTER MADE OUTSIDE HOUSE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from a press release issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) on the salmon policy. This announcement was made outside the House on a very important question. I regret that the minister had to leave before I had an opportunity to raise this matter, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say at the beginning that I do not lay this at his door. We all know that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is a man of the House of Commons. I know it was not his intention to make the statement outside. But I do want to say to the people who did have the authority to make this decision that we on this side find it very regrettable.
It is a peculiar irony, Mr. Speaker, that the time allocated to the minister for the announcement was deleted so that there would be more time available to debate the freedom of information legislation. We feel that our rights, and my rights particularly as a member of Parliament, have been infringed. We on this side have not had an opportunity to question the minister on this very serious matter indeed.
I am glad the minister has returned. I want to reiterate what 1 said earlier-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will know, as 1 extended to the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), that to allow him to go on would be generosity in the extreme. The right of any minister to make statements either inside or outside the House is absolute. The precedents are quite clear.

The matter does not found either a point of order or a question of privilege.
This question has been raised many times before. If the minister wants to take a very brief moment to equal up the time, I suppose that is only fair. In fact, it is clear that that choice, while it may give rise to a grievance, does not give rise to either a point of order or a question of privilege.


MR. SARGEANT-PROPOSED RCMP SEARCH-INQUIRY AS TO AUTHORIZATION
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment on what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon) said a minute ago. 1 was not casting any innuendos or accusations; I was merely asking a question. It seemed to me in this regard that those were the three ministers who might have been the ones who directed this investigation. I thank him for telling me that he indeed did not do it; that answers one of the questions. Your Honour told me that the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) did not do it either. 1 was merely asking the question. I was not making any innuendos or drawing any inferences.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clarke.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Don L. Taylor (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 200 residents of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands who are concerned about the low levels of Chinook and Coho salmon in the Cowichan River. The petition requests that additional hatchery capacity be built in the Cowichan River in order to replenish the stock which is so
November 30, 1979

crucial to maintaining the livelihood of so many of my constituents.



INCOME TAX CONVENTIONS


Walter David Baker: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate), to implement conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and the Republic of Liberia, Canada and the Republic of Austria, Canada and Italy, Canada and the Republic of Korea, Canada and the Socialist Republic of Romania and Canada and the Republic ,of Indonesia and agreements between Canada and Malaysia and Canada and Jamaica.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order having to do with business of the House. We completed yesterday the reference to the standing committee of the problems of the handicapped, and last night we gave second reading to the freedom of information bill, which is a major contribution to facilitating the government's legislative program.
This afternoon we have three references to committees scheduled for discussion. While my assessment may prove to be inaccurate, as it rarely does, 1 would, however, indicate that probably we can clear those references, at least on this side, this afternoon. If that is the case, it would be helpful if the President of the Privy Council could indicate what we might take if there is time left today, and particularly on Monday. 1 do not ask him to reply definitively now, but it would be useful if we could have some indication during the lunch break so that we can get things organized for later in the day and early next week.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be appropriate.
I never cease to be amazed at the change of atmosphere that can occur in a party that is leaderless and policyless at the moment, but I must say I do appreciate that change of attitude that has suddenly evinced itself and I think it is a reasonable request. 1 will certainly get to the hon. gentleman during the noon hour.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell him that in the space of five seconds I have changed my assessment.
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 22, 309, 452, 532 and 640.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	During the past five years, by department and agency, how many (a) positions were found to be over-classified and/or underclassified (b) job descriptions were found to be incorrect by Treasury Board classification audits?
2.	(a) What are the procedures to ensure that the recommendations of the Treasury Board classification audits are either implemented or the failure to implement justified (b) is there a deadline for such implementations or justifications?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: 1.	(a) and (b) From January, 1974, until the end of September, 1979, Treasury Board Classification Audits of 7,526 positions were conducted. Of these, 1,377 (18.3 per cent) were found to be overclassified; 170 (2.3 per cent) were found to be underclassified and 1,287 (17.1 per cent) job descriptions were found to be incorrect. An incorrect job description does not necessarily result in a misclassification of the position.
Over	Under	Job Description IncorrectAgriculture Canada	81	10	49Auditor General	6	1	3Employment and Immigration Canada	60	3	68Canada Labour Relations Board	1	-	1Canadian International Development Agency	16	17Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission	18	1	14Canadian Transport Commission	4	2	6Chief Electoral Officer	5	Department of Communications	30	-	41Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada	36	19Energy, Mines and Resources Canada	27	9	32Environment Canada	78	9	38External Affairs Canada	13	-	20Department of Finance Canada	7	1	14Governor General	-	-	1Health and Welfare Canada	37	8	49Immigration Appeal Board	2	-	9Indian and Northern Affairs Canada	81	5	55Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce	21	3	21Department of Insurance	1	-	1Information Canada	-	-	1Department of Justice	5	-	12Labour Canada	11	-	5
November 30, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Job
Over	Under	Description IncorrectNational Capital Commission	13	-	11National Defence	69	36	147National Energy Board	8	1	6National Library of Canada	12	-	3National Museums of Canada	25	4	26National Parole Board	8	2	2Post Office Department	32	6	39Privy Council Office	7	-	4Public Archives Canada	16	1	12Public Service Commission	29	2	32Public Works Canada	51	10	72Department of Regional Economic Expansion	11	1	20Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise	55	2	46Revenue Canada, Taxation	45	2	23Representation Commission	1 43	-	1 14Royal Canadian Mounted Police	2	Science and Technology Canada	5	2	6Secretary of State	87	2	24Solicitor General Canada	5	-	4Statistics Canada	24	10	49Supply and Services Canada	97	11	141Transport Canada	87	11	64Treasury Board Canada	6	1	8Urban Affairs Canada	10	-	6Veterans Affairs Canada	35	3	26Anti-Inflation Board	2	-	1Correctional Services of Canada (Penitentiary)	54	9	241,377	170	1,2872.	(a) and (b) The procedures and deadlines, to ensure that the recommendations of the Treasury Board classification audits are either implemented or the failure to implement justified are as follows:(1)	After receipt of any Treasury Board Secretariat Audit Report, the deputy head has 60 working days in which to review the recommendations and respond either with a description of action taken or with a plan of action which will include specific target dates. Such plans are subject to Treasury Board Secretariat approval and monitoring.(2)	In those cases where misclassifications have been identified, the departmental plan must indicate agreement or disagreement with the Treasury Board secretariat decision:(a)	where the department agrees, it has 15 working days after the filing and acceptance of its response to notify the employee and advise the Treasury Board secretariat;(b)	in the case of disagreement, and in consultation with the department, the Treasury Board secretariat arranges for an independent investigation and a decision binding on both parties to be rendered within 30 working days of the mandate for the investigation being given to the third party, which usually is an interdepartmental classification committee;

(i)	if the original level of the position is upheld, the position is no longer considered misclassi-fied;
(ii)	if the third party confirms that the position is misclassified, the department has 15 working days to notify the employee and advise the Treasury Board secretariat.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many war veterans, by each ten per cent bracket, are receiving veterans pensions?
2.	By how many has the total changed in the past (a) five (b) ten years?
3.	What is the projected total for (a) 1990 (b) 2000?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: per cent	March 79
93-100	4,599
83-92	1,274
73-82	2,550
63-72	2,091
53-62	3,584
43-52	6,773
33-42	7,314
23-32	13,077
13-22	24,103
5-12	41,874
1-4	1,085 108,324
2.	(a) 13,911 Decrease (b) 27,540 Decrease
3.	(a) 72,830 (b) 37,600


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the present authorized personnel strength of the War Veterans Allowance Board?
2.	Has the authorized total changed since March 31, 1979?
3.	What is the present complement and are these all permanent employees?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1. 34.
2.	Yes. By one less.
3.	32. All permanent.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. To the knowledge of the Department of Communications, what is the latest telephone equipment available for offices of members of Parliament?
November 30, 1979

2.	How many MP's offices still operate on the system of three numbers without consecutive lines, etc?
3.	What steps has or will the Department take to rectify the equipment being used by Bell Canada under contract and, in particular, will it install new equipment to make it unnecesary for Bell Canada operators to cut in on telephone conversations every few seconds to make sure the line is still in use?
4.	Does such equipment automatically disconnect when a conversation is terminated and the party hangs up and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Are steps being taken to clear up frequent cracks, noises and cross-line conversations which interrupt calls in progress?


Mr. Scott Fennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows:
1.	Departmental officials are conducting regular reviews and have submitted several proposals to improve members' telephone service. As a result of this action and the efforts of my colleague, Mr. J. R. Ellis and his subcommittee, members' entitlement was expanded in 1977 to include three (3) consecutive lines, ten button instruments, privacy features, handsfree units and add-on conference features. We are continuing to evaluate state-of-the-art switching technology which may be in service within the next few years.
2.	To date 137 members have not requested consecutive line service, which is available through the Sergeant-at-Arms.
3.	Although some improvements to this equipment have been made, in the case of operator-assisted calls there are certain limitations that cannot be alleviated without incurring prohibitive replacement costs. As a result, operators are obliged to manually check to determine if certain circuits are in use and this often results in a clicking sound. In light of our objective to minimize the number of operator-assisted calls on the government network, new direct dial routes are being established whenever it becomes economical.
4.	When a Member originates a call from a Parliament office through an operator, terminates the conversation and hangs up, the member's circuit is automatically disconnected. However, some incoming operator-assisted calls may have to be manually disconnected at the main switchboard depending on the telephone company equipment through which the call was originated.
5.	Ongoing quality control is carried out by the Government Telecommunications Agency. Repair problems are referred to the telephone company for appropriate corrective action. These are reviewed to ensure that positive action is taken to resolve reported difficulties.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware that Bell Canada intends to seek permission to experiment with billing customers in certain places in Ontario and Quebec on the basis of the number of calls made and the amount of time the telephone is in use, rather than the present system of set rates per month and, if so, if this matter comes before CRTC will it be government policy to strongly oppose such a change and, if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions


Thomas Scott Fennell: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the answer to the above question is as follows:
In making this proposal for a pilot trial of usage sensitive pricing for local service to the CRTC, Bell Canada is seeking to find solutions to several concerns related to the cost of telephone service. For example such a pricing system could be used to provide a "budget" type service to the financially disadvantaged.
The commission has replied to Bell indicating that, in view of the fundamental change in pricing of local telephone service that usage sensitive pricing would represent, a full opportunity should be provided for public discussion of this approach. The commission has also stated that it believes in principle that the pilot trials could provide useful information provided that it is clearly understood that these trials would be conducted without prejudice to the ultimate determination by the commission of the merits of usage sensitive pricing for local service.
It would be inappropriate for the government to take a position on this matter until public hearings have been conducted by the CRTC to determine whether or not such a system of pricing for local telephone service is in the public interest.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 85 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1968, did the Department of Public Works finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the
(i)	total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe I asked formally if it was agreeable to the House that question No. 85 be considered an

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act order for return with the return to be tabled forthwith. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed
(1)	to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign Investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act, taking into account, among other things, significant relevant domestic and international economic developments in the period the act has been in force;
(2)	to make recommendations for changes in the act or its implementation with a view;
(a)	to increase the effectiveness of the act in the achievement of its purpose,
(b)	to minimize costs, delays and uncertainties of the process for investors, and costs to governments, and
(c)	to make the review and decision-making processes as open as possible to parliamentary and public scrutiny consistent with the protection of commercial or other information of a private nature;
(3)	without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to examine and make recommendations with respect,
{a) to the appropriateness of the review and decision-making processes having regard to the range of investments reviewable under the act,
(b)	to the assessment criteria specified in subsection 2(2) of the act, with particular reference to the application of Canadian industrial and economic development policies.
(c)	to the role of the provinces in the implementation of the act, and
(d)	to the extent and manner in which the views of interested third parties should be taken into account;
(4)	to report in time for the next session of Parliament and, in any event, by not later than September 1980;
That the special committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House or the power to retain staff or commission studies;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in support of the motion referring the matter of the review of the

Foreign Investment Review Act to a special committee of the House of Commons. 1 might just read the first sentence of the motion:
-to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act-
The Foreign Investment Review Act was given royal assent on December 12, 1973. It was brought into force in two stages: for takeovers of Canadian businesses, on April 9, 1974; and for the establishment of new businesses in Canada, on October 15, 1975. We accept and subscribe to the stated purpose of this legislation, but the act has now been in effect for over five and one-half years for takeovers and for over four years for new businesses.
It was and is legislation of a rather novel kind. For one thing, although many countries do employ some kind of foreign investment screening mechanism, no other country has anything quite the same as the Foreign Investment Review Act. Quite naturally, questions have arisen as to whether, through changes to the act or its implementation, the same purpose could not be achieved more effectively and perhaps at lesser cost. Hon. members know that it is the view of this government that most, if not all, government programs should be subjected to periodic review to ensure that they conform to the dictates of experience and changing conditions. Since the time that this act was introduced there have been a number of changes.
Let me just review what the rationale for the act was at that time. There was a high level of foreign control of Canadian businesses which was causing some concern within this country. That resulted in a report by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) which led to the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. There were indications at that time that not all investments were bringing maximum benefits to Canadians in terms of jobs, quality of employment, and freedom of operation for businesses being established in Canada.
We have had discussion over the years on the whole question of branch plant mentality. There was concern that the export of raw materials from this country was not as fully effective as possible. There was concern about the freedom of activities and operations of Canadian firms in terms of tied imports and directed exports. There was also some concern that the country was losing its competitive edge and that this was not being helped as a result of the degree of foreign investment that was coming into this country. We were, in effect, hiding behind tariff walls and were not preparing ourselves, through foreign investment coming into this country, for the reduction of tariffs which was taking place at that time and which has taken place more recently.
Things have changed since that time. I think it would be important for me to draw the attention of the House to some of the things that bear on this whole question of foreign investment, things that have changed since the early seventies.
November 30, 1979

We have an extremely significant change in the whole energy environment in this country and in the world at large. In Canada we have a considerable need to develop traditional frontier, ocean and alternative sources of energy. Our government has accepted the necessity to establish self-sufficiency in this country by the 1990s. Furthermore, we have seen as a result of the multilateral trade negotiations that have been just completed this year the expectation that there will be a new and very competitive trading environment, an environment that will require some changes in attitude and some changes in the operations of companies in Canada.
We have seen over the past few years a growing competitive force in the less developed countries and in the newly industrialized countries of the world. Competition in the world is very fierce today. Under the new trading environment, it is not likely to get any less fierce. We are also seeing with the improvements in technology and technological change that the introduction of technology has become increasingly important in the viability and competitive position of companies in Canada.
All of these matters bear on the question of access to foreign capital and the benefits which foreign capital coming into this country bring with it, benefits related to access to markets and access to technology as well as foreign capital. We know that in this country major new investments are required. We are hopeful that a vast amount will be undertaken by Canadian entrepreneurs using Canadian capital, but we recognize that we will not be able to accomplish all that we want to do in this country relying solely on domestic capital.
The major energy projects alone in Canada over the next ten to 15 years will require billions of dollars of capital investment. There will be tremendous spin-off benefits from those capital investments, but the fact remains there is a large up front capital investment required. We will need to see considerable restructuring of our industry in the years ahead to meet the trading challenges to which 1 referred. We will need tremendous amounts of capital to develop and to take advantage of the new technology that is being developed both in Canada and abroad.
Finally, it is important that we recognize the importance of developing both stronger and independent businesses in Canada. Some of these can be developed in co-operation with foreign capital. It is this that we are asking this special committee to study further.
It is clear that foreign investment in Canada is necessary. Indeed, the Foreign Investment Review Agency was never asked to stop foreign investment from coming to this country but rather to improve the terms on which that capital was coming into the country. The purpose of the law is quite clearly spelled out in section 2 of the act, which provides as follows:
-the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern.
Foreign Investment Review Act
It then goes on to prescribe that future investments by non-Canadians for two purposes shall be reviewed by the government and allowed only if, in the government's opinion, they are likely to be of "significant benefit to Canada". The two types of investments that have to be reviewed are those for takeovers of existing businesses in Canada and those for the establishment of new businesses in Canada which are not related to a business already being carried on in Canada by the same investor. It is important to recognize that this law does not apply to investments for the expansion or modernization of existing foreign-controlled businesses, as some people apparently think it should.
We all agree that foreign investment must be in line with Canadian interests and economic development policy. There are indications that some foreign investors perceive that Canada's policy and instruments such as FIRA are negative influences on the inflow of foreign investment. It is important that balance be achieved. We are concerned that that balance is not there now. Certainly there is a perception that the balance is not there. That perception is not there from both sides of the argument on foreign investment.
Canadian nationalists are very concerned that the Foreign Investment Review Agency is not doing the job that it should, that it is not taking a strong enough stand against the inflow of foreign investment. Free traders, on the other hand, are saying it is a block to our economic development, that it is causing foreign capital to move away, and so on. There are two points of view. It is important that this special parliamentary committee do its best to get to the heart of those questions. The government attaches the greatest importance to involving the public in major decisions, the consultative process about which we have talked so much in recent months.
The government wants to democratize this whole system, both through the operations and activities of the House of Commons and through the parliamentary review committee, so that individuals in this country can play a greater role in the review of the proposals that will be put forward by the committee. The government has designed the medium of a special parliamentary committee as the appropriate instrument to thoroughly review all the factors involved.
It is difficult and complex to achieve the balance we need in foreign investment. This review is important to all Canadians if they are to acquire a better understanding of the act and make a greater input into its examination. It is my hope that the review will clear up some of the misconceptions and lead to new ideas as to the approach we should take. 1 am confident that, given input from all interested parties, business, provincial governments, labour and so on, the review will be a very beneficial one for Canada. I do not wish to comment at length on some of the aspects which, I believe, the committee should study during the course of this review.
Possibly, Mr. Speaker, I could continue at two o'clock.

November 30, 1979
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a question raised by the opposition House leader just before the Minister of State for International Trade began his speech. I must confess that I inadvertently misunderstood it and that I consequently answered it in a way in which I would not have intended. 1 want to tell the hon. member and the House generally that I am rather pleased at the progress which has been made in the last few days and 1 want to express my thanks to the opposition House leader, to the House leader of the New Democratic Party and to the other members of the House. 1 might have caused the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso some embarrassment by the remark I made. I certainly embarrassed myself. 1 therefore wish to withdraw the remarks unequivocally.
He did ask a question, though. Given the fact that we might very well be able to carry on with the work of this House because the references which are on the order paper might be completed, he invited an indication of what the House might be asked to deal with. Given that situation, I propose to call Bill S-10, if there is time within the time-frame that he and I have discussed, a bill dealing with a land problem, really a bill to acquire the title to some property that was transferred some period of time ago. It is necessary that that legislation be passed. I understand there is a disposition to deal with that bill at all stages rather quickly.
If that was completed in time, given the business before us with respect to the references, then 1 would propose to begin, at least, the debate on the parlimentary reform package, recognizing that there may be interests which would not allow it to be completed, so that the committee on procedure and organization might embark on the process of looking at the rules of this House, something that 1 think is important.
If by chance a report is received from the committee on Bill C-4 which deals with the Federal Business Development Bank-the committee has not yet reported formally to this House, I understand, but might yet report formally to this House in time-and if the necessary agreement could be reached, perhaps we might deal with that.
I hope this gives the opposition House leaders some indication of how we can proceed. In closing, 1 would like to say that I regret very much the imputation which I made, having misunderstood what had been said to me.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the President of the Privy Council for his comments and particularly for outlining what we may have to deal with. I would just ask him whether, for example, if we begin dealing with the parliamentary reference today, or even if we do not reach it, that will be the order of business for Monday as well as for today. If the minister can indicate that this is so, we in this party, at least, are prepared to consider it on Monday.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate that very much. Yes, that would be the indication, given that we complete the matters that we have discussed in that period of time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson:
That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed
(1)	to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign Investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act, taking into account, among other things, significant relevant domestic and international economic developments in the period the act has been in force;
(2)	to make recommendations for changes in the act or its implementation with a view;
(a)	to increase the effectiveness of the act in the achievement of its purpose,
(b)	to minimize costs, delays and uncertainties of the process for investors, and costs to governments, and
(c)	to make the review and decision-making processes as open as possible to parliamentary and public scrutiny consistent with the protection of commercial or other information of a private nature;
(3)	without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to examine and make recommendations with respect,
(a)	to the appropriateness of the review and decision-making processes having regard to the range of investments reviewable under the act,
(b)	to the assessment criteria specified in subsection 2(2) of the act, with particular reference to the application of Canadian industrial and economic development policies,
(c)	to the role of the provinces in the implementation of the act, and
(d)	to the extent and manner in which the views of interested third parties should be taken into account;
(4)	to report in time for the next session of Parliament and, in any event, by not later than September 1980;
That the special committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House or the power to retain staff or commission studies;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
November 30, 1979
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is twice now that I have been interrupted at one o'clock. The last time I was told I did not do as well after the lunch break, perhaps because I am not at my best on a full stomach. I will try to do better today.
Before the lunch break I was referring to certain topics of which 1 have been made aware since the early part of June during the course of the administration of the act. There are aspects which we want to refer to the committee in the hope of having some indication from them as to ways in which they may be handled better than they have been to date. I do not want to discuss these in any great detail because I believe it is more appropriate for the committee to review them, but I feel it would be worth while to put these on the record at this time.
The administration of the act is something that has been of concern to us, and I will touch on this later when I refer to the administrative review which has just been completed. We are interested in having the most effective, efficient and timely review of the applications that are before the agency. There are other aspects of the administration of the act which will also be, I hope, reviewed by the committee.
The second area of concern which has created some difficulties for us is the whole question of secrecy and the kind of information that, under the terms of the act, we are able to make available to interested parties. We hope this will be discussed. As 1 stated in the House a few nights ago in response to a question by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), this is a difficult area.
The third area is the extent of the whole review process. As hon. members are aware, I am sure, we have a threshold level for small business applications of $2 million in asset size and 100 employees in terms of the size of employment of an individual company. We are concerned that the review process is bogging down because of the number of applications that come in that are over this threshold, applications which are fairly straightforward. We want the views of members of the committee as to the degree of concern and attention which we should pay to these small applications.
The fourth area is the involvement of the provinces in the review process. We believe that this is a very important aspect of the review process, in light of the fact that these investments affect the economic development of the various regions of the country.
The fifth area to which I should like to refer is the whole problem of representations from interested parties in an application under the act. But most importantly in these outside representations, the one which has been giving us the greatest degree of concern is the existence of an alternative Canadian buyer. We will provide for the committee a paper on some of the considerations relating to an alternative Canadian buyer and how this should be addressed in the process of the review. We will look forward to some guidance from the committee in this difficult area.
Foreign Investment Review Act
The final area to which I wish to refer returns to the heart of the act, and that is as to how cabinet should interpret section 2 of the act which outlines what "significant benefit" is. In the cold language of the act, it is difficult for the government, as well as for the agency, to interpret how this should be applied in the administration of the act. We are giving some consideration as to outlining, in a broader manner, how the economic development objectives of the government might be interpreted in relation to the five areas of significant benefit. Again we would welcome any views from the committee.
As Your Honour will recognize, all this involves a very far-reaching review of the statute and its implementation, even though the stated purpose of the act is to be taken as read. We expect that it will take some time. As I said earlier, in the meantime the government is in the final stages of considering certain changes of an administrative nature which we think could result in some limited interim improvements to the process. Some of those changes involve the provinces, and we would wish to consult with them in advance of implementation. But I hope to be able to announce them quite soon.
Of course, they will not in any way prejudge or prejudice the work of the committee. Its mandate is far broader, and they will be entirely free to recommend anything they choose; 1 should underline that fact. If the committee disagrees in any way with the administrative changes which will have been introduced by that time, we would review very seriously those comments in relation to the administration of the act. The changes which are almost completed should be viewed as only an interim step.
The government hopes that all of those who have an interest in this act and its administration will seize the opportunity to make their views known to the committee once it has been established. In this connection, I wish to make special mention of the highly important role which we believe provincial governments can play in ensuring the effectiveness of the committee by making their views known, either directly or through me, for provincial governments, being closely involved in the actual administration of the act, are in a position to make a unique contribution.
I have one last point. Until the committee has made its report, and until that report has been considered and acted upon by the government and by Parliament if necessary, we shall continue to administer the act to the best of our ability, fully in accordance with its present terms.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it is of great importance to me to speak on this particular topic, and to support the government in this motion to set up a special committee to look into the Foreign Investment Review Act. All of us agree that certainly there is a need to review the act itself, its functions and the manner in which the act carried out the mandate originally handed down in 1973, 1974 and 1975.
But if I am not perceiving wrongly, there is a difference of approach which will come forward during the time this committee is meeting. It will be a difference of approach between

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act
this side of the House and the government side with regard to the notions of the necessity for, and the role of, foreign investment in the Canadian economy in the future. Certainly there has been a large volume of foreign investment in the past. That has had both beneficial effects and detrimental ones on the Canadian economy. I think such things will come out during the review which the special committee will be performing. I do not think we can say at this point in time that in the future all the effects of additional foreign investment will be beneficial, by any means. It must be a matter of extremely close scrutiny by the committee and the House to determine exactly the role of foreign investment, and the kind of agency we require to review foreign investment, to ensure it plays the role we have decided it should.
I should like to review for a moment the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Act was conceived in late 1973. Part I was implemented in April, 1974 and part II in October, 1975. As was stated by the minister earlier, the purpose of the act is found in section 2. It reads as follows:
This act is enacted by the Parliament of Canada in recognition by Parliament that the extent to which control of Canadian industry, trade and commerce has become acquired by persons other than Canadians and the effect thereof on the ability of Canadians to maintain effective control over their economic environment is a matter of national concern.
Even though the Foreign Investment Review Agency has been in effect since October, 1975, that concern of Canadians has not been reduced to any substantial extent, from the information I have available to me.
I should like to refer to a speech that was given in 1977 by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He said the following:
The wording of section 2, setting out its purpose, clearly states that Parliament believed that the level of foreign investment was at so high a level that the matter was one of national concern and, therefore, this level of investment should not be allowed to go higher unless it was proven to be of "significant benefit to Canada". In other words, if such investment was not of significant benefit then it should be blocked.
Of course, he was referring to Parliament at that time. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was set up for exactly that purpose, to review and if necessary to block. I think we have seen in the past that perhaps this review function has not been performed to the extent it might have been in Canada's interests. Therefore, I am glad to see that we will have a special committee to look into these matters and indeed strengthen the Foreign Investment Review Act, not reduce its scope, flexibility or power.
I should like to relate back to the role foreign investment has played in the past. There can be no doubt that the growth in the standard of living of Canadians has been somewhat faster as a result of foreign investment than probably would have been the case without it. But also the problem arises that a period of 30 years or 40 years of depending on foreign investment to provide the growth rate in our standard of living which we have enjoyed in the past has led us to a situation where now a very large proportion of our economy and society, from an economic perspective, is controlled by those outside

our own borders whose interests very well may not be the same as they are here in Canada.
As a result of foreign investment coming into this country we find a situation in which, when that investment is greater than what is generated internally, and greater than our outflows, the value of the Canadian dollar is forced higher than it would normally be. The natural effect of having the value of our currency held through these types of forces at a level above what it would hold at in equilibrium conditions is that Canadian exports are put at a disadvantage in foreign markets and Canadian domestically produced goods are put at a disadvantage to imports in our own market.
It is not surprising to me and it is not surprising to a great many economists that, as a result, secondary industry in Canada has been put at a very distinct disadvantage to manufacturers in foreign countries, with the result that our own domestically produced consumption goods are put at a disadvantage to foreign produced goods. We have not developed the kind of secondary industry in Canada that we very well could and should have produced; thus the increase in our standard of living has been greater than would otherwise have been the case.
After depending for so many years on foreign inflows of capital, the time comes when all of that investment, whether it be directly or portfolio, has to be paid back in one form or another. Either it is paid back in the form of repayment of debt, or it is paid back in the form of returns going out of the country in dividends and service payments by subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations in Canada to parent corporations in other countries. We are starting to see that happen now. The biggest chunk of our current account deficit is made up of dividends and interest payments leaving the country.
It seems to me we must conduct a very serious review at this point in time to ensure that, if we are going to go the route of requiring or allowing future foreign investment to be the main source of capital for the growth and development of the Canadian economy, we will not worsen the situation, and certainly not make it any more of a problem for Canada in the future.
We have reached the point where foreign-controlled firms dominate our principal economic sectors. One of the problems 1 see is that retained earnings reinvestment is the major source of foreign investment in Canada now. Foreign investment coming across the border from outside is not the main source; rather it is reinvestment of retained earnings by firms owned and controlled by foreigners who reside in Canada. They are reinvesting the earnings they have made in Canada through the expansion of their operations here in this country, and this, of course, continues to expand foreign control.
Let me just refer very quickly to today's Ottawa Citizen which on the front page states:
The foreign-dominated petroleum industry has launched a wholesale takeover of all Canada's mineral and energy resources, the government reported Thursday.
November 30, 1979

That was yesterday. It goes on to state:
Control of coal, uranium, hard-rock mining and oil could be concentrated among "a handful of conglomerates" in just 20 years, the department warns.
That is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It continues:
Corporate takeovers and diversification threaten to siphon away funds needed to develop new fuel supplies, the survey says.
That is a survey of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which was just released yesterday. The article continues as follows:
An energy department spokesman said the oil giants are buying everything they can in the resource sector, chiefly in the coal, uranium and hard-rock mineral mining business.
In the U.S., takeovers by the major petroleum corporations are reaching into the retailing and fast food trades, he said.
We can expect that kind of pressure to occur here. We have been trying to raise this particular problem in the House for a number of weeks now. What will happen to the revenues that will be generated by the multinational oil companies as a result of increases in oil prices, and what effect will this have on our ability to control our own economic destiny?
In the minds of many of us we must have not a lesser but a stronger Foreign Investment Review Agency. I would like to look at a document that was produced by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and released on November 23. It looks at the capital investment intentions of large corporations. It is a survey of 300 large corporations in Canada, and I would like to refer to one particular aspect of that survey especially, dealing with foreign and domestic investment. The conclusion is that foreign firms in Canada plan strong expansion over the next period of time. I would like to quote from this as follows:
Dividing the large firms into domestic majority owned and foreign majority owned groups, it was found that the former plan real increases of about 6 per cent in their capital spending for 1980 compared with about 17 per cent for foreign-owned firms. This is similar to the expectations for 1979 one year ago when foreign-owned firms provided the major impetus to over-all capital investment activity with an increase of about 10 per cent compared with about 7 per cent for domestic-owned firms.
The point I am trying to make here, and the reason 1 am happy to see this special committee set up, is that we find that the Foreign Investment Review Act does provide for review of investment undertaken by foreign-owned firms within Canada. It does not look at reinvestment of retained earnings by foreign-owned firms in this country. This report from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicates quite clearly that this is one of the major areas of foreign intervention into the Canadian economy, or additional foreign intrusions into the Canadian economy, especially in those areas that have the greatest potential growth for the future, certainly in energy areas. The minister has indicated that the energy area is one where we will need a great deal of investment. That is true; we are going to need a great deal of investment. I would hate to think we are going to allow that investment to come from external sources that our entire energy needs and resources are being controlled by other than Canadians.
Foreign Investment Review Act
There are many of us who believe the Foreign Investment Review Agency should be strengthened rather than weakened. We are disheartened by some of the statements that have come forward from the government with regard to this particular aspect. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) on March 3, 1978, singled out the Foreign Investment Review Agency as an example of an agency that would be subject to his sunset law, dissolving agencies which are no longer needed.
This continues on from there into September, October and November of this year, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret) who sits in the other place, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), made statements in public to the effect that the review now going on by the department of the Foreign Investment Review Agency has as one of its purposes to establish whether there is any need for this agency. In fact, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret) has indicated that he supports the view that the agency probably should be wound down and eliminated.
It seems to me that when a country is as heavily dependent on foreign investment as we are, and when that foreign investment can have such a pervasive effect on our economic, social and political future, certainly the government which is responsible at the time should not be eliminating the only source of scrutiny and evaluation as to how, where and to what cause this foreign investment is being made.
I suggest that this is not just the reaction of myself and others who feel the same way in economic circles, or of others who feel the same way in the House. Certainly, this is a matter of great concern to the public. Opinion polls have shown year after year with increasing regularity that the public is very concerned about the role of foreign investment and foreign corporations in our economy and the control which they exert on our economic, social and political lives.
For example, in 1978 a Gallup poll indicated that 69 per cent of the Canadians who were surveyed were of the opinion that we had enough foreign investment in Canada and that it should be stopped. Only 23 per cent felt that we required more foreign investment. From that same poll 52 per cent of the Canadians surveyed responded in the affirmative when asked if they would be in favour of buying back Canadian industry from foreign control even if it means a reduction in the standard of living, and 34 per cent were against it.
There is this attitude among Canadians that they want more control over their economy and where it is going, that they would like to reap the benefits of industrialization in Canada for themselves and future generations. They do not want to see those benefits going back across foreign borders, whether it be the Canada-U.S. border, to Europe or to Japan.
I would like to wrap up my remarks by saying that we are very concerned about the whole question of foreign investment, about FIRA and how effective that agency has been in attracting capital, reviewing the uses to which that capital will be put

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act and in reviewing whether foreign investment is the best way to develop certain economic areas of our life. We in the official opposition party support this committee and look forward to its establishment and the review which it will undertake. I would warn the government that if it has any intention of setting up this committee in order to find a way to eliminate any future scrutiny of foreign investment in Canada, they will run into substantial difficulty, not only from members of this House but from Canadians throughout the country.
We must look forward to developing Canada's future, particularly in the small business sector. One of the things which the minister indicated, I might add, was that there were some thoughts about removing the scrutiny or review of the takeovers of firms which have less than 100 employees, or, in other words, our small business sector. That is of great concern to me because it is the small business sector in this country which develops the innovations of the future and which is the most productive in terms of job creation within our society. I would hope that the government would not allow foreign corporations to come in and take over this most productive sector of our economy before it has a chance to prove its worth in Canada and to prove all the benefits which it could bring to our economy. What we will be losing is a screening power in our country which comes in at the most productive point in a firm's life.
I am in favour of the establishment of the committee, but 1 hope that we will be able to have a full and objective evaluation of this particular question and that, if the evidence is clearly there, the government will strongly support an increase in the powers of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, or an organization similar to that which will look out for the interests of Canada on the question of foreign investment.


Mr. Bob Rac (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we have been treated to rather extraordinary performances both before lunch and after lunch. First we had the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson), and then we had the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).
The minister started his remarks with the comment that the main reason we need a review of the Foreign Investment Review Act and the Foreign Investment Review Agency is that no other country has such an agency. Apparently we are unique in the industrialized world in this regard. I might suggest to the minister that the reason that we are so unique is that no other country in the industrialized west has such a problem. There is no other country in the industrialized west that has an economy which is so dominated by foreign investment and multinational corporations as Canada. In a sense we are, at one and the same time, an industrialized country, but our economy has many of the features of the developing countries. We have the same patterns of dependence on very few resources, the exploitation of which is controlled by forces outside the country and the prices of which are controlled and set by international corporations over which we have precious little control.
To that extent, our economy is similar, not to the economies of other industrialized countries such as The Netherlands,
United Kingdom, Germany, France or Japan, but of Third World countries. 1 would say to the Minister of State for International Trade that it may be true that no other country has a FIRA, but no other country needs a FIRA or a strengthened FIRA as much as our country.
The second point which came out of the minister's speech was that he wanted this committee to have a chance to look at the question of the workings of the Foreign Investment Review Act because there were two points of view that were being expressed. There was the point of view that there was not sufficient control of foreign investment, and there was the point of view that there was too much control of foreign investment. At no point in his speech other than obliquely did the minister indicate to this House which side of the fence he was on. At no time did the minister state the reason Canadians were so concerned-not just in 1973, but going back for years and generations-over the loss of power of our country to control its economic future and economic developments.
Not once did the Minister of State for International Trade indicate the harsh realities of having an economy that is controlled by other countries and by the multinational companies. In fact, the only messages we have had from this government have been that we should scrap the Foreign Investment Review Agency because it was preventing necessary foreign investment in Canada. For example, we had the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) while he was in England this summer saying, according to a report in the Toronto Star of September 21, 1979:
I think to some extent FIRA has hampered much-needed foreign investment in Canada-it's caused many people to think twice before putting their money in Canada-
He told this to reporters in London after he had been talking to exporters while in that country. The story goes on to say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the invisible parliamentarian, emerged to say that the West Germans had good cause to be concerned about FIRA and that he was concerned about it as well. Just to give hon. members an indication of how confused the senator is, there is a story which was reported in the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday, October IB, 1979, in which he indicated how concerned he was over the fact that $1.6 billion worth of high technology manufacturing businesses had been sold to foreign companies last year. He says he is concerned about that. The article goes on to say:
The senator said the increase in takeovers makes the Conservative government's plan to investigate the operations of FIRA more urgent.
'We want to see where the weaknesses are and see what changes can be made.'
The minister said it is not beyond the realm of possibility that FIRA, set up in April, 1978, by the Liberals, will be scrapped altogether.
That is consistency for you! That is the consistent view of the Tory party, each paragraph contradicting the last. There was no indication by either the Minister of Finance or that invisible parliamentarian, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret), that they had any over-all concept of the impact of foreign investment on the economy or any idea of the effect of foreign investment and the consequences
[Mr. Evans.)
November 30, 1979

of the foreign domination and ownership of resources in this country.
If we were looking for an indication that the Minister of State for International Trade appreciates the threat that patterns of investment which have been established and have existed for many years pose to our economic sovereignty, we got absolutely none. The only thing he indicated was that because of the new energy resources that are going to be exploited in the future to advance self-sufficiency, it is going to be even more necessary to rely more heavily than we have up to now on multinational companies and foreign investment of all kinds.
This is a remarkable performance by this government. It is clear that they are setting up a committee because they do not know what they are doing. Things might be different if there was an indication of policy, an indication of concern, if there was a traditional feeling about economic sovereignty or a strategy for self-sufficiency, not just in the field of energy but industrial self-sufficiency as well. Instead, the government approach is to refer a problem about which they apparently have no point of view to a parliamentary committee. If they do have a point of view, it is self-evidently the wrong one.
1 should like to turn now to the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker. The performance of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre was quite remarkable. Suddenly the Liberal party has discovered, or rediscovered, or re-rediscovered or discovered for the fourth time, that the Canadian people are concerned about the economic future of their country and its domination by foreign interests. It is amazing how the Liberal party at moments of convenience, and when they are looking for a policy and looking for a leader, suddenly latch on to an issue about which they have no coherent point of view at all.
I should like to put some facts on the record. In 1973 when the Foreign Investment Review Agency was established our deficit on the services account, which is dividends and interest payments leaving the country as a result of both direct investment and portfolio investment, was $3 billion; in 1974 it was $3.74 billion; in 1975, it was $4.7 billion; in 1976, it was $5.8 billion; in 1977, it was $7.4 billion; last year it was $8.7 billion; this year, it is more than $10 billion. That was a time when we were under the Liberal government. Where were the voices of dissent in that party? Where was the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) when that was going on? He was in the government, then out of the government. 1 think the Canadian people are entitled to know which party was in power during the century, and certainly during the last ten years, when foreign investments reached the point of practically no return.
It is an amazing thing for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to pretend that history started on May 22 with his election to the House of Commons and that the Liberal party rediscovered this. Remember that they discovered in 1957 Mr. Gordon's report on Canada's economic prospects. They rediscovered it in 1967 when Professor Watkins presented his report on foreign ownership; in 1970 they rediscovered it with Mr. Wahn who was then the member for St. Paul's, and in 1971 with the report known as the Gray report.
Foreign Investment Review Act
It is important to remember the harsh fact that the final version of the Foreign investment Review Act had a fatal flaw-the fact that it relied on the word from the Gray report. The litmus test for the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the litmus test for the Foreign Investment Review Act was a very simple one-that any investment requires "significant benefit to Canada". Those are the words, Mr. Speaker- "significant benefit to Canada". It has been said before, Mr. Speaker-I have not coined the phrase-that the only industry which would not give significant benefit to Canada would be "Murder Incorporated." There is not one investment that could not be deemed to give some kind of significant benefit to Canada in terms of jobs or some short-term employment benefits.
That is not the issue, however. If the test is as woolly, as broad, as confused, as that test of "significant benefit to Canada", it is little wonder that foreign investment increased by $5.5 billion last year alone, more than double the previous year's increase of $2.1 billion. In British Columbia alone, FIRA approved nine foreign takeovers in 1976, 26 in 1977, and 39 in 1978. That is a 433 per cent increase in two years. That is the kind of sell-out of our resources, our jobs and our industries that has taken place under the Liberal party and the Liberal government of Canada.
We have some very real concerns about this motion, Mr. Speaker. The wording of the motion is so confined and restricted that we have reason to wonder just what the committee will accomplish. The committee is not inquiring into foreign investment. We have had those committees before. Since 1957 we have had enough studies to know exactly that 50 per cent of our trade with the United Stales takes place between parent companies and subsidiaries and that there are dozens of firms in Canada that are not allowed to compete with their parents for the export market. These facts have been documented; we do not need another study.
The approach taken by the government is very confining. The motion asks that the committee be appointed to:
-inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign Investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act-
I suggest that the purposes as described in section 2 of the act are inadequate. If it is confined to what in 1973 was already a very, very limited purpose, then the whole point of this review is restricted and confined.
1 am sorry there is no minister in the House now who is in a position to answer these questions. I am sorry the minister of state could not stay to listen to my remarks or to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, because 1 have specific questions on the motion. I would like some member of the government to answer these questions.
First, is the committee going to be free to deal not simply with the purposes of the act as set out in section 2, but be free to look at foreign investment and to see whether the purposes that are set out in section 2 should not be broadened and made

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act more specific? I think we are entitled to have an answer to that question.
If it is the intention of the government to limit the review to the wording of section 2 as it is specifically set out in the act- and that is the only conclusion I can draw from this motion- then we are going to be engaged in a very confining and unsatisfying set of activities in the foreign investment review committee. I think we are entitled to an answer to that question. I do not think it is beyond the genius of this government to give us an answer this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: The government is not known for its genius.


Bob Rae: I want to point out a few other facts to indicate how serious the situation is with respect to foreign investment. I want to look at the so-called industry of the future. Let us take, for example, the electronics and computer communications industries. Last year FIRA approved the foreign takeover of over 30 companies in the computer communications service sector. With each takeover, Canadian strength in these areas is eroded because these companies traditionally are told by their U.S. parent companies to restrict their selling to the Canadian market only-it is a familiar story; it has been documented well-and to buy their equipment and other supplies plus services from head offices in the United States.
The erosion that this causes in Canadian industry shows up in two places, first of all in the unemployment figures which are dramatic in the electronics industry, and secondly in the trade deficit figures which are equally dramatic. Since 1974, 23,000 jobs in the Ontario electronics industry alone have been lost. A federal government report released last year said that Canada is running a trade deficit in the electronics trade manufacturing sector of between $1.5 billion and $2 billion a year. The writers of this report went on the warn that they believe that the telecommunications and information industries in Canada will be dominated by foreign interest or crippled by imports if nothing is done.
In the computer communications sector, the federal Department of Communications estimates that Canada will buy $300 million worth of data-processing services from the United States this year. This is equivalent to exporting 7,000 jobs. These are jobs that could be carried out in Canada if that industry were allowed to grow in Canada. Furthermore, at the rate that Canada is losing control and strength in this sector, Canada's trade deficit should rise to $1.5 billion by 1984 and 23,500 jobs will have been lost to Canadians.
It is important to note that FIRA, as it is presently constituted, is powerless to do anything about these deteriorating situations. Consider the following examples. Last summer the Bank of Montreal signed a joint venture agreement with a local subsidiary of Automatic Data Processing Ltd. of the United States, a company that rightly boasts of being the largest payroll company in North America and has 74,000 corporate customers not only through North and South America but in Europe as well.

Some people involved in Canada's data processing business, a business that happens to be roughly 80 per cent Canadian-controlled at the moment, protested this move. They wanted to know why FIRA had not reviewed this case. They were told that the work of this new joint venture was sufficiently related to the terms of reference that the subsidiary of ADP had established for itself when it first moved into Canada that there was no need to review it now.
The Canadian data processors, including one which specializes in payroll processing, argued that the Canadian data processing industry needed some protection and help for about five to ten years before it would be strong enough to compete with the likes of ADP, the American company. So they asked FIRA a very simple question. Why had not FIRA joined in the intervention case on the grounds of the negative impact it might have on Canadian companies wanting to expand in the Canadian market? But alas, they were told, "No, no, FIRA does not look at the whole Canadian market, FIRA does not look at the future of the Canadian industry, FIRA does not look at a sector, FIRA does not look at computer processing or these kinds of data services, or energy or future supplies in natural resources". They were told that FIRA looks at each individual application. This is a typical example of the perversity of the liberal mind-and I am using the word with a small "1"-that you look at the individual case and fail to look at the whole forest. That is the problem.
I think it has to be said that FIRA itself was a substitute for a policy. FIRA was not a policy. FIRA was the combination of a series of reports and studies on the problem of foreign investment, and FIRA was the Liberal party's substitute for a policy to deal with foreign investment. It has not caused foreign investment to decline. In fact, quite the reverse. We have seen that the takeover of Canadian industries has accelerated since FIRA was established. The reason is that FIRA alone is merely a negative screen on certain individual applications. This has nothing to do with the kind of industrial planning that is necessary to guarantee that we have a plan in Canada for the takeover of our own industries and resources and that we have a government that is prepared to protect critical, highly technological and high employment industries, faced as they are with competition from overseas.
We ask the government and the Liberal party, where have they been while this takeover has been taking place? The horse has gone and the government is still looking for a lock and cannot decide whether to open or close the door. The Liberal party is suddenly rediscovering the need for a new key. Suddenly, after all these years when they presided over the systematic takeover of our economy by foreign interest, the Liberal party wakes up in the person of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and says, "Hey, something is going on here; I think it is time we did something". It may be a little late. FIRA is not enough.
I think it is apparent that just as FIRA was a substitute for a policy, so too the establishment of this committee is a substitute for a policy from a government which does not deal
November 30, 1979

with the real problems of foreign investment and the dramatic effect that this is having on our economy. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are a unique economy caught between the reality of an industrialized world which is highly competitive and another reality, namely that our economic destiny now lies beyond these frontiers.
I am frequently asked by people living in my constituency why can 1 not do something about interest rates, jobs, the future of our country and the training of our young people. More and more we are made aware of the fact that the reason this government cannot act is that it is paralysed not only by its adherence to its set of ideas, which were out of date even in the nineteenth century as they were being created, but by its economic impotence in relation to those powerful outside interests. I think we have to confess as members of Parliament that we do not have control over these critical decisions either. Neither do Canadians working in the so-called free market place.
If there is someone over on the other side who is taking responsibility for this motion as it is carried through the House, I would appreciate an answer to these very specific questions. If there is not, I think we are entitled to know on a Friday afternoon that there is no one in the House in a position to speak for the government who is sufficiently interested enough to stay behind.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, 1 intend to be very brief, very brief indeed. This will probably be the shortest speech I shall ever give in the House of Commons. The reason why it will be short is that 1 believe we should approach this review with the greatest possible objectivity, as the minister suggested.
My colleague from Ottawa Centre should not take this remark as a difference between his point of view and mine. The difference between the two of us at this moment is that my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre was not there yesterday in the committee, and he had no particular reason to be, when the Minister of industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) made in my view, a very important statement on the subject of F1RA. As the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) have suggested and demonstrated, the government party has, on a number of occasions in the past, recent and remote, said, or appeared to be saying-nobody can ever be too sure-that they intended to eliminate, downgrade, reduce or whatever, the importance of FIRA or its very existence. I was worried about that as well. 1 was the minister who introduced the first FIRA bill back in 1972 following the Gray report. Consequently 1 believe in the principle of screening very, very strongly.
As 1 was saying, some of us were worried. I cannot quote the minister because what I have in hand is not the official record, but he specifically said to the committee yesterday that he had no intention of eliminating or downgrading the importance of FIRA. That having been said, I suggest that we are now in a
Foreign Investment Review Act
position to be more relaxed, to begin a de novo exercise. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood does not appear to agree with me. I will not disagree totally with him. 1 think we should be cautious, even suspicious, but the exercise should be marked by a visible and real effort at objectivity. Personally, 1 will be very keen to study the agency, its strong and weak points, its record of accomplishments, and the ways and means to improve it.
I intended to say and I can demonstrate it by the first draft of the notes I was going to use, that I was concerned also with the point raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. Why? Simply because, as he said, a screening of foreign investments is but one of the many instruments a government has in hand to channel, limit, orient, influence, restrain foreign investments in a country. It is only one of many instruments. There are many others, some pretty dramatic, some less dramatic.
The key sector for example, where foreign investment is either not allowed or is restricted to a percentage of ownership, is one approach which has been used in the past in Canada on a good number of occasions. There are others, for example, where the government uses incentives in order to channel foreign investments toward a certain sector of industry or services, a method particularly useful in the development of an industrial strategy. One aspect of it is known as "the world mandate system". Here a government says it will allow a foreign investor in, might even support him with incentives, but he will have to produce in Canada a product that he will not produce elsewhere, and he will produce it in Canada for world markets. It says to the foreign investor: You will use your multinational position in order to enhance Canadian exports. That has been done a number of times in the past in Canada.
In the electronics industry, for example, the grants the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce gave to IBM and Control Data in the early seventies, and the sort of thing the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce talked about yesterday in the committee on finance and trade when dealing with a question on the kind of support being discussed with Chrysler Corporation of Canada, are that sort of approach. There are many others. The creation of Crown corporations is another approach to make foreign investment not necessary in a number of instances. Our friends on the other side tend to forget that in the rather theological approach they have to privatization. I am also concerned about that.
A question I share with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is: to what extent will the committee be given the capacity, the right and the possibility of looking at foreign investment from a slightly wider point of view than the operations or workings of FIRA. That is a question for the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson)-and we must assume he has good reason for not being here this afternoon- to answer before the committee is struck in the House of Commons or when it holds its first meeting.
That is all I have to say today, Mr. Speaker. I expect the committee will come out in the usual balanced way in which

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act parliamentarians come out of these exercises, that is, by seeing the good points and the weak points, by recognizing that there are advantages and disadvantages to foreign ownership in Canada, realizing that divisions are more on degrees and ways and means than on fundamental philosophical differences. Personally, I hope that to the largest possible extent the work of the committee on F1RA will be a constructive one, that it will be a uniting exercise and not a dividing one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), I wish to make only a few short comments. I feel it is very important that some minister of the Crown respond to the questions put by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). He asked some very important questions about the scope of the committee that will be looking at the question of F1RA and also some of the other questions to be dealt with regarding the purpose of the Foreign Investment Review Act.
The point I want to make is that we, as a Parliament and a government, should not be looking at the Foreign Investment Review Act in isolation. In a debate like this, we should spend a couple of minutes looking at other aspects of Canadian independence and the importance of Canada having control over its destiny, having some leadership and developing its destiny as a country on its own. I want to give one example of that, the whole area of self-sufficiency in agriculture.
Hon. members have heard me speak on this before, but 1 cannot help repeating some of my concerns as they pertain to the increasing lack of Canadian independence in that area and the lack of self-sufficiency in the production of food. One can mention a number of things, but aside from grain, for almost every other foodstuff in this country we are dependent to a certain extent, sometimes greater and sometimes lesser, on foreign farmers. It is that way because we have not had a government recently that has been determined to ensure that we are independent, that we grow our own food, and that we process it in this country for our people. I maintain if we do not do something about this soon, there will be a real crisis in this country. For example, the Science Council recently stated that even with grain before the year 2000 we will not be able to feed ourselves. That will be the case if the government does not change its policies. I believe that is very important.
A country that is so large, with so many acres of land, so few people and so many resources not being able to feed itself is a real crime. It is a commentary on the lack of foresight, vision and leadership by governments of this country over the past three or four decades.
When we discuss FIRA and the Foreign Investment Review Act, we must remember that through FIRA we will not make this country independent economically. We need many other policies to complement the Foreign Investment Review Act. One has to make sure that in every important sector we start becoming self-sufficient, that we start doing our own thing and processing our own goods and materials.
The other day in the House I referred to a recent study by the Department of Agriculture for the United Nations. It

shows that starting about 1974 Canada's potential to produce more food began to diminish in very real terms. It showed that in the 1960s, for example, over a million hectares of land in the province of Ontario went out of production of food, most of it plowed under or paved over for urban sprawl, housing development, industrial development, freeways-I think of the Niagara Peninsula as one example where you have highways and hydro grid lines going through, taking out of production a good chunk of prime farmland which should have been saved for the use of agriculture. It is not just the highway.
When one puts a highway through a productive area there are service stations and restaurants built around it, there will be suburbs going up around that highway, industrial concerns and, before one knows it, in the province of Ontario in the sixties over one million hectares of land went out of production and went out of production for good. Once it is paved over, it cannot be rehabilitated, of course. That is a tremendously sad commentary on the lack of leadership in this country. And I know that land use is primarily under the authority of the provinces. But we have seen many, many federal government projects which have been located on prime farm land. 1 remember the argument over Mirabel a few years ago. I am sure hon. members will recall the farmers who came to this House from around Mirabel, and they demonstrated in front of the Parliament Buildings. They were asking that the Mirabel airport be located a few miles over where the land was not prime agricultural land. Instead of that, we saw the airport located on land which could be used to produce food.
That is but just one example. I think of another near Toronto, at Pickering. We saw the possibility-almost a decision-of locating an airport on good farmland. Thank goodness there was enough protest to prevent that airport going ahead at Pickering, on good agricultural land.
I notice from the same study that in 1976 some 3.6 per cent of the prime agricultural land in Ontario went out of production. I ask: how long can we afford to let that happen in our country? I think we are rapidly approaching the stage, not only in this country but around the world, at which we will have to face the fact that we will be called upon to feed the population of the world, it is the question of the availability of food. If we have to import food into a country as wealthy and abundant as ours, then we are making an immense mistake and we are doing irreparable harm to countries which are much poorer than we are and which have many fewer acres of land and much larger populations. These are countries we should be helping to feed, as well as assisting them to become self-sufficient in the production of food.
I could not let the opportunity of this debate go by without saying these few words, Mr. Speaker. There are other aspects of Canadian economic independence which I think are very important. It is not just a question of food, it is the fact that when we are importing so much we are harming the balance of payments. We are also creating a negative impact on the value of the Canadian dollar as well as taking jobs from Canadi-
November 30, 1979

ans-not just farm jobs but thousands of jobs in Ontario, British Columbia and the other provinces because of our less productive capacity in the field of agriculture. There are the jobs on the farms, the processing of the food, the manufacturing and packaging of the food, and so on. It is therefore an over-all net loss to this country which we cannot afford.
Just the other day in committee the person who wanted to be the member for Ottawa Centre and who now sits in the Senate, Senator Robert de Cotret, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, was talking about chicken imports into Canada. Again, that difficulty arises because of the uncoordinated policies followed in this country. In brief, Mr. Speaker, historically only 1 per cent of our chicken consumption came in from abroad. Because of the negotiations carried on by the government across the way, after 1981, 6.3 per cent of our chickens will come in from abroad. Some studies have shown that the gross economic loss to Canada under this program will amount to more than $100 million. I think that is pathetic. If you look at the figures for the Department of Agriculture you will find that over 100 million pounds of turkey and chicken have been sitting in storage. Despite that quantity, which represents five pounds for each man, woman and child in Canada, the government across the way just last week issued supplementary import permits to import more chicken, and two weeks ago it issued supplementary import permits to import over a million pounds of turkey into this country from the United States.


André Ouellet: Unbelievable!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) says it is unbelievable. When we discuss the Foreign Investment Review Act-an act which I believe has not been tough enough or strong enough-we must remember that we cannot patriate the economy and develop a Canada which is strong and economically viable from coast to coast unless we do many other things besides just making FIRA stronger than it is today.
One of the areas in which we need to act is the area of food self-sufficiency, whether you go on land use policy, whether you go sector by sector, whether it is chickens or turkey, or whether you take beef. Roughly 10 per cent of the beef we consume in Canada is imported from the United States, from Argentina, or Australia, though we have the acreages in western Canada where we could produce a lot more beef than we could possibly consume in this country.
The price of vegetables went up this month by 5Vi per cent. Why did this happen? It is because we are now relying more and more on foreign imports. When the price of vegetables goes up in the United States, that increase is reflected here in Canada. There are many vegetables we could be producing here. Many of them we used to produce here in Canada. A former Liberal government got rid of a program which was established to subsidize the storage of vegetables. We used to produce vegetables, store them, and use them in the winter months. But they got rid of that program and thus we are
Foreign Investment Review Act
again placed in the position of having to import more foodstuffs from abroad.
So, it is not just a question of land use, of turkeys or chickens, or beef or vegetables. We import 45 million pounds of cheese every year, mostly from Europe. Nor is it just a question that we do not have appropriate agricultural policies that look after the farmland. The quality of the soil is deteriorating all the time, acording to the Rennie report in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) agrees. I think any member who comes from a rural area knows these facts.
These are just some of the questions which will face this country in the 1980s and that are going to face the world in the 1980s. The availability of food will be the question, and I do not think there is any question more important than the capacity of mankind to produce food and distribute it to all parts of this country and to all parts of the world. I take my seat with the plea that when we consider FIRA in the committee we go beyond that as a solution for Canadian economic independence, and that in every sector of this country we devise policies that will make Canada much more self-sufficient and make sure that we can do our own thing, with our own people, and make a contribution to the world community at large.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the speeches of my two hon. friends, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I realize no one has anything to fear from FIRA, especially foreign groups trying to come in to buy into the Canadian economy. To my mind that is a disaster.
1 rise to speak-I had not intended to do so, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, 1 won't do that. I am telling hon. members that 1 am speaking on it because it is an important matter. As a matter of fact, 1 think it is going to be one of the big issues of the 1980s. It will be an issue that our party especially will emphasize again and again. 1 think it will be an issue to which Canadians will respond. So my friends across the way need not scream that 1 should sit down. I have every right to speak on it.
As I was saying, what causes me to rise and speak is something contained in the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, that is, that there is no one in the government across the House this afternoon who is prepared to answer his questions, and they are good questions about FIRA. As a matter of fact the minister responsible for FIRA is Senator de Cotret, I believe, someone whom we cannot even question in the regular way in the House. We cannot even approach him and put these questions to him. I have said this before in the House and I will say it again. It is an obscenity to have the Senate to begin with, and it is unfair

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act
and unworkable to have a minister in the Senate whom we cannot question, who is responsible for one of the most important areas of government, namely, FIR A, and who apparently calls the economic tune to the melody of this government. Frankly, if 1 were sitting on the opposite side of the House, 1 would be a little concerned about that too.
The other matter that I wish to emphasize-I think this was mentioned in the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville when he spoke about the kind of industry that will exist in the 1980s and when he spoke about the food industry-is that, to me, one of the very important industries-and this again was mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood-is the communications industry and the high technology industry. It causes this party a great deal of concern regarding what will happen in the technological revolution. We are concerned about the high unemployment which will result from the development of some of these industries. So we say now that these industries have to be controlled by Canadians and we must get moving in that area. This again is an area where FIR A must be active. This is where we need more information and where we need the government to respond. We should not just have a House with no one in it who can respond to the legitimate questions that my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, posed today. Instead, we have other ministers who are busy with other things. But we want answers about FIR A.
Earlier on in the year I wrote a letter to Senator de Cotret. As many hon. members know, we get a pile of papers across our desks every day and usually most of that paper, while very interesting, such as addresses by the ministers opposite as they go around the country making those deep and personally written addresses, is not as important as some of the FIRA reports which have come across my desk.
I noted one where a foreign oil company was taking over a small outfit in Orillia, I believe. I wrote to Senator de Cotret about this and I asked him whether he could tell me what are the reasons behind FIRA's decision, what is the information he has on it, because 1 wanted to know why FIRA took that decision. I received a letter from him yesterday saying he was sorry but he could not answer those questions; he is not allowed to give me that information. I thought that was rather ironic. We just debated, in a really excellent debate last night in the House, the first freedom of information act in the British parliamentary system. I see the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) looking this way. We are all proud of that debate and proud of that act. We are going to improve it in committee, but we are glad there is an act introduced. 1 notice the President of the Privy Council does not have his rose and his dump truck this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: They are in my office.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No doubt they are being recirculated as Christmas presents. The Christmas present we want today is information about FIRA. We want the government to respond to the legitimate questions raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. My point in touching on freedom of
(Mr. Waddell.]
information is that here we have an act which does not allow the minister to respond. As a matter of fact the minister said to me in his letter that he cannot respond to my questions, he cannot give me the information behind this takeover, he cannot tell me why FIRA agreed to this takeover of a Canadian company by an American company. But I will tell you what he has done. He wrote to the American oil company and asked them if they would allow the information to go out. The American oil company said, "No, do not give that information to the member of Parliament." So there is an example of what we were talking about last night on freedom of information. There is an example of something that our new act will not cover, that within the FIRA act is still not allowed. We still cannot get that information. So not only do we have a body that is not restricting these takeovers, not only do we not have a general policy, as the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood pointed out, we cannot even get information about one case.
I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) in the House. I once called him in a speech, and now I would retract it, an obscure law professor from Ontario who has risen to greater things. He is a member who respects freedom of information, and I give him his dues in that department.


Mrs. Mitchell:: He does not give out all the documents.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is right, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) says, he does not give out all the documents, but once when he made a couple of manuals public he was moving in the right direction of freedom of information. I am sure he would agree with me that it is wrong to have in the FIRA act the refusal to provide any information behind the decisions, because how can you question those decisions?
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was very specific in dealing with that, and I was even more specific with regard to the one case I mentioned. But the hon. member was also general in his criticism of the whole area. 1 like what he said with reference to the origins, what he speculated were the origins of FIRA. Frankly, I think it goes back to the fight in the Liberal party between one Walter Gordon and one Mitchell Sharp, and Mitchell Sharp won the fight. He won it for ten or 15 years. That goes back to the early 1960s. Finally, our economy was becoming so controlled by foreign interests and the pressure became so strong that the previous Liberal government had to compromise and bring in a token act. That is when they brought in FIRA, but not very seriously.
1 think my friend, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, was correct when he said FIRA was a poor substitute for a general policy dealing with the foreign control of the economy. I thought he was right, when he was asking about unemployment, about high interest rates, about housing problems, about our problems with the dollar, and so on, and he came back to the fact that we have fundamental problems with our economy because we are a colony. Basically we are an American economic colony. That is going to be the issue of the 1980s, the issue we will fight.
November 30, 1979

But what I am concerned about today more specifically is that we have a government that is not prepared to answer our questions, that does not have anyone in the House prepared to answer our questions. I notice my friend on the Liberal front bench, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). He is the only one there; the rest are out running for leadership. Perhaps he has given up the ship so soon.


An hon. Member:: He's waiting to be asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is doing his duty by being in the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will conclude by saying that unfortunately we have nothing to fear from FIRA. We should have a lot to fear from FIRA, that is, the people who seek to take greater control of the Canadian economy should have something to fear from FIRA and it should be out in the open. We should know why FIRA is making these decisions and the facts behind them, and we should have a minister responsible for FIRA who is not a senator but a real minister who can sit in the House of Commons. The government should have someone here today who can answer the legitimate questions put by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in particular I should like to engage the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) in his capacity as government House leader. As he knows, we have been more co-operative than he might have anticipated with respect to some of the motions which he has put before us. We are making pretty good progress, and we would like to continue in that vein. But my colleagues and I are quite upset about the situation this afternoon. My friend, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), pressed pretty strongly for an answer about the terms of reference of this motion. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) is not here to reply, neither does anyone else seem to be here to give that answer.
We do not want to vote against the motion, and I must admit that I am reluctant to move a motion to adjourn the debate. It is Friday afternoon, and the House does not like recorded votes on Friday afternoon. I wonder if the government House leader, with the co-operation he shows so often, would agree to let this debate be adjourned at this point so that we can get an answer to that question on Monday. We could move to one of the other motions.
To us it is a very important question: is this committee to be empowered to look only at the act, or is it to be empowered to look at foreign investment itself? 1 do not know how much attention was paid by members to the speech made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, but I thought he made the point extremely well. If I may say so in a very low key, we feel a bit offended, almost insulted, that no one has paid attention to it. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin) agreed with the proposition, but we have had no response. At one point this afternoon there was not a single minister in the
Foreign Investment Review Act
House. There are four or five of them here now, but none of them with responsibility for FIRA.
I put it to the President of the Privy Council: 1 am prepared to move the motion that the debate be adjourned now so that we can go on to voluntarism. I think that might be more satisfactory than having someone try to give us a reply who is not familiar with the field.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) had to leave the House after he spoke. He had a minister sitting in for him. He expected to be back here by about 3.15 o'clock. Obviously something has happened that he has not been able to return. But it was his intention to return, and of course it was our intention to bring the question put by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) to his attention for reply. I apologize that he is not here to answer it. It was not the minister's intention to stay away because he had spoken. He fully intended to come back, but obviously he has been held up somewhere along the line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief government whip for that statement. I am not making an issue out of the fact that the Minister of State for International Trade had to leave, but I am making an issue out of the fact that there is no answer forthcoming this afternoon to this important question.
We can put up other speakers and use the time until four o'clock, but I think it would make more sense if we simply adjourned this debate and dealt with it on Monday, as I am sure it could be dealt with very quickly.
We had even considered trying to move an amendment to the terms of reference. I was in on the consultations, and I suggested that maybe an interpretation from the government would give us assurance that the committee's discussions could be very wide. But without that assurance, we are reluctant to let this motion be passed this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he is saying that the committee should be allowed to investigate broadly with respect to the whole point of foreign investment in Canada. That is the intention of the government with respect to the matter. It is not to be limited to the Foreign Investment Review Act. 1 give the hon. member that assurance with respect to the matter.
As my friend was speaking, I reread some of the words in the motion which are very interesting. Paragraph (1) reads as follows:
-to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign Investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act-
I have always looked upon that as rather broad, and I sincerely hope they will accept my assurances with respect to that matter.


Bob Rae: Since this was in reply to my question, I hope Mr. Speaker will permit me to respond. There is a circularity in the
1910

November 30, 1979
Foreign Investment Review Act
wording of the motion which for me was a problem. The circularity is that the purpose of the committee is to review the purposes of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I am not sure if the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) was here when I was making my point. I indicated that it is possible the committee may find the purposes set out in the Foreign Investment Review Act are an inadequate statement of the problem. We wanted to be sure that the committee would not be restricted to doing simply a plumbing job on the Foreign Investment Review Act, but it would be looking at the problem of foreign investment.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just to further that, I should like to look at paragraph (2) which deals with the recommendations for the committee. It reads as follows:
-to make recommendations for changes in the act or its implementation with a view,
(a) to increase the effectiveness of the act in the achievement of its purpose.


Bob Rae: "Of its purpose".


Walter David Baker: Yes. I think that would encompass a review of the field and a review of the problem; 1 could not imagine anything else. I just want the hon. member to know that we do not intend to fetter the committee. I hope that is the assurance the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was requesting on behalf of his party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with that firm assurance from the President of the Privy Council, we are prepared to let the resolution pass this afternoon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being associated with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). He has a very nice family. But the thought that this committee should study the whole phenomenon of foreign investment, in all its details and intricacies, is something rather frightening. 1 would have hoped that the committee would concentrate rather early on ways and means and instrumentalities more than the phenomenon as a whole.
I should just like us to be cautious. The danger in what is being said here now is that, in the hope of being accommodating, we might make the mandate of the committee an impossible one.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. I am not arguing that point, but I think the question put to me was whether there would be any fetter by the government with respect to the review, and the answer is no. The committee itself may decide to deal with the matter, which is quite within the purview of the committee. It may choose to deal with it in the manner raised or suggested by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). I think I was asked for a specific assurance, and I hope I have given it to the satisfaction of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let the committee make the decisions as to what it will do. We just wanted to be sure that the committee would not be fettered by
a government direction. We welcome the assurance given this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter David Baker: That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon means to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society;
That the committee, taking into account the scope of activities now being carried out by the voluntary sector, the problems being faced by voluntary groups and the extent, nature and impact of current government support, report its conclusions and recommendations with respect to the measures that could be taken by the federal government to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector
(1)	as an objective that is desirable in its own right,
(2)	as an alternative to public dependence on government services, and
(3)	in ways that would enhance the ability of such groups to operate
independently of government
together with such other matters as the committee considers relevant;
That the committee submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, and in any case a final report not later than May 31, 1980;
That the special committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have the power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
e (1540)


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this motion to establish a special committee which would investigate and report on the appropriate means by which the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society can be strengthened. I support this motion because it manifests the long-standing concern and willingness

November 30, 1979

of my party to set the federal government's relationship to and conception of the voluntary sector off on a new course.
In spite of the fact that over three million Canadians are involved in voluntary organizations, and in spite of the fact that these organizations provide such a wide-ranging list of vital services to our communities, the voluntary sector has traditionally been taken for granted, very much so, by Canadians. It is my view and the view of my party that the activities of the voluntary sector must not be taken for granted or considered peripheral, but rather that they are essential to the development and maintenance of a strong and vibrant Canadian social fabric.
Community based voluntary activities are crucial to Canadian society because it is through such interpersonal interaction, together with traditional institutions, that every Canadian develops and sustains his sense of personal and collective identity, his personal and social values, and his sense of personal responsibility towards others. Voluntary activities generate community; they forge the interpersonal bonds of identity and caring; they foster social responsibility, self-reliance and initiative in both the individual and the society. Voluntary activities promote those desirable qualities which we call citizenship.
In spite of the crucial role voluntary associations play in integrating individuals into communities and binding communities together into Canadian society, the continued existence of the voluntary sector in Canada has for some time been in jeopardy.
Inherent in any advanced industrial society are a multitude of pressures that work on the individual. A growing inclination towards professionalism and towards a more standardized, bureaucratic structure for the provision of increasingly specialized community and social services, and pressures from a growing attitude of passive materialism whereby personal worth is defined in terms of possessions and where government is expected to do everything: all these pressures militate against voluntary activity. They segment and obstruct interpersonal relationships; they destroy the social fabric, where people are increasingly alienated from each other, where people pursue only their individual self-interests, where people are passive, waiting for others or government to meet their needs, and when people just stop caring, then community and society fall apart.
Past governments have increasingly come to recognize some of the difficulties encountered by the voluntary sector. Traditionally, however, they have not only lacked a comprehensive policy to focus government programs, but as well the response of the federal government has usually obstructed or misdirected the efforts of the voluntary sector. Being unable to recognize the legitimacy and the proper functions of voluntary organization, except in terms of large, formal organizations which can fulfil the needs and objectives of the state, government therefore has increasingly tried to regulate and channel voluntary activities to suit its own needs and not those of individuals or communities.
Voluntary Sector
Through financial support and other incentives, government has gradually enticed the voluntary sector to alter its view of its own legitimate functions to suit government needs. This has created a very dangerous dependence of the voluntary sector on government. Government's view of the voluntary sector is thus paternalistic; it is ignorant of the inherent importance of voluntary activities to developing identity and self-worth in the individual; it is insensitive to voluntary activity as a medium of individual and collective expression and initiative. This dependency has become so ingrained that when economic conditions force government to tighten its belt, the voluntary sector feels immediately, and justifiably, threatened.
My party recognizes that voluntary activity, especially at the grassroots community level, responds to community and social needs and to issues for which a government response would be inappropriate or even detrimental. My party recognizes that a coherent and comprehensive policy for the voluntary sector must encompass those critical functions which fulfil individual and collective needs beyond the scope of government.
The primary purpose of the special committee on the voluntary sector is thus not to study whether the federal government should provide financial support of voluntary organizations. Rather, its purpose is to draw from previous research and from the grassroots a clear, coherent, and comprehensive policy and action strategy by which the government can establish in Canada those conditions through which the binding force of voluntary, community based activity will be encouraged. Our predisposition is thus to establish the necessary conditions through which the voluntary sector will prosper. The function of the special committee is to advise the government on how this goal can be achieved.
Given that an effective policy on the voluntary sector must be rooted in the needs and goals of communities, the process of putting together such a policy requires input from the grassroots and participation from persons who have ready access to the myriad voluntary associations across Canada. Clearly, members of Parliament are far more qualified to perform this task than are those public servants living in the rarefied atmosphere of Ottawa. The rationale for setting up a special committee is not only to focus the work of members of Parliament on this issue, but also to provide a forum for input by non-governmental bodies, not to mention fulfilling our pledge to increase the meaningful role of Parliament.
In addition to looking into those specific areas mentioned in the terms of reference, I expect the special committee will want to investigate the ways in which the growth of social consciousness and the concept of participatory society can be tapped to foster voluntary activity. I assume the government will want to define the limitations of government's role in meeting voluntary sector needs. Committee members will no doubt try to delimit the present impediments to the growth of voluntary activity and suggest how they can be removed. They probably will want to look at what permanent structures could be established to provide ongoing communication between government and the voluntary sector. They will, no doubt,

November 30, 1979
Voluntary Sector
investigate ways of ensuring the accountability of voluntary organizations. They will be expected to recommend the specific policy tools by which the federal government can directly and indirectly encourage voluntary activity, including tax deductibility and tax incentives.
The government has great faith, Mr. Speaker, in the ability of members of Parliament from all parties to perform this policy formulation and this task effectively. We await their advice and recommendation with great expectation.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak to this motion on behalf of the official opposition and to assure the House and the Canadian public that we are very much interested in the voluntary sector. Hon. members can appreciate better than anyone else the important role of that sector of our Canadian society since we owe a large number of our seats to the hundreds of volunteers who work for us every election time.
The government initiative aimed at creating a special committee to inquire into means to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society may, at first glance, seem worthy and inspired by the highest and noblest motives. Still, some doubts persist in my mind as to what really motivated this initiative. Several observers claim that the proliferation of committees is a Conservative strategy aimed at appeasing the frustrations of the backbenchers who were appointed neither members of the cabinet nor parliamentary secretaries.
Others suggest that the government wants to keep the opposition busy to prevent hon. members from dealing with political organization. Finally, old hands are convinced that this is a neat way for the Progressive Conservative government to defer important decisions. As long as the committee is considering the issue, the government will not have to make a decision.
Be that as it may, I do not think that the government would stoop that low and use the voluntary sector of this country as a tool of political strategy. I cannot believe that this government would compel members of this House to devote their time and energy to a vile and futile exercise. I do not think either that public funds would be earmarked merely to restore peace within the Progressive Conservative caucus.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of the voluntary sector in Canada, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to the government and are willing to take part in that special committee. We deeply regret that by appointing this committee the Secretary of State is delaying the implementation of 81 recommendations drawn to his attention in the report of the Advisory Board of People of Action, which is also called the Andreychuck report. I think the Secretary of State now has it

and, through that exercise, he will unduly defer the implementation of those recommendations.
The 15 members of that board spent over two years studying all aspects of voluntary work in Canada, and seven parliamentarians are now asked to do the same work in six months. We must admit that it is a huge task and that some doubts remain in our minds. However, as 1 said, we will take an active part in the proceedings of the committee hoping that it will be a pause for reflection before taking strong and positive measures.
The Canadian people have doubts when they are told about new study groups, they are fed up because we are forever studying. They want action and, as strange as it may seem, after having elected a party which promised them some action, once in power we have never seen such a number of study groups, special committees, missions and consultants, and recently we have heard a lot about them. It is almost as if they have actually elected a government of students.
Coming back to the essence of the motion for debate today, it is imperative that everyone should acknowledge the fundamental value of voluntary work within Canadian society. Respect for this type of action must presuppose respect for the freedom, the integrity and the independence of members of the voluntary sector, no matter what they stand for, what they believe in or what they are doing. Parliamentarians who will deal with this issue will have to display this type of open mindedness and I would even dare say liberal spirit which alone can ensure the success of such a study.
In order to get a better perspective of voluntary work, we must look beyond the limits of federal involvement and study the treatment it gets from provincial and municipal governments as well as from school boards. Voluntary workers, for the most part, are not specialists in constitutional law and do not want to become bones of contention between levels of jurisdiction. The people who want to get involved in voluntary work should not find their activities curtailed by political bickerings. It is up to us to create a sound and open climate for everyone. The advisory board warned us not to take voluntary work for granted and I am personally convinced that these political conflicts can undermine this whole sector.
This whole situation will have to be studied and recommendations made to overcome these problems which may be insurmountable for the layman. The private sector and the media also have a role to play in strengthening the role of the voluntary sector in our society. The committee will have to find the present flaws and propose realistic ways for the voluntary sector to have access to the media and especially the private sector which, because of its capacities, can do much to help us achieve our common objectives.
We must not be afraid of going to existing organizations and sharing their experiences concerning the demobilization of their workers and their causes. We must also get the general public's perception of the role of these organizations, since the public is more and more leery of frauds as far as their
November 30, 1979

donations to such organizations are concerned. Why? That is a question we must answer. Should there be better control over the funds or the accounting of these organizations? Should we review their operation, either through a government agency or otherwise? These are all questions which should be answered.
We will also have to consider carefully the various categories of organizations. There are, of course, the national and the provincial organizations, but it will be important to evaluate the role and credibility of local and community organizations which certainly have the best public penetration. We will have to visit the small communities since they often find it impossible to be heard in Ottawa as they cannot afford to come here to make presentations. In this same area, we shall have to show creativity in recommending means to enable all voluntary associations, whatever they are and whatever the number of their members and their budget, to have equal access to grants and other means of support offered by the Canadian government.
The complexity of regulations concerning the various government programs is a major obstacle to the development of the voluntary sector. For instance, several groups in my constituency have met with an unbending attitude on the part of some public servants, which has discouraged them and killed their initiative. However, I am not blaming these public servants because they often have no choice but to apply the regulations dreamed up in Ottawa by legal officers who have no knowledge of what goes on in the field. I am firmly convinced that if we want to help improve relations between the state and the voluntary sector, we shall have to emphasize the need to leave more freedom of action to local public servants. We shall also have to develop mechanisms which will prevent ministers from being tempted to interfere politically in the distribution of grants. I hope that one of the colleagues of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), who has just left the House, will give him this message-


An hon. Member:: And especially to him!


Jean-C. Lapierre: Especially to him, as my colleague has said. I believe that the Minister of Employment and Immigration would need very strict regulations-


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Jean-C. Lapierre: to avoid the temptation of patronage. Indeed I think that in the next few days we will be in a position to say that the temptation was too strong for him to refrain from indulging in-


An hon. Member:: -patronage!


Jean-C. Lapierre: My colleague calls this "patronage", but 1 would rather call it "political intervention"-


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Jean-C. Lapierre: -in the Canada Works program.
Business of the House
We should also assess the dependency of the voluntary sector on government. I have seen too many groups established to meet specific needs, with voluntary personnel motivated by an urge to help their fellow man, which federal funds reduced to a state of complete subservience and which had to close shop when finally federal funds dried up. I have also seen profiteers who under the guise of noble intentions found this a way to make a living and appropriated funds for their own personal use.
There can be no complete study of the voluntary sector unless major legal and fiscal reforms are proposed. Well organized lobbies are already making fiscal reform representations to every member in this House. We cannot ignore that proposal, and should assess on its merits the campaign on the theme "tit for tat".
In these few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I have briefly listed the challenges facing the special committee. We in the official opposition want to meet these challenges, providing our recommendations are acted upon. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) suggested yesterday that historically, between the time an issue comes up in Parliament and the moment where significant changes are made, there is a 37-year lag. On behalf of the majority of my colleagues who cannot live that long before they see major changes in the voluntary sector, I express the hope that as soon as our report is tabled on May 31, 1980, the government will act promptly and diligently.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we call it four o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has called it four o'clock. Before we look at the clock, would it be possible to ignore it for a few moments and to ignore it at the end of private members' hour for the appropriate time to allow the House to deal with Bill S-10, an act to confirm the authority of the Federal District Commission to have acquired certain lands.
There have been discussions among the house leaders that would permit us to proceed through all stages in the House today, including Committee of the Whole and third reading, so that the House could dispose of that.
If you could get confirmation of that, Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful. And, as well, if you could ignore the clock, both at the beginning and at the end of private members' hour, for the purpose of allowing us to do that, then perhaps we could add the time used to the end of private members' hour.

November 30, 1979
Abortion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It is my understanding of the agreement of the House that we are to go through second reading, Committee of the Whole and all of the stages of the bill forthwith and extend private members' hour for the appropriate time so that there will be no deprival of time for private members' hour. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
Walter David Baker: that Bill S-10, to confirm the authority of the Federal District Commission to have acquired certain lands, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCain in the chair.
On clause 1-Acquisition confirmed
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like a minute to indicate what we are doing. It might look somewhat strange on the record to put a bill through without any reference to it at all. We have been thoroughly briefed as to what it is all about. It has to do with a piece of land that the government sold and the purchaser sold it to somebody else, but there was a technicality that was overlooked. We are correcting that technicality so that the sales are legal down the way. We see no reason to take time on this bill. We are prepared to put it through all stages right now.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member. I just want to make it clear that it was in the days of the old Federal District Commission in 1954 that this occurred.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all bills preceding Bill C-206 be stood by unanimous

consent in order that we might proceed with Bill C-206 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Is it the pleasure of the House that all other bills stand by unanimous consent so that we might proceed with Bill C-206?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: that Bill C-206, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: This afternoon I will not be following the usual procedure in that it is not my intention to debate the merits of the bill. I will explain why.
In my province of Quebec we have a situation which is undesirable, and I doubt that any member here this afternoon will dispute that statement. In parts of my province a woman can obtain an abortion by little more action than the making of an appointment. In other parts of Quebec, the other extreme exists, and a woman can find herself in the obviously undesirable position of not having access to a therapeutic abortion committee. In such situations it is almost always the less fortunate who are penalized the most.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill with the express intention of giving all parties of all points of view the opportunity to present their opinions to the legislators of this country. Only in committee study, without the time pressure that exists this afternoon, can there be free discussion of the legislation as it exists, its application, and the desirability or not of making changes.
Bill C-206 is my personal opinion of the way that the Criminal Code could be amended in order to fulfil the intent, as 1 see it, of the then minister of justice when the present provisions were introduced in 1969. This objective is explained in the explanatory note printed in the bill.
Approval of second reading is now, by our present rules, approval in principle, however, even now there is the opportunity to express disapproval by calling "on division".
May I reiterate my point that my objective is not to use this bill as the tool to change legislation but as the means to afford all members of Parliament, and particularly the public, the opportunity to present their points of view in committee. Many persons from all parts of the country have written to me or called me. A very large number of members of Parliament have spoken or written to me. They cannot all speak in less than one hour this afternoon.
May I also remind the members who are here that, should this bill come back into this House on third reading, it would then be allotted only one hour of time before disappearing to
November 30, 1979

the bottom of the list if that was the will of three or four members. This particular procedure was argued by me at great length in the last session. Thus those who are adamant that the bill should not be passed will have no difficulty killing the bill at a later stage. Elowever, they will, in the meantime, have given to all citizens and all members an opportunity to debate the apparent inequities that seem to exist in the present legislation.
In the belief that no member of this House is opposed to open discussion, I am confident that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), will be given the approval, if necessary, "on division", to go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where everyone will have the opportunity to express his point of view.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the approach used by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is very interesting, and one that I partly support. I believe, with the hon. member, the time has come for a serious study to be made on the abortion question. In order for a committee to function it needs either a reference from the House or a second reading of a bill. In order for a bill to get second reading, there ought to be some defence by the member introducing the bill as to what he is intending to accomplish through it.
I will not be long, Mr. Speaker, because there are others who welcome this opportunity to make a contribution on a subject of deep concern to increasing numbers of Canadians, and I dare say to many members of Parliament who have not had a sufficient opportunity to express themselves and the views of their constituents on this extremely difficult question facing society today.
What is the basic situation we are facing? We are facing the results of the omnibus Criminal Code bill of 1969 that, through application of the whip, brought about a situation in which section 251 of the Criminal Code was changed to allow abortion when the life or health of the mother is in danger. Because of the failure of the Parliament at that time to spell out and define precisely what is meant by health, we left ourselves open to a growing abuse of this bill which came law in 1969, a greater abuse of the new law in terms of health which has brought us into a ludicrous situation today.
The latest statistics on abortion were released by Statistics Canada only a few days ago for the year 1978. We find that abortions rose in that year alone by 8.2 per cent. The total number of abortions in Canada in 1978 was 62,290. For every 100 live births, 17.4 abortions took place. The year after the 1969 law came into effect, there were approximately 11,000 abortions that took place in Canada. We see this rapid escalation all through the seventies to the point where we now have over 62,000 abortions per year. Even worse than that figure is the fact that 30.5 per cent of the women who had abortions were under the age of 20. That is from the statistics I just gave for the previous year.
Abortion
I could go on with that type of statistic to show that the abortion law brought into this House in 1969 for the purpose of allowing a woman an abortion when there is a serious threat to her life and health is being abused. It is ludicrous to suggest that there were 62,000 cases in Canada, most of them in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, the chief have provinces, resulting from serious difficulties with pregnancy. That is scandalous.
According to many experts who have studied this question in great detail, abortions are now being performed for social and economic reasons. There are many women in this country who are pregnant and who have serious economic and social problems. It is the duty of government at various levels to respond to the legitimate problem of women carrying babies. A way to respond positively to help women is not ipso facto to turn a law that was intended for a good purpose into runaway abortion, virtually abortion on demand. There are hospitals in this country that have a higher number of abortions than live births.
All of this is not news to members who have been following the tragic train of events regarding the abortion question through the decade of the seventies. There is a dispute about the effect of the present law. Some hold, as I do, that the weakness is fundamentally in the wording of the law and the reluctance of the previous government in 1969 to define what they meant by health. Some claim the weakness is there, as I do, and if we are going to be serious in trying to stop this escalation of needless abortion, we must repair the law.
Others hold that the law is okay, that it is the administration of the law, and therefore we have to go to the provinces for a total application of the law. There you get into two divisions. Some say there is too much strictness, that therapeutic abortions are not available, that there are therapeutic abortion committees in about 250 hospitals out of some 600 hospitals in Canada. Others say the application is far too weak, and that therapeutic abortion committees are nothing but a rubber stamp, largely because many doctors will no longer serve on therapeutic abortion committees. They know the character of those committees has been impugned by the willingness of doctors who have served on them to put through abortions at the request of the mother who claimed that she had a problem, but without any certifiable evidence that the problem was a serious threat to her life or health.
We had in 1976 a petition brought before this House presented by ten members of Parliament on behalf of the ten provinces. It contained the names of more than one million Canadians who had signed the petition brought about by the umbrella group, the Alliance for Life. There are several other groups promoting a tighter application of the law throughout Canada. I will not mention them all. The general umbrella group, the Alliance for Life, was able to produce a petition which was the largest petition ever brought into this Parliament.
What happened to that petition? If someone went into the lower bowels of this establishment, the petition would probably be found on some dusty shelf. Nothing happened to it. The

November 30, 1979
Abortion
idea that one million Canadians can express their views on a matter of this importance and not have any debate in Parliament, or any legislative action taken, compounds the difficulties.
This brings us to a situation in which many private members of Parliament find themselves, particularly the hon. member for Vaudreuil. There are others, such as the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Richardson), and the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), who have bills before this House. 1 am sorry if 1 do not remember every member who has a private bill in this House which is designed to correct this anomaly we are facing. Private members have to try to repair this injustice in the application of a badly worded law, the results of which are becoming worse by the year. What happens to these private bills? They come up for debate for an hour. There is not sufficient time for real analysis of their contents. Few of them ever get to committee.
The government has brought in a paper on reform of Parliament, the position paper introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) a few days ago, and the changes in this document, among other things, would specify a certain number of private members' bills being brought to a vote. 1 myself believe that if we are serious in defending the rights of private members to bring their concerns before Parliament in the expectation of a vote in a reasonable number of cases, we ought to expedite the process of that position paper through Parliament by a quick acceptance of a motion on the order paper so there will not be a protracted debate on the motion itself, and then by getting that motion into committee so that serious work can begin on the reform of Parliament among which would then be the assurance that a certain number of private members' bills would be brought to a vote.
I believe the hon. member for Vaudreuil has done a service to Parliament this afternoon by emphasizing the need for an examination in committee of the whole question of abortion. Such an examination has not been undertaken for 11 years. Some of us have been in Parliament, now, for going on eight years and we have never had an opportunity to deal with the subject. Yet we have had two full-scale debates on capital punishment during that period. It is an important question, obviously, but if there can be two full-scale debates and votes on the issue of capital punishment since 1973-and one hears, now, suggestions of a third-I believe the time has come to state clearly that there are many members, and I am one of them, who believe that the abortion question which affects the lives of 62,000 individuals annually should certainly be discussed and a position taken with regard to it.
I shall not even attempt to go into the whole question here that the fetus is a premature human being; I think the scientific evidence is fairly clear on that question; we are not talking about some abstract matter, what we are talking about is incipient life in the womb of the mother.
The bill brought forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil contains some weaknesses. My bill has some weaknesses in it.

Perhaps other private members' bills have some weaknesses in them, too. The point is, it is not weaknesses in these bills which are important. It is important that progress be made toward the construction of a bill which will meet the needs of the situation and will meet with some consensus in this House. I believe there is a consensus. I cannot prove it because I have never had a chance for a vote. But I do believe there is an emerging consensus from within the country-some of the statistics the committee will be able to study will bear this out-that what a growing number of people want is a law which would allow a mother to have an abortion when her life and health are seriously threatened, where the continuance of a pregnancy would be a very serious threat to her well-being.
I will not go beyond that now. It is the job of the doctors and of the professionals to make that determination and to find the language to put it into law. I believe mothers have a right to such protection. But society has an obligation to protect all lives, including incipient human life, and increasing numbers of people recognize the validity of what I said in the earlier part of my comments, namely, that the law, whatever its intentions, has produced a situation in which it has been abused, and it is the abuse of the present law which we see in the figures of 62,000, it is the abuse to which an increasing number of members of Parliament wish to address themselves.
If other members have a better suggestion, by all means let us hear from them in this debate, but I am advancing the specific thought that maybe a way out of this dilemma would be to establish an all-party committee to work out the terms of a bill-if it has to work on an ad hoc basis, then let it-which would find some general acceptance in this House and which would have a chance for passage, a bill that would appeal to many members of Parliament, if not all, who want to see justice done toward human life in this country, who want to see justice done to pregnant women who have very serious difficulties in the continuation of their pregnancies, and who want to see justice done to the lives of the unborn.
This is not just a religious question. It is not just a philosophical or humanitarian question. It is a question of civil rights. We have to address ourselves to the civil rights of unborn children, and that is very much within the domain and, indeed, the obligation of members of Parliament. I suggest that serious thought be given in the House to the construction of such a committee to work out a pattern of legislation which would stand a reasonable chance of passage in the House and that, in any event, expedition be given to the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council to bring forward the paper on the reform of Parliament so that the rights of private members would be enhanced, especially in matters like this.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recommend the adoption of the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I so agree with the comments of my hon. friend from Edmonton South. When we come to the discussion of a bill such as the one before us it is with humility and hesitancy that I rise to make my contribution.
November 30, 1979

There are some people who do not understand why a person would speak to an issue such as abortion. In the few moments available to me I would like to explain why 1 am speaking in favour of this bill and why I believe the measure should go to committee. 1 support the bill because I am acutely aware of my heavy responsibility both as an individual and as a member of Parliament to speak as forcefully as I can against the tendency to dehumanize modern life.
1 rise to speak today not because 1 am necessarily confident that if I do so we can definitely reverse the course of our society, but because I am fearful that if people who share a reverence for human life do not speak, our cause is certainly lost.
The present abortion legislation is a classic case of an unenforceable and morally indefensible law. It satisfied neither the proponents of unlimited abortion nor those who opt for life. What it does is to put an impediment which is far from insurmountable between some pregnant women and the abortion they want. It is discriminatory in that the application of the law varies widely throughout Canada and it is almost impossible to enforce as the key element-the health of the mother-is subject to so many different interpretations. Of course it also fails totally to come to grips with the question of the humanity of the fetus.
When I look at the bill before us I see the hon. member proposes to remove the phrase "danger to health". I totally agree with him that that phrase must be removed from the present legislation. If we look at the definition given by the World Health Organization of the word "health" we find that the World Health Organization defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. I think we are all aware of the fact that the word "health" is a word that is tremendously abused. The definition of the World Health Organization, which is applied in many of our hospitals, is simply too wide, and in practice leads to the evergrowing abortion on demand. So, on the basis of the mental and social well-being in this definition, I think that if 1 were a doctor 1 could convince any abortion committee to give my patient an abortion within the definition of the WHO.
I was a member of the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital board for four years and during that time we looked at the whole question of abortion. We tried to grapple with it in that hospital and we found that it was the law that was at fault, not necessarily the practice in the hospital. The hospital had great difficulty in knowing just what guidelines it should set for its doctors. In that sense I think it is unfair to accuse the doctors of bejng the ones who are the problem in this case and of being too liberal in the way in which they interpret this law. I think the responsibility for ambiguity in this law rests right here in the House, and in that sense we must correct the law and remove the phrase "danger to health".
Abortion
In the explanatory notes to the hon. member's bill we find a quotation of the then minister of justice. In 1969 he said:
The bill has rejected the eugenic, sociological or criminal offence reasons.
He went on to say:
-only where the health or the life of the mother is in dangerwill abortion be permitted. I think I have to say, if I may be a little partisan about this, that the minister of justice at that time was trying to suck and blow at the same time. What he was trying to do was to appear to be truly against abortions on the one hand, while on the other hand he knew that the word "health" was going to be wide open and therefore abortions would take place. In that sense he was either totally naive, which I do not think he is, or he deliberately made a law which was open to abuse in that sense.
My reasons for supporting this bill and wanting it to go to committee are as follows. First, the committee can then call in witnesses who, being the best from the medical and scientific community in Canada, could tell us whether or not we are dealing with a human being. That is the key question behind this. We should send this bill to committee so we can have those witnesses and we can decide whether or not we are dealing with a human being. If we are, then obviously the law must be changed. If we are not, then the law should be removed from the Criminal Code. That is the key issue.
As 1 see the facts in this case-and I will only mention a few-I think we are dealing with a human being. A couple of weeks ago in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the commissioner of the Law Reform Commission indicated to committee members that what we need in Canada is a law which spells out when a human being is legally dead. In the questioning that took place, the commissioner told us that there is a considerable consensus that when a person's brainwave activity ceases, the person is dead. 1 would accept that definition, but I think we should apply it at both ends. If we say that a person is dead when his brainwaves cease, then we can say that person is alive when his brainwaves begin, and that is on the forty-second day in the development of the fetus. Clearly the vast majority of our abortions take place after that day. In that sense a human being is being done away with. I think that is really one of the key points to which we should address ourselves.
Another point is that we have had about 140 abortions a year since 1972, that were as late as six months after conception, and later. We all know that a premature baby can be taken care of from about that stage in its development, and we know that in some hospitals we can have the dramatic situation of a premature birth where all the staff and the equipment go to help the child, while in another part of the same hospital an abortion is being carried out on a child exactly the same age. In spite of the fact that the heart is beating, that you can measure the pulse, we throw that fetus in the garbage. Surely we must call in witnesses to tell us whether or not we are really dealing with a human being. That is another key point we must consider.
1918

November 30, 1979
Abortion
The third point I would like to make is taken from the studies done by the West German supreme court in 1975. In a calm, very rational and objective manner, that supreme court called in the best witnesses they had at the time to tell them whether or not the fetus is a human being, and should we therefore protect that human being and give it full and equal protection of the law. In that discussion the German supreme court was deadly serious because they knew that from 1933 to 1945 Germany had called a group of people subhumans. The German word for that is "untermenschen". They simply said that they can be killed any time. That is why they had to be so careful. In carrying out their investigation, they found the following, in answer to the question: "When does the fetus gain the civil right to life?"
Life, in the sense of historical existence of a human individual, exists according to definite biological-physiological knowledge, in any case, from the fourteenth day after conception.
That is even before a woman knows she is pregnant. They said that from then on the physiological evidence was quite clear.
It is my contention that if that is the evidence, then our actions have to follow or we would be simply dishonest. I think we should take the best evidence that is available in Canada, let the experts come to the committee and explain whether or not we are dealing with a human being. We must be very coldly objective and we must look at what we are really talking about. But at the same time we have to be compassionate. I think we have to do two things at once. This is not easy, but we must try.
I think we must be very much like the statue that stands outside the Supreme Court, the statue of the person dispensing justice, wearing a blindfold. The blindfold is there so that she will listen to the evidence and rule accordingly without being swayed by emotion, and so on. In that sense we must be coldly objective. However, as I said, we must also be compassionate. If we are really serious in our desire to reduce the rate of abortions and if we have compassion for women caught in the tragic situation of carrying an unwanted child, we must be willing as a society to put our money, our legislation and our moral suasion on the side of life. These are the other components of a policy that could reverse the direction in which we are going now. I should like to list a few.
First, I think all levels of government must co-operate in improving birth control education throughout Canada. Improved educational programs could result in an attack on ignorance and would be powerful means of reducing the number of these human tragedies. Second, I think improved assistance should be provided to children's aids societies for their important work. Third, society should provide every assistance possible to unwed mothers to help them over this crisis, instead of the harassment and discrimination against them. I think we must support them instead of making their lives more difficult. Last, I think our social assistance program should provide a decent level of assistance to needy families with children because much of the trauma for many families involves having another child when the money is scarce.

I should like to see this bill go to committee. I realize we must watch our time in the private members' hour. I want to put some of my thoughts on the record. I am clearly in support of reducing the number of abortions in Canada and trying to correct the abuses that are there.
I would like to conclude by expressing one thought, and that is that when some people listen to this debate they will say, "Please do not force your morality on others because we have a different moral code." I would like to answer that objection by referring to history. When the German war criminals at the end of the war were on trial at Nuremberg, they sought to defend themselves on the grounds that they were loyal to a different set of values, different orders, and a different legal system. Therefore they could not be judged by someone else. Robert H. Jackson, Chief Counsel for the United States, had to think about that. He came back with the following answer, to which I should like to refer:
It is common to think of our own time as standing at the apex of civilization, from which the deficiencies of preceding ages may patronizingly be viewed in the light of what is assumed to be "progress". The reality is that in the long perspective of history the present century will not hold an admirable position . . . These two-score years in this twentieth century will be recorded in the book of years as one of the most bloody in all annals. Two world wars have left a legacy of dead which number more than all the armies engaged in any war that made ancient or medieval history. No half-century ever witnessed slaughter on such a scale, such cruelties and inhumanities, such wholesale deportations of peoples into slavery, such annihilations of minorities.
He went on to say the following:
Goaded by these facts, we have moved to redress the blight on the record of our era ... At this stage of the proceedings, I shall rest upon the law of these crimes as laid down in the charter.
He was referring to the Atlantic Charter. He continued:
In interpreting the charter, however, we should not overlook the unique and emergent character of this body as an International Military Tribunal... As an International Military Tribunal, it rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidance not only from International Law but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization.
In other words, he appealed to a much higher law which respects all individuals, no matter what their colour, creed, or national background. On that basis he could try these criminals at Nuremberg.
I am not trying to force a moral code on someone else. I am trying to be as objective as I possibly can by saying: let us look at the evidence in committee. In that sense I think we could come to the bottom of this issue.
Also we must realize that the basic principles of jurisprudence and the basic assumptions of our civilization are founded upon the Ten Commandments and the Judaeo-Christian ethical code. When we remove these, and when we ignore all the facts which point in one direction, then the very existence of our freedom is at stake. Relativism ultimately will lead to anarchy and then tyranny.
On his recent visit to the United States the Pope told his audiences in very simple terms that if we want to enjoy real freedom, then we must do so in harmony and in obedience to laws of the Ten Commandments and the directions within the
November 30, 1979

Judaeo-Christian ethical code. He said that if we do not do that we will lose our very freedom. 1 think he is right on.
As legislators we must always be sure that our laws are based on the best available evidence. That is the purpose of sending this bill to committee. Also we must be sure that they are in harmony with the directions of the Judaeo-Christian ethical code.
Again I should like to quote from Robert H. Jackson who said that we should move to redress the blight of the record on our era and return in law-making to nothing less than a recovery of those basic principles of jurisprudence which are the assumptions of our civilization. I hope the bill will go to committee.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-206 is a retrogressive step, contrary to the official policy of all political parties in this House, contrary to the opinions of most Canadians, contrary to the realistic real-life situations in the real world which face many women, and indeed, many men today in Canada.
If it is passed, it will deny human rights. My friends spoke about human rights, but what about the rights of women to decide what is best for them in their particular situation? It will not prevent abortions or unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, it will force an increase in illegal, dangerous backstreet abortions. If passed, it will bring heartbreak to many people, particularly families who may have teenage daughters who are in a situation of unwanted pregnancy and who are faced with requiring some choice in planning their future.
The bill distorts the concepts of health, as was pointed out by the last speaker. It contravenes the opinions of most experienced medical practitioners. It ignores the very strong, well-informed and well-documented persistent positions of women's groups across the country. After all, it is a question facing women primarily. Certainly it would be opposed by most professional counsellors who have worked with young people, women, families, husbands and male partners who are involved in situations where there are unwanted pregnancies. In my opinion it is in conflict with basic human rights.
As I read the aims of this bill, it is to restrict the option of legal abortions to only very limited, narrowly-defined situations involving actual physical or acute mental danger. This seems to go completely in the reverse trend to what happened in Canada in the last ten or 15 years. Before 1967 all abortions were a criminal offence, but this did not stop abortions. There were abortions, deaths, and very inhumane practices. Abortions have been with us always.
Since 1967 the New Democratic Party approved limited legal abortions. In 1969 the Liberals introduced legislation in the House, and abortions were approved within certain stipulations. The abortion had to be performed by a qualified physician in an accredited hospital. The operation had to be approved by a three-person therapeutic abortion committee which would decide whether the pregnancy would or would not be likely to endanger the woman's life and health. Incidentally, the practitioner who performs the operation could not be a
Abortion
member of the committee. In 1970 the Liberal party endorsed the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code and recommended that it be the personal and private decision of the woman and her doctor. In 1974 the Conservative party voted to remove abortion from the Criminal Code.
Now we have abortions which are available under very limited situations. Certainly I do not see why people who do not want the availability of abortions extended should have very much concern. They are very, very limited under the present situation. They are done with medical approval. They are available with medical approval. Incidentally, there is no abortion on demand, for those who are concerned about liberalizing it to that degree. Individual cases are reviewed. It gives a woman, her partner, doctor, and perhaps her family, a chance to look at all alternatives. Counselling is available because it is acceptable to talk to people about a possible abortion. Also the other options of family planning, adoption and so on, are available to people. However, it is limited to few hospitals and to the situations under which abortions are approved.
I know this is a very emotional topic. Personally I do not advocate abortion as a desirable situation. I think we should be very clear about this. Abortion, certainly under this bill, is not being advocated as a method of birth control. If I were in the situation, I am not even sure I would have an abortion. However, if I found myself in the situation that many women are in, a real life situation, perhaps I would look at this quite differently.
I also respect the different views of people in this House, throughout this country and, indeed, those in my own party, because there is a different point of view on this question. Some people oppose abortion on religious grounds as a matter of conscience. They have a right to their personal views and, of course, a right to their religious views.
However, not one of us in a democracy has the right to impose our views on others. We have no right to tell a woman who is pressured by many problems because of an impossible life situation, a woman who cannot care for her child perhaps because of health problems, and I use that term in its broadest sense, and maybe in a situation in which she would damage an unwanted child, or the child would be neglected and perhaps abused, that she cannot consider an abortion, or that it is not her right to make the decision.
There are many misconceptions about the kind of jargon we use. For instance, freedom of choice does not mean that we are necessarily in favour of abortion, or that a woman will decide in favour of an abortion in her own situation. Many people are very much opposed to abortion, and certainly would be opposed to it as a method of birth control in Canada. Freedom of choice means in this case that a woman should not be pressured against her will to bear a child, nor indeed should she be pressured against her will to have an abortion. It is the individual human right of a woman to have the freedom to decide whether to continue with an unplanned and undesirable

November 30, 1979
Abortion
pregnancy. Surely we in Canada believe in this form of justice as well as in the advice and expertise of the doctors who will be working with these women.
Abortions take place every day. Involuntary abortions are a part of nature in every species. Illegal backstreet abortions by quacks will continue regardless of whether we have legislation or change the legislation, but there is no doubt that they will increase in frequency and in danger if there is no legal alternative. They will increase for the poor people. Young teenagers and poor women are the ones who will go to the backstreets. The rich people can afford to go across the border, or have this done by private means.
1 would like to discuss some of the facts that were referred to by a previous speaker, and also contradict some of his interpretations of the statistics. For instance, abortions are not readily available now in Canada. Only 58 per cent of hospitals are eligible to establish abortion committees. That is not very many and they are not available to people in all communities. Only 52 per cent of eligible hospitals are actually performing abortions, and 45 per cent of Canadians live in communities where legal abortions cannot be performed.
As to the opinion of Canadians, I should like to refer to a Gallup poll in April, 1978, which shows that 69 per cent of persons interviewed were in favour of abortions under some circumstances. Therefore, they would indeed support the present legislation with no change. There was a reduction from 16 per cent to 14 per cent in that period from 1975 to 1978 in the number of people who were not in favour of the present legislation and felt that abortions should be made illegal. Some 76 per cent of the people believed that abortion should be available if a woman's health was seriously endangered. Most important, one third of all legal abortions in Canada are performed on young women under the age of 20, and that represents only the registered abortions, not taking into account the many illegal abortions that are certainly performed.
In 1977 there were 54,000 legal abortions in Canada, and 3,000 Canadian women, presumably women in the upper income group, who went across the border to have their abortions. In 1977 some 57,000 legal abortions were performed in Canada and 2,000 women crossed the line into the United States. There was some decrease in that regard probably due to the fact that the opportunity was available in Canada.
The rate of abortions in Canada is very low compared to that in other countries. Our abortion rate is about half of that in the United States per 1,000 females, it is about equal to that in the United Kingdom, and it is half the rate in Sweden. In many developing countries, of course, abortion has been liberalized far beyond this responsibility, particularly to economic and population factors.
I would like to mention quickly just two or three other points. I wish it were possible for men to get really emotionally involved in this question. It is really impossible for a man, for whom it is impossible to be in the situation, to really see it from the woman's point of view. That is why I am concerned

that there are not more women in this House available to speak about this from the woman's point of view. The only thing I can think of which would bring this closer to those gentlemen in the House, is to refer to the situation of a teenage daughter. How would you really feel if your young daughter was pregnant and was told she could not have an abortion?
Many young people are living together in temporary kinds of arrangements. They are living away from home without a regular source of income. The relationship is probably not stable, and certainly most young people are not mature enough to think of having families and providing the nourishment and care that children require. What would you do if your daughter was in this situation? Would you say she had no right to go to the hospital for a legal abortion? Would you force her and her boyfriend to go to the back streets of Toronto or Vancouver to some quack? That is what you are saying if you support this bill.
Let me refer for a moment to other forms of birth control. We know that women are increasingly concerned about present forms of contraceptives, many of which have side effects and, indeed, are not nearly as infallible as we once thought. More and more men are thinking in terms of having vasectomies. If we apply the same principle, what is the situation then? 1 know this is not analogous, but perhaps the principle is the same. How would you feel about a bill in this House forbidding you to have a vasectomy if you felt that was the best way for you and your wife to prevent unwanted pregnancy? Women have the right to make their own decisions, hopefully without torture, without feelings of guilt and without being blackmailed. If they have access to proper counselling, education, family planning, contraceptives and good medical advice, maybe they would choose some alternative to abortion.
Certainly with my background I am familiar with children who have been taken in for care, and I can certainly tell members of this House that the rights of those children who go into one foster home after another are not being observed. Their health, welfare, and ability to mature as human beings are in serious jeopardy.
The question of health was referred to, and we all know that health involves the total human being and not just the narrow area of physical or mental damage as mentioned in this bill.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would really like to address myself to the rights of children. Those who have spoken today have mentioned this. It seems to me that the rights of children are the right to be loved, to have care, to be nourished emotionally as well as physically, to have security, hopefully to have two parents, hopefully to have decent housing, decent income, and food on the table. There are millions and millions of families across this country who cannot provide that for their children. Children have the right not to be abused or neglected.
It is demonstrated every day that child abuse and neglect are on the increase. Men and women who have not had their own needs met and are seriously deprived themselves, who
November 30, 1979

have no hope for the future and no jobs, are taking it out on their children. There is compulsive abuse. Do we want these families to continue to have children if they should, in a moment of enlightenment, choose to have some control over their family and, if necessary, have an abortion? I think not, Mr. Speaker. Anyone who really knows the situation respects the future for children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Wightman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the words with which the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) introduced Bill C-206, and the eloquence with which it was supported by my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), 1 would not have addressed the House but would have been content to support the bill from my place. 1 am moved to say a few words, however, in light of the intervention we have just heard from the member of the NDP.
It strikes me that to argue that we do not have effective abortion on demand in this country is to ignore all the empirical evidence, and certainly the evidence offered by the hon. member for Kitchener. To equate vasectomy with abortion strikes me as convoluted reasoning, to say the least.
I shall not take the time of the House to make a point by point rebuttal of the statements we have just heard, but 1 will respond to the perception of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) that somehow the male members of this House are not emotionally concerned or involved about the issue. I would assure her, and all hon. members, that we are deeply involved and concerned. I would say, too, that the vast majority of people who speak with me on this subject and who have brought me to my present opinion, have been women. They have certainly been deeply and profoundly and emotionally concerned and involved.
1 can guarantee, finally, that on this motion or any like motion, I will stand and support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some serious concern about the bill before the House today. There are a number of questions in this whole area of abortion which certainly I think all members of this House would want to consider very carefully.
In 1977, in January, Dr. Robin Badgley reported on this question of abortion and talked about some very serious concerns in this whole area. The Badgley report, which involved extensive consultations within the medical community, with women all across this country, and looked at practices in other countries, came to the conclusion that one of the most important factors in reducing the number of abortions was the existence of adequate family planning funding. Despite that
Abortion
conclusion, despite the clear message, which was found in the Badgley report, the response of the government was to slash the family planning program which is administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare, from $2.1 million in 1978-79 to $ 1.1 million in the current fiscal year and, in addition, to slash the sustaining grant to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada from $600,000 to $440,000.
No one in this House, I am sure, is "pro-abortion". Members on all sides of this House have a deep respect and reverence for life. Our concern, however, is that where strong and restrictive abortion laws exist, the simple reality is that they do not reduce the number of abortions. What they do, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, is to drive poor women, women who cannot afford to go to other countries where abortions may be more readily available, to drive those women to the back street butchers.
It is the position of this party, and it has been our position for some time, as it is the position of the Canadian Medical Association, that this very serious decision by a woman to have an abortion is one which should be taken out of the framework of the Criminal Code. It is a decision which should be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor.
I should add, Mr. Speaker, that I, myself, have tabled a private member's bill on this subject. I am concerned, as well, with the application of the law, but from a somewhat different direction than speakers on both sides of this House who have spoken so far, other than my colleague from Vancouver East. I think the point which my colleague from Vancouver East made with respect to men legislating for women is an important point. There was one woman who spoke on this question and her views were quite clear and were very eloquently put. One of the concerns which was expressed by the Badgley report was that the law in Canada is not equitably being applied, that only in some 250 hospitals across this land are there therapeutic abortion committees, that particularly in the province of Quebec there are very serious problems in terms of accessibility to these therapeutic abortion facilities.
1 must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am somewhat surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Roche) speak about 250 committees in a total of, I believe he said, 500 or 600 hospitals. One is somewhat disturbed to know that the parliamentary secretary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business has expired. It being after five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 5.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 3, 1979