1979-10-22

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
Considering that the Quebec referendum campaign is now under way; considering that federal civil servants, as first-class citizens, will be called upon to participate actively in that campaign; considering that the employment act restricts the political participation of civil servants in the normal election process but gives no indication as to the legality of their active participation in partisan referendum activities; considering that the Progressive Conservative government cannot continue to waffle on this matter and must give clear and specific instructions with regard to this important matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):

That this House requests the government to amend the Public Service Employment Act and, in doing so, adopt the recommendations of the special committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle so as to allow some public servants to participate freely in political activities during elections and referendum campaigns and, secondly, to allow public servants for whom the duties of their positions vary from the First group, to participate in elections and referendums subject to request by the employee and decisions by the Public Service Commission and, thirdly, to prohibit senior executives and senior management, whose duties can be considered sensitive if they participate in elections or referendum campaigns; the foregoing to allow Canadians working in the public service to participate in good conscience and in defence of their country in the upcoming referendum.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity for which there seems to be support in all parts of the House.
In view of the fact that today the trial of a number of human rights activists begins in Prague, Czechoslovakia, in view of the fact that the activities of these people are apparently the result of a civil rights movement which led to the creation of the movement known under the name of "Charter 77", and in view of the fact that Law No. 120 of the Czechoslovak Collection of Laws of October 13, 1976, includes the text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which were signed on behalf of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic in 1968 and confirmed at the 1975 Helsinki Conference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House register with the Parliament of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the concern and the hope of the Canadian people that these trials be conducted publicly, be open to observers and that the human and civil rights of those being tried be upheld and respected according to the spirit of the Helsinki Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

October 22, 1979
In view of the fact that a dangerous precedent has been set by the issuing of work visas in Edmonton to foreign nationals working on the dredge Aquarius under charter to Dome Petroleum, while seamen are unemployed in Vancouver, and in view of the Prime Minister's weekend statement in New Brunswick favouring future movement of Arctic resources on Canadian vessels, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration rescind work visas issued to foreign nationals and require the Aquarius and Dome Petroleum to hire Canadian ships' crews henceforth.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the evidence presented this morning by members of the Helsinki monitoring groups in exile, visiting Ottawa, that many articles imported into Canada are, in fact, manufactured by political prisoners in forced labour camps, and particularly steering-wheels for the Lada motor vehicle sold throughout Canada, in Camp No. 3 in Mordovia, I urge the minister to investigate and report back to the House within 90 days so that this House may consider a Canadian boycott of these kinds of goods. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps further consideration can be given to the form of the motion, but I do not think the motion in this form can be presented to the House at this time.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent necessity.

Given the fact that the building industry is experiencing serious difficulties, especially in the residential housing field, because the retail prices of lumber have reached a record high in Canada; given the fact that people are getting concerned because the wholesale lumber trade has become a near monopoly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy):
That the House recommend to the government an immediate investigation to find out if indeed there exists such a cartel, and report to the House at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon member. Under Standing Order 43, the presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the recently announced plan by Eldorado Nuclear to ship 5,000 gallons of radioactive acid waste across Ontario from its refinery in Port Hope to Elliot Lake, in Algoma district, considering that this decision was taken without consultation with the town council of Elliot Lake or any other elected representative, and in view of the plan by this government to locate its new uranium refinery in Hope township, on the doorstep of metropolitan Toronto, thus increasing the nuclear waste that would have to be handled in this way, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner):
That if Eldorado wishes to transfer its nuclear waste from its refining operations in Ontario to Algoma, then this House instructs the company to locate its refining operations in the Algoma district.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 22, 1979



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee was formed by the previous government to help formulate northern mining policies, and that this committee was comprised solely of the mining industry and government representatives and did not allow the participation of other interest groups in the north, and in view of the fact that the report of this committee is inaccurate and inconsistent in many ways and that the government intends to carry out the recommendations of this committee, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development refer the report of the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee to the appropriate standing committee of the House with a request that the committee seek representation from the broad range of interests involved in or affected by mining in the north.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, the presentation of this motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that federal government tax expenditures represent a large and growing proportion of federal transfers and have a significant impact on the progressivity of the income tax system, and in view of the fact that these transfers are largely invisible to the public, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to introduce. First, an annual tax expenditure budget which will indicate the size and nature of projected federal tax expenditures in each year; and, second, a tax expenditure report to be published each year as a part of the government's accounts which will show the tax revenues actually forgone in the form of incentives, exemptions and deductions to taxpayers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Oral Questions

Mr. Speaker:: Before the question period, I wish to mention the presence of a distinguished guest in our visitors' gallery, Mr. Xavier Deniau, Parliamentary Secretary General of the International Association of French Language parliamentarians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the last two weeks we have attempted, in this House, to get the government to tell the Canadian public what it is entitled to know, that is, the kind of oil price increases with which it is proposing to hit the public. Today we heard stories that an agreement had been reached on the weekend between the minister of energy for Alberta and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The agreement was for a $4 per barrel increase in the price of oil, which would mean that the average Canadian consumer will be taxed an additional $180 for gas and home heating oil next year.
My question is as follows: Can the minister tell the House whether an agreement or understanding, formal or informal, has been reached with the government of Alberta? Is the agreement for an unbelievable $4 a barrel more next year and, if that is not so, what were the exact Figures arrived at between the two ministers on the weekend?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity the hon. member's question has given me to indicate again that these stories are of a highly speculative nature.
With respect to the question of consultation, clearly there is ongoing consultation with the affected provinces; indeed, with all the provinces. There has been an attempt, which the hon. member will know was not the case with the previous government, at having this consultative process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact of the matter is that we are carrying on. There is no agreement. In fact, the reports indicated that we met in Calgary. I was not in Calgary this

October 22, 1979
Oral Questions
weekend. That will give the House an idea of exactly the accuracy of those particular reports. In fact, I know the hon. member will appreciate the fact that these consultations must take place, that whatever increase in the price of oil takes place in due course, one must always remember the consequences to our country if we do not go to energy self-sufficiency, and the cost of reliance by the people of this country upon offshore imports.
In a matter of a few years from now, I know the hon. member's party will flip-flop in respect of this energy policy. I know his concern with respect to this particular matter is very intense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister was not in Calgary during the weekend, but he was in Ottawa last Thursday when he gave the brush-off to the minister of finance and the minister of energy for Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Yet the minister of finance for Ontario has stated that the proposed energy package that was discussed could cost Ontario alone 20,000 jobs and over $1.2 billion. One hates to think what this would cost all the country if the proposed package were to be adopted.
Can the minister tell the House what package he discussed with the minister of finance and the minister of energy for Ontario on Thursday which would lead to such horrendous results if it were to be put into effect?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member puts a proposition before us which is patently absurd. There was no question of anything but the most generous reception that I had Irom the province of Ontario with respect to my discussion with them of energy options.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course, the hon. member would not understand this because he never experienced worth-while discussions in federal-provincial relations with the provinces when he was minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That previous minister does not understand consultation. He does not understand the give and take of discussions with the provinces. I can tell the hon. member that the discussion was one which was very productive, and was acknowledged to be productive by the province of Ontario and its very worth-while representatives.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has called the two Ontario ministers liars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: My suggestion is that he need only look at the press report and the television interview with Mr. Miller last Friday.


REQUEST DATE OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE BE ADVANCED
Marc Lalonde: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Again according to press releases, Premier Davis of Ontario is reported to have asked the Prime Minister to postpone any decision concerning the oil price increase until after the first ministers' conference scheduled for early December, so that all first ministers may discuss this issue together and in public. First of all, is it true that the Prime Minister has turned down Premier Davis' request and, if so, is he willing to set up the first ministers' conference at an earlier date so that all our first ministers may discuss this issue together and in public, and not simply once in a while during bilateral secret meetings or episodical telephone conversations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should say, first of all, that the practice of calling provincial ministers liars went out of style when the hon. gentleman's party went out of office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may try to reply with a measure of precision to a precise question, I should like to say to the hon. member that I have, indeed, received a telegram from the Ontario premier to the effect that before making a decision it would be preferable if all first ministers had the opportunity to discuss in a public forum a consensus concerning energy-connected issues. Premier Davis suggested that a federal-provincial conference be held in December. During the press conference I held last Friday, I indicated that December would be too late. We are looking into several other options, including holding before December a special meeting with all provincial premiers.


USE OF ADDITIONAL REVENUES DERIVED FROM INCREASED ENERGY PRICES
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given this government's professed commitment to extensive consultation, and the fact that the government has had five months in which to establish its energy policy, will the minister tell the House if he has consulted with the multinational oil
October 22, 1979

companies with regard to the price increases he is about to announce, and have they given him assurance that the additional revenues which will accrue to them will be used in Canada for exploration and development in the energy field?
In other words, has he been assured that the multinationals will not use these funds to expand their already substantial program of diversification into non-energy related areas?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there has been broadly-based consultation with all segments of the industry, including representatives from CPA and 1PAC. We have had consultation at the official level. I have met with them myself and discussed energy policy and the implications of that energy policy and energy self-sufficiency.
We will require the co-operation of Canadian and foreign corporations in this country in order to achieve our goal of energy self-sufficiency. In fact, a monitoring process has been taking place in respect of the profits of the oil companies, and this indicates that something in the vicinity of 95 per cent of the profits of the oil companies has been reinvested in Canada.
Our intention is to encourage that kind of investment, and we will try as much as possible to bring all elements, both in respect of private industry and government involvement in that direction as well, to assure and reassure that all the resources we have in Canada are pointed toward the achievement of energy self-sufficiency in Canada, so we will not be subject to the very questionable offshore import requirements that we would face down the road if we carried out the policy enunciated by the hon. member's colleague, the critic for energy of the Liberal party.


John Leslie Evans: Out of the $4 per barrel increase, and we can only assume that that will be the price increase brought forward by this government, the federal government will get something in the range of $1.20 per barrel.
Will the minister tell the House to what specific uses the government intends to put this $1.20 per barrel in revenue, and what proportion will go to each of those uses?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier to the hon. member for Outremont that there is no agreement yet as to the question of pricing. As a result, the hon. member's question is hypothetical in nature.
When a decision has been arrived at, it will be announced to this House and an indication will be given during the course of the announcement with respect to applications. We are hoping that this announcement will take place before too long. We are carrying out full consultations which will ensure the best policy for our country.


EFFECT OF OIL PRICE INCREASES ON RATE OF INFLATION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If
Oral Questions
he will not tell the House what this projected price increase will be, I would like to ask him this question. Given the fact that his department has made projections of the economic impact of various price scenarios, can he confirm to the House that a $4 increase in the cost of a barrel of oil will add an additional 2 per cent to the inflation rate, pushing us into double-digit inflation, causing about another 80,000 Canadians to be unemployed and reducing the growth of the gross national product by at least 1 per cent or, in other words, pushing us into a severe recession?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in fact, part of the discussions which have taken place thus far have involved the implications of an increase in pricing; and the hon. member is quite correct, that that whole matter is receiving very serious attention.
There is no question that there is a difference in points of view, and some discussions have taken place with respect to the implications of a price increase. I do not accept the figures which the hon. member has indicated as being categorical and not subject to question. However, I would ask the hon. member, in consideration of his position and his stand-pat, do-nothing approach which he is now suggesting, to consider the implications of such a policy to a country in which the production of oil is now reducing and going downhill to the point where, unless we take some very important initiatives in terms of energy policy-


Mr. Broadbent:: By keeping Petro-Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has interjected again, without any substance, as usual. He refers often, in the case of Petro-Canada, to the question of the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. minister is taking quite a long time to answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In answer to the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of talk, but there were no precise figures and there was no answer to the question. Would the minister table those projections, so we can see for ourselves what the negative impact would be?
By way of a supplementary question, considering that the government is moving toward major price increases in oil, which will mean even higher profits for the oil companies, while at the same time it is concluding a six-year investigation into those very same oil companies for price-fixing, I wonder if the minister will give a commitment that before any price increase proceeds, the report of the combines investigation branch will be made public, so that we will not have the case of just adding extra money to the coffers of these companies which are ripping off the consumer?

October 22, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very sorry that the hon. member, for whom I have a great deal of respect, would use the protection of the House of Commons to make allegations before an investigation has been completed. The fact is, and it is no secret that there is an investigation taking place, that until those conclusions are brought before us and the director of prosecutions has been able to assess whether or not charges will be laid from the standpoint raised by the hon. member, I myself would not want to draw any conclusions in this House.
Upon the conclusion of our consultations, we will be bringing forward a comprehensive policy with respect to energy which will take into account the macro-economic effects of an increase in prices. It is also my intention, in the course of a report to the House after the consultations have taken place, to table in the House, by way of a green paper, a statement with respect to the results of the discussions which have taken place concerning certain assumptions, including the effects, economic and otherwise, of our policies.


Marc Lalonde: Why not a blue paper?


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government does not undertake a six-year investigation unless it is pretty sure it has charges that will be laid. I understand those charges will be pending.
My final question is this: How does the minister reconcile privatizing Petro-Canada so that it will play by the same rules as the private sector, when this private sector has not acted in the public interest, as witnessed by the fact that charges of price-fixing will be laid shortly? Would the minister not agree that Petro-Canada, as a Crown corporation, would help ensure that there is real competition and fair market practices are being carried on in this vital industry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the hon. member's leader keeps talking about an analogy with the Arrow situation that took place under the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. Unfortunately, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has got the bow turned around.
I only want to say that the assumption the hon. member makes with respect to charges is one that he can only make on the basis of assumption, under the protection of this House. There have been no charges laid, and until such time as they are, I am not going to comment on that kind of speculation. The second point, with reference to Petro-Canada, is simply irrelevant with respect to the question he raised relating to our energy policy.
(Mr. Symes.]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the rules will not allow me to question a minister on his former responsibility, if he had any.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, possibly the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and perhaps the minister responsible for the social envelope and, God help us, the President of the Treasury Board, who assumes the responsibility for the speech made in Montreal by the former minister of state for social affairs in which he indicated that his government was looking seriously at the possibility of modifying the old age pension plan to introduce the odious means test, which everyone in this House over age 30 remembers very well and knows what it means?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I gather the former minister, who is not quite accustomed to being on that side of the House, although he will have 15 or 20 years to grow accustomed to it, was trying to ask whether the statement attributed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology represented government policy.
First, the statement attributed to the minister by the press was an inaccurate attribution and, second, it does not reflect the policy of the government.


FUNDING OF SPOUSE'S ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
Since this envelope system presumes, or assumes, that expenditures within a department or within an area will be covered by cutting down programs in other areas, may I ask where he will take the money from, or what he will cut or reduce to cover the costs of Bill C-6, which is some $4 million per year; that is, the spouse's allowance?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, the bill will be before us this afternoon. That was a commitment by this party during the election. It is a commitment which this government will keep as a consequence. Its effect on the over-all resources available for retirement income are not affected.


SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It has been rumoured fairly well through the press that he has instructed the incoming new deputy minister for social de-
October 22, 1979

velopment, when this department is set up, to look for savings of about $1.5 billion in the whole area of social development.
1 would ask the President of the Treasury Board if this rumour is true, and where he expects to find this particular type of saving.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the rumour is just not true.


YOUNG CANADA WORKS
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. During the electoral campaign, the present Prime Minister promised to pay the provinces $15 million to boost home care for the elderly. Has that amount already been paid to the provinces, or does the minister intend to meet with his provincial counterparts to discuss the matter and establish a similar program which would rectify an intolerable situation?
Finally, if that is not the case, would he meet with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in order to revise the amounts to be paid and make a more equitable distribution of Canada Works' money so that all ridings may receive the minimum which is essential to maintain similar programs which the Liberal party had already established throughout the country?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may know that we have, both within the ministry and, indeed, with provincial counterparts, opportunities to discuss just that matter.
1 will be meeting with my provincial counterparts in November, and again perhaps in the new year. We have a whole range of matters that need to be discussed which were left over from the previous administration.


REQUEST PRICE OF NATURAL GAS NOT BE INCREASED
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As there never has been-


An hon. Member:: Good luck.


George Harris Hees: You are now going to get a constructive question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: As there never has been any economic justification for increasing the price of natural gas when oil prices are increased following OPEC oil price rises, will the government give very serious consideration to not increasing the price of natural gas when the price of oil is increased in the future, so that natural gas from our present sources of supply and from the more than 7,000 shut-in gas wells in this country will become more attractive for heating homes, stores, office buildings and industrial production, and in this way help a great deal to bring about self-sufficiency in oil for use in transportation and plastics at the earliest possible moment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his usual good question, constructive as it is. I recommend to the hon. member for Outremont, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre and the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that they take a lesson from him with respect to the kind of constructive question that is asked in this House.
I, naturally, take any suggestion made by the hon. member very seriously and will give consideration to matters raised by him.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Last September, there was an announcement by ITT Rayonier, an American multinational, that the company had the definite intention of closing its plant in Port Cartier, which meant that over 1,300 workers would lose their jobs. Considering that that multinational company has already received over $119 million in subventions from the federal and provincial governments since 1972, over $20 million from DREE, and considering also that the deputy minister, Mr. Robert Montreal, declared in September that his department was prepared to give financial support to any group or firm interested in the ownership of that plant, could the minister tell the House if his department has made some attempts to find buyers, which would make it possible to reopen that plant, save these workers' jobs and also millions of dollars already invested?
[English]	*


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 compliment my friend for his facility in the other official language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He is correct, Mr. Speaker, in his statement that we are very concerned about the matter and are working

October 22, 1979
Oral Questions
with the province of Quebec, perhaps through a subsidiary forest agreement, to see if something can be done to alleviate the situation. No final decision has been made, but we are sympathetic and will do everything we can through my department to alleviate the situation.


QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS RESPECTING ITT RAYONIER RESUMING OPERATIONS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
In view of the far-reaching effects that the closing of this plant will have on the economy of that part of the North Shore, ITT being one of the main employers in that area, and in view of the obvious mismanagement on the part of the government and the multinational which was granted over $100 million in public funds, does the Prime Minister, together with the Quebec government, intend to ask for a public inquiry to shed light on this matter and also under the Quebec-Ottawa agreement on the modernization of the paper industry in Quebec, does he intend to take over, jointly with Quebec, the management of this company?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question, we do not intend to conduct such an inquiry. I want to wait until I have the reply of the minister responsible in order to have all the details. As he indicated, the government is presently considering all the aspects of this truly serious situation. As for the possibility of a co-management arrangement involving the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, this is not something we are considering at this point.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the government intend to make public the report of the interdepartmental task force on pension revenue policy?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will hear in the debate on the bill this afternoon, 1 will be informing the House that the report will be published.
[Mr. MacKay.)


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, if the minister intends to make the report public, could he tell me when, and whether it will be referred to a parliamentary committee?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on an earlier occasion, the report is in translation and as soon as the translation is completed, it will be published. Along with a number of other studies, it will be brought forward to the parliamentary committee that considers pensions and retirement income.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am sure the minister is aware of the inherent dangers caused by the air radio operators strike.
In view of the fact that there have been no regular flights in and out of Wabush, Labrador, since Friday, causing undue delay and stoppage to passenger travel, mail and freight movement, and in view of the fact that this same scene is repeated across northern Canada and rural Canada, can the minister advise the House the present status of negotiations between his government and the employees, and when he expects there might be a resolution of this difficulty?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, regret the inconvenience and delay that is occurring because of the strike. The mediator met with both parties on Saturday. He is meeting again with union and management officials, and we hope there will be a resumption of the bargaining process in the very near future.


SHIPPING
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is it the intention of the minister's department to pay a subsidy to Clarke Steamship Limited to compete against CN Marine, which is a Crown corporation operating in north Sydney, an area of high unemployment? If so, why is this the policy of his department?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the particular contract to which the hon. member refers is something which has been in place for quite some time. It is a matter that I and my departmental officials are currently placing under review.
October 22, 1979


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is a question on which I have been hoping to have an opportunity to get some information since May 22. It touches on the fundamental principles of justice in this country.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell the House and Canadians what, exactly he meant when he advised the press soon after the election that the law could be broken in this country provided it had the permission and approval of a cabinet minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that statement was made in the context of discussions on how we can ensure that any activities that might be seen to be beyond the law, by law enforcement agencies are, in fact, maintained within the context of law by giving consideration to the adaptation in Canada of a practice that exists in other jurisdictions requiring the approval by a minister responsible to Parliament of any extraordinary activities by a police agent.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice is nowhere near this House to answer questions of this nature, might the Prime Minister confirm if, in fact, the law has been broken under those circumstances; and, if so, how many times since that statement was made?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the former government established the McDonald royal commission, which had as part of its mandate to look into this broad question. The report of that commission is expected some time, I believe, in June of next year and we look forward to receiving the report.
If the hon. member is asking me a question as to whether or not there have been any activities authorized by ministers of the Crown since June 5, the answer is that there have been none.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it has to do with the Vietnamese refugees.
Last summer, the minister announced that to provide leadership and challenge to the Canadian people in sponsoring boat people, it would match private sponsorships on a one-to-one basis, but it vastly underestimated the response of the Canadian people. In fact, the 50,000 quota is virtually accounted for at present.
I ask the minister, in view of that, whether the government intends to provide any continuing leadership and challenge to the Canadian people; or was the parliamentary secretary to the
Oral Questions
minister speaking accurately on Friday night when he indicated that nothing more would be done by this government until the 50,000 boat people had arrived in Canada?


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the reference made by the hon. member opposite to the grand success of the private sponsorships of the Indo-Chinese refugee program is welcomed by this government. Indeed, this is one of the great success stories and an example of a partnership between government and people. The fact that approximately 19,897 private sponsorships have already been arranged is living proof of the fact that the program is a great success. However, I would say to the hon. member opposite that we are only halfway home in terms of the efforts of both the people of Canada and the government to make this program work.
It is quite one thing to have close to 20,000 private sponsors arranged; it is quite another thing to actually, physically, get the refugees from Southeast Asia to Canada: I refer to the transportation, the processing, the staging centres and, most important, the resettlement endeavour which require the efforts and co-operation of the private sector. As I have said on many occasions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. MacEachen:: It is not a debate; the Address is over.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but first a short explanation is required.
A strange mutilation of excellent cattle has been occurring in Alberta. Cattle have been mysteriously killed, sex organs have been removed, and sometimes the eyes and tongues have been removed, many times by an expert knife-man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: To date neither the cause of death nor the culprits have been ascertained. My question to the minister is this: Are the federal Department of Agriculture and the federal veterinary surgeons co-operating with the Alberta government to determine the cause or causes of these deaths and to apprehend the culprits?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, i certainly share this concern. It is my understanding, after consultation with my colleague, the Solicitor General, that this situation started first of all in the United States and then moved into the province of Alberta. The latest report that I have indicates that this situation is now occurring in the province of Saskatchewan.
446

October 22, 1979
Oral Questions
I can assure hon. members that the RCMP are investigating the situation, and I have been in contact with officials in my department to help the health of animals branch and we will certainly co-operate in any way that we possibly can to resolve this very serious and bizarre situation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It is not quite as earthy as the last question, but it concerns the matter of west coast oil ports which the hon. member for Skeena and I first raised in the House on October 11.
My question is this: In light of the fact that the United States department of energy released a report in Washington just last week entitled "Petroleum Supply Alternatives for the Northern Tier and Inland States for the Year 2000", which questions the need to build any sort of west to east transportation system-whether pipeline or tanker route-is the minister familiar with the report, and what specific dealings has the minister had with the Americans on the subject of an oil port since October 11, 1979?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the report and I have had no direct dealings with any American officials.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry. It has been reported that the funding of the small business intern program has been exhausted, despite the fact that the program does not expire for several months.
Since the ongoing needs of Canadian small business owners for essential management education will, accordingly, not be met, would the minister tell us whether the premature termination of the small business intern program funding is simply the result of Conservative cutbacks, or whether it is the direct consequence of the sucess of that program?


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the small business intern program is one of the successes of the ministry. It was allocated $5 million of funding; the applications cleaned that allocation out in the very early stages of the program and we are out of funds: there are no funds available for it at the moment.

This program has a very high priority with the ministry and we shall be making application for its extension.


REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM
Robert Theodore Bockstael: My supplementary is directed to the same minister. Because of inflation, does the government intend to provide additional funds to ensure that the program is maintained until its completion, or shall we conclude that that worthy program will be completely scrapped like so many others?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I think my previous answer covers the supplementary. The funds originally allocated to the program have been expended. Our experience with the program is that it is a very popular and successful one. We shall be seeking additional funding for it.

[ Translation]


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: Is the minister aware that the DIP program, which is aimed at supporting Canadian businesses that want to export in the high technology, communications and transport fields, is presently short of funds? The committee responsible for processing the various applications in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has approved many of those applications from Canadian businesses which want to export but unfortunately DIP is short of funds. Can the minister give the House some hope that he will be able to obtain an additional amount from the Treasury Board to help those Canadian industries which sell their products on international markets?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the ministry is devoting a great deal of time to studying the resources available in the economic development envelope. These resources are naturally limited and we want them applied as much as possible to the winners among our industries. The DIP program is a very successful one and a very needed program. It retains a high degree of interest and thrust from the department.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I am sure it will be of interest to him because I know that for a number of years he was a member of the committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts as I was. It concerns a statement made about a year ago by the new Secretary of State that federal cultural institutions were starved for funding, and a further statement made shortly after that by the then secretary of state, Mr. Roberts, promising $24 million of Loto Canada funds to support federal cultural institutions.
Can the Prime Minister confirm reports that out of the total of $24 million which will be forthcoming under the new agreement in 1980, $12 million will be going to cultural institutions, for a net loss of $10 million on the basis of the promise made by the previous government?


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 will have to await the return to the House of the Secretary of State, who is in Toronto today meeting with provincial ministers of education, and ask him to comment on the details of any disposition of revenue from Loto Canada.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment. Has he any information to give the House about the serious situation which has developed in the Calgary post office sorting station, where over 35 semi-trailer trucks carrying mail have been backed up? Has this situation been corrected?


John Allen Fraser: If the hon. member, in his question, is referring to a back-up in the last few days, I am not aware of it. I am aware that there was a serious situation in Calgary for a number of weeks. It arose as a result of some people leaving and the difficulty of replacing them. There was co-operation between the unions involved, extra staff and extra hours were employed and the situation was corrected. I understand it is well under control at the present time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who
Oral Questions
is the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It relates to the Second Narrows bridge accident in Vancouver harbour last week and the consequent slowdown in grain movement. I understand that steps have been taken to move products to North Shore shipping positions via B.C. Rail and, in some cases, by barge directly across the harbour.
Can the minister assure the House that grain is getting its fair share of the traffic on the BCR and on the barges? At the moment it appears as though grain is being allocated a lower than appropriate proportion of BCR space and is being allotted no space at all on the barges. What is the government, or, in particular, its new grain co-ordinator, doing to ensure that grain movement gets a high priority in the allocation of space on B.C. Rail and on the barges?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can
assure the hon. member that grain is getting a priority classification. 1 can assure the hon. member, also, that the newly-appointed grain transport co-ordinator is working very actively with all the components within the grain handling transportation system; as a matter of fact he met with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board immediately after the accident occurred and has been monitoring the situation very closely.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The question of added costs becomes important in connection with the arrangements made to move grain by alternative means to the two major terminals on the North Shore. Can the minister say who will have to bear the added costs? Will it be the government, the CNR, or the farmers? Will the minister ensure that the farmers are not burdened with the extra shipping costs and, further, not burdened with any unusual demurrage charges which might accrue as a result of the bridge accident?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The determination of liability would have a direct bearing upon who pays the additional costs. Needless to say, our approach was to get the grain moving and sort out questions of cost and liability at a later stage. I may say that all components of the grain delivery and transportation industry have indeed co-operated and that the disruption has been minimal.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Home Insulation Program. Since it appears home fuel oil prices will again increase this winter, and that parts of Canada might even experience oil shortages, the importance of home insulation both for the consumer and the country becomes ever more critical. Yet during the past several weeks numerous articles have appeared in the press concerning the failure of various home insulation materials-

October 22, 1979
Oral Questions


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Have other materials, such as styrofoam and treated wood-shavings been subject to testing methods, and are there any testing procedures to ensure that urea-based foams do not give off highly toxic formaldehyde gas after insulation? Further, what remedial action is the CHIP program prepared to take in cases where hazardous products have been installed in Canadian Homes?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that very timely question. I want to tell him that at the present time the matter of home insulation has been dealt with by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has now been classified, as he knows, under the Hazardous Products Act. The testing has been done in the past for CMHC by the Ontario Research Foundation. CMHC in itself has not taken part directly in the testing but has had to take their word for the results obtained.
We are looking into all aspects of this very important program. It has been generously funded. We hope to improve its administration as more experience is gained.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Since the responsibility and the technical knowledge regarding home insulation, as the minister mentioned, is spread over various departments, and as it is my feeling that the CHIP program has not lived up to its great potential, will the minister consider recommending to the House that a special committee of the House be set up to investigate home insulation practices and materials and the CHIP program?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting suggestion. 1 would not be prepared to turn it down out of hand. All of us can use all the expertise we can get from elected members and, indeed, from those affected in the housing industry and insulation industry. It is a program that has been generously funded. There are administrative problems with it. It is of great concern to Canadians in this high-cost energy era.
I will consider this and report to the hon. member.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. I would like to ask him whether he intends to present as soon as possible to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs an updated periodical report on the implementation of recommendations made by the subcommittee on the penitentiary system?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER FIVE-MAN COMMISSION WILL BE APPOINTED TO STUDY POLICY
Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. In view of the fact that two of the main actors involved in the activities of the subcommittee are members of the cabinet, that is, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations, can we expect a review of the recommendations approved and rejected by this government and, more especially, does the minister intend to reconsider the setting up of a five-man committee on penitentiary policies?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, that basically is a question for the House, or perhaps for the committee to decide. I think it would be very valuable to the House to have an ongoing committee dealing with correctional services. If the committee or the House so decides, I do not think there would be any objection whatsoever from the government side of the House.

[ Translation]


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a point of order because I think that a motion passed by the House was out of order. To confirm that opinion, I did some lengthy research and this is why I waited several days before drawing the attention of the House to the matter. I have of course consulted the following authors on parliamentary rules: Erskine May, Bourinot and Beauchesne. I am also referring to Standing Order 1 and I quote:
1. In ail cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
Mr. Speaker, I have here copies of the following rulings made on February 23, 1939 by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and I draw the attention of all my colleagues on both sides of the House specially to this fact, since the point of order I am raising is extremely important for all parliamen-
October 22, 1979

tarians. Here is actually what appeared on page 96, on February 23, 1939:

Ordered, that the proceedings relative to the motion relating to unemployment subsequent to the division on the question, 'That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question,' be null and void.

And, Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 1957, another ruling was also made by the House of Commons, and I quote:

Ordered, that the proceedings on the third reading of the National Health Service Contributions bill yesterday be null and void, and that the bill be read the third time tomorrow.

And a little further, on page 196, on April 25, 1963, one finds this, and I quote:

Ordered, that the proceedings relating to the Mr. Speaker's Constituency bill subsequent to the division be null and void.

Mr. Speaker, we could refer also to an important ruling to which reference is made regularly when questions like this arise in parliaments. The reference is to a point of jurisprudence made on April 3, 1604:
The rule was urged-
And I am quoting the ruling to which reference was made not so long ago in British types of parliaments.
-that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House.
There is also that earlier ruling of the government in the House of Commons of Canada on March 24, 1873.
Mr. Speaker, the motion introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister and member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is out of order, and I remind hon. members of the terms of that motion:
That a committee be appointed to prepare and report, in accordance with Standing Order 65, lists of members to compose the standing and standing joint committees of this House; and that the committee be composed of Messrs. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), Kempling, Friesen, MacEachen, Lefebvre and Knowles, and that the provisions of Standing Order 65(1) be suspended in relation to the number of members on the said committee.
That is where, Mr. Speaker, 1 say this motion is not receivable, as the motion itself talks about suspending a provision of the Standing Orders. Indeed, the authors are unanimous, Mr. Speaker: suspending a provision of the Standing Orders requires unanimity or a notice on the order paper and, as you know, a notice of this kind cannot be put on the order paper the first day of the opening of the session since under parliamentary law that day is not considered as a regular day of sitting. That is why that very motion to suspend a rule of the House could not be put on the first day of the session. I quote an authority on parliamentary law, A. Beauchesne, citation 13, at page 7, on unanimous consent:
Point of Order-Mr. F. Roy
13. 1) Within the ambit of its own rules, the House itself may proceed as it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent. Thus, bills may be passed through all their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit.
2) The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its Standing Orders and to give its unanimous consent-
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, "and to give its unanimous consent"-
-to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notice and things of that sort.
Mr. Speaker, I would like now to quote from Bourinot, on page 214:
Each House is bound by every consideration of self-interest and justice to observe strictly its rules and Standing Orders, and to rebuke-
I repeat "to rebuke-"
-every attempt to evade or infringe them.
Consequently, the Senate and the House of Commons never permit-
Mr. Speaker, it is well defined in Bourinottheir rules and Standing Orders to be suspended, unless by unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker, I can never overemphasize the necessity to comply with the rules. All authorities are explicit on that point, and allow me to quote again from Erskine May.
Here is what we find in the chapter
Breaches of Privilege and Contempts-
-under the heading
Disobedience to Rules or Orders of either House
Disobedience to the orders of either House, whether such orders are of general application or require a particular individual to do or abstain from doing a particular act, or contravention of any rules of either House is a contempt of that House.
Those are not the words of the hon. member for Beauce. I am simply quoting from the experts in parliamentary procedure.
The rules of this House are in contempt of Parliament, especially when one considers the origins of the Standing Orders. I should like to quote once more from Bourinot in his chapter on the rules and regulations, in the section on the origin of the rules, where we find the following:
To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority-
-even though there is not absolute majority in the House-
-to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we find when we refer to the various experts.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am not criticizing anything that you have
said or done. Indeed, from the very beginning of the discussion

October 22, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. F. Roy
on the motion in question, you said "pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Orders", and you then asked for the vote.
However, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my motion was actually to try to obtain the unanimous consent of the House in order to straighten out the matter.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you could not foresee the result of the vote. It is only after the vote that yourself, the House and all members or Parliament learned that opinions were divided on this matter. It is only after the vote that it could be known, provided, of course, the matter was drawn to your attention.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to the term of Standing Order 51, and I quote:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament...
-and I am doing just this-
-he shall apprise the House thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon-
... if a vote is in fact required, before putting the question thereon . . .
... and quote the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.
Mr. Speaker, it is therefore your duty to inform the House that an order has been taken contrary to our rules.
Mr. Speaker, what are the possible avenues? Since that famous April 2, 1604, even if they have the power, members have always been reluctant to rescind theirs orders. This stands from the judicial nature of the British-type parliament.
We therefore recommend that an order do issue declaring the proceedings null and void. We find in May the following quote:
That an order do issue declaring procedures to be null and void where procedures have been violated, even inadvertently.
-and I quote specifically Mr. Erskine May:
An order declaring proceedings to be null and void is employed where there has been an inadvertence or some form of irregularity in procedure (u). The reason for resorting to it is either (i) that there is no resolution which can be rescinded or order which can be discharged
And Mr. Erskine May goes on to say:
The proceedings are declared null and void.
Since the British House of Commons in similar circumstances does this, and I am referring to the three dates I have given earlier in my remarks, when emphasizing that this is how they had proceeded on February 23, 1939 by declaring the carried motions null and void, they did the same on May 21, 1957 and again on April 25, 1963.
As in the case of all the other rulings, this last case is interesting because all proceedings following an irregularity were declared null and void.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the lack of action or decision, when an irregularity provides an exception to our Standing
[Mr. Roy (Beauce).1
Orders in the case of the setting up of a committee, constitutes a precedent of grave consequence. That would mean that a simple majority, without notice, could henceforth make exceptions to our rules on any topic whatsoever since they are included in and subordinated to so important a matter as the creation of a committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) rose on a point of order that is interesting but, to my mind, there are at least three or four serious difficulties. First of all, before putting the question he brought up this afternoon, I explained to the House that the motion was in order in so far as the procedure is concerned. Only after that did I put the question to the House. Secondly, we are dealing with a decision reached by the House in the past, and it is therefore impossible to solve the problem now. Finally, I also feel that the point the hon. member for Beauce has brought up, that is the right of the House to change the rules by a simple majority, and not by unanimity, is also a suggestion I cannot fully accept. However, the hon. member for Beauce has indeed brought up an important matter. He studied the program envisaged for tomorrow, and he prepared something for this afternoon; I feel therefore that I must take his arguments under advisement and, tomorrow, I shall give my opinion more formally on the points the hon. member for Bteauce brought up this afternoon.


MR. STEVENS-CANADA SAVINGS BONDS-COST TO GOVERNMENT OF INCREASE IN RATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will recall that on Friday, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) asked me how much the increase in the rates paid on Canada Savings Bonds would cost the Government of Canada, which increase had been announced the previous Thursday. I promised him an answer today and I wish to put it on the record now.
It has been projected that the increase in the rate on the new series of Canada Savings Bonds from 10.25 percent over seven years to 11 per cent in the first year and 10.5 per cent over the remaining six years, plus a similar yield adjustment to all outstanding issues, will cost the Government of Canada an estimated $215 million over the full term to maturity of these issues, in the initial year, that is the 1980 bond year, the extra cost to the government of these yield adjustments is expected to amount to $62 million.
October 22, 1979



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay upon the Table of the House copies of correspondence from myself to the premiers of Canada suggesting the dates of December 4 and 5 for a first ministers' meeting.


WAYS AND MEANS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I wish to table a notice of Ways and Means motion regarding the Petroleum Administration Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 60(2), I request that you designate an order of the day for consideration of the Ways and Means motion just tabled.


THE ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages copies of the Economic Review for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson), and in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of Admiral Castro Madero's statement on contract decisions for Atucha II and heavy water plant of October 1, 1979.
Acid Rain


THE ENVIRONMENT
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, last week a scientific report was released, and as a consequence some members of the House asked that a statement respecting the present government position on acid rain be made in the House. I agreed to make that statement, and as a consequence I am here today.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask whether copies of this statement have been given in advance to the spokesmen on this issue for the other parties?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in both cases statements were given in advance. I am surprised that the hon. member who raised the issue in the House of Commons is not here this afternoon, and I have no explanation for that.
The gradual increase in acidity of precipitation in eastern North America and in Europe has been of concern to the scientific community for some time. It was not, however, until the findings of an OECD study were released in 1976 that the potential magnitude and seriousness of the problem in western Europe were first grasped by a wider public. The concern was carried to all of Europe through the implementation of a scientific study under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Indeed, next month numerous European countries, as well as Canada and the United States, are expected to sign a convention on long-range transboundary air pollution which was developed last year under the ECE. This convention represents the first step being taken to address the problem of acid rain in Europe and is indicative of the concern for the problem. While the Government of Canada actively participated in the development of the convention, the convention is very general in nature and is insufficient to deal with the situation in eastern North America.
Early awareness of a potential acid rain problem in eastern North America was heightened by the OECD report. Recognizing that convincing presumptive evidence indicated that the long-range transport of a variety of polluting substances, particularly acid pollutants, was undoubtedly occurring within and into Canada, Environment Canada embarked on a comprehensive scientific program to develop a clearer understanding of all aspects of the complex problem.
Members of the House will recall that in June 1977 the then minister of fisheries and environment gave a strongly worded speech to the Air Pollution Control Association meeting in Toronto in which he referred to the problem of acid rain as an "environmental time bomb". The speech was aimed at focusing the attention of the federal and provincial governments on the problem and indicating Canadian concern for the first time to the United States. With the increased knowledge which we have acquired in the past two years, it is now evident that the time bomb is much bigger than anything envisaged in 1977.
Recognizing the international dimensions of the problem and the need for international co-operation in the development of a mutually agreed scientific data base from which to

October 22, 1979
Acid Rain
develop solutions, the Government of Canada and the United States in 1978 established the Canada-United States bilateral research consultation group. The initial results from Environment Canada's scientific program, together with results from provincial and United States scientific investigations, were described in the first report of this group which was released on Monday. The report indicates that large areas of North America are sensitive to damage from acidic precipitation.
Decreased productivity and diversity of fish species have been observed in lakes and rivers in Ontario and in the Atlantic provinces. While we do not have as detailed data for Quebec, there is every reason to believe that the situation is similar in that province. Spawning failure of Atlantic salmon in streams in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces has been linked to acid precipitation. The precise extent of the damage being done is difficult to determine but the continually emerging evidence indicates ever more serious concerns, as well as increasing geographical extent. For example, various pieces of evidence suggest agricultural and forest productivity are at risk. While some of the potential damage cannot be irrefutably proven at present, by the time it has manifested itself the damage could be irreversible.
Continued pollutant loading of sensitive areas of eastern Canada at present levels will result in continued degradation with extensive irreversible acidification occurring during the next decade or so, particularly in aquatic ecosystems. Increased loading will accelerate the rate of deterioration. The report also notes extensive damage in the northeastern part of the United States where there is strong concern about the problem.
In anticipation of the contents of the research consultation group report and aware that the situation was serious, the Government of Canada and the United States issued a joint statement and communique on transboundary air pollution on July 26, 1979. In these documents the two governments outlined the basis of existing co-operation and indicated their intention to develop a co-operative agreement on transboundary air quality. The release of the joint statement and communique followed meetings of officials from both countries on December 15, 1978, and June 20, 1979.
While I welcomed the work which had been done in this regard by officials of my department and the Department of External Affairs, I recognized that a commitment at the highest level was needed to set in motion the reduction in emissions necessary to ameliorate the problem. On August 8, 1979 I went to Washington and met with the hon. Cecil Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, the hon. Douglas Costle, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the hon. Gus Speth, Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. I made it clear to my U.S. colleagues that the Government of Canada attaches a very high priority to the rapid reduction of acid-causing pollutants. I emphasized the fact that both countries were polluting each other and that effective control could best be undertaken on a co-operative basis.

I found complete acceptance of this view and a willingness to examine specific strategies designed to put in place the needed controls. I undertook to accelerate the process of developing with the provinces concerned appropriate Canadian control strategies and I was assured that a similar effort will be made in the United States. The next Canada-U.S. meeting on acid rain, this time involving both federal and provincial officials, takes place October 24 in Washington. Needless to say, this important matter also will be discussed during President Carter's visit to Ottawa November 9 and 10.
Immediately following my return from the United States I met with Dr. Parrott, the Ontario minister of the environment. 1 was much heartened by this meeting. We have a mutual understanding of the importance of the problem and a desire to address the necessary solutions. Dr. Parrott made it clear that Ontario will apply diligently any requirements agreed by the Canadian and U.S. governments in a future agreement. I will be meeting with Mr. Leger soon and I hope to achieve a similar understanding with him on the need for action. I have spoken to Mr. Bacon of Nova Scotia who is also the current chairman of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. I recognize the importance of discussing this matter with other provincial colleagues as well.
A federal-provincial committee on control strategies for long-range transport of air pollutants has been set up to focus on solutions to the acid rain problem. This committee originally contained provincial representatives from Ontario and Quebec only. Its formation was strongly endorsed at the June 1979 meeting of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, and Nova Scotia, as current CCREM chairman, was added to represent the other provinces. The CCREM recognized the seriousness of the problem, endorsed federal leadership in seeking solutions and gave strong support to the federal government in undertaking negotiations with the United States.
The focal point of the committee's first meeting on September 25 was a conceptual work plan of the tasks necessary to identify, develop and evaluate alternative abatement strategies. The plan is designed to provide recommendations to governments of the cost effectiveness of various control options. I am pleased to report that there was agreement on the general thrust of the plan by all in attendance. Despite the complicated nature of the problem, and competing environmental, economic and social factors, the initial output of this activity should be available by spring.
This initial output, which would assess the application of specific abatement technologies with preliminary cost estimates, would not however tell us much about specific environmental benefits that might result from a particular level of reduction. It would take much longer to produce precise data for this purpose although clearer understandings of effects are continually emerging. The extent to which we need precise data on expected environmental benefits would depend in part on how costly the controls might be. Similarly, should the direct control costs appear very high, extensive additional economic analysis designed to help us understand the broader
October 22, 1979

effects of these costs on society would be needed to guide us in selecting the optimum means of control. For these reasons it is not yet possible to estimate with certainty the time needed before firm recommendations for ultimate control strategies will be forthcoming.
Let me illustrate further. Members will be aware of some early general estimates made by my officials suggesting that a 50 per cent reduction of emissions of sulphur dioxide in eastern Canada would result in direct costs to polluters of $350 million to $500 million annually over the remainder of the century.
The figures which have yet to undergo detailed analysis do not, for example, take account of possible offsets arising from the effective marketing of by-product sulphuric acid in Canada or for export, nor do they reflect impacts on other sectors of society ranging from electricity bills to balance of payments. Obviously informed judgments will have to be made about these matters before committing ourselves to a particular course of action. Elowever, lest I be misunderstood, let me make it perfectly clear that there will have to be major reductions in the release of acid causing pollutants in North America, and this government is determined to ensure that Canada meets this challenge.
As I have indicated in several statements on this subject, it is our present intention to rely on the provinces to put in place the needed control requirements. I am counting on my provincial colleagues and I am confident that they will do what must be done. However, members of the House have asked what will the federal government do should the provinces fail to act. The federal government has the constitutional authority to act for the good of the country in respect of controlling the interprovincial and international flow of pollutants. We would not shrink from this responsibility. Indeed, it is very much my view that the federal government ought to have at least residual authority set out in legislation to deal, as needed, with interprovincial and international pollution problems, which is something we currently do not have, in both the air and water fields. I have instructed my officials to examine this matter in the context of our current review of the federal government's role in environmental protection.
Given the time sensitivity of the issue, it is obviously important to look at interim measures to retard the problem. While it is not clear at this time what these might be, I have instructed my officials to investigate all possibilities. As an absolute minimum 1 believe it would only be wise to ensure that there be no further increase in emissions of sulphur dioxide in central and eastern Canada. 1 will be discussing this with my provincial colleagues. In addition, I plan to hold discussions with the chief executive officers of the corporations in Canada principally responsible for the problem.
Members of the House are fully aware that, however rigorous our domestic control strategy may be, it cannot alone overcome all the effects of acid rain. May I therefore conclude by stating that I have instructed my officials to ensure that, in co-operation with the provinces, all of the necessary preparato-
Acid Rain
ry work is completed in time to allow signature of an effective Canada-U.S. abatement agreement as soon as possible after the U.S. election next year.
Throughout this century Canada and the United States have led the world in effectively dealing with transboundary pollution, whether in water or air. In this the provinces have consistently been our partners. 1 am confident that this longstanding partnership, both domestic and international, will continue.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we thank the minister for his thoughtfulness in providing us with a copy of his statement this morning, and we also wish to congratulate him on his decision to make a statement on acid rain in this House and to hear the comments and questions of interested parliamentarians.
We agree with the minister that the situation is very serious and that we are dealing here with what has been described as an "environmental time bomb". Here ends the positive part of our message on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I will explain briefly why.
If, as in the words of the minister, "the damage could be irreversible", and there are indications in the environment that this could be the case, then several questions come to mind as to why this government is tackling the matter of acid rain so slowly. For instance, why did six weeks go by from the date when the minister came back from Washington before the first meeting was held by the federal-provincial committee on control strategies for long-range transport of air pollutants? Why is it that the initial output of the work of this committee can only be available next spring? Why, two and a half months after the minister's visit to Washington, is there no indication in his statement today of the specifics of the Canadian control strategies, on the eve of the next Canada-U.S. meeting on acid rain scheduled to take place this coming Wednesday? Why has a meeting not yet taken place between the minister and his counterpart in the province of Quebec?
Why, considering the gravity of the situation described by the minister himself, is there hesitancy, to say the least, in making the polluters pay by charging them the estimated cost of $350 million to $500 million annually, or any sum for that matter?
Why does the committee on control strategies for long-range transport of air pollutants, which supposedly reports to the minister-and we hope the deliberations of this committee will not be as long as its name-have to be concerned with "the cost effectiveness of various control options", when life around us-the ponds, brooks, rivers, lakes and perhaps even our fields and forests-is being poisoned to the point where human health might be affected too, in the long run?
Really, what is $350 million annually if we are to deal with this "time bomb" described by the minister? What is $350 million today if, by all estimates, costs can only increase if action is delayed?
Why is it that if, as he says today, the minister thinks he can
prevent present levels of pollutants causing acid rain from

October 22, 1979
Acid Rain
increasing, the technology needed to do this cannot be used to decrease levels of emission? Why cannot his so-called "interim measures" be used to decrease levels of emission if they can be used to prevent increases?
Why is it that the minister informs us again today that the signing of the agreement has to wait for a new president to be installed, 16 months from now, when by all accounts President Carter is a well-known politician for his commitment to the cause of a clean environment?
What is at stake here, Mr. Speaker, and not in respect of acid rain alone, is the credibility of the political system at the international, national and provincial levels, namely, whether or not in the eyes of the public we, the elected representatives, are capable of delivering in response to the gravity of a situation threatening the survival of the ecology of our planet.
We on this side of the House cannot believe or accept that the concern of U.S. citizens vis-a-vis acid rain is any less than that of Canadians. We on this side of the House cannot believe or accept that the concern of residents of Ontario is any less than that of residents of Quebec or of the Atlantic provinces.
If elected representatives in provincial legislatures and their governments engage in jurisdictional games instead of offering their fullest co-operation, they do so at their own political peril and will have to be judged by their own constituents accordingly. While acid rain continues to do its insidious damage, we cannot wait for jurisdictional duels to take place at the peril of our environment. The solution to a serious threat to our environment, which as we all know unfortunately knows no boundaries, cannot be allowed to become the victim of ineptly handled federal-provincial relations.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence, at least in this House today, that the minister and members of all parties are very worried about this invisible death creeping around us. What we cannot understand then, given these elements of urgency and the desire to co-operate, is why the responsible officials, be they provincial or be they federal on both sides of the border, cannot be locked up in a conference room and given, say, 60 days to come up with standards required and with the text of an agreement for the signature of the U.S. president and our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). Representatives from industry and from labour could be added so as to facilitate and expedite the work of these officials.
The minister's statement today reminds us of someone who, at the site of a burning building, cried "Fire!" but tells the occupants they have to wait a year and a half for the fire trucks to come to their rescue.
Canadians, as we all know, are in the forefront of all nations as being known for their sensitivity to the quality of their environment. They cannot be reassured by the government's actions so far and by today's statement, because the minister has not been able to explain why we have to wait so long for the United States and, in an equally serious matter, why we have to wait so long for the provinces to move and to take vigorous action, particularly-and on this I will conclude-in the light of this passage contained in the long-range transport

of air pollutants report, which is at the base of today's statement and which states on page 25 that "the greater portion of total sulphur deposition in each country is probably the result of domestic emissions".


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) for getting his statement to my office well in advance of question period today. Also, I would like to thank him for the detail of the statement which runs approximately ten pages in length.
A lot has been said and written about acid rain in recent weeks and months. I will be brief in my response and concentrate on asking the minister if he would do everything in his power to get some action from this moment on, instead of speeches, words and statements to the press. In saying that, I am not levelling my criticism directly at the new minister responsible for the environment, as was alleged or stated a few moments ago by the member from one of the Toronto ridings. After all, the previous administration was well aware of the implications and the most serious fears with respect to acid rain fall-out for approximately a year, the last year that they were in office.
I would like to state at this point that I believe it is grossly unfair for a Liberal member of this House to condemn outright, or to a considerable degree, the present administration when in fact his own party had plenty of time to investigate and bring in some remedies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Having said that, I would like to reiterate once again what has been said in this House with respect to the seriousness of acid rain itself. As the minister knows, it is the most serious environmental threat that we have today in Canada and in North America. Indeed, it is very common in central and western Europe and in Scandinavia. Acid rain is a very insidious thing in that one cannot see it, taste it, touch it or smell it. It is not like the Don River in Toronto oozing its sludge into Lake Ontario; you can see and smell it and say, "Yes, that is pollution."
None of these elements are available to the human senses. Therefore, it is difficult to marshal public opinion as well as corporate action with respect to acid rain because, as I have discovered in the last few weeks, most people are not even aware that it exists, and therefore are not aware of the horrendous potential damage that it may have for all of us.
In the province of Ontario alone we have lost approximately 140 lakes as far as aquatic life is concerned. They are what we call dead lakes, yet they still look very attractive. The water looks very clear and one can go boating and sailing, but the sport fishing industry is finished in those lakes. When one looks at the statistics with respect to sport fishing and angling in Ontario, one discovers that of a $600 million a year tourist industry approximately half of the income relates directly to sport fishing. The other half, of course, is divided up among winter sports, such as hunting, skiing and such.
October 22, 1979

If this acid rain situation continues, we will lose virtually all our lakes in Ontario and most of the lakes in Quebec. Time is running out. However, it may not be until the most serious consequences of acid rain are known that the public will really become angry if the government does not act and act very quickly. I am referring to the report that was released, I believe, just last week, the joint report of Canadian-United States scientists in which they are now discovering that acid rain is definitely having irreversible effects, limited as they may be, at the present, on crops through the soil. The effects on the soil will lead to crop reduction.
At this point I would like to put a question to the minister which he perhaps will answer in a few moments after he has had a few moments to think about it, if he has not already. It has come to my attention informally that the Athabasca tar sands are posing a very serious sulphuric threat to the Canadian breadbasket, the prairies, in so far as grain production is concerned. The threat is not in the immediate sense, but unless something is done about the Athabasca tar sands emission of sulphuric acid into the atmosphere- because as the minister knows, it does not have to rain down; it can simply fall down out of the atmosphere on to the Canadian prairies-it could become a serious threat.
Think of the magnitude and the consequences if we were to allow the Canadian prairies, and no doubt the American plain states, to become wastelands while we dither, talk and argue as to whether or not it is a provincial responsibility or a Canadian federal initiative and whether or not President Carter is running or not running for re-election. The whole thing becomes not only serious, but could foster cynicism because of the political implications of the whole problem.
The minister has outlined a rough time frame. He has not been specific. No doubt he cannot be specific in terms of actual dates, days or weeks or months, but I implore the minister, as he states in his statement, to use the powers that the federal government presently has. 1 implore the minister not to wait for Dr. Parrott and to stop listening to Inco executives telling him, "Us poor folks up here in Sudbury just can't afford emission control standards or else we will have to lay off two or three thousand Inco workers", all of which is balderdash and Dr. Parrott should know that. 1 am rather disgusted at Dr. Parrott's statements as quoted in the press last week.
The minister's statement at page 8 reads:
The federal government has the constitutional authority to act for the good of the country with respect to controlling the interprovincial and international flow of pollutants.
The minister admits in this statement that he can take the initiative. We on this side of the House and, indeed, the whole country is waiting for the minister to take that initiative. What I would like to suggest is that he begin here in our own backyard in Ontario by calling in the chief executive officer of Inco and saying, "Look, give me your timeframe for cleaning up the emissions".
The Ontario Conservative government has allowed these emissions to continue at the rate of 3,600 metric tons a day
Acid Rain
coming out of the Inco smelters, when it should be down to 750 metric tons a day, which is still disastrous. Yet Dr. Parrott at Queen's Park says, "Well, we can't force them because we don't want to do anything to upset Ottawa-Washington negotiations on this matter, so we will just sit back and go easy with Inco or any other polluter in the province of Ontario until my federal counterpart has done all the work with his counterpart in Washington". In other words, Parrott, I think, is being a Pontius Pilate and simply washing his hands of the whole thing, at least for the time being.
I repeat, time is of the essence in respect to acid rain. No doubt there will be questions asked by other members. In closing, I implore the minister to call in the chief executive officer of Inco and ask him for a timeframe for clean-up. If it is not satisfactory to the minister responsible for the environment, then let the minister bring into the House the necessary legislation. I can assure him that it will be given very fast passage as far as members on this side are concerned.
If Inco can prove to the federal government that it cannot afford what it could have afforded in 1975, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million for emission control mechanisms, then let Inco come to the federal government and explain why. 1 am not referring to rapid tax write-offs; in my opinion that is the wrong way to go about it. At the same time that the chief executive officer of Inco brings his balance sheet to the federal government, however, I hope the minister will say to him, "I do not want to see your Sudbury balance book; I want to see your multinational balance book-what your total world assets are and what your total financial picture is, worldwide." The taxpayers of Canada should not have to subsidize a multinational corporation that has millions or billions of dollars stashed away somewhere else in the world when its one operation in this country might not at any given moment be in a strong financial position.
1 welcome the statement, Mr. Speaker. I called for it in the House last week when the minister was apparently quite simply making a statement to the press. It has given the Liberal critic an opportunity to stand on his feet and has given me an opportunity to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I am sure hon. members will want to question the minister on his statement. I hope we will get action on this. The minister's heart is in the right place, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced he is extremely concerned about this. I am also aware that he may have-and I hope I am not imputing anything here-opposition within his own party or within cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I said he "may" have, I did not say he had. I am almost convinced, though, that he is facing very stiff opposition from the corporate sector which is responsible for this acid rain catastrophe, Mr. Speaker-and it is in fact a catastrophe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 22, 1979
Acid Rain


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I must say the statement by the minister concerning acid rain and the impact it is having on our country is a very sobering one. This is especially so in the areas of the Canadian shield not buffered by limestone rock, like some other areas of the province of Ontario and other parts of the country.
I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to provide members with maps showing the areas affected by the various polluting industries, whether they be in Canada or the United States. One press report indicated that there were about 140 lakes in the Sudbury area that are dead and will not support fish because of the acid rain. I wonder if the minister could provide a map showing that.
I notice that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. MacKay) is sitting beside the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser). I wonder if he could speak with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, because many of the industries causing acid rain would be located in northern Ontario. Perhaps he could require that industries receiving grants under DREE instal the proper anti-pollution equipment. This might even be broadened to include all other federally regulated industries.
We appreciate that there is difficulty in regulating those under provincial jurisdiction and those under international jurisdiction or located in the United States. Those regulated by Canadian standards and those receiving federal grants could surely be required to provide immediately the proper environmental standards.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question about providing maps and other information, it is my intention some time soon-and the time has not yet been set- to make available to all members a full and complete briefing by officials of the Department of the Environment, including scientists, so that all members will have a better technical understanding of the difficulties we are facing.
With respect to the other matter the hon. member mentioned regarding my colleague and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, that is one of the things which is being looked at with respect to the economic implications of any control strategy.
I wonder if I could have your permission and the permission of members of the House, Mr. Speaker, to apologize to members of the Social Credit Party who did not receive a copy of my statement this morning. I regret that; it was not intentional and I can assure them that at any other time I make a statement a copy will be sent out of courtesy to my friends.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to follow up my colleague's question about the availability of maps showing the distribution of this acid rain across the country. Does the minister have any data on the effects of acid rain on Atlantic salmon? If so, could this data be made available to the public so that those of us in Altantic Canada who are concerned about the very survival of

Atlantic salmon will know what the situation is and what action has to be taken?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We have some data and 1 can make arrangements to have it made available to the hon. member and other interested members.
The evidence we have to date indicates that the acidic precipitation in the form of snow that builds up during the winter melts very quickly in the spring. It is this acid shock into the streams that is causing the very serious damage. Ultimately, as the acid precipitation builds up in the lakes it makes the situation even more difficult.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is with respect to the potential damage to the food supply in Canada which is very grave and which was referred to by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). There is the possibility of prairie grain crops being virtually wiped out in 15 years, and also the effects will be felt in southern Ontario.
What kind of input is the minister getting from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding food production in the country? I understand that acid rain destroys the nutrients, the nitrogen in the soil, and therefore diminishes the crop yield. It also interferes with photosynthesis-the effect of sun on the leaves of the crops-and thereby affects the reproduction of those plants and certainly the quality of the plants. I am also concerned about nutrition, and I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) is very concerned about it.
Is the Minister of the Environment receiving input from the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) about productivity and the security of our food supply in 12 or 15 years? I think this is one of the most important problems facing us.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the hon. member for his question. Last week the hon. member for Brant raised privately with me the potential problem that may arise from the development of the tar sands. I instructed my department over the weekend to see what reports are available at present and to concentrate on the potential problem, especially in view of the fact that the scientific report released one week ago today indicated, I think with some considerable clarity, that the acid rain problem is not just with lakes and the depletion of fish and higher forms of life, but is affecting the soil.
I might also say to hon. members that some of the opposition in the United States to doing anything about the cleanup and I am not suggesting there has not been some opposition here as well-has been because that part of the United States most obviously affected, the Adirondack area, is a relatively small part of that country geographically. If the scientific evidence is clear that the agricultural sections of the United States are also being hit, it will make it much easier politically for governments to act.
October 22, 1979


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker,
1 would like to congratulate the minister on his statement and also the former minister for bringing this whole thing to light and terming the problem a real "time bomb". The minister is going to have considerable difficulty within his own party given the predilection to the strong private sector, and also to supporting the provinces.
Certainly there has been a new dimension to the whole problem with the Canada-U.S. biological group. The Ontario Great Lakes Advisory Board statement in July indicated that the province of Ontario was responsible for half of the acid rain itself; it was not just an American problem. In northern Ontario we are particularly concerned because the shield area does not have built into it-


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


Paul Edmund McRae: -the kind of protection that some other areas with limestone might have. Therefore, the acid is not as easily neutralized.
I would like to mention to the minister a new coal-fired hydro plant being put up in Atikokan, very close to the U.S. border. In Minnesota I understand there are 39 of these plants which are spilling forth sulphur dioxide. It seems there has been an agreement at this point not to add scrubbers to this plant. This is a brand new plant which will not go into operation for two or three years, so there is still plenty of time to get the scrubbers.
I ask my question partly on behalf of Atikokan and partly because 1 think it has a bearing on where I think we are going in the future. As I understand it, the scrubbers cost approximately $3 million to $4 million for a $1 billion operation; in other words, about .3 per cent to .4 per cent of the total operating cost.
Will the minister be providing some funding and assistance to these new plants so that he can insist that the scrubbers, which will remove the sulphur dioxide and therefore remove the potential sulphuric acid from lakes, will be installed? I want him to bear in mind that this is a great fishing area-


Walter David Baker: Put a question, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put his question.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, briefly the federal government has not yet decided in what way and to what extent any government aid should be given to industry in order to encourage the clean-up. Those are matters that are being discussed. The whole economics of the clean-up control program is being discussed now. We hope to have a report in the spring, as 1 said in my statement. It is not an option that is being set aside, it is just that a decision has not been made in that respect.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, as a former minister who has a few scars to show in dealing
Acid Rain
with the provinces on these matters, will the minister, if necessary, come back to this Parliament for authority to proceed if he finds that provinces, possibly hiding behind international negotiations, are not willing to face the issue? If my memory is correct, a good percentage of the deposits, around 40 per cent to 50 per cent, are from Canadian sources, and that we do not need to use international agreements, which are difficult.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) is right when he underlined that some new plants in Canada are not being equipped properly. Will the minister forget this fetish that his Prime Minister has to constantly get agreement with the provinces, but in fact act, if he has to act alone?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to tell hon. members that unless I have evidence that the provinces are not prepared to co-operate, 1 do not intend to use the constitutional power of the federal government at this time.
I have indicated that we have the constitutional power to act unilaterally. It would require additional legislation in this House which does not presently exist, but the constitutional power does exist. 1 have made it very clear to our American colleagues that Canada does have the constitutional power to act, and will act. However, until 1 am persuaded-and I am not persuaded today by any means that the provinces will not co-operate-1 intend to move in co-operation with the provinces.
There has been some comment about the minister of the environment for the province of Ontario, Dr. Parrott. Not only has he made a commitment to me but he has also made a public commitment that Ontario will apply, and apply stringently, those standards required by any international agreement that we are able to put into place with the United States.
I think it is important, and I say this to all hon. members, that no increase in total emissions take place. No increase can be guaranteed by the provinces if they do not issue permits for an increase. It does not even require any immediate cost of pollution abatement equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 advise hon. members who have been seeking the floor up to this point that I should conclude questioning with the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question based upon what the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) asked the minister relative to the cost of scrubbing operations and cleaning up sulphur dioxide emissions from plants that are burning coal, and so on. I would not want to contradict him, but it seems to me he is inaccurate. 1 would be interested in getting the latest information that is available to the minister. I realize that it is extremely tricky in that there are a lot of disagreements, but certainly as guidelines to our decision in the House it will be very important. Therefore, I ask the minister to provide that data or any other data relative to specific areas that are compiled by his department.

October 22, 1979
Order Paper Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I would advise all members of the House that the data available to me and my department can be obtained. I ask hon. members to please put a request in to me directly and I will try to arrange for it to be dealt with as quickly as possible.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in light of reported accounts in "Scientific American" of the significant role of Inco Limited's Sudbury operations as the largest single source of sulphur pollution-approximately 1 per cent of the world's annual emissions-and because of the significant effect of acid rain on fish and forest products, could the minister undertake immediately to study the effect of the Sudbury operation?
Also, could the minister undertake to do a similar study of Inco's Thompson operation, especially in view, first, of the importance of fishing and forest operations in northern regions; and second, research in this area, where the Thompson operation is more isolated, would be much better to prove a cause and effect relationship between sulphur emissions, the resultant acid rain, and the result of this pollution on fish and forest products.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all emission sources are being studied.
As the hon. member will remember, 1 said in my statement that I am planning to meet with the chief executive officers of companies with the most serious emission sources in Canada, which include the particular company the hon. member mentioned, and others.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills. In respect to the introduction of bills, members are aware that there are a number of private members' public bills on today's order paper for the usual introduction that we give to all private members' public bills in this way. However, I understand that there has been consensus that this process be deferred until Wednesday of this week. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


David Edward Crombie: that Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure indeed that I rise on second reading of this bill in the House. The amendments to the Old Age Security Act contained in this bill fulfil a clear commitment made by the members on this side during the last election.
There are two parts to the bill. Both deal with the removal of certain provisions contained in the Old Age Security Act which were the source of financial hardship and despair to people affected by it.
The first and broadest amendment deals with the spouse's allowance program. This bill will remove the provision whereby the allowance is cut off six months after the pensioner spouse dies. Up to now the spouse's allowance program has led financially dependent persons into a false sense of security on the basis of income received under the program. Then, at a time when their personal bereavement is still fresh, and their financial prospects have, if anything, dimmed, the financial rug was pulled out from under them.
I am proud to say that this government will no longer tolerate this situation. Within this bill is contained an amendment which will ensure that a person receiving the spouse's allowance will never again have to worry about losing it simply because the older pensioner spouse has passed away. As long as he or she continues to be in need, the continued protection of the spouse's allowance program will be assured.
There is another part to this bill. It is not nearly so significant as the spouse's allowance amendment in terms of the number of persons involved, but in its own way it is also very important. I am referring, of course, to the removal of the provision whereby old age security benefits are suspended if the recipient is sentenced to prison for a term of over 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that the government will be inviting a parliamentary committee to review the retirement income needs of Canadians in the 1980s. This announcement reflects the fact that this government regards the pensions as a priority area.

October 22, 1979

I want at this time to review in brief some of the issues which have led us to look at pensions in this light. First of all, 1 want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, this House and all Canadians that this government, while it will be seeking efficiency and economy in government, will nevertheless have a strong interest in the social policy sector. In particular, we want to alleviate the situation of low-income Canadians, and our senior citizens certainly have more than their share of persons in the lower income levels. Broadly speaking, we are after a pension system that provides adequate income protection and fair treatment to all.
More specifically, the issues include the difficult situation faced by many old age pensioners; second, the level of protection provided to women by the pension system; third, the performance of the private sector in the pension system; fourth, the introduction of greater flexibility in the age of retirement; fifth, the position of the disabled and the handicapped in the pension system; finally, the protection offered the families of deceased persons, and, for all of these, the maintenance of the purchasing power of benefits paid out.
In reviewing these issues, we will not be starting without some background. We will be drawing upon the numerous pension studies and reports conducted at all levels of society in the last several years. We will be consolidating this information and adding to it from extensive consultation with people in general, with the pension industry, with provincial governments and with special interest groups.
We are all well aware of the review that has been going on for the past three years. That was an interdepartmental study carried out largely by officials under the last government. We in this new government recognize the value of that study as a major background piece of work that has been done, and we will take whatever advantage there is in it although we will not be bound by it.
There are other groups in the pension field to whose work we will be referring, such as the "COFIRENTES" report from the province of Quebec, the Ontario royal commission, the Economic Council of Canada and the Senate committee on retirement age. The federal and provincial ministers of finance have also been sponsoring a study by their governments during the past few years of the funding of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. "Canada at the Pension Crossroads" by the Research Foundation of Financial Executives Institute and "Pensions and Survival" by Geoffrey Calvert are just two of the studies conducted in the private sector.
I want to stress in discussing the process which I am describing that this government will be looking at the pension sector with a fresh perspective. If this review should reveal that a major overhaul of the pension system is necessary to create an effective, fair and efficient structure, then we will be free to develop and carry out such an overhaul.
Nor is this process going to be strictly related to the bureaucracy or even the government alone. In keeping with the open government policies of this side of the House, we want to involve Parliament in the process through the participation of a parliamentary committee. The members of this committee
Old Age Security
will be able to reach out to Canadians on particular issues in the pension field and obtain and evaluate views from every part of the land and from very broad terms of reference.
Great emphasis will be placed upon consultation and cooperation with the provinces and the private sector. By this means we will be able to seek joint solutions which we can all accept as being the best avenues for meeting the future pension needs of Canadians.
In this context, let me refer again to the specific provisions before us. While this bill may represent a small step, it is an important one for those who will benefit from it, and it is important also to demonstrate this government's concerns for the pension sector in general, and for the problems faced by Canadian women in particular. I look upon this bill as an expression of good faith by this government that what can be done quickly will be done.
When I speak of continued spouse's allowance protection, I do not just mean the continuation of the same amount of benefit payable before. It is significant that over 85 per cent of our spouse's allowance recipients receive less than maximum benefits because they or their spouse have some income aside from old age security benefits. For most of these couples the income received is money coming to the older pensioner spouse, money which will drop dramatically or cease altogether if the older spouse dies. Clearly, it is unrealistic and unjust to continue to pay the same amount of allowance after the spouse's death when we know the allowance recipient's other income has considerably dropped.
For this reason, the spouse's allowance for widowed recipients will not only be extended but will also be recalculated on the basis of the personal income of the surviving spouse-the actual income which he or she has available to meet daily living expenses. The extended allowance will continue to be paid until the beneficiary reaches age 65-when the regular old age security pension is available-or until he or she remarries or dies.
I expect that some 2,200 allowance recipients will receive extended benefits in 1980-81 as a result of these provisions. The cost will be about $4.3 million in that fiscal year or some 2.7 per cent of the total cost of the spouses' allowance program.
This provision will go far in ensuring some financial security for a very vulnerable segment of our society, the newly bereaved, near aged widow. The vast majority of our spouse's allowance recipients are women, many of whom have been out of the paid labour force for years, and others who never sought paid employment. At the age of 60-plus it is clearly unreasonable to assume that they would be able to go out and fully sustain themselves on the labour market.
If I may refer now to the provision which will end the suspension of the OAS benefits for prisoners, this is also an improvement of some significance. 1 might point out that when an OAS pensioner has the pension suspended, any allowance paid to that pensioner's spouse must also be suspended.

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
This is a problem which has been raised by many in this House but in particular I would like to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) for her strong stand on the matter during the last session.
This provision has, over the course of years, proven both difficult and unfair. When OAS pensioners are imprisoned and their benefits are subject to suspension, any delay in effecting the suspension can result in overpayments which must be collected when the pension is released. Even if there is no overpayment, the lack of benefits during imprisonment can mean that these people are released with little money at an advanced age and few prospects for making a living.
There are fewer than 100 persons affected by this provision in any given year. The cost of maintaining payment of their OAS benefits is a small fraction of a per cent of program costs. However, if even one prisoner is able to find a better life as a result of this change, and one prisoner's spouse is not deprived of her allowance, it will be well worth the effort.
In conclusion, I look upon this bill as a first step which this government intends to take, while considering other possibilities for achieving an improved pension system in this country. I invite the support of all members of this House for this particular step, to improve the humanity of a program now in place, and for the broader examination which we hope to carry out, in co-operation with provincial governments and the private sector, to ensure that we have the best possible pension system that we can afford to provide retirement protection for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister would accept a question on his statement.


David Edward Crombie: I would be pleased to, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: I just want to know if the minister could explain whether the provisions of the bill contain any retroactivity for those spouses under the provisions of the bill.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not sure whether that should be done in committee, not being familiar with the procedure. Let me suggest that the only retroactivity in the bill relates to the six months they may have already got with the extension which was passed in the last session.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating the new minister on the presentation of his first legislation in this House. I express the hope that this will be the first of many. Meanwhile, I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) will clarify the minister's mandate. We on this side keep hearing about ministers responsible for the social policy envelope. There is now to be a super minister of social development. We hope very much that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie), who is responsible for a very major slice of the budget voted by this Parliament, will occupy a very senior position and be heard by his colleagues.

I may say that if the new minister has a slight nervousness, this is shared by his critic. The other day the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) commented on the fact I had moved into a new field. I must confess that the more I read about this field, the more I think it would have been wiser to stay with fisheries and oceans for a while yet. Be that as it may, I am gratified that I have the support and share the co-chairmanship with my colleague, the former minister of national health and welfare, the hon. member for Saint-Leon-ard-Anjou (Miss Begin). She brought, as did her predecessor, the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde), a level of awareness and discussion on social policy matters which I hope to rival.
I might also say that physically located in the House on my left is the formidable veteran for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), an expert to whom we will listen very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, first I must say that we have very few reservations concerning Bill C-6, which will help an important group of our population. At the committee stage, we will put some questions of detail and make some suggestions and I am sure that a number of my colleagues in the House will want to voice their opinion. The fact is that this bill, as the minister admitted himself, is only a first step. It is a modest effort to better the situation of some 2,400 Canadians, according to the figures I saw. However, there is no doubt that this bill will leave many Canadians between 60 and 65 years of age with the impression that they are not treated fairly.

When this legislation was introduced by this party while in office, it was made clear that this spouse's allowance bill was to be seen in the context of a guaranteed annual income program. This in fact was a first step toward this goal. When he was minister of national health and welfare in 1975, the hon. member for Outremont undertook a massive series of consultations with the provinces to achieve this end. Two provinces, Ontario and Alberta, both with Tory provincial governments, prevented the establishment of the basic guaranteed income plan.
It is not without interest that I found in the clippings a quote in the Calgary Herald of December 22, 1977 by the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister. The last sentence reads:
So our present plan is certainly not to proceed with a guaranteed annual income program or even to propose one.
There is no doubt that the unfair features of this program would have been and could still be corrected by an enlightened approach in the area of guaranteed income. It is still the basic position of this party that a guaranteed income plan or a plan using the approach of negative income tax is highly desirable. As was the case in medicare, slow progress should not mean that we abandoned the goal we want to reach.
The first group in this country which has a form of guaranteed income are senior citizens over 65 years who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement. The next obvious
October 22, 1979

group are those between 60 and 65, especially women, whose earnings power and training and educational opportunities are often limited. This is the group with which we should now be concerned.
It is important to remember that the citizens who are now in their early sixties were the teenagers of the depression, a time when educational opportunities outside the cities were meager, if existent at all, when training for women was extremely limited and often those young people who did not serve in the forces, which was the majority, went into jobs which became obsolete and where opportunities for advancement, for such things as private pensions, and so on, were almost unheard of.
These workers were the sons of the marginal farmers in depressed fishing villages, the sons of unskilled workers in our cities. At present they number approximately one million and, according to the statistics 1 have seen, almost 50 per cent of them would require some assistance under an income tested benefit plan.
The government today introduced a bill which would distribute some $4 million to approximately 2,400 Canadians. It is a small step and we hope the minister will come forward with more measures. We hope he will have access to more funds. In fact, he has contributed to his own argument in an article of July 14, 1979 in the Ottawa Journal when he said:
I'm opposed to any plot to dimish the amount spent on the social well-being of citizens.
Spending on health and welfare is not swollen beyond its rightful place.
To which we say, "hear, hear" to the minister. We hope he will pass that clipping around to some of his colleagues. Not only will we support the minister when he brings forward new plans, but we will support him when some of the social programs will be under attack, as they have already been, by some who would sacrifice them on the altar of Tory dogma. In fact, it may be that the minister will want to look to this side for support, and he will have that support when the time comes to arrest the efforts at mutilating some of the social programs, in particular medicare, child credit, family allowances and old age pensions.
After years of effort by successive governments-and Liberal ones have been in office during the passage of most of these major pieces of legislation-there are still, in spite of all these efforts, thousands of people in Canada who live under the poverty line, whatever definition or yardstick is used.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare brings forth legislation such as Bill C-6, we will support him, even if we do not feel that it goes far enough. As I said earlier, some of my colleagues will suggest some improvement, some changes, that the minister might want to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this brief statement, my first as critic of social affairs, with a quotation from the great writer and philosopher Georges Bernanos who wrote admirably on world poverty, at a time when it was even worse
Old Age Security
than it is now. When somebody came to him with the following objection: "But you forget, sir, that the poor will always be with us", he answered simply: "Yes, alas, they will always be. But the question is to know who will choose them".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my remarks today by extending my congratulations to the minister not only on introducing this, his first piece of legislation, but on his being invited by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to take charge of one of the most important departments in the federal government, the Department of National Health and Welfare. At this point I want also to welcome my friend, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), to this very important field. I look forward to his assistance on social matters along the lines he has already indicated in his remarks today.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare described this bill very well when he said it was a small step. Sir, we shall support Bill C-6 although we shall try to have it amended in committee in one or two respects. However, even if we do not get those amendments, we shall support the bill as it is a step in the right direction, as has been said. It does something for about 180 persons a month, and anything that does something for six persons a day is worth taking the time of Parliament to pass.
However, even with all the good will 1 feel toward the minister because he is in this important department and is trying hard, I simply cannot let him get away with the notion that he is doing something wonderful in the bill he has brought forward today. It is so small a step that he must really have been embarrassed in putting it forward.
In a moment I shall explain why I am critical of the government's going only this far, but before I do so I want to say that 1 welcomed the minister's use of a certain phrase when he was talking about improvements in our pensions and social legislation. 1 think his words were: "We want to keep alive the humanity of a program already in place." That is true. In spite of all the faults and shortcomings there might be in the Old Age Security Act, in the Canada Pension Plan, the family allowance program, the unemployment insurance program, and all the rest, we have, in the course of 40 years or 50 years, built a certain amount of humanity into our social programs; and what is most important is that we have made them programs which are such that people do not feel a stigma when they receive the benefits.
I know that, perhaps more often than is comfortable, I have spoken about the days which I remember when a person who was receiving an old age pension preferred to keep quiet about it. There was attached to it a means test as long as your arm and it was somewhat of a stigma to be on the old age pension. But from the day we established the principle of universality, from the day when the right hon. Louis St. Laurent said that even though he did not need it he would go along with universality in taking the pension, it became a mark of honour.

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
We extended this into a good deal of our legislation. In some cases we have developed a double-barreled proposition such as in old age security where the basic amount is universal and the guaranteed income supplement is on a needs test basis. I have had a lot to say about this that is critical, but the fact of the matter is that we have established so much humanity and dignity about old age pensions that Canadians feel a lot happier getting old age security and the guaranteed income supplement than they would if they were getting a form of provincial or municipal welfare. The same is true about the spouse's allowance. It is a form of welfare, but those who get it are getting something that comes from the Department of National Health and Welfare, something which, even though it is not called an old age pension, is related to that pension.
I am trying to impress upon the minister that the words he used when he spoke about the humanity of a program that is already in place were very significant, and I hope he will stand on guard in these studies about our pension programs against those who would destroy or take away the basic element of that humanity, namely, the degree of universality which we have now achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was happy to hear the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent talk about our social programs, and I do not mind his making the reference which is made so often, that the Liberals were in power when most of these bills were brought in. Yes, the Liberals were in power, but some of us were over here all the time, prodding whatever government was over there.
So I welcome the statement that the minister made today about the study, about their concern and about the various problems that need to be considered and, as someone said today about another minister, I am sure his heart is in the right place. However, I hope he will realize that his allies in respect of a good pension program and a good social program are not necessarily those behind him who keep calling for free enterprise, that they are not in the business community that fights against higher pensions and indexation. Some of his best allies are over on this side of the House. He will have our support if he tries to maintain a social program on the basis of the humanity to which he has referred.
Now let me come to what this bill does. The minister left, until the second part of his speech, the part which affects only a few, namely, the change regarding those who are imprisoned. As he said, it affects only 100 persons a year. But I suspect in terms of spouses that it affects very few-half a dozen or a dozen-in the course of a year where the spouse at home is cut off from her spouse's allowance because the old man did something he should not have done and landed in jail. It was inhuman that this situation was there, and I am glad it is being corrected.
The major thing this bill does is to make a change with respect to the position of the spouse in the 60 to 65 age bracket

when the older spouse dies. I know this bill works both ways. The spouse in the 60 to 65 age bracket can be the husband and the older spouse can be the wife, but in 90 per cent or more of the cases it is the other way around. So we are talking about a program which is concerned mainly about women.
The other day when I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) when we would get some legislation implementing our ideas about treating women as persons, he referred to Bill C-6 which was to be brought in today as evidence of the concern of this government for the women of the country. This bill has not moved one inch from the concept which the Privy Council had to reverse 50 years ago. So far as this bill is concerned, women are not yet persons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Women in the 60 to 65 age bracket get a pension or an allowance not because they are persons, not because they are in need. They get a pension on the basis of being able to answer the question: "Have you got a man? Dead or alive, have you got a man?" If they do not have a man, dead or alive, by definition of the bill they do not qualify. But this is being brought in by a government which told us on Persons Day last week that this was to help women.
Let us go back and talk about this legislation. It was first proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) in the election campaign of 1974. I remember it very well. I remember being at home that night and hearing on television that he was going to bring in a spouse's allowance which would provide a pension to the younger spouse where the older spouse was over 65 and had a pension. I heard him say on the night he announced it that it would, of course, create some problems, but that it was a step.
Certainly it has created problems. When it was brought in in 1975, coming in effect that fall, it provided that where the spouse between 60 and 65 was married to and living with an older spouse who was on the pension, the younger spouse gets the spouse's allowance, and that it can be in total the equivalent amount of the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. But the provision of course was that if the older spouse died, then the allowance of the younger spouse was cut off at that very moment. That was corrected earlier this year, when the Liberals were still in power, by extending the allowance six months. Of course, at that time the Tories said, "Why not extend it to age 65?" That is what the government is now doing.
None of these arrangements-the first one, the one for the continuation of six months or the one which now provides for the allowance to be continued to age 65-does anything about the fact that they do not do a thing for a woman between 60 and 65 who is a spinster. Is she not a person just as much as the woman who has a husband, or the widow of a husband who died within the last six months? The bill does not do a thing for the hundreds of widows in the country who were widows before they reached the age of 60. If a woman's husband dies the day the woman is 59 years, 11 months and 29 days old, she does not qualify. She only qualifies if she gets over that point
October 22, 1979

before the husband dies, and only if she can pass the means and needs tests and gets family allowance.
I could talk about the other side of it. The same is true for bachelors and widowers who are left. But statistics show that that is not the problem. The problem is the position of women. Recently we had the report from the National Council of Welfare which underlined how serious the income problem is for older women. When I raised this with the previous minister of national health and welfare, she and her predecessor used to say, "What about those between 55 and 60?" Yes, 1 think they need help too, and I feel very strongly about that. But in this legislation we are talking about a particular age bracket, 60 to 65. In that age bracket we say to women, "You will get help not because you are a woman, not because you are a person, not because you are in need, but on the basis of marital status". It was wrong in its conception in the first place. It should never have been brought in in those terms. Although this fixes it up for 180 persons a month, it does not do away with the fact that all those others out there are not going to get it at all. My answer to this has been made many times and I say it again: We should really have a pension available between 60 and 65 to all persons who are out of the labour market.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the applause for that position, but I note that it is coming from my own colleagues, not from the rest of the House. Much as I feel that that is what it should be,
I could be persuaded into accepting, as a beginning, a pension in the 60 to 65 age bracket to all persons in need. I am a lifelong fighter against means tests and needs tests, but 1 would accept a needs test a thousand times over a marital test. This is inhuman, this is degrading, and this is as antiquated as the Supreme Court decision back in the twenties before the Privy Council turned it over.
I think the minister should really go to work on this. He should not wait until he is able to revise the entire pension program. He should concentrate on the area between 60 and 65. For those over 65 at least we have our universal program, the supplement, health services, senior citizen housing and so on. Things are not rosy for those over 65, but they are a lot better than they were when we started fighting for these things a half century ago. But in the 60 to 65 bracket the position of women is really quite intolerable, and this bill does not touch it. It touches it for 2,200 people. I thought it was 2,400, but 1 accept the minister's statement that it would touch 2,200 people a year. That is 180 persons a month, or six persons a day.
The fact of the matter is that every day in this country six women in the 60 to 65 age bracket who are on the allowance become widows. They are taken care of by this legislation, but all the spinsters in that bracket, all the women who were widowed before they reached 60, or under this bill widowed six months before this bill passes, are not covered at all. Tell us this is a small step, tell us we must vote for it. Of course we
Old Age Security
will, but the minister should not stand up and brag, in light of what he is leaving undone by this bill.
A moment ago I referred to the six-month provision. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) asked an appropriate question just as the minister sat down. I hope something will be done about that when we get into committee.
The bill provides that its terms shall be effective, after it has royal assent, for those who become widows after it has had royal assent or for those who became widows not more than six months before the date of royal assent. That means that if we have passed this bill by the end of October, persons who became widows at the end of April will qualify, but those who became widows in the middle of April do not qualify. If the government switches to the borrowing authority tomorrow, then goes on to the tax bills and does not bring this bill back until some time in November, then those who became widows in the first part of May will not qualify.
That is really a form of blackmail against this House. We were into the bit last session when that six-month clause was being added. Perhaps I was doing some of the blackmailing. I was insisting that the Tories should let that go through because every day we delayed meant another six or seven did not get it. I blamed the Senate for delaying it a day or two as well. Surely that can be fixed up. Surely we can provide that any woman, any person if you want-as I say, the number of men affected in that lower age bracket is not great-who has been on spouse's allowance at all since the program began, and who is still under 65, should have it reinstated under the provisions of this bill. It started in 1974 so we cannot go back all the way, but let us not leave out any widows not yet 65.
I move on to say that I like the minister's four-thirds provision, which is such that the widow who survives will get not just the same amount, the half that she was getting before, but would get an amount based on her income. Surely when the government is doing this it is unthinkable to leave that provision there, because the widows of today whose husbands died five or six months ago will be looking at Parliament and asking how long it is going to take to get this through. There is a deadline in there that is really most unfair and most unkind. I know this, that if the government does that and makes it available to all those who have been on the allowance, I will still be pointing out how unfair that is to all the other widows, and to all spinsters or bachelors, if you like. As long as you have this marital provision in this legislation you are in effect saying that these people do not get their rights, do not get their benefits, because they are persons; they get it on the basis of a marital test, and that just does not make any sense in this day and age at all. I hope that much of the bill will be corrected.
As I say, even if we win that-and we will be glad that we won that little bit so that the number helped will not just be 2,200 in a year but might be a few more-that still does not get away from the fact that we have not yet really done

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
anything about the general need for income maintenance that applies in the 60 to 65 age bracket.
1 note that the draw the other day in respect of private members notices of motions was a fairly good one for me. 1 believe my pension motion is number six, so it will not be very long until we get to that. This is not a new motion. It has been there right along. The only difference is that 1 keep raising the figure as to what the basic old age pension ought to be. This means that when we do get to it I will have an opportunity in another debate to talk about the needs of our older people as a whole.
The minister took some time today to refer to these other matters. I believe the basic amount of old age security must be increased. I believe we have to do something about indexing. 1 was pleased to note, that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) was agreeing outside the House to something I had asked for, namely, a special cost of living index for senior citizens. That formula by which it is always five to eight months behind is not only unfair, it denies all of the modern capacities we have with computers to work things out. You know, Mr. Speaker, it would not take long to devise an index that would give people a pension based on the cost of living in the month they get the cheque instead of a pension based on the cost of living of five to eight months ago.
The Canada Pension Plan needs to be improved in a number of respects. One of the most important respects, and I think it is appropriate for me to speak to it today because supposedly we are talking about women, is the position of women in the home. I know all of the arguments about the Canada Pension Plan being an earnings related pension plan. I was in on the work that led up to the plan and had a good deal to do with the passage of that bill. I accept the basic principle that it is an earnings related plan, but there is no reason in the world why there could not be an equivalent to the Canada Pension Plan for housewives working in the home.
Let me refer back again to last week; women are persons. We decided that 50 years ago, or the Privy Council decided it for us when our own Supreme Court could not see it that way. However, in terms of pension rights the woman who goes out and works in industry, works in the office or works outside the home has certain pension rights which do not apply at all to the woman who does a terribly important piece of work in this country, staying at home raising a family and so on. There are some, of course, who do both.
I noticed with interest that my friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has a motion on the order paper which is fairly high on the list calling for pension rights for women who remain in the home. The other day when we discussed persons and so on, the Prime Minister expressed the hope that it would not take us another 50 years to move as far as we have moved in these last 50 years. A good deal of that rests on the shoulders of this very minister. It is on the shoulders of some other ministers as well. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) has a few reforms he must make. The President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the Public Service Superannuation Act which needs some

reforms as well. The Minister of National Defence has to do with the pensions of retired armed forces persons, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) has to do with the pensions of retired members of the RCMP. There is the whole question of what happens to railway pensions and private pensions, but the lead in all of these things has been taken by this department.
Mind you, the old age pension got started in the first place before there was any Department of National Health and Welfare, but that helped to bring on the department and since then the lead in terms of pension humanity, to use the minister's word, has come from the Department of National Health and Welfare. 1 refer to lowering the age, getting rid of the means test, expanding the amount and all these other things our people need. I hope this minister will really get to work on this.
I like the idea of further studies. I have been through a good many of them, and most of the ideas are really there. I do not like the talk about "in the eighties". I know it will be 1980 in two or three months, but "the eighties", that is a decade; that is ten years down the road. Many of these people we are concerned about will not be living then. Some of us intend to go a lot longer than that, but many of them will not be here.
There are some things, such as the indexing bringing it up to date and making it fit the costs the old age pensioners have to meet, covering women for their services in the home and dealing with the problems of widows and veterans and so on, that require attention, and these are things in respect of which action could be taken soon. I hope the minister will get to work on them without delay.
Rather than take the floor again at eight o'clock I shall conclude my remarks now by saying again that I am pleased the minister is in this spot. As I look over the crowd on that side of the House I believe he has probably got as much of a heart as any of them over there. There are many on that side who go the other way, on the basis of the speeches they made last week. I am glad the minister has some changes in mind and I hope he realizes that the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) and 1 are really supporting him, really backing him up when we say we will surely vote for this bill. But it is such a small step he should not expect us to continue to sing the minister's praises until he deals with these other issues. In terms of what we are talking about today, let us do something fast to treat women in terms of pensions as though they are really persons and not just individuals who get their pensions, in many instances only because of their attachment to a man. Surely that day has gone.
October 22, 1979



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation- Mortgage insurance underwriting practices; the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Combines Investigation Act- Difficulty in obtaining newsprint-Request for minister's intervention; the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Immigration-Government policy respecting future immigration.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
It is my understanding that motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) will stand by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 2. The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) moved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:



AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN CANADA OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the reading of the three remaining pages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Constitutional Amendment


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling this motion is extremely important, and although long, it should be read before the House. In fact, we cannot do otherwise unless there is unanimous consent. That is what you have asked; however, those are things that must be discussed between us at some point. We are getting more and more aggressive because of a very serious situation. If we cannot achieve good mutual understanding, we are going to live hard times. That being so, I accept that you be spared from reading the motion, but you should take good notice of what I have just said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In short, when I suggested that the motion not be read, that was simply a suggestion. As for me, I would not object to reading it in English and in French. That would probably have taken a good part of the hour at hon. members' disposal. Just because one feels one's rights may have been infringed on does not mean one should perhaps infringe on other people's rights.

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moves:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that You may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:



[Stage Direction]
Whereas the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of each and every province of Canada have requested, and consented to, the enactment of an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the terms hereinafter set forth, and the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted Addresses to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Subject to this part, the Parliament of Canada may make laws repealing, amending or re-enacting any provision of the Constitution of Canada.
2.	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of this act or section 51A of the British North America Act, 1867, or affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to
(a)	the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws,
(b)	the rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the legislature or the government of a province,
(c)	the assets or property of a province, or
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1979
Constitutional Amendment
(d)	the use of the English or French language, shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces.
3.	(1) No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada that refers to one or more, but not all, of the provinces, shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislature of every province to which the provision refers.
(2) Section 2 of this act does not extend to any provision of the Constitution of Canada referred to in subsection (1) of this section.
4.	(1) No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education in any province other than Newfoundland shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces other than Newfoundland.
(2)	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education in the province of Newfoundland shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland.
(3)	Sections 2 and 3 of this act do not extend to any provision of the Constitution of Canada referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
5.	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada, not coming within sections 2, 3 or 4 of this act, shall come into force if such law in rejected by any combination of provincial legislatures representative of not less than 20 per cent of the population of Canada (according to the latest census) within a period of 24 months after its passage by the Parliament of Canada.
6.	Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution of Canada, the Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive Government of Canada, and the Senate and House of Commons, except as regards
(a)	the functions of the Queen and the Governor General in relation to the Parliament or Government of Canada;
(b)	the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting a yearly session of Parliament;
(c)	the maximum period Fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons, except that the Parliament of Canada may, in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, continue a House of Commons beyond such maximum period, if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such House;
(d)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate;
(e)	the residence qualifications of senators and the requirements of the Constitution of Canada for the summoning of persons to the Senate by the Governor General in the Queen's name;
(/) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province;
(g)	the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and
(h)	the use of the English or French language.
7.	(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution of Canada, in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant-Governor.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, no province, through the passage of an act of its legislature, shall partially, or totally, secede from the federation of Canada unless such act of the province is approved by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of each and every province of Canada.
8.	Any law to repeal, amend or re-enact any provision of the Constitution of Canada that is not authorized to be made either by the Parliament of Canada under the authority of section 6 of this Act or by the legislature of a province under the authority of section 7 of this act is subject to the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this act.
9.	Nothing in this part diminishes any power of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislature of a province, existing at the coming into force of this act, to make laws in relation to any matter.

10.	Notwithstanding any conditions contained within sections 1 to 9 inclusive, the people of Canada, acting in consort, can petition the Parliament of Canada to hold a national referendum on any constitutional matter. Such a petition must be signed by no less than 5 per cent of the voting population of Canada and be validated and accepted by the federal government.
On the receipt of such validated petition, the Parliament of Canada shall, before the lapsing of two full years from the date of receipt of the validated petition, hold a national referendum on the substance of the petition and shall enact into law the substance of the petition if such petition receives a 75 per cent plurality of all votes in Canada and no less than a 50 per cent plurality of all votes in each and every province of Canada.
11.	No act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the coming into force of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to Canada or to any province or territory of Canada as part of the law thereof.
12.	Notwithstanding the substance, rights or prohibitions, stated or implied, of the Constitution of Canada as revised, this act recognizes that Canada is a multicultural nation composed primarily of two linguistic solitudes, namely English and French. Furthermore, this act acknowledges the inherent right of self-determination of each of these solitudes respectively and that each shall have the inherent right through legal and peaceful means to secede each from the other if so desired and duly and legally expressed through a referendum supported in a near unanimous fashion by the people of the solitude seeking separation.
Furthermore, that such separation, if and when decided upon by the solitude seeking separation, shall occur not along established provincial territorial boundaries but along such contiguous territorial boundaries that are duly and legally negotiated between the two solitudes but which fully respect the rights of large minorities and their expressed option to remain with the solitude of their choice.
13.	Without limiting the meaning of the expression "Constitution of Canada" in this part that expression includes the following enactments and any order, rule or regulation thereunder, namely,
(a)	the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964;
(b)	the Manitoba act, 1870;
(c)	the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875;
(d)	the Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, Session 2;
(e)	the Alberta act;
(0 the Saskatchewan act;
(g)	the Statute of Westminster, 1931, in so far as it is part of the law of Canada; and
(h)	this act.


[Stage Direction]
14.	Class 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act, 1867, as enacted by the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, and class 1 of section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, are repealed.


[Stage Direction]
15.	The French version of this act set forth in the Schedule shall form part of this act.


[Stage Direction]
16.	This act may be cited as the Constitution of Canada Amendment Act.
17.	This Act shall come into force on.day of.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I present this motion to Parliament to initiate a new round of discussion on constitutional reform and, more specifically, discussion on the major first step of this process which is agreement on an amending formula followed
October 22, 1979
[Stage Direction]
by patriation. I trust that in the next round of discussion more debate will occur in the legislatures of this country. This process of constitutional patriation and finding agreement on an amending formula, though almost entirely the preserve of conferences by the first ministers and their subordinates, should begin to move directly into the legislatures and into this Canadian Parliament. Constitutional discussion and decisionmaking has to transcend what has become known as executive federalism.
First of all, I wish to commend the mammoth efforts of the former prime minister and now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) for his initiatives and dedication to constitutional renewal and reform. Indeed, all of the past efforts at constitutional renewal are commendable even in their failure. Though the intent of the previous government was commendable, the comprehensive, two-stage approach of total constitutional renewal proved to be too complex and too encompassing for even the most elementary agreement. It did, however, confirm the former approach of patriation with amending formula, followed by a stepwise renewal. Such an approach was pursued through the decade of the sixties culminating in near success at the constitutional conference of October 14, 1964.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is to be commended for his wisdom in recognizing the applicability of such an approach when he reached agreement with four premiers at the Kingston conference on September 16, 1977. He said in the communique resulting from that conference:
We are all committed to the objective of bringing the constitution home, so that we can change any part of it without going through the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We are confident that a new Progressive Conservative Prime Minister at Ottawa could bring us both the new attitudes required and the necessary political co-operation among all provincial governments.
Premier Bill Davis of Ontario is recognized as a consistent and strong proponent of patriation as a paramount priority. His consistency is commendable in my estimation.
History condemns us all for failing thus far to patriate the constitution, to find an amending formula and become a whole nation in law and in fact. It was during the federal-provincial conference of 1927 that questions concerning the constitution and its amendment were first debated. The search for an actual amending formula was re-initiated and addressed under the leadership of the former prime minister, the late Right Hon. John Diefcnbaker, in the 1960s. Debates emerging from that period centred on the search for a constitutional amending formula and resulted in the Fulton-Favreau formula in 1964.
At the conclusion of the federal-provincial conference held in Charlottetown on September 1 and 2, 1964, to commemorate the centennial of the conference of the Fathers of Confederation which took place in that city in 1864, the Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the premiers issued a communique. In it, the late prime minister and premiers "affirmed their unanimous decision to conclude the repatriation of the BNA Act without delay". The communique added that they decided to complete a procedure for amending the constitution in Canada based on the draft legislation proposed at the constitutional conference of 1961
Constitutional Amendment
which they accept in principle. The attorneys general of Canada then met to complete the amending formula.
At a conference of Canadian first ministers on October 14, 1964, the first ministers unanimously agreed upon an amending formula. The communique issued by the late Prime Minister Pearson and the premiers from that conference states that when the amending procedure becomes law, all future amendments to Canada's constitution will be made in Canada instead of by the parliament of the United Kingdom. The communique added the following:
As a result our constitution will have become, for the first time in the history of Canada, truly and wholly Canadian.
The text of the bill embodying the amending procedure, "An act to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada", and unanimously approved by the then prime minister and all the premiers of Canada on October 14, 1964, has been used as the basis for the bill proposed in the motion that is before this House today-almost exactly 15 years later. As there was unanimous provincial agreement at that time, the preamble to this motion states that all provinces have requested and consented to the enactment of such a bill. However, I anticipate that there will be a lot more discussion.
Some changes, of course, were made to accord with the reality of the intervening events of the last 15 years. In particular, clauses 5, 7, 10 and 12 are new and unique. Nevertheless, the basic principles embodied in this motion now before the House may be summarized. Before I summarize the principles, however, I should like to say that there are some provinces that desire more extensive veto power and would argue that the 20 per cent in clause 5 should be reduced to, perhaps, 15 per cent or even 10 per cent. That is a debatable point.
The principles of the bill may be summarized as follows. First, the BNA Act of 1867, with modest amendments, has served this nation well and renewal should be a gradual and stepwise process.
Second, this bill, if passed, would effectively patriate the constitution to Canada and provide a formula for subsequent revision in Canada through parliamentary and legislature approval.
Third, this bill incorporates a constitutional amending formula which (a) requires the unanimous agreement of the legislatures of all provinces as well as the Parliament of Canada to amend existing provincial powers, including natural resource ownership and control and the use of the English and French languages; (b) generally permits the provinces to amend their provincial constitutions as they deem appropriate; (c) generally permits the federal government to amend the constitution on purely federal matters; (d) provides a mechanism for the people of Canada to initiate constitutional amendment; and (e) provides a formula for amending the constitution generally in all other areas, which gives some emphasis to population representation rather than just empha-
[Stage Direction]
October 22, 1979
Constitutional Amendment
sizing provincial legal entities and their equality of status within the federation.
Fourth, it establishes the requirement that no province can unilaterally secede from the federation in total or in part without the unanimous agreement of all the members of the federation.
Fifth, it recognizes the basic right to self-determination of the two linguistic solitudes, English and French, in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to discuss in depth the implications of the various principles embodied in the amending formula proposed in this motion. Permit me to state, though, that I do not think we should be deterred by the impending Quebec referendum from seeking a way to patriate the Canadian constitution with an agreed upon amending formula. I am of the opinion that Canadians of French origin wish to remain, and will remain, as partners with the rest of us in this Canadian federation, but only through their own willingness resulting from the respect, recognition and advantage they receive from partnership.
The partnership will not endure through force or coercion and the right for self-determination must never be denied but rather held as an unequivocal right within the constitution itself. All parts of this nation form a whole which is unique in history, with a potential to lead the world a century hence, coveted by peoples and governments the world over. Indeed, I was quite surprised to read article XI of the United States articles of confederation. Perhaps 1 could put that on the record, Mr. Speaker. It reads as follows:
Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.
Mr. Speaker, in closing may I say that, having been a provincial MLA, it is my intention to initiate debate on this matter in any way I possibly can in as many provincial legislatures as possible. All elected representatives in Canada must relate positively to constitutional understanding and reform. It is not the exclusive reserve of lawyers, as I have been told on several occasions.
It is also time for us as a nation to cut our apron strings, to become full masters in our own house and, indeed, to become a whole member nation in the community of world nations. It is the way of the future for a great country called Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this House on the most basic law governing this assembly.
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have to admire the courage of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) in tackling such a subject in what I believe is probably his first address in this House and, in addition to taking on the subject, for offering some new approaches to the older Fulton-Favreau formula.
I noted that he said that we all welcome the day when Canada will have a fully Canadian constitution in the sense that the process of amending, too, will be one which is wholly Canadian. I welcome that statement from the other side of the

House. I hope, however, this is not to be at any price. I hope we are not to feel that we must achieve this Canadian process of amending regardless of the content of the legislation by which it is attained. I submit that might well be a serious mistake.
There are some procedural problems with this motion. I am not going to challenge it on a procedural basis but I think I ought to mention that there are such procedural difficulties. For instance, the formula is not in the usual form for a joint address of this kind. Perhaps, more important, you will note that the words used contain a certain assumption of fact which is not true.
The address reads in part as follows:
Whereas the Parliament of Canada and the legislature of each and every province of Canada have requested, and consented to-
This is an hypothesis contrary to fact. There is no such request in this case and I doubt that there is likely to be. I am willing to go along with the hypothesis, however, and assume that this event has happened and that we are concerned with debating it. In other words, I do not want to go on debating the procedure, but would rather come to the substance. I think, however, that these points should be noted in passing.
Basically the hon. member has presented us with the Fulton-Favreau formula of 1964 with a few changes. In clause 5 he has changed the formula which is used, and rather than providing for a consent formula, he has provided for a rejection formula. Generally speaking, however, the approach is the same as in Fulton-Favreau. However, clauses 7, 10 and 12 are entirely new, as he mentioned. They are additions to the Fulton-Favreau approach. In clause 7, he provides the right of secession for any province, which may be exercised with the consent of all of the provinces and of the Parliament of Canada. In clause 10 he provides for referenda on constitutional matters, and in clause 12, which is the linguistic solitude clause, he also provides for referenda on the basis of linguistic groups.
1 am almost tempted to sit down at this point to allow maximum opportunity for those on the government side to say whether or not they agree with these proposals. It strikes me that the hon. gentleman is being brave indeed in his own ranks in proposing the right of secession. I wonder how many of his colleagues on that side agree with him. There is one member I would like to hear from on that subject whom I see smiling at me. I would mention his constituency if I could remember it. I am told by one of my colleagues it is the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
It seems to me the provision regarding referenda is directly at odds with the attitude his own government has taken with respect to the referendum bill introduced by the previous government, one which was supported by members on this side for certain kinds of purposes but not in such broad terms as is being proposed here by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).
October 22, 1979

With respect to clause 12, 1 am not sure that I expect objections to be raised by the other side, but I am certainly prepared to raise one myself. 1 do not like the phrase "two linguistic solitudes". I can only think of the word "solitude ' as implying an enclave, with a lack of communication. If that is sometimes true in Canada, it is not what we would wish to enshrine in our constitution, and surely it is not something that we would want to perpetuate. It is extraordinary that the translation into French of the words "two linguistic solitudes" uses the words "deux groupes linguistiques", which mean something entirely different. They mean two linguistic groups. It takes the sting out of "solitude" by transposing it to a neutral word. The second time the phrase is used in English, speaking about the right of self-determination of each of these solitudes, the French has "de ces deux entites" which means "of these two entities".
I do not intend to charge the hon. member with the quality of the translation. Either the linguistic facilities of the House have let him down or the assistance he has received from his colleagues has not been equal to this occasion. However, it is important to note the difference in flavour between the English and the French on this point. Since the hon. member in his speech, as I caught it, used the phrase "two linguistic solitudes", I think we are entitled to think that it is that notion he wants to get across. I do not know whether members on the other side will object to this phrase, but I profoundly object to this phrase as describing any part of the reality of Canada.
I have said that principally this motion which is before us incorporates the Fulton-Favreau formula. That formula was, it is true, as the hon. member for Edmonton East has pointed out, agreed upon by the first ministers of Canada in 1964. But that agreement was very short-lived. It was an agreement without ratification, if I may put it that way. There was no follow-up. It is very similar to what happened after the agreement at Victoria in 1971. It will be recalled that at that time, when Premier Bourassa returned home-I think he had learned from the previous experience of 1964 that he had to keep his options open and so he did not give a final answer at Victoria-he found public opinion in Quebec was so opposed to the agreement that he was not prepared subsequently to ratify it.
In 1964 the follow-up was not so clear-cut. There were opposition politicians in Quebec who campaigned so effectively against the agreement which had been reached by the first ministers that the first minister of Quebec did not dare to go forward. That is why this agreement never matured into actual constitutional change. The agreement was too temporary to allow the change to take place. Indeed, the fact that within a very few years that agreement could be replaced by the Victoria formula indicates a considerable change of heart on the part of the first ministers.
In fact, the two situations were almost identical. In effect, we had agreement by all the first ministers in Victoria on the amending formula. What we did not have agreement on was the total package. It was not the amending formula in particular that Premier Bourassa finally decided to reject. Although it
Constitutional Amendment
was in a sense the adoption of the amending formula before there had been subsequent reform of the constitution, the objection was not primarily and directly to that clause as such, as I recall it; it was to the totality of the package reached at that time.
We thus have a very similar agreement seven years later which changed, I submit for the better, the provisions of the amending formula which was agreed to in 1964. Why do 1 say that the change was for the better, Mr. Speaker? Because a large part of the rigidity which had been incorporated into the amending formula in 1964 has been removed. The Fulton-Fa-vreau formula, if it had been adopted, would have been the most restrictive amending formula of any federation in the world. In all other countries there is provision for amendment which does not require the unanimous agreement of all of the governments in the country in order to bring about a change.
In the United States there are two kinds of provisions for constitutional amendment. One is through Congress and one through popular vote. In Germany, amendments to the basic law require a two-thirds majority in both Houses, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The Lander or the states are not consulted directly but participate through their representatives in the Bundesrat. In Australia, the amending formula requires a change to be adopted by the Australian parliament and then it provides for a referendum by the people in the states-not by the governments of the states, but a reference to the people in the states.
The Fulton-Favreau formula, if one looks at it closely, would, as I have suggested, require unanimous agreement of the governments of Canada in everything that really matters in the British North America Act. Let us just look at the words as they are presented to us by the hon. member for Edmonton East. In clause 2 of the motion which is before us, the operative words are:
No law made under the authority of this part... shall come into force unless it is concurred by the legislatures of all the provinces.
It reads "all the provinces", not some, not a proportion as the Victoria formula would have required, but all the provinces. That applies to the four named categories, the first being "the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws". That is obviously section 92 of the British North America Act. It is by that section that such power is established. Section 92 is the heart of provincial power, along with section 93.
Section 93 is taken care of later in the Fulton-Favreau formula and equally restrictively, but the provisions in section 92 could not be changed without the unanimous consent of the provinces. And so on through the other categories: the rights or privileges granted or secured by the legislature or the government of a province, the assets or property of a province and the use of the English or French languages.
I can hardly argue historically that this is an Alberta amendment, but it clearly is the Alberta position in constitutional negotiations today. It is the position that Premier Lougheed has been putting forward, that there should be unanimous consent by the provinces for any constitutional amendment.

October 22, 1979
Constitutional Amendment
I believe it is based on a profoundly simplistic notion of the constitution. It is based on a belief that if only this could be written into the constitution no further changes could be made. It forgets the fact that the greatest changes in the constitution are those which have been written in by the courts-decisions by the Privy Council and by the Supreme Court.
The notion that conflict could be cured, or the constitution "frozen" as it were, by provisions of this kind ignores the dynamics of the constitution; it ignores the fact that issues arise and that powers overlap, that the power over property and civil rights which is in section 92, and thereby conferred on the provinces, conflicts with almost all the federal powers, the power over trade and commerce, for example. What a court has to do when it is confronted with a situation where either of those rights could apply is to decide which has sway or how far either should be allowed to prevail. That is not a question that can be solved by saying the constitution must not be changed. You do not have to change the constitution by a formal document if a court is going to say that in such and such a case the federal power over trade and commerce is the one that applies and that provincial power over property and civil rights shall not prevail. That is the real question as to the meaning of these powers and it is one which will not even be touched.
Even if the constitution could be frozen, though, the question is whether it should be. Should we freeze our constitution for all time which is, in effect, what we are doing? The reason we have failed to reach agreement in all the many constitutional conferences which have been held is mainly that, though it is not necessary in law, we have been proceeding on the basis that there must be unanimous agreement, on the basis of a political tradition of somewhat short duration that all the provinces have to agree before anything can be done. As long as this is the basis upon which we are proceeding, I feel we will never succeed in arriving at any agreement, that we will never make any progress because there is scarcely a subject upon which all the provinces can be expected to agree.
In recent years in Canada we have seen an enormous growth of provincial power, a dramatic increase in provincial revenues and bureaucracies. Perhaps even more striking is the increase in the provincial self-image, or the self-image of the provincial governments, and particularly of the premiers. These are minor potentates, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes they regard themselves as being much more than that. They have too much power already inasmuch as they have been able to stymie any agreement on changes to the constitution. I, for one, could not accept a constitutional amending formula which would forever give every government the right to stop all progress.
All right is not on one side, Mr. Speaker. We obviously could not accept amendments to the constitution by federal decision alone even though this House is representative of every province. The fact is, of course, that since there is representation by population some areas are better represented, as they should be, than are others. So the provinces must "have a say". But they ought not to be able to have such a say

that every last province has to agree to everything that is done. That, Mr. Speaker, is really the nub of it, whether we ought to freeze our constitution at this time and say, in effect, there will be no further changes or that they can be made only by a process which is so excruciatingly difficult that the process will probably never be accomplished, or whether we ought to adopt something which is more flexible and which allows more room to grow.
I think I can speak for all members in my party-I certainly speak for myself when I say that my vision is one in which there is more flexibility, more openness for the future, more opportunity to grow. It is that model, rather than the polar model, which I recommend to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for so early in his tenure as a member of this House bringing forward proposals for the amending structure, new in at least four respects. If we do not manage to pass this measure today-and I think it is unlikely because there are many aspects which give rise to discussion- I hope the hon. member will not be discouraged from pursuing the idea that this Parliament should be engaged much more than in the past in the discussion of constitutional reform, including an amending formula.
I entirely agree with him that over the past 50 years, going back, as I believe he mentioned, to 1927, most of the discussion with regard to the British North America Act took place between the federal government and the provinces; members of Parliament were, by and large, excluded from those discussions, to say nothing, of course, of ordinary citizens. So I commend the hon. member on bringing his proposal forward for four quite substantial changes from the Fulton-Favreau formula and advocating that there should be further and more extensive parliamentary discussion of this subject.
I agree with him, too, that the previous government did make a valiant effort to address the matter, though it did so in too complex a way. Whether or not the present government intends to set up a committee of this House, or perhaps a joint committee with the other place, I do not know. Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton East knows. In my opinion it would be a good idea. Canada is going through a very serious time. As we all know, the referendum is coming up in Quebec and I believe it would be helpful for us if we were able to address, in a relatively non-partisan way, not only the matter of an amending formula but the direction this country should take, generally.
This brings me to my own feeling that, although the BN A Act has served us very well over the years, the time has come for making changes, if not, indeed, for a new constitution. Therefore I would hope that we would not only be able to patriate the BNA Act but, almost at the same time, that we would be in a position to make very substantial changes in it.
It is a pity we cannot engage in a real debate on this subject, because I have a number of questions to ask the hon. member
October 22, 1979

for Edmonton East about his four new proposals. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) suggested that clauses 7 and 12 said pretty much the same thing. I do not think I agree. Clause 7, as I read it, says no province may secede from the federation unless the act of secession is approved by Parliament and the legislatures of all the provinces. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville referred to that as a right of secession. I really do not think it is a right of secession when the act of secession must be approved not only by the federal Parliament but by the legislatures of all the provinces.
More seriously, when you get to clause 12, the hon. member for Edmonton East is in fact giving what he calls linguistic solitudes-1 prefer the word groups-the right to secede without the approval of any of the legislatures, simply through a referendum on the part of the group wishing to secede. I could not support this measure because I see what appears to be an inconsistency between those two clauses, on one hand saying no province can secede without the approval of the Parliament of Canada and every province of Canada, and on the other hand saying of the two major linguistic groups, either one may secede without reference to provincial legislatures or the federal Parliament.
I have already mentioned that the word "solitude" was perhaps not the best to use. I have noted that the French use different words. In French it is really groups or entities. 1 have been wondering, but did not have time to dash out and check, what word was used when Hugh MacLennan's book "Two Solitudes" was translated. Other hon. members may recall.


An hon. Member:: Solitude.


Pauline Jewett: That is interesting. Then there is a quite substantial difference here in the translation. I am not at all clear on what is meant in the second paragraph of section 12. I do not understand-
-shall occur not along established provincial territorial boundaries but along such contiguous territorial boundaries that are duly and legally negotiated between the two-
Perhaps he can explain it to me later. I am serious in saying 1 hope we will pursue further discussion and debate in this House on the amending formula and on the British North America Act itself.
Clause 10 is another addition to the Fulton-Favreau formula. This is an interesting proposal to initiate constitutional changes through national referenda. 1 was not here, nor was the hon. member, in the last House, but I understand that the Conservatives who were then in opposition opposed the use of referenda. 1 do not know whether the hon. member talked with any of his fellow Conservative members to see what they think of this.
In a country like Australia, which is a relatively homogenous society, there is a lot to be said for the use of referenda in constitutional reform. I am not at all sure that is the case in a country which has a very real duality in linguistic terms.
Constitutional Amendment
Referenda under such circumstances may indeed be divisive. Although he is requiring a 50 per cent plurality of all votes in each and every province, and that would undoubtedly lessen the divisiveness, the chances of getting such a plurality on most of the matters that might be brought forward would be very limited.
It was, however, an interesting proposal. It might have answered to some extent the complaint of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville that the approach suggested in this resolution is not sufficiently flexible. I agree with him that basically this resolution is asking for the unanimous approval of all provinces on anything to do with section 92. Although it has been our practice by and large-not entirely-to have unanimous agreement of all provinces before an amendment is sent to Westminster, nevertheless to entrench this into the amending formula would, I agree, be extremely rigid.
My understanding of clause 10, the referenda clause, is that it tries to develop a little bit of flexibility which is not otherwise there. Although I basically disagree with the use of referenda in a country like Canada, I thought that was an ingenious way to try to get around the problem of unanimous approval of the provinces.
I hope the hon. member realizes that if a referendum did affect property and civil rights, if it were passed and so on, it would mean the provincial legislatures would not be able to veto it. At least that is my understanding of the way he has worded the referendum clause.
On the clause that is now clause 5, I would have thought that on non-critical matters 20 per cent was a reasonable percentage and it really would not need to be any lower. I hope hon. members realize clause 5 does not really touch any of the guts of the British North America Act because it does not touch section 92 at all.
I find I have a sufficient number of questions and puzzlements, particularly on what I see as a conflict between the secession clause, clause 7, and the linguistic groups clause and their rights to secession, clause 12, that I would say the bill needs a good deal of working over before it can go any further.
I want to applaud the hon. member again on suggesting that we should at least start debating some of these issues in this House. Since he has raised this matter, I am particularly interested in knowing whether he has any views about some of the proposals brought forward by the previous government, particularly the House of the Federation proposal of which we in this party were extremely critical. The hon. member will remember this was a proposal to abolish the Senate and create a new body to be called the House of the Federation. I would like to know his views on that, whether he has views not only on an amending formula but on the important substantive changes that we might see in the constitution of Canada. I look forward on some other occasion to debating those matters.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on bringing forward the question of constitutional amendment. It is high time we were able to

October 22, 1979
Constitutional Amendment patriate our constitution. For too long, when speaking to others, Canadians have been embarrassed that we cannot in any way alter our constitution without the permission of Westminster. Elowever, my friend has unfortunately not entirely considered some of the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett).
One of the major problems in our country is that the provinces are of various sizes and economic strengths. Prince Edward Island was at one time a pretty good province in Canada in terms of comparative strength, but now has far less economic strength than my city of Mississauga, less than half its population. It is unable, except with enormous assistance from the federal government, to maintain the whole plethora of provincial obligations. To a large extent the same applies in other provinces.
It is impossible for large provinces with economic strength to suggest in any way that some small province, such as perhaps the province of Manitoba or the province of Nova Scotia, should have the right to veto any change in the Constitution of Canada, but indeed that is what the effect of the hon. member's motion would be. What we have to do is to rethink what we mean in terms of provinces when we talk about who should be allowed to vote and what unanimity we need in order to amend the constitution.
A number of persons analysing our constitutional problem have asked, "Why don't we divide Canada into realistic economic regions? Why can't we have an economic region composed of the Atlantic provinces, and why can't we have, for the purposes of provincial responsibilities, for the purpose of an economic base in that area, one jurisdiction?" Perhaps there is no need to amalgamate completely, but certainly in terms of how things are arranged vis-a-vis the rest of Canada, and in amending the constitution, there should be economic regions and no particular province in those regions should have a veto over the whole of Canada.
Clearly the province of Quebec forms an economic region, and so does the province of Ontario. As we proceed west there is no question, in my view, that the province of British Columbia, perhaps together with the Yukon Territory, is becoming an economic region. I should like to see Alberta, the province of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), treated as an economic region, together with her sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In terms of an amending formula we should decide that each economic region should have a veto in amending the constitution if together they cannot agree on it, but that no right of veto in altering the constitution should be allowed to just one province as the provinces now stand.
In going on to other matters I should like to say that the referendum proposal suggested by the hon. member is an interesting one, but when he states that an amendment proposed by referendum must be passed in toto by a plurality of
[Mr. Blenkarn.J
75 per cent, and by at least 50 per cent in any province, then the matter of referendum has to be virtually unanimously agreed to by all voting Canadians. The cost of carrying out such a referendum would then seem like an enormous waste of taxpayers' money. Surely members of Parliament representing their constituencies are well aware when a matter has at least 75 per cent approval and at least 50 per cent approval in the whole of the country. So the referendum proposal, while I think it is interesting and one which perhaps will help us determine whether a particular region will be in favour of an amendment to the constitution, surely deals with a matter which should be considered on the basis of a majority rather than on the basis of 75 per cent approval across Canada and a 50 per cent plurality in every provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam mentioned section 92 of the British North America Act. Surely the proposal will, in some senses, make it impossible to amend the constitution at all. If provincial jurisdictional matters cannot be touched at all without the unanimous consent of ten provinces, then in effect federal jurisdictional matters cannot be touched either, and what you will have done in effect is to have a provision not allowing an amendment ever to be brought to the constitution.
1 bring that to the attention of the hon. member because perhaps this was not his intention.
What concerns me about this proposal is clause 12. In the debate on the Speech from the Throne I spoke last week about my concept of one Canada. This clause refers to two linguistic solitudes, a French Canada and an English Canada, a hyphenated Canadian and different kinds of Canadians. It even goes so far as to suggest that they could break up confederation and go their own way. We have been together in this omelet of confederation since 1867. Our railways have run through each others parts, our canals service each others parts, our investments, our buildings and our enterprises in all of Canada are in English and in French. What we have been trying to do is to break down that solitude so that each one of us can talk to the other.
Surely this party recognizes the separate communities right across Canada. We recognize Canadians whose culture is Italian or whose culture is Indian. What we must do is to treat all Canadians the same in one equal Canada. Any constitutional proposal which, in its very essence, contemplates the breaking up of Canada on linguistic lines, perhaps with new boundaries, as suggested in paragraph 12, is one which 1 and the people whom I represent would be most unhappy to contemplate. I am sure that if the hon. member thought about it he would agree that the people of Alberta also would be most unhappy with it. Surely we have one Canada, and surely we can be one Canadian nation. Surely we cannot all of a sudden try to do the Humpty-Dumpty trick, get all the king's horses and all the king's men together, and put back into two separate packages what is in that frying pan. Sir, we are Canadians.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to participate in the debate has just
October 22, 1979

about run out. In passing, I want to make two short observations, one in respect of the comments made by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), and the other in respect of the subsequent comments made by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett).
First of all I think that private conversation will bring about a further explanation of paragraph 12 which is quite understandable and which simply addresses itself to the fact that man-made boundaries seldom have much impact on language and culture, and on love and hope.
My other point is addressed to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. I wish simply to remind him that the narrowness of his approach to the matter placed before us by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) does not in any way serve the very real point made by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, that this House should be addressing itself to the nature of this question. For far too long the House has not been seized with this question in a proper and direct way. I commend the hon. member for bringing the matter forward and I hope that at some future date the subject of a bill similar to this will find itself before an appropriate committee of the two Houses of Parliament so that we may enter into a dialogue as members of Parliament perhaps for the first time in this century.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hour provided for private members' business having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crombie that Bill C-6, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to contribute to this debate and to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act and, more precisely, an act to amend the spouse's allowance. I will keep my remarks relatively brief so as to give as many other hon. members as possible an
Old Age Security
opportunity to express their various views and opinions on this very important and worth-while bill.
Today there are 2.1 million Canadians over the age of 65, approximately 9 per cent of our population. It is estimated that in the year 2001 there will be approximately 3.4 million senior citizens in Canada, representing 11.2 per cent of our population, and by the year 2031 there will be approximately 6.4 million senior citizens representing in excess of 20 per cent of the population.
There is no question that the biggest problem facing many of our senior citizens today is poverty. A single person who receives no other income except that of the basic old age security and the guaranteed income supplement must live off an income of only $3,700 per year, and a couple must live off an income of only $6,800 a year. The result is that one-half of the unattached elderly, and one-fifth of elderly couples, live below the poverty line. This is twice the rate of the general population.
One may ask: what about private pensions? Well, the answer is that private pensions, as they are structured today, are not able to meet adequately the retirement needs of most Canadians. When preparing my notes I was astounded to read that over two-thirds of our elderly do not have private pensions and that almost 60 per cent of working Canadians are not covered by company pension plans. Also it is a fact that very few pension plans are indexed against inflation, and that most of these pensions do not even provide for survivors' benefits.
In view of these very serious shortcomings and inequities in our pension system, particularly as they relate to our elderly, the problem is further compounded for those spouses whose only income is the old age pension and supplement to support his or her spouse who, because that particular spouse had not yet attained the age of 65, is not eligible for old age security, and consequently both spouses are forced to live-or perhaps a better word is survive-on the inadequacy of one pension.
This very serious problem was finally recognized by the government in 1975 with the passage of Bill C-62, the spouse's allowance. Although the bill was commendable in itself and it provided serious relief to the many pensioners concerned, it did not go far enough and some serious inequities still remain. Bill C-62 did not ensure that widows and widowers would be protected in the event of a spouse's death until the survivor became eligible for regular old age security at age 65. Also under Bill C-62 spouses receiving the spouse's allowance lost it if their spouse received a jail sentence of 90 days or more, and payment only resumed when the prison term was served. Although few people are affected by this provision, its application has been the source of inequities in that old age security pensioners face double punishment for their crimes: loss of benefits and imprisonment.
There is no question that it would be considered cruel and inhumane by every compassionate Canadian to have to say that on the death of the older spouse the pension of the younger spouse is terminated after six months. Yet this is the case today. It is a shocking situation that a widow, in her distressing time of sorrow, should receive information that the

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
pension she has been receiving will be cut soon. How is she supposed to live with no pension income? The bereaved spouse is advised, when notified of the termination of the allowance, to apply for provincial welfare, but until application is made and approved several weeks may elapse in which time ordinary living expenses still go on and on and on. Also she is advised to apply for Canada Pension Plan survivor's benefits.
If the deceased partner had been eligible to receive Canada Pension Plan benefits, the widow would have been eligible to receive approximately 65 per cent of the pension her husband received. However, this does not come automatically. Application for survivor's benefits first must be made, and it all takes precious time. To compound the matter further, for widows in Ontario another irony exists inasmuch as she is no longer covered by OHIP, the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. While her husband who was over 65 was living, she was covered as his dependent under the free health insurance provided. Now she must apply for OHIP, and while premium assistance is ultimately available to those eligible, premium payments must be made until the application showing proof of need is approved. This is a very unjust situation when pension income has been terminated.
When Bill C-6 is passed into law it will negate some of the inequities of the present act. Spouse's allowance recipients whose spouses die will continue to receive the allowance until they themselves turn 65 and qualify for old age security in their own right, or until they remarry or die. The second amendment will remove the provision whereby old age security benefits are suspended when an old age pensioner is sentenced to prison for more than 90 days. This also meant that spouses of prisoners entitled to the spouse's allowance lost their benefits as well. The two amendments will benefit more than 2,200 persons in the 1980-81 fiscal year and will cost approximately $4.6 million a year.
While these amendments will alleviate two serious problems, they represent only a further small step forward in relation to the pension system in Canada and the possibilities which still remain for even much greater improvement. No doubt as the Canadian pension system is being continually revised for further improvements, some issues can and will be dealt with quickly, while others more complex will require more time to accomplish.
If I have any criticism at all about Bill C-6 it is the fact that this bill will not benefit those spouses of pensioners who will have been deceased more than six months from the time Bill C-6 receives Royal Assent and becomes law. In other words, the retroactiveness of this bill is very limited, indeed. How was this figure of six months arrived at; why six months, and why not a year or two years? Why not include all eligible widows or widowers?
I have no doubt that Bill C-6 is commendable in redressing some of the glaring inequities connected with the spouse's allowance, but surely we can afford to be a little more magnanimous and extend the spouse's allowance to all widows and

widowers eligible for the allowance, and who are between age 60 and 65, until they themselves are eligible for old age security at 65. Surely this is not only fair but also just.
Therefore it is of the utmost importance that when Bill C-6 is brought before the committee concerned, the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, a change must be sought to have it amended to include the changes I have suggested. The extra cost would be negligible compared to the long over due and much needed benefits that would be received by those concerned who find themselves today living below the poverty line.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few minutes to participate in the debate on Bill C-6, and more particularly the first part that guarantees to people between 60 and 65 who receive the spouse's allowance following the death of the other spouse, whether they be widows or widowers, that the benefit will continue to be paid as long as the financial need is there.
I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on his first bill, a bill designed to help needy and underprivileged Canadians, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, we hope it is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of Bill C-6 and it is not my intention to oppose it, and I do not believe my Liberal colleagues intend to oppose this bill either. Unfortunately, the government did not go far enough. It is all very well to say this government is doing more now than the previous government by doing away with the additional six-month period and adding a six-month retroactive effect. If we are serious about doing something, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the government should go a little further so that this measure will apply in all cases of death prior to the legislation rather than future deaths to come or deaths that occur six months before the legislation is implemented. One could ask: why did the previous government not do it? The answer to this, Mr. Speaker, is that it was the intention of the former government to forget all that and replace this survivor's allowance with a guaranteed minimum income program for all people between 60 and 65.


Mr. Caouette:: Oh, come on!


René Cousineau: The Liberal party at its convention held in Montreal last week, that is this past weekend-


Mr. Rossi:: Is that the best you can do?


René Cousineau: If he wants to disturb me, that does not bother me at all.


Carlo Rossi: Come on, there.


René Cousineau: So the Liberal party this past weekend passed a resolution incorporating the principle of a guaranteed
October 22, 1979

minimum income for anyone between 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, that is whether that person is a widow or widower, single or divorced, but between 60 and 65. The minister felt that the total cost of benefits paid to spouse allowance recipients as a result of that amendment would increase by $400,000 in 1979-80 and $4.3 million in 1980-81. This is not quite accurate since the federal government pays 50 per cent of the welfare benefits given out by provincial governments. The provincial governments will not claim the part of the welfare payments granted to widowers and widows between 60 and 65 who had applied for it. In my opinion this will therefore mean a reduction in the claims of the provincial governments of between $1.5 and $1.7 million. It would therefore be more accurate to talk about a real expenditure of between $2.3 and $2.5 million for the federal government.
In its electoral campaign, the Progressive Conservative government did promise that it would take care of older people. As I said earlier, $4 million may appear in the books as expenditures under Bill C-6 but in fact $2.3 million will be paid in direct assistance. Yet the federal government will spend $2.3 billion for its famous mortgage interest deduction program while everyone knows-and it is a sad fact that the Progressive Conservative members are the only ones who refuse to admit this-that the great majority of older people no longer have a mortgage on their houses.
We often hear about this famous program, Mr. Speaker. We have said often and we will go on saying that this program is discriminatory since older people in general will not benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.
Unfortunately, I must say that Bill C-6 is also discriminatory since it will apply only to spouses and not to single or divorced people.
Mr. Speaker, the minister estimates that more than 2,200 people will benefit from this measure during the current fiscal year, and I can only hope that this will not be to the detriment of other Canadians.

We hope it is a step in the right direction.
This is what worries me, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has declared many times that he would cut jobs, cut expenses, with no increase whatever in expenditures. With such a policy, and I have asked this during my campaign and during my maiden speech, with decisions and declarations made without studying the consequences, who will suffer among those included in the budget for social welfare as a result of this increase of $2.3 million or $4 million? This money has to come from somewhere. Will the President of the Treasury Board ask the minister to cut some of the family allowances? Will he ask the minister to reduce benefits under the UIC? Will the President of the Treasury Board ask the minister to cut his budget for medicare? A lot of other questions could be asked about this matter, and a lot of questions remain to be answered. Where will the cuts be? Will the minister answer that?
Old Age Security
This bill is such a tiny parcel, and represents such a tiny portion of the total budget. I trust the minister will not consider this bill as the great social reform of the Conservative government.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in closing 1 want to thank the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare for having given me the summary of this bill. However, I would like to tell him in a very friendly way not to be overly concerned about his personal stationery even if the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) had to destroy his own, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen on October 15 last.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has spoken often in this chamber and, indeed, across this country on the plight of elderly women and the poverty in which too many of them live,
I am pleased that my first remarks in this chamber as a member of the government are in support of a bill which will go a long way toward removing the discriminatory aspects of the spouse's allowance legislation.
It has been a long fight, and my interest in it has been shared by many members, notably, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I think that he and I have received more letters on this subject than all other members of Parliament. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is saying that he only heard from women on the matter, whereas I told him on one occasion that I had received letters from several men who had been left in that particular circumstance as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I was saying. I get them from the widows; you get them from the widowers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He is absolutely right. I endorse that.
This bill is not a minor piece of housekeeping legislation that we should easily gloss over. To me this bill symbolizes the compassion, the common sense, and the instinct for justice and individual dignity that we, as members, must have. I am proud to be associated with this bill, but even more so, with a government that so early in its mandate has moved to eliminate one of the lingering injustices in our pension system. How different was the attitude of the previous government.
This particular bill should have been enacted many years ago. By failing to act, the previous Liberal government caused untold hardship among those least able to protect themselves, widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. The origin of that hardship goes back to Bill C-62 of the Thirtieth Parliament, debated in the spring of 1975. I said then, and have said many times since, that certain provisions of that bill were conceived in a spirit of meanness and callousness. Here we had a piece of legislation which enabled the younger spouse of an old age pensioner to receive old age security, on the basis of need, between 60 and 65 years of age. But then what? As

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
soon as the older spouse died, the younger partner lost not only her husband but her pension as well.

The reactionary approach of the former government regarding older women was evidenced in the legislation on spouse's allowance which was tabled in 1975. 1 clearly remember the remarks I made to the then minister of national health and welfare when he appeared before the committee. 1 asked him, among other things, what he and his government had against widows. What really irked us was that the younger spouse who received regular allowance cheques was faced, upon the death of her spouse, not only with the loss of a loved one but also with an immediate stoppage in her allowance. By arguing for the suspension of payments, the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) gave a very clear idea of his government's attitude towards women, in particular, older women. The bill we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, will right this wrong. [English]
The victims of such action have overwhelmingly been women. Statistics have shown that in 90 per cent of marriages the younger spouse is female and that females live longer than males. These women, who in their younger years remained in the home looking after children, with no access to continuing income or pension plans, are the same women who in their later years too often become the victims of a society which has not yet come to terms with equality in the work place.
While women have been "persons" for 50 years, society continues to discriminate against them, and the elderly woman is doubly prejudiced. It was all too easy for the previous government, in the name of saving a few dollars, to have denied and opposed the repeated attempts by my party and the NDP to correct the discriminatory aspects of the spouse's allowance program.
The sums involved have never been great.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, 1 would say to the hon. member in the opposition that the sums involved were never large and the victims were not many but the government of that day would not pay attention. Moreover, this group is anything but highly organized with all the means of professional lobbyists. It is estimated that each month roughly 200 recipients of spouse's allowance have their benefits cancelled. In a full year of operation, the extension proposed today will cost the treasury only $4.5 million. It is not much when human dignity and justice demand it.
I want to take this occasion to salute the many women and, indeed, the men who have insisted, by their letters and their pleas, that this legislation be changed. No issue has so consistently dominated my correspondence or gripped my conscience as the shortcomings of the spouse's allowance.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The hon. member in the official opposition laughs about this sort of thing, but 1 can tell him that there are many elderly women in this country who have had cause for tears because of this legislation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not a laughing matter, and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) should know better.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What these women have done by continuing their efforts in letter writing and in representations has been a real exercise in grassroots politics-the efforts, disorganized though they might have been, of the elderly, the poor and the destitute who have been subjected to the callous and frustrating treatment of a government that chose not to listen. The great thing about it is that these people never gave up. In their own quiet and persistent way they knew that common sense and fair play would prevail, even if it took an election and a new government to realize it.
One of these persons was a widow from British Columbia who wrote to me just recently. She enclosed an earlier letter I had sent her in which I had pledged myself to press for the continuation of the spouse's allowance after the death of the older partner. The lady did not have an organization to protect her economic interests. She did not have a lobbyist in Ottawa. She probably did not have a degree in political science or law, but I can tell you she knew where common sense lay, and she is now calling on the government to respond. The support and active encouragement of people such as this widow from British Columbia, regarding the spouse's allowance, is the democratic system working at its best.
This bill removes one inequity, Mr. Speaker. It does not profess to tackle all of the discrimination and injustice that has been allowed to become encrusted in our pension system. Too many of the elderly people who built our schools, our bridges, our roads, and reared our children-too many are living their last years in poverty. And of these poor, it is the women who are the poorest. As the recent study on women and poverty undertaken by the National Welfare Council states:
Most Canadian women become poor at some point in their lives. Their poverty is rarely the result of controllable circumstances, and it is seldom the outcome of extraordinary misfortune. In most cases, women are poor because poverty is a natural consequence of the role they are still expected to play in our society.
The report goes on to conclude:
In our study of low income women in Canada, we found that old women, and especially widows, are more likely to experience poverty than any other group in this country. After a lifetime spent taking care of their spouses and children, these women who had no opportunity to become financially self-sufficient are now abandoned by the generation that benefited most from their work.
That, sir, is an analysis of the plight of elderly women in Canada today. I am delighted that the attitude this government displayed in moving so quickly to extend the spouse's allowance has led us to take two further steps on this difficult road to end poverty among and discrimination against women.
October 22, 1979

[ Translation]
First, the minister responsible for the status of women is currently working with his colleagues on the establishment of an employment strategy for women. That program will tackle the immediate problems women have to face on the job market and, in the longer run, will alleviate the disproportionate burden older women must bear.
Second, as was announced in the Speech from the Throne, a standing committee of Parliament will soon examine the question of financial needs of pensioners in the eighties. 1 hope that those who will be affected by the conclusions of that study will express their points of view as persistently as and even more vigorously than all those who contributed to maintain the spouse's allowance. I urge hon. members who will be involved in this study to come to grips with the problem of the inequalities which still exist in our pension plan and to consider the sensitive questions relating to those Canadians who are not protected by the present laws. What happens to single people, divorced couples, and those who have recently lost their spouses? That question will obsess us as long as women will not be equal partners in the labour force and will not enjoy equal access to pension and old age security plans.
[English)
This bill, sir, is both real and symbolic. It is real in that it corrects an inequity. It is symbolic in that it demonstrates that this government will tackle the problems of the elderly poor with vigour and with compassion. Only through this process can we achieve a humane, sensible, and broadly-based public policy capable of meeting the needs of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker,
1 am pleased to be able to support this bill. I should like to congratulate, first of all, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), as I know she has fought many many years to have this inequity reversed. I hope that when the bill has passed through committee many of the changes will have taken place, as 1 think we still have many inequities. Certainly some of the people who have been writing to her, and for whom she has been crusading over the last few years, will not be re-instated, as the bill only goes back six months. I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will appreciate that. Certainly the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) indicated that he would like to see that changed in committee. We would like to see that changed, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated that his party would as well. I think there is a mood to make the change to ensure that those who have drawn this in the past will be re-instated.
I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on his new job and let him know there is a mood on this side of the House to support him. I know he will run into a good deal of difficulty because of the government's disposition to cut back, to privatize and turn things back to the provinces. This is going to make his job very
Old Age Security
difficult. His job will also be difficult because I get the impression, as do many members on this side of the House, that his department has been downgraded to some kind of a post office arrangement-that the power that was formerly in that department has given to some kind of committee with a super minister of social development. At this point we do not quite know to whom to put our questions as we are not sure who is responsible in the inner cabinet which makes the decisions on what happens in respect to health and welfare. About one quarter of all government expenditures are made through this department.
We will stand behind this minister. I think he is doing his best, and he will have a lot of support for measures of this kind. 1 am also pleased that the minister has instituted a pension review. I hope this review will make things better, although it was indicated by another minister who held a job which does not exist any more, that there was some question whether old age pensions should continue to be universal. 1 do not know whether this is the case, but we keep hearing such things. Someone makes a statement that universality is at stake, or that we have to look at universality because we cannot afford to keep doing what we are doing.
I am not sure whether at this point the government is sending up a lot of trial balloons. Last week the press was writing about gasoline costing $1.45 per gallon, but at the weekend they were writing about gasoline coming down to about a dollar or $1.20 per gallon. The press reported that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had a meeting in Calgary with the minister from Alberta and they talked about a different price range. The minister has said that he did not have a meeting with that minister in Calgary, but then we found out that he had the meeting in Saskatoon. This type of thing goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
1 get the feeling that the government thinks it can frighten people with talk of $1.45 per gallon for gas and then those same people will think they are on a good thing when the government starts talking about $1.20 per gallon. I feel that is exactly what has happened with the talk about pensions. Is it a trial balloon for the press? As an example, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), or his office, gave the press the idea that there would be a cut of $1.5 billion in social services, or in the whole area known as social development. This would cover unemployment insurance, social welfare, medicare, pensions-the whole area that would fall under one particular super minister. I asked him a question today and he said that that rumour was certainly not true. Unfortunately, I was not able to ascertain what the cut was going to be, but we keep hearing about a cut. It may be the same kind of cut. We may start with $1.5 billion, then everyone says that we cannot have that. If we end up with a cut of a billion, everybody says that that is much better, it is $500 billion less. It is this kind of thing that I think is going on.
I am not sure whether this government is doing this deliberately, so that when the axe falls it will look benevolent, or
478

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
whether it is accidental. I do not know if it can mount a conspiracy of this kind. Conspiracy takes a lot of thinking. Brains are needed to mount a conspiracy. Perhaps this is giving too much credit where it is not due. But, I am not sure, and I am concerned.
I am concerned when we talk about universality of pensions. If pensions are to be cut back, and people are told that the old age pension-the pension that you and I and my constituents have been counting on for the last 20 years, counting on getting when we are 65-is not going to be there any more, then plans people have made will be for naught. People plan that this security will be available.
I am very disturbed when I hear ministers make this vague reference about universality. I am very disturbed when I hear there are debates taking place around the country on universality. I think this whole area of social security has a formidable principle, that is, universality and extra assistance where needed. These are the two cardinal principles to all of these things.
Universality in medicare, is another example. Are we getting to a point where that is going? I do not know. I really hope it is only that "trial balloon" that I am talking about, that the government is playing some kind of game and that it will get out of that when it is a little older. After all, we are not very good in opposition either. It takes a while to get used to these parts. I am most concerned that at some particular point somebody is going to pop this one on us. Somebody is going to say that we are going to get rid of universality. This is the beginning of this particular debate.
I wish this bill was going further. At times I was embarrassed by the fact that we did not make this move that the government is making today. I think that move could easily have been made, but there was a reason. We wanted to move into a guaranteed kind of annual wage situation, certainly for those people over 60. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Winnipeg North Centre.


Paul Edmund McRae: Winnipeg North Centre, I am sorry. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, and I agree with him, he would like to see that we return to the age of 60 as being a flexible age by which people can move out of the working force. In the long run this makes a great deal of sense. I believe that if you free people from their jobs at that point, those who want voluntarily to be free, a lot of job openings would be created and there would be a considerable saving at the other end, that is in UIC.
I think we should be moving into an area with some kind of guaranteed annual wage which would permit people to retire at an earlier age if they are not well-or for any other reason. If they need support, this would give them some support. The reason that we steer away from this kind of thinking is that it is too costly and we cannot afford it. The NDP steers toward it but, never having been in power nationally, it has never had to face up to the other side. This is the reason that I am not a member of the NDP, because at some particular point one has

to face up to paying. When we talk about moving in these directions, earlier retirements, extending programs, a complete medicare program-which is costly-we have to spend some time talking about how we raise the money. Certainly when the government is faced with a deficit of $11 billion, $12 billion or $13 billion in a year, there is a grave problem facing it.
We should look at how we got into this situation. Inevitably the Canadian people think that we got into it because we had too many social programs, that too much was being paid out for this, for that, and for the other thing, to name a few, medicare, welfare, pensions for people who have needs, and so on. They think it is because of these programs the government is in a deficit situation. I think that is wrong. It is wrong to make that simple an assumption.
If we take a look at the revenue curves of the past government through the years up to about 1974, 1975, hon. members will find that the revenue and expenditure curves rise at roughly the same rate. One goes up a little more than the other in one year, but the next year it is reversed. But all of a sudden we got into some very significant increase in revenue when we indexed. This is something that we had to do because of inflation. As this government is now finding out, inflation is not a local phenomenom but a world problem. We indexed some things, but then we did something that got us into a lot of trouble. We indexed exemptions on income tax and a whole series of other things which became known as tax expenditures. So the expenditure curve went up this way, and the revenue curve went out like that. If one looks at those curves one can almost find the day and the hour when we indexed exemptions in income tax.
If this government wants to continue some of these programs and give the people the kind of social security that Canadians can expect-because we are a wealthy country in many ways-some of these tax expenditures will have to be examined. There are a whole series of them. The National Council on Welfare in a book written in 1977, I believe, called "The Hidden Welfare System Revisited", mentioned the year 1975 to 1976. This was the last year that figures were available. In that book it indicated that the tax expenditures increased by 17.9 per cent that year and government expenditures increased by only 10.4 per cent. Basically there was about a 27 per cent spread there. These things will have to be examined.
When exemptions are indexed to the cost of living, which is a desirable thing-there is no question about that-each year one has to add to the exemption created in the last year. For example, if it is $1.5 billion this year, over four years it is probably $5 billion a year that we are talking about. This is another area about which we should think seriously. I would hope that this minister, even though he may be in a somewhat lower echelon than the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be, will be elevated to the inner circle. Also I hope, before cutting back on these programs we can begin to start paying for them by increased taxation of some sort or other, and we should look at some of those tax exemptions.
October 22, 1979

They may have been justified for a short period of time but they are not justified now. We should try to pay for these particular types of programs because they are real programs for people with real problems.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, would like to congratulate the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) on his new post. A minister who comes from cabbagetown can't be all bad. 1 hope his reputation for encouraging citizen involvement at grass roots will extend to his new ministry as well.
My party and I face a dilemma with regard to Bill C-6 in that we must support a bill that we oppose. We must support this bill because we know that 180 people will benefit from it each month, widowed people who need a pension very badly. Therefore, we want no delay. At the same time we are opposed to this bill for two reasons-first, it is based on sexist principles, or, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said this afternoon, a spouse has to be dependent upon having a man, alive or dead. Second, it does not go far enough to protect those aged 60 or over.
As my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre pointed out this afternoon, it is particularly ironical that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the minister of health should hold up this bill as a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of recognizing women as persons. In my opinion Bill C-6 is based on an out-dated attitude that Emily Murphy and her colleagues abhored. It denies the basic right of women to be treated and respected as individuals in their own right, entitled to pensions equal to men's regardless of age or marital status. Also, it ignores single, divorced, and separated women, and those who live common law, making them third class citizens with no right to a pension at all until they qualify for an old age pension.
We agree that widows, and widowers too, should have an adequate pension adjusted to their income. As other hon. members have pointed out, the National Council on Welfare reports that one widow in four can expect not to benefit from the employer of her dead husband, and 45 per cent of all widows in the 55 to 64 age group are poor.
Many women who become widows before 65 have worked as homemakers for perhaps 40 or more years. In their earlier years they probably worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and all this without pay. After their children had grown up they found they had few marketable skills so they were unable to seek employment in today's market. Unlike working men, they are not entitled to the Canada Pension. Surely these women are entitled to an adequate pension at age 60, or earlier, if one is needed, regardless of whether they are widowed or whether they are legally married.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister of health will take action now to prevent the need for spouse's pensions in the future. The former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Grace Mac-Innis, strongly advocated that we needed pay for homemakers, and also pensions for homemakers. She recognized that home-
Ol d Age Security
makers should be entitled to equal pay for work of equal value, with a full Canada Pension when the time came for retirement. What work is more valuable to society than child care and home making? Why shouldn't it be recognized as an essential job worthy of pay? Even our kids get allowances for helping in the home these days.
1 cannot stress too strongly that Bill C-6, while necessary as an intermediate step, treats women, and widows particularly, as inferiors, while ignoring many other woman. Eligibility is based on a dependency relationship to a spouse; it treats the woman as an aging sex symbol rather than treating her with dignity as an independent person with rights in her own name. An even greater injustice in this bill is the fact that it completely ignores the needs of single, separated or divorced people who have no other source of income. Again, the majority of these people are women in the 60-65 age group.
More than 50 per cent of the women between 55 and 65 earn less than $4,000 a year, compared to 11 per cent of men in this age group. So we find that single, poor women under 65 are the most deprived group in our society. Many of them live as lonely outcasts in substandard rented rooms. They are not eligible to get into public housing. Many of them have a high incidence of mental health problems and physical health problems, as a result. They live on fixed welfare incomes of less than $200, in British Columbia at any rate, and the cost of living is going up every day. Such single, poor women, and also 11 per cent of single, poor men, have just as much right to an adequate pension as widowed spouses who at least may have a home. I resent having to categorize people in this way.
Band-aid token programs for a very small segment of our society cost a great deal and benefit very few. Bureaucratic welfare programs should be replaced by a social insurance system for those in need. We must aim at an adequate guaranteed income, or perhaps the term "social insurance" is better these days, with cost of living adjustments for all those who cannot afford to work, who are unable to work. As a first step, of course, the target group should be elderly citizens aged 60 and over who have contributed so much to Canada, and who deserve a life free from financial worries. Social insurance should be their right, just as old age pensions are. I should like to point out that in British Columbia during the golden years of 1972 to 1975-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: -we could afford this. We had a "min-come" program which was introduced for all unemployed persons aged 60 to 65. This program was paid for-and I hope members on the government side are listening to this-from the profits of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which was B.C.'s version of PetroCan. Incidentally, "min-come" was so universally popular that it is being continued by the British Columbia Social Credit government. So it can be done, and I would say the profits of PetroCan might go a long way toward paying the costs of a federal "mincome" program, if we had sense enough to keep it and develop our oil resources.

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
In conclusion, let me suggest the following priorities. First, let us approve Bill C-6 making it retroactive to include all eligible spouses whether legally married nor not. Second, let us begin now to initiate a "mincome" quaranteed income program, with a COLA clause, for all unemployed persons aged 60 or over. Finally, I say this to the minister, let us plan to set up a guaranteed income system to replace our obsolete welfare system by 1985.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate which has been taking place for many years during each Parliament because, particularly when it comes to the elderly, our social policy is indeed found wanting. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) indicated in her speech a while ago that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his party have always participated actively in debates on underprivileged people and I congratulate them for doing so. But I want to insist on the fact that the minister, voluntarily or not, did not allude to the very active part that my party and myself have always played on such issues as retirement at 60 and the guaranteed annual income. I suggested many times the idea of optional retirement at 60 and I defended the interests of those who live in poor conditions. I shall come back to that later.
First, Mr. Speaker, we must commend the introduction of this bill by the government. I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) for having introduced this bill among the first legislative measures to be considered by the House.
I should like to remind the House that as soon as the spouse's allowance was introduced, 1 pointed out the problems raised by the death of the spouse and by the withdrawal of the allowance from the surviving spouse. In March, 1977, I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 asking the government to pay at least two-thirds of the allowance to the surviving spouse. The House is surely aware that quite a number of older persons are faced with acute survival problems. Those people are found especially in the 60 to 65 age bracket. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, employers no longer want to hire those in that age group at a time when they are unable to work because of ill health, and their only financial resort in many cases is social welfare. It is a sad end to have to make do with a small welfare cheque each month after a lifetime of work.
Bill C-6 will be welcomed by senior citizens who were deprived of their allowances. I hope, as they do, that the bill is only a step towards an old age security program at the age of 60. Last year, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, now Secretary of State for External Affairs, brought forward an opposition motion on the same subject as the present bill. The former government did not budge. I am happy the present government did not make only crazy promises during the campaign. This bill, as I said before, is not an end in itself but

a step towards lowering pensionable age to 60. At least, I hope so. The problem goes beyond that.
The economic situation of our pensioners is precarious. Statistics Canada figures that 43 per cent of those who live below the poverty line are people who live alone. Most of them are old people. Pensioners without investment income have no protection against contingencies. Where the constant rise in the cost of living is concerned, they only have the quarterly indexation to help them. That is why, at the time of the debate initiated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last year, I suggested a plan providing voluntary retirement at 60, a plan to be implemented progressively by lowering retirement age to 60 and making retirement voluntary. In other words, those who can work and want to do so could in fact keep on working. Besides, a study by the department of psychology at Western University, prepared for the national symposium on aging, held here in Ottawa on October 25, 1978, indicated a clear tendency towards early retirement at 60. We would therefore not be imposing early retirement since most of the aged would dearly love to retire sooner.
In Canada at the present time, there are over 2 million pensioners, half of whom receive the guaranteed income supplement. Last year, that old age and guaranteed income supplement program cost the treasury $4.3 billion. There is no doubt that a retirement plan stipulating voluntary retirement at 60, even if it were to be implemented progressively, would cost at the outset considerably more. On the other hand, such a plan would in fact free a number of jobs estimated at something like 287,000 in 1977. That is to say then that opening up those jobs would save considerable amounts in unemployment insurance. It therefore boils down to reorganizing financial outlays within the existing framework. Over the short term, it would mean considerable outlays. But over the medium and long terms, society as a whole would benefit greatly.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that outside the framework of a guaranteed annual income it is difficult to propose final and global solutions. Referring back to the meeting of the welfare council held last fall, I would like to quote from a report submitted by Queen's University which stated:
Adequate revenue, decent housing and means of transport are essential not only for senior citizens but for all citizens.
This quotation shows the merits of a guaranteed annual income system of which we, of the Social Credit Party, have been the most ardent champions since the beginning of our movement. Until now, old age security benefits have fallen short of ensuring peaceful retirement to our senior citizens. They are faced with many problems, from the deterioration of their health to their isolation from the rest of society.
We no longer live in an era when a citizen could some day pretend to enjoy his retirement. What is in store for the elderly is uncertainty and even poverty in certain cases. Therefore we must look far beyond the measures that have been proposed to
October 22, 1979

us today because any program designed to improve the living conditions of the elderly will be without positive impact if it does not get translated into adequate revenue and guaranteed financial security.
Our population is aging which means that because of a declining birthrate and the greater availability of health services, the elderly will make up a growing segment of the Canadian society. It is therefore now that we must prepare to face this situation. We should not wait until that time has come before we react. Some day elderly people will be in a position to organize and ask for their fair share of the riches which belong to them. Future generations of elderly people will have experienced affluence and education. These people will not tolerate as easily their regression into poverty.
The logical solution to the problems which will arise in the future is undoubtedly a guaranteed annual income. In January, 1977, I made the same representations that were listed in my speech today to the then minister of national health and welfare who is now sitting in the opposition side of the House as the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde). The minister told me in his letter dated February 9, 1977, that it was impossible to bring any over-all solution to the problems faced by senior citizens, and that the problems plaguing the disadvantaged and the senior citizens could be resolved to a large extent through the implementation of a guaranteed annual income plan, a program which could be ushered in with the provinces, as had already been done for hospital insurance and medicare plans.
Therefore, it is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will consider very seriously that most important proposal concerning the guaranteed annual income in order to respect the right of all Canadians to a decent standard of living.
The present situation is bad enough in our country, so Parliament should pay attention to its members. This is especially important in healing our fractured national unity. The essence of unity, after all, is that all Canadians should feel they share in running their country through the elected representatives whose views are heard with respect and effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)):: Is
the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[ Translation]


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, how the whole population of Canada must be glad tonight to have elected a minority government last May 22, especially the people from the constituency of Abitibi who know very well, as they always did, that a minority government at last brings the
Old Age Security
legislation the people want. Suffice to recall the year 1972 when the party which today forms the official opposition was then a minority government and when we saw so many pieces of legislation like the one we are dealing with today!
A while ago I was listening to the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) grumbling against the bill introduced in the House by this government. I remember that during the 30th Parliament I sat on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, when the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) was the incumbent minister and I recall urging him a number of times to improve the Old Age Security Act. How the costs were high, then, Mr. Speaker! And yet older people now have to cope with a higher cost of living, but since we have a minority government it will be introducing measures like the one we are dealing with today precisely because it wants to give Canadians legislation with which they will be happy.
Mr. Speaker, I want therefore to commend this new government on this welcome measure. If it carries, and I have no doubt that it will, the proposal will enable people 60 to 65 who now receive the spouse's allowance to have something the Social Credit Party has been urging for years, the right to their pensions even when their spouses die. Until this legislation does pass, these people are cut off from any benefit or possible income for their survival. So, on my behalf and that of my constituents in Abitibi, I once more commend this government for bringing forward such a bill.
This is a great improvement to the current act, under which the allowance is maintained only for six months after the pensioner's death. As my colleague from Rimouski indicated earlier, we had been requesting the previous government to improve the act for the benefit of people who gave so many years of their lives, who worked hard so that this country may be a good place to live in. Unfortunately, the good must pay for the bad. And the aged were paying for the bad. All they could do was to beg for a small pension from social welfare in order to pay their rent; they no longer had any money to eat.
Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the aged are the most underprivileged in our society. It may be remembered that the late Real Caouette used to advocate a complete review of the Old Age Security Act. Of course, there were improvements: cost of living indexing of pensions, the supplement, and the spouse's allowance. Those measures were aimed essentially at protecting the aged against inflation, as we said earlier, but did very little generally to improve their circumstances.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an excellent start, and it is my wish that people over 60 can one day get the full spouse's allowance. That may have been an amendment we moved at the health, welfare and social affairs committee to recommend that a pension be paid to anyone aged 60 who wants to leave the labour force to make room for younger people who are now receiving unemployment insurance and welfare payments.

October 22, 1979
Old Age Security
We hope that some day this government which represents the Canadian people, the same government which has decided against the guaranteed annual income, might bring forward another improvement to this bill so as to allow a 60 year old worker to leave the labour market.
Mr. Speaker, in the past we often recommended such an amendment to help any person whose spouse died. I also took up this important theme once again during the last election campaign, and at that time I did not suspect in the least that my Progressive Conservative opponent might advocate such legislation. 1 think that my Progressive Conservative opponent in the last election must be very pleased about his government, even though we in the opposition propose the solutions that the entire population wants.
I also recall that, during the electoral campaign, we asked the former prime minister when he came to a meeting in Val d'Or what he intended to do for senior citizens. We never had a reply. Does this mean that, if he had been re-elected, his government would have gone back on its position that it was too costly to pass such a bill?


An hon. Member:: It was about the price of Janelle-


Armand Caouette: 1 know that it was not because of the cost to the minister of national health and welfare in the former government that we were told it was impossible.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be proud today to announce to the people of the Abitibi riding that this Progressive Conservative government finally knows what it wants. I also hope that this government will continue for a while yet to introduce such bills which benefit people in this age group and the entire Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I used to tell my opponents that, as a group, senior citizens were the most disavantaged in Canada, and they used to deny this and say that, in the last few years, older people had obtained privileges that others did not have. It is true that they have certain privileges, but many still live below the poverty line. We know that more than 800,000 people over 65 now live below the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, the report published last year by the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens and the Canadian Federation of Senior Citizens, which attempted to prove that many older people live below the poverty line, must also be kept in mind. As I said earlier, these people must be very happy today.
It is true that this report was published in 1971, but the information it contains must still be relevant in view of the ills resulting from inflation. Something had to be done for the spouse who lived in poverty after the death of the spouse who received a pension. The death of his or her companion has already been very distressing so it is normal that those people be protected by our government. They have built our country. Thanks to them our children have a better social status. We

are proud of our senior citizens. When I think of those people who have opened up and built northwestern Quebec and of all the difficulties, sacrifices and miseries they endured, when I think of their tenacity, Mr. Speaker, 1 believe that those people today have the right to expect a social measure that will give them at least a chance to live their last years reasonably well-off instead of having to beg from everyone, from one government level to another, and always get the same answer, "You are living your last years, so we do not have to improve your situation". So, Mr. Speaker, 1 say yes to this bill but as my colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) pointed out earlier on, 1 regret that this reform does not apply to single or divorced people. But I hope that this government will continue to improve this bill. Of course the Liberal party would have done so had it been in power as it would have been a minority government like this one. It would certainly have tried to bring some improvement.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am pleased to support the bill we have been presented with today and I hope that this government will go further since the Progressive Conservative members in the Flouse of Commons certainly have to face in their ridings the same problems as the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) or the hon. member for Abitibi when they meet those people living under the poverty level or who have to beg, as 1 said earlier, from welfare services to be able to live decently during the limited time they have left.
[English ]


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, certainly I do not intend to make a very long speech, but I asked the whip on our side earlier this evening if a few words from me would be in order, and for the first time in the three Parliaments of which I have been a member, he did not discourage me from speaking. Times have certainly changed.
I intend to support this bill. I think the bill is some progress, and certainly 1 would not oppose a measure which brings relief to the needy. But I want to make two reflections on the bill. Under our present system, although there are problems, I am satisfied with the regime which one enters on reaching the age of 65. 1 heard the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Caouette) complain about it. One can complain about it, but basically the system we have in this country is very good. The advances which have taken place over the last 11 years have been very considerable. We have moved to a system where reaching the age of 65 for many poor people in our society is a goal to which they look forward, simply because of the social security system available on reaching that age. That is one of the points I wanted to make.
My second point is that I resent very much the suggestion by hon. members opposite and the minister that adding this very small measure has solved the problem, or moved very much closer to bringing justice to those who are needy and under 65 years of age. The amount of $4 million is a considerable one, but in terms of the social programs of this country it

%
October 22, 1979

does nothing, and it does very little to relieve poverty for those under the age of 65.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) can stand up. She made speeches which focused on this very small group of spouses whose older spouses died after becoming entitled to the pension at age 65 and before the younger spouses reached the age of 65.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: And you never listened.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 am glad some of those constituents-and some of them are mine-will now continue receiving this pension. But it is a very small matter and it is hardly one about which anyone opposite can claim a great deal of satisfaction when so many others below the age of 65 who are in need receive absolutely nothing from this very, very small measure.
I resent the smugness I detect from the minister opposite, as if this very small measure, of which even the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) would approve because he is so niggardly, takes us very much closer to justice for people who are under the age of 65. 1 should like to hear the minister answer in committee for the needs of single persons under the age of 65. I should like to hear him answer for what his government proposes to do for those who are widowed before their spouses reach the age of 65. 1 am sure that the category is just as large for couples where the older spouse dies before reading the age of 60 or before reaching the age of 65. The younger spouse in social terms is worse off than those whom the minister is proposing should benefit by the measure being introduced tonight.
I am very happy about this measure. 1 will vote for it, but if it is the social conscience of the Conservative party and members opposite, if this is the type of small cheese about which they intend to make great speeches and use to indicate that they have a heart, 1 will be very disappointed, as will my constituents and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not speak long because 1 think it is in everybody's interest to have the bill voted on and passed this evening, but 1 should like to add a few remarks to the debate. Having listened to the previous Liberal speaker, we can begin to understand why the Liberal party was defeated, although he made serious points as well. We seem to have a little social progress in the country every time we change government, and if there is a minority government, we have a little more social progress. Unfortunately that has been the history of social progress in this country-only under political pressure and only to get some political points.
The bill before us is a small step in the right direction, and therefore we will be voting for it. The speaker from our party pointed out the shortcomings of the entire pension scheme and the fact that single, divorced and people living common law
Old Age Security
will not be covered by it, as well as those who became widows more than six months ago. These are all shortcomings. There are not only shortcomings in this bill, there is a whole range of shortcomings in the entire area of social security in this country. This is something for which both the Liberals and Conservatives must take responsibility.
When I started compaigning, knocking on doors in my constituency, I was amazed at the number of elderly people living close to total economic and social insecurity. These are the people who worked hard all their lives, the people who settled and developed the prairies, the people who had to struggle against the severe elements, breaking open the prairies and getting development started. Many of them worked for 25 cents and up to $1 a day, yet saved money. These people were really committed to the work ethic. They have now retired and have seen the system and inflation rob them of their savings. These are the people who live from month to month with total economic insecurity.
It is our system that has produced this situation, and it is the system that has robbed these people of the wealth in this country that they produced in their lifetime. Therefore it is the system surely that must be blamed, and it is a system that members of both the Conservative and Liberal parties continue to support and perpetuate. It is a system in which most of the wealth leaves the country so that the little that remains has to be distributed among our elderly people.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Simon Leendert de Jong: An hon. member opposite says it is nonsense. Surely this is a rich country. Everybody agrees with that. Everybody agrees that this is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with one of the smallest populations in terms of area and resources. That being the case, why is it that we have elderly people trying to live on $200 a month or less? Why is it we have people living on the edge of economic insecurity? There are a number of European countries with larger populations and fewer resources which have been able to do better for their elderly people than we have been able to do for ours. How do you explain that? Surely the only explanation is that the wealth of this country is not reaching the elderly people who created it and who need it today. That, unfortunately, is the sad case.
What we are finding now, and found under the former government, is that whenever there is a deficit in government financing the only way the government can think of to solve the problem is to cut back on benefits to the elderly. 1 am afraid of the type of cutbacks that may be looming in the future. We had an inkling of them when the former government tried to take some wind out of the Conservative sails by introducing some Conservative programs, at which time we had some cutbacks. What I am afraid of is that we will see a continuation of this under the present government. In other words, the people most in need and most deserving will be the ones whose programs will be cut back first.

October 22, 1979
Postal Rates
What is involved is the redistribution of income and the redistribution of wealth. I am afraid this government will not really tackle the fundamental problems facing our elderly people as the former government did not tackle those problems. It brought in some social programs but neglected to put an economic base under them so that, in tough economic times, those programs were cut back first. 1 am afraid we are going to see some tough times ahead for our elderly and our young people.
We will support this measure as it is a step in the right direction, but we will be urging, convincing, seducing and cajoling the government to take the next step, the next step and the next, until we have social and economic justice in this country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

John Allen Fraser: that Bill C-ll, respecting certain postal rates, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House are well aware, beginning in 1976 and continuing until 1979 the former Liberal government chose to institute increases in letter and second-class postage rates by way of authorization by the governor in council pursuant to subsection 13(b) of the Financial Administration Act, rather than by presenting a bill to Parliament amending sections 10 and 11 of the Post Office Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame!


John Allen Fraser: On these occasions this government, when we were sitting in opposition, spoke out against the Liberal government of the day for increasing postal rates by regulation instead of amending the Post Office Act, and for ignoring critical reports of this practice by the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
In its third report dated October 4, 1976, the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments considered that regulations setting new rates were ultra vires of section 6 of the Post Office Act and section 13 of the Financial Adminis-

tration Act. It added that the use of regulations "amount to an unusual and unexpected use of power conferred upon the governor in council by section 13 of the Financial Administration Act". The fourth and sixth reports of the same committee reiterated those objections.
On the question of legality, previous postmasters general have stated in the House and in letters to the committee that before the regulations were made legal opinion from the Department of Justice had been considered. On the one occasion when the legitimacy of using the Financial Administration Act was challenged in the courts, the decision which was rendered on August 2, 1978, was in favour of the position the former government had taken.
However, I wish to remind all hon. members that that decision is now before the Federal Court of Appeal, and I think 1 should tell the House that the decision would have been argued in that court earlier this summer had I not intervened and asked the legal officers of the government to seek an adjournment. That adjournment was granted by the plaintiffs, the appellants in this case, on my undertaking to introduce into this House legislation that would in a retroactive way legitimize the rate increases that had been made under the Financial Administration Act.
I want to say to the House that the action which was taken in the courts was a direct result of certain plaintiffs feeling that what was being done was not according to the constitution and was contrary to the proper practices of Parliament.
It ought to be obvious to all members that, despite the fact that the government had won the case in the lower court, the case was being pursued actively in the Federal Court of Appeal and would, no doubt, have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think all hon. members on either side of the House will agree that for the Post office and, indeed, this government, to be left in that sort of uncertainty was just unacceptable, and as a consequence, as I have said, the adjournment was obtained on the undertaking that this legislation would be introduced. I understand that the arrangement is that if this bill should meet with the approval of the House the case will be discontinued.
But irrespective of the outcome of the current case, this government considers that there is still a need to eliminate controversy over the use of section 13(b) of the Financial Administration Act. We concur with committee criticism about unusual and unexpected use of power by previous governments, and agree that as long as amendment to the Post Office Act exists as a means of rate adjustment, the Financial Administration Act is not the preferred method of increasing letter and second class postal rates. Although the use of the regulation may be technically within the law, it is clearly less than acceptable to some members of this House, the Senate, and the Canadian public.
I need not remind this House that there are still many problems to overcome before the Post Office can be restored to its former level of pride, dignity, and service. Not the least of
October 22, 1979

these will be the conversion of the department into a Crown corporation. As I said, I hope to be introducing legislation to that effect some time after Christmas. Those problems will be much easier to tackle if this government is not at the same time fighting a rearguard battle against problems stemming from actions by the previous government.
Passage of this bill will legally confirm the amendments to the postal rates that were made by regulation by deeming them to have been made under the Post Office Act. In turn, this will clear the books and allow us to turn our full attention to the more important task of providing all Canadians with the postal service they expect and deserve.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, before I answer some of the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) I congratulate him on tabling the annual report of the Post Office on time.


John Allen Fraser: You get some of the credit for that.


Mr. Lamontagne:: It was compiled under the administration of the former government. 1 read it very carefully, and I must say that it was one of the best reports I have read yet. We reduced the deficit, we increased the volume, and did many other things we could really be proud of because it was really administered as closely as possible to private administration. [Translation]
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that a bill like this one, Bill C-II, as introduced by the Postmaster General at this point, intrigues me somewhat and strikes me as a strange priority. That is why I shall make a few comments and put a few brief questions, since another hon. member would like to speak to the matter; and as we want to complete the study of this bill tonight, I have promised to co-operate in that way.
I want to deal with the need for this bill.

When they were in opposition the Conservatives opposed the adjustment of postal rates under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, section 13(b), which allows the governor in council to increase rates. But with this bill the government prefers to amend sections 10 and 11 of the Post Office Act by Parliament. Despite legal opinions from the Crown that the use of the Financial Administration Act was legal, the Tories attacked our government at the time, saying that we were bypassing Parliament.
I would like to make myself clear on these points. The Department of Justice has affirmed the legality of the use of section 13 in adjusting postal rates. Moreover, when this method was tested in the courts, it was clearly upheld until there was an appeal. Something which perhaps the minister may not know is that the wording is in our Bill C-27, to convert the Post Office into a Crown corporation. The government has not invented anything.
The wording of the present bill is in our Bill C-27 and was put there in order to give the Crown corporation the certainty that there would not be obstructive or negative action from
Postal Rates
interested groups. In other words, we wanted to ensure that there would be a smooth start for the Crown corporation. It was also well known that part of the reason for the use of section 13 was to avoid taking up valuable time in a busy parliamentary schedule, and to give six months notice to postal users. However, rate increases were announced in the House of Commons and discussed there as well.
It was mentioned that we were bypassing Parliament. I found this curious coming from a government which has waited for so long before calling Parliament, the longest period in history without a Parliament. This in itself implies a criticism of the present administration's attitude to Parliament in relation to postal rates.
It is even more intriguing that the government has stated its intention to reintroduce legislation to convert Canada Post to a Crown corporation only after the Christmas recess, but yet has taken this occasion to place before us, piecemeal, a procedure for rate increases alone, which was already in our Bill C-27. Does this mean that the government is intending to introduce other postal rate increases? Does it mean that the government plans to delay or shelve introducing Crown corporation legislation, when it has had so much time to prepare or modify that legislation? Or does it mean that the government intends to modify the postal rate process further in future legislation which is well defined in C-27?
Are we going to see a series of minor bills dealing with postal operations, instead of one concise, comprehensive piece of legislation like our proposed Bill C-27? In Bill C-27, which was laid before the last Parliament by the Liberal administration, there was outlined an excellent postal rate procedure. It proposed rate changes subject to governor in council approval which then would be made public. If there were any objections, they would be filed and investigated by the Canadian Transport Commission, which would have been given the power to disallow the rate change.
Why has the government not done its home work and presented some substantial legislation to the House, addressing the real problems facing the Post Office, instead of playing a game of preferred or selective procedures? The government may well prefer to avoid using the Financial Administration Act to change postal rates, but regardless of this bill it could still change the rates if that is its intention. That is why I cannot understand the government presenting this bill now. Why did it not introduce a bill like ours to make the Post Office a Crown Corporation?
Bill C-27 is there, and with a few little changes which have been suggested by the management, it could be presented and have the same effect. It would also be a great help to the unions, the syndicates and the labour movement in the Post Office because it would prove that this government intends to move fast in implementing the legislation making the Post Office a Crown corporation, thereby getting the matter out of the way in this session.

October 22, 1979
Postal Rates


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this is an Alice in Wonderland situation. The hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Lamontagne) lacks any credibility in any of the suggestions he makes to the government on how the Post Office should be run. For 16 years that party had a revolving-door policy with respect to most matters in the Post Office. They screwed the situation up so badly that human and interpersonnel relationships within the Post Office denied any successful means of collective bargaining.
Now the hon. member stands in this House like a Judas Iscariot and suggests to the new Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) what he should do. Why did the hon. member not follow through with his suggestions when he had the opportunity? Why did his government bring in a Crown corporation bill in the twilight of the last Parliament if they were really serious about making the Post Office a Crown corporation, something which had been recommended by every royal commission since 1960? They brought it in during the twilight months. I think they are a phony gang, these Liberals, to suggest to the government the kinds of things that should be done.
In speaking to Bill C-l 1 I want to congratulate the minister and the government. I welcome this new approach-the new approach being that any changes to the Financial Administration Act by orders in council will be brought to the House of Commons. This is implicit in this bill, and I will deal with it a little later. The principle is one we support, and we expect the government to be consistent in that approach as we go through this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: 1 am glad they are applauding, Mr. Speaker. They will get their chance to speak in a minute.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the need for increased rates in the past was because there were increased costs in the Post Office, largely due to the implementation of technological change in 1971. There was $1 billion worth of technological change which was part of the recommendations of the "Blueprint for Change" in the Post Office. The Liberal government, whose representative just now made suggestions to the minister, should know that the "blueprint for change" not only envisaged changes with respect to the physical operation of the Post Office but also changes in human approaches to human problems. While they moved rapidly toward technological change in the Post Office, the whole question of the way management dealt with workers and the workers' response to technological change was neglected.
We should keep in mind that the workers in the Post Office came under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and were therefore excluded from any sort of participation in the discussion of technological change in the work place. Had they come under the Canada Labour Code they could have discussed matters and have negotiated technological change. Interhuman relationships became very abrasive and led to a breakdown in service to the Canadian people. That breakdown in

service cost a great deal of money and has required continuous increases in rates.
This government, when in opposition, had a good analysis of the problem-a super analysis of the problem. The hon. member who spoke for the Conservative party when it was in opposition travelled the world looking at post offices. Indeed, he was postmaster general in a previous Conservative government. They well knew the problems, therefore, but now that they are in office the Postmaster General is Mr. Clean. The first thing the government did was wedge the Post Office in between oil spills and acid rain.
The most serious problem in the public service today is the Post Office. Everybody recognizes that. The Post Office and those who work in it have been made a scapegoat. They have been used to whip up a kind of fascistic response to the fact that the people do not get their mail on time. We could have hoped, therefore, for a minister whose sole and full time job was to look after the Post Office and make sure there was harmony in it. He could have started from scratch. There was a clean slate. The government did not have to make apologies for the mess perpetrated on the people of Canada by the previous Liberal administration.
We like the Postmaster General. He is a nice man-he is very expansive, very absorbent, very helpful, very courteous but, Mr. Speaker, he cannot deal with Inco and acid rain and oil spills and the Post Office problem all at the same time. The minister has said there will be a Crown corporation before Christmas-but he did not say which Christmas.


John Allen Fraser: After Christmas.


John R. Rodriguez: Christmas 1980? Christmas 1981? We looked for a new start, a risorgimento as the Italians say-a new beginning. We did not get it. We got the minister with other responsibilities, and the Post Office is just a side issue.
When in opposition the government recognized that the interpersonal problems within the Post Office resulted in over
60,000	grievances accumulating. The Post Office management, playing games, allowed these grievances to be appealed all the way through three stages. The workers would win, the matter would go to adjudication, and on the eve of adjudication the Post Office would withdraw the grievance or not continue with it. Those accumulated grievances exacerbated relationships within the Post Office between management and the people on the floor of the plant. One would have thought that a new government that wanted to show good faith, that had no record and that did not have to apologize for the mistakes of the past, would have wiped out those 60,000 grievances. They did not. The government may be Mr. Clean in the public image but they allow the situation to continue. Those grievances still exist. Negotiations for a new contract will take place soon and those grievances can only cause problems.
One of the other problems in the Post Office-and I shall be blunt, Mr. Speaker-was the presence of a Mr. Corkery and Mr. Pare. Both gentlemen came from the private sector, one from Loebs and the other from a corporation in Hamilton.
October 22, 1979

They may know how to run a private enterprise corporation where profit is the motive, but they have a very narrow view when running something that is service oriented, where it is important for workers to get along with management. The thrust of the Post Office is to provide service to the people who pay for it, namely, taxpayers. This government did not remove those two gentlemen although they had a wonderful opportunity to do so. They could have called them Liberals; they could have shaken them out and brought in some new faces. It has been done in other departments. Maybe they were Tories in hiding, or closet Tories! Those gentlemen are still there, still mal-administering, still exacerbating the problems in the Post Office. This government acts as though nothing has changed and I suppose, politically, nothing has.
The principle established in Bill C-l 1 is one that we on this side of the House support and applaud. I recently read something interesting in a report of an interview between the head of the workers at de Havilland and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). Crown corporations come under the Financial Administration Act, so in effect the administration of de Havilland comes under that act. The President of the Treasury Board, however, was reported as saying that any changes with respect to privatizing de Havilland would not be brought to the House of Commons. That is what he said. This is a downgrading of Parliament, an insult to Parliament, and it flies in the face of this particular principle put forward on the altar of democracy by the Postmaster General cum environment minister.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understand that tomorrow the House will revert to the study of Bill C-1G. Could the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kem-pling) advise the House if this is correct and, if we complete Bill C-10, in what order will the business be taken?


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention tomorrow to proceed with Bill C-10. When that is completed we will proceed with other bills pertaining to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), several of which are contained in the House orders. We expect that Bill C-10 will pretty well last for the day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on October 18 I asked the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation if he would assure this House that he would advise his officials in the corporation that, in view of the enormous numbers of repossession of townhouse condominiums, the corporation would cease giving undertakings to insure to lenders so that there would be no further building of this type of accommodation, certainly until the enormous surplus of repossessions were disposed of.
In answer to that question the minister gave me and this House a very unsatisfactory reply. The minister said:
Mr. Speaker, mortgage insurance underwriting practices obligate the corporation to evaluate individual applications very carefully. However, we will be extremely cautious in getting into this sort of practice until we have studied market conditions.
In March, 1978, James Crozier, for the region of Peel, filed with the regional council there and with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation a complete analysis of the social disaster that was taking place in the county and region of Peel, and indeed metropolitan Toronto, as a result of the inept housing practice of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That document, filed with the corporation, outlines the problems, the repossessions, the inability of people to make and carry through with AHOP financing, the impossibility of marketing, by way of resale, condominium townhouses. The study was over a year and a half period.
At that time, and I point out that it was well over a year and a half ago, we had already many, many condominium repossessions in the hands of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The real estate fraternity, private real estate agents, were refusing to take listings for resale of condominium townhouses. People were taking keys in and handing them to the mortgage company saying, "We cannot pay our payments," and the corporation was accepting quit claim deeds. Yet the corporation continued to give undertakings to insure and enable the start up of more and more condominium townhouse projects, to the effect the minister advises me that on July 2 of this year they had in possession, in repossessions- empty repossessions of condominium townhouses-in Mississauga alone 791 units. Just walking the streets and talking to people one can see what is happening in my city-more and more of these condominium townhouses are now in possession of the corporation.
I could give the minister projects, and he has heard about them from me before-there is one called Talka Village on the Lakeshore Road in Mississauga. That project is advertised on CTV and touted by one Joel Aldred. It is a fine development, they say. It is a designed slum with not one sale-not one legitimate sale. There is a condominium project called Balsam Woods, again on the Lakeshore Road, in my riding. It has been financed and in and out of repossession problems for the last four years. Half of the units are still unoccupied although they have been built for four years. And yet this corporation and its inept officers continue to use the provisions of the

October 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
National Housing Act to erect more and more condominium townhouses, to destroy and completely ruin the market for that type of accommodation so that those who were unfortunate enough to have put their hard earned cash into an equity position in that type of housing, find that their equities have totally disappeared.
Indeed, to say that the corporation has an obligation to evaluate individual market conditions is an indication that the officers of the corporation are of such inept quality that their ability to evaluate has been long since lost. And so, when I asked the minister this question, a rather pressing question, particularly in view of the financial stability of Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation, I would have expected the minister to say, "We have ceased giving undertakings to insure on condominium townhouses, certainly in the city of Mississauga."


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend that I very much appreciate the knowledge and experience he brings to this chamber in matters of housing. He has practised law. He has dealt with the situation. But I want to remind him that things are not quite as simple or direct as he would believe.
As demand for AHOP and assisted rental programs began to soften, CMHC did introduce a series of measures designed to restrict project approvals unless the need for housing was clearly identified. The corporation did initiate detailed reviews of local market situations, a check of current and pending vacancy rates, profiles of existing AHOP and ARP projects, specific need and demand surveys were instituted, and reviews of entrepreneurs' financial and development capabilities were carried out.
I would remind the hon. member that the identification of turning points in real estate markets is not always easy, particularly in advance, often when a local market forms a part of a major metropolitan market. New policy in assessing more carefully the situation pertaining to condominium town-houses has been instituted.
The hon. member has brought to my attention, as well, the practice of accepting quit claim deeds, which has not always been satisfactory. The situation there has changed as well. If an owner attempts to quit claim his property and subsequently goes into arrears, CMHC will now institute foreclosure proceedings and the owner will have to pay the legal costs and mortgage his condominium for the arrears unless there is a very good reason why he should not, for example, if the property is abandoned and there are serious mortgage arrears and no reasonable hope of recovering them, or an owner has been transferred and is beyond reasonable commuting distance. Then we would look at the quit claim deed situation and review it on its merits.
It is, I think, wrong to condemn in a blanket fashion the results of some of these programs which the previous adminis-

tration instituted. I would prefer to think they were instituted with good intentions. There is a proverb which says that the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and sometimes the results have not been what I think all of us in this chamber would have hoped. But I believe it would be a little harsh to condemn out of hand the good will and the capability of the CMHC officials. This is not to say mistakes have not been made; it is not to say we are not very interested in looking into the situation.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the forthright and thorough way in which the hon. member has brought these matters before the House, and to assure him that I am getting the utmost co-operation from the officials of the corporation in order to alleviate these conditions, including an early marketing of considerable numbers of units, to put it mildly, in possession of which the corporation now finds itself.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING NEWSPRINT-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S INTERVENTION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 last, I put two questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence), the first dealing with the scarcity of newsprint which compelled several Quebec newspapers to restrict their circulation or the number of pages in their publications and I asked the minister to study the matter thoroughly and, if he deemed it necessary, to submit the case to the director of investigation and research in the competition branch of his department to launch the required investigation.
I am pleased to say to the House tonight that I received this morning a letter from the minister advising me that he had discussed the matter with the director of investigation and research who had assured him that he would study the matter closely to see if it would be advisable to institute proceedings under the Combines Investigation Act. I am satisfied with the step taken by the minister and I thank him.
I must say that the scarcity of newsprint for newspapers in Quebec appears as ridiculous as oil shortages in Alberta. Quebec is enormously well endowed with forest resources and it is unimaginable that Quebec industries cannot get all the necessary paper. There is perhaps an explanation to this situation that may be due to market conditions more than to some anti-competitive behaviour. I noted quite recently an article which appeared in Le Devoir to the effect that the pulp and paper industry in Canada has known a tremendous development these past few months, and I quote:
The major part of our pulp and paper production is being exported to the United States where the demand for newsprint and pulp and paper by products has considerably increased, thereby giving a new impetus to our industry. These exports, paid in U.S. dollars of much greater value than Canadian dollars, are responsible for an exceptional increase in the profits of the pulp and paper industry.
October 22, 1979

I am delighted for the pulp and paper industry. 1 have of course no objection to these companies making profits, but I am concerned that they fail perhaps to provide an essential service and to meet the Canadian demand. And I suggest that it is imperative, in the context of fair competition in Canada, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tackle this problem and try to find a short-term solution in particular to the pulp and paper shortage in Quebec.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this House that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs himself admitted that there would be serious loopholes in the Combines Investigation Act. And I asked the minister in this House whether he intended to bring in amendments to that legislation. He answered that his government was urgently considering several matters that were not referred to in the Speech from the Throne. That answer appears somewhat vague to me. On the one hand, he finds the legislation porous and he even goes so far as to say that certain large corporations could abuse the act and go unpunished. On the other hand, he does not see fit to announce the intention of his government to amend the Combines Investigation Act. 1 think it is important for the minister to give us actual signs of his intentions in this respect. Is he going to protect the interest of Canadian consumers or is he going to abdicate his responsibilities in face of the Progressive Conservative lobbying in this country which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has always opposed amending the Canadian Competition Act. I hope the minister will take positive action and will not limit himself to pious statements and will introduce in the House a competition act with teeth. 1 can assure him of my support and the support of the members on this side of the House if, as a Progressive Conservative minister, he has the courage to face the music and even stand against some of his colleagues on the government side and decides to introduce a good competition measure in Canada.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, in order for me to recognize the hon. member, he will have to move to his proper seat. I do not think that at present he is in his seat.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) for his question and for giving me the opportunity to respond for the first time in the House. In particular, 1 should like to thank him for the subject he has chosen and for the very important nature of the question in terms of the ability of the newspaper industry in Quebec to respond to the needs of the Quebec people.
1 would like to refer the hon. member in particular to the letter sent to him on October 19 by the minister, in which the following is stated:
Adjournment Debate
On two previous occasions this year, problems similar to that of Le Journal's were brought to the director's attention. In one instance, the director found that newsprint was generally in short supply, but that the shortage was due to market conditions and not anti-competitive behaviour. It is probable that this situation persists to the present. The second instance involved weekly local and regional newspapers in Quebec who were experiencing difficulty in obtaining adequate newsprint supplies. The director discussed the matter with the Quebec government officials who had alerted him to the problem. Meetings were also held between those officials and representatives of the industry and newspapers. As a result, the temporary shortage was resolved satisfactorily.
Now I should like to refer quickly to an article in today's Gazette in which the following is stated:
Quebecor-
The publisher of Montreal's biggest daily newspaper
-has been hit harder than any other large Canadian newspaper publisher by the newsprint shortage, which has been building for the past year as growing publishers' consumption of newsprint wiped out excess productive capacity in the newsprint industry.
The Journal de Montreal now sells about 325,000 copies a day, up from 200,000 copies last year. I think this clearly shows that it is a supply problem. In fact, contracts have been honoured, new supplies have been found, for a paper whose 1977 consumption was 65,000 tons and whose 1979 consumption will be 79,000 tons of newsprint. Provisions have been made for an extra 3,000 tons monthly of newsprint through one of the Journal de Montreal's existing suppliers. Expansion and building will create new supply early next year.
As the former minister will know, there are no provisions in the Combines Investigation Act to deal with this matter of proof in terms of shortage of supplies. The act is essentially as it was under the former administration. If the hon. member for Papineau has specific references which he feels are the proper domain of the director of investigation and research, I have been assured that the director will accept and assess them. In the meantime the director will continue to monitor the situation to discern any evidence of price fixing, collusion, or any other behaviour which might be detrimental to our free market system. On a specific matter of revision or amendments to the act, I must defer to the minister and will be happy to respond in writing to the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION-POLICY RESPECTING FUTURE IMMIGRATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) a very simple question about Canada's position relative to continuing its program of challenge and leadership to encourage Canadians to sponsor families of refugees from Vietnam. His answer was so evasive and unsatisfactory that I want to take the opportunity this evening to take my question very clear, although 1 think it was very clear this afternoon, and to give the minister or his parliamentary secretary an opportunity to tell Canadians precisely what their government intends to do now that the 50,000 quota offered by the government has been met by almost a full response from the Canadian people, and where we go from here.
The minister takes enormous pride in the sponsorship program created by him and his colleague, the Secretary of State

October 22, 1979
Adjournment Debate
for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald), this summer. I think it is a good program. 1 am not critical of it, but 1 do not take nearly the satisfaction from it that he does.
Repeatedly he has said that it is the most generous program in the world for dealing with Vietnamese refugees. Those are not the facts, as I understand them. I should like to take a moment of my time to set out the facts which I had from a very authoritative source at a conference on the boat people last Friday. As of mid-October, the United States had admitted and Landed 260,000 boat people; China had admitted
250.000	people; France had admitted 59,000 boat people; Australia had admitted 25,551 southeast Asians of whom
19.000	were boat people; and Canada had admitted 22,348. That is a good total, but it is certainly not the world's record. It is not the world's record in absolute terms, per capita terms, nor in terms of accommodation per square mile of the host country. It is very far from it. I am not suggesting these criteria, but I want to remind the minister that this is far from being the most generous refugee reception program in the world.
This afternoon I asked him where the government was going from here, and this is what I meant by that. As he indicated, we have close to 20,000 private sponsorships. Now, 4,000 should be allocated from an earlier period. This is the way the commission is calculating this figure. In effect we are very close to having 25,000 private sponsorships. We may well have it within a week. That means the 25,000 public sponsorships to be matched on a one to one basis, which the government put forward as its challenge to the Canadian people, are virtually all committed. So the question arises: where do we go from here? I know they are not all here in Canada. I have figures which indicate that only 22,348 are here in Canada at this time.
Is the minister saying that no more private sponsorships will be encouraged from now on, and that until all of these already committed people arrive we cannot look to the government for any further leadership or challenge to the Canadian people? Is that what the minister is saying? If it is, I think he should just say it and accept the responsibility for it, instead of going off and talking about how complicated his program is and how busy he is handling the flow of Vietnamese refugees who are already committed.
I want the minister or his parliamentary secretary, who I am glad to see in the Flouse, to tell us where the government is going from here in providing leadership and challenge to the
Canadian people. If nothing more is being done, if there is not going to be anything more to encourage private sponsorships, will the minister assure the House that, having backed down on providing leadership and challenge, he will at least not prevent people in the private sector from continuing to sponsor new families of boat people or Vietnamese refugees?
The flow out of Vietnam is very low right now. The monsoons are on and we do not know whether, when the monsoons end, the levels of immigration will go up to the levels at the end of the Geneva Conference. We do not know if they will even go up to the levels they were at before that. The level may be high, but this government ought to have a policy. Instead of waffling and telling us how busy he is, the minister should tell us what the Canadian government plans to do next.


Mr. Paul McCrossan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the hon. member opposite that in speaking for the minister on Friday I did not say, as he indicated in his question, that nothing more could be done until the 50,000 Indochinese refugees had arrived in Canada. I did indicate that we were now well on the way to receiving sufficient sponsorship undertakings from Canadian voluntary groups to ensure that our 50,000 refugee target will be met by the end of 1980 in accordance with the government-voluntary partnership formula announced in July, and that our prime thrust was to ensure that our goal was met and the program was seen to be a success.
Members will recall that the 50,000 target was composed of the 8,000 originally pledged by the government for 1979, plus
21.000	voluntary sponsorships matched by 21,000 government refugees.
It should be pointed out, however, that to date less than
15.000	Indochinese refugees have been brought to Canada, and a major challenge, therefore, remains in bringing the remaining 35,000 Indochinese to Canada and successfully establishing them here through the joint efforts of the government and voluntary groups. There is a question as to the implications of possible voluntary sponsorships beyond the
21.000	needed to reach the 50,000 total.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is the question I asked.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: This question is now under active study by the government and an announcement will be made at an early date once the voluntary undertaking target has been met.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, October 23, 1979