1980-06-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Canadian General Electric has announced its intention to phase out the building wire and power cable operation at its Peterborough plant, a decision which would lead to the loss of some 300 jobs in Peterborough. Some of the employees who would lose their jobs have more than 40 years' experience at CGE.
In the light of a petition signed by 3,655 employees and friends, and because the company which has offered to buy the wire and cable equipment from CGE, Pirelli Cables Limited, is a foreign-controlled company, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence):
That the government, through the Foreign Investment Review Agency, stop the sale to Pirelli so that the jobs at Canadian General Electric in Peterborough might be safeguarded.


Madam Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has informed this House that veterans' pensions are being studied as part of a larger pension review by the Department of National Health
and Welfare. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That this House require that the Minister of Veterans Affairs bring in an interim report on veterans' pensions and that the minister assure the House that any Veterans Affairs legislation be separate from a Health and Welfare omnibus bill, and that the resultant pension increases be retroactive to the date of the introduction of Bill C-28 in the Thirty-first Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the courageous struggles against apartheid which took place in the black township of Soweto near Johannesburg, South Africa.
In view of the fact that hundreds of schoolchildren were killed in the terrible repression which ensued, and in view of the South African government's continuing denial of basic human rights to its citizens, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House express its support for all those struggling against the evil system of apartheid in Soweto and throughout South Africa; and, further, that this House unequivocally condemn the government of South Africa for its policies of repression.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The executive of the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia has expelled from membership Paul MacEwan, a member of the provincial

June 16, 1980
legislature for Cape Breton Nova, for expressing his opinion respecting a communist element in the New Democratic Party. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House condemn the actions of the New Democratic Party for expelling from membership a duly elected representative of the people, without benefit of a fair trial, for exercising his right to freedom of speech.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (MIO)


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some pressing urgency. In view of the fact that technical information contained in a variety of ship safety reports is often withheld from certain parties involved in the efficient and safe operation of our marine transport, concerned that withholding of such information hampers the implementation of better safety methods, and in light of freedom of information pressures which are currently in front of us, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell):
That the government immediately renew its policy and methods for the release of technical information contained in ship safety inspection reports to safety committees of unions representing officers and crew and management, since it could be incorporated in the curriculum of a jointly sponsored industry and labour seamen training school to be opened at Morrisburg, Ontario, later this summer and significantly assist in the safe operation of our ships at sea.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 seeking unanimous consent for the following. In view of the fact that we are in the process of renewing our federation, it is imperative that the people of Canada continue to be aware of their rich heritage. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy):
That this House urge the Secretary of State to take all the steps necessary to ensure that the Discovery Train will continue to function for another year, namely, throughout 1981.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing importance under Standing Order 43. I hope to receive unanimous consent, because this motion will save the government considerable amounts of money.
Whereas hearings before the Canadian Transport Commission are costly and time-consuming to the government and to the people, whereas the Canadian Transport Commission holds a hearing on every application for rail abandonment made by the railways if it is contested, and whereas on some of these lines which the railways want to abandon there are functioning grain elevators, coal deposits and other essential products which will require rail service in the future, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That where a branch line contains functioning elevators or has coal deposits or other essential commodities which will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, require rail service, the Canadian Transport Commission reject the application without a hearing.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Canada is not getting its fair share of investment or jobs in the North American automobile industry, and since massive inroads by foreign imports are being made into Canadian and United States auto markets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae):
That the Government of Canada begin immediate discussions with the Japanese government and auto makers with a view to establishing an auto plant in
June 16, 1980

British Columbia which could, within the terms of the existing U.S.-Canadian auto pact, serve both western Canadian and western American markets.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GASOLINE-USE THEREOF BY NON-CANADIANS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The latest Statistics Canada figures show that in April, 1980, 1,000,180 American motorists came to Canada for trips of less than one day, representing a 53 per cent increase over April, 1979.
Given that these motorists most assuredly are coming to Canada primarily to fill up with our taxpayer-subsidized gasoline, representing a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of in excess of $100 million per year, and given that foreign airlines, truckers and ship owners most assuredly are doing the same thing, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House request that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions as to the best estimate of gasoline and other transportation fuel leakages across the border, the cost of these to the Canadian taxpayer, and the government's plans, if any, to deal with this situation.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put before the House a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
In view of the fact that this government delayed announcing its support of the Moscow Olympic Games boycott for almost three months in order to assess international support for such boycott, and since Canada did not join that boycott until some 53 other nations had already made such a decision, it seems strange that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in an interview on Europe-One Radio yesterday, was heard to criticize the boycott as being too little, too late. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
Oral Questions
That this House impress upon the Prime Minister that the effectiveness of the boycott could be increased by this government embarking upon a direct and positive program of discouraging participation in the Moscow games.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Mark MacGuigan said "No".


RETURN OF CLERK OF THE HOUSE AFTER ILLNESS
Madam Speaker:: Before the question period begins, I am sure that hon. members will want to join me in expressing our delight at seeing Dr. Koester back in his chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, perhaps I could put these questions quite appropriately to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on the national television program "Question Period" on the weekend, indicated that he had put forward an energy offer which had "identical conditions to those carried in the Conservative budget of December 11".
While one would be very hard pressed to find anything identical between a threc-mdnth price proposal and a four-year energy package, nevertheless I might ask the Minister of Finance if his colleague's proposal included the funding for a national energy bank, remembering that our December proposals included the four-year funding of $1.7 billion for this very important institution.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think I am certain in replying to the hon. member that the proposal which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made was not as comprehensive as the total package in the December budget, including the energy bank.


An hon. Member:: You said it was identical.

June 16, 1980
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: One finds it difficult to find anything identical if it is not as comprehensive. I should like to go on to elicit from the minister just how comprehensive was the proposal of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The national energy bank, with funding of $1.7 billion, obviously provided a viable vehicle for any number of energy-related projects. In our proposal, one of these included financial assistance for rapid and urban transit. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can tell us whether his colleague's proposal, put, I believe, by telephone late last week, included a commitment to funding rapid and urban transit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the hon. member and be as accurate as possible. I have not been involved in the negotiations-


An hon. Member:: Nor has Marc Lalonde.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but from my information, the proposal was an interim one with respect to several months, and it related to the price arrangements which would take place within that period. It was not to be an over-all settlement including all the parameters which the hon. member included in his two questions.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I want to be as fair to the Minister of Finance as he indicates he wishes to be to me. But when one is as dogmatic as is his colleague in saying the proposal was identical, it is necessary for us to find out in what respect it even faintly resembles our December package.
May I ask, in a supplementary to the minister-because it is a matter which I know touches him very personally-about the former government's commitment to the financing of a gas pipeline from Quebec City through to Atlantic Canada, remembering the necessity for National Energy Board concurrence on which our proposal was based. Given NEB concurrence, did his colleague propose last week the financial commitment to assist in the extension of a natural gas pipeline from Quebec City through to the maritimes given, as I said, NEB conditions being fulfilled?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Here again, the hon. member is introducing another element into the questioning with respect to a proposal intended to provide for an interim solution on the pricing side. Inasmuch as the hon. member has raised the question of the gas pipeline, as he knows, it is part of the energy strategy of the Government of Canada. It was referred to in the Speech from the Throne and continues to be a commitment of the government pending, of course-


William Herbert Jarvis: A financial commitment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -resolution of the difficulties put forward by the National Energy Board and the concerns and reservations, for example, raised by the Premier of New Brunswick.


CABINET AUTHORIZATION OF ENERGY PRICING PROPOSALS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and in the absence of an energy policy, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question.
Is it correct that before the Minister of Energy made an offer to the government of Alberta to do with energy pricing, it had the authorization of cabinet? Did cabinet authorize the Minister of Energy to offer a duplicate of the near-agreement between the former Clark government and Alberta, as the Minister of Energy told a news conference last week? Did you authorize the minister to offer a duplicate copy of that nearagreement, or not; and, if not, why is the Minister of Energy pretending that you did and that he did?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the negotiations undertaken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Mr. Nielsen:: What negotiations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -were authorized by cabinet. They are not yet completed. As I understand it, it is the intention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to meet with his counterpart this week to continue the negotiations. It is not my intention to reveal the instructions which have been given-


Erik Nielsen: He has.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with respect to negotiations that have not yet been completed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on behalf of the government, include in his offer to Alberta that the government wished to encourage a substitution of gas for oil, and therefore the prices for gas would be calculated at 65 per cent of the commodity value of oil to make it possible for a gas pipeline to go from Montreal, to Quebec City, to the maritimes?
Did the minister indicate to Alberta that the government would compensate the maritime provinces for additional costs of electricity generation resulting from oil price increases in excess of $2 per barrel per year? As was the case with the Clark administration, were these two features included in the agreement offered to Alberta by the Minister of Energy, allegedly on behalf of the Government of Canada but about which the Deputy Prime Minister does not appear to know anything?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I repeat my answer: these matters are presently under negotiation. The hon. member for St. John's West is asking me to confirm a variety of items that may be included in the negotiations. I think that is not a very good practice. It certainly was not the practice that he followed-and quite rightly-prior to the negotiations which were not quite terminated by the government to which he belonged.
June 16, 1980


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance in his role as Deputy Prime Minister. No doubt the minister will recall that the Prime Minister was very active in the recent election campaign in promising Canadians that if the Liberals formed the government, there would be an extension of Canadian control over our own economy.
In this context, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the government has now offered the important position of the chairmanship of the Economic Council of Canada to a man who is both an American citizen and is publicly on record in favour of extending American ownership in Canada?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That is Evans' influence.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm or deny that any such offer has been made by the Prime Minister to the man in question. As the hon. member knows, the Economic Council reports to the Prime Minister, and I have no knowledge with respect to any such overture.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I thought that probably the Minister of Finance from time to time spoke to the Prime Minister, but it is clear that is not the case.


An hon. Member:: Nor with the Minister of Energy.


John Edward Broadbent: I thought he was concerned about the fate of the Economic Council of Canada. Since the gentleman in question, less than two years ago, wrote a paper entitled "How about an economic deal with the United States?", and in that paper said he favoured the rules for FIRA being changed so that capital investment and ownership of American origin would no longer be included within its framework of responsibility, and given the government's alleged commitment to get more Canadian control over our own economy, does the minister think it would be wise to appoint a man with these views to such a crucial position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, quite apart from the question of economic nationalism, I find it strange that the leader of a democratic party in a democratic country would begin to test the opinions of any individual as to his acceptability for appointment to any public office. This is a form of censorship in which this party has never indulged.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, not only would the vast majority of Canadians see such a statement as absurd, but I believe the Minister of Finance knows it is absurd. Since it is on record that Mr. Beigie is in favour of extending American control over our economy, and he is also on record as believing
Oral Questions
we have moved too far toward achieving economic equality in Canada, does the Minister of Finance really want us to believe that a man with such, quite literally, reactionary views ought to have this key position?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I really am amused at this particular line of questioning. The hon. member first infers that a particular person is to be appointed to the Economic Council of Canada-something that has not been confirmed or has taken place-and then he went through a censorship test as to his views.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 am glad the public can see how the minds of members of the New Democratic Party really work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INQUIRY WHETHER ENERGY TAX CREDIT AMONG PROPOSALS ON OIL PRICING AGREEMENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It relates to the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the increases in oil prices, particularly as they apply to the consumers in this country.
The Conservative energy agreement included an energy tax credit for those with lower and middle incomes, which would have helped offset the increase in the per barrel price of oil at the wellhead. This would have meant a $240 annual tax credit for a family of four, for example, or $80 for a single, elderly woman. I would like to ask the minister: if the Liberal energy package proposal is identical-as the Minister of Energy said yesterday-will the minister, in his role as Minister of Finance, confirm that there is a similar tax break included in the Liberal package to the one which was in the Conservative package for those with lower and middle incomes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe it would be a mistake for the hon. member to conclude that the Liberal energy package is identical to the package which she has mentioned as having been the package of the former government.
What I understand to be the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is that he had proposed a particular pricing arrangement to the province of Alberta for an interim period of several months. That is the aspect of the arrangement to which I have been referring.

June 16, 1980
Oral Questions
If the hon. member would like me to make a general comment about the question of equity, it certainly would be my intention, as Minister of Finance, to avoid the inequities which were so prevalent in the Conservative budget. Indeed, that would be one of my main aims in bringing down a budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just like de-indexing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, we on this side believe that helping the poor is not an inequity, and I hope that the minister would take that into consideration. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a further question with regard to the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the phasing-out of the subsidization of imported oil to the east coast-a part of the country which the Minister of Finance knows well.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that, rather than getting the subsidization of imported oil out of general revenue, it will be paid for by the consumer out of the price he or she will pay for gasoline in Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Halifax. If the Canadian consumer will have to shoulder the cost of this $3 billion subsidy, can the Minister of Finance tell the House how much of an increase it will mean to the consumer in the price of a gallon of gas at the fuel pump or for a gallon of home heating fuel? If that $3 billion is being phased out, what will it mean to the ordinary consumer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that I intimated in my economic statement in April that one of the intentions of the government was to establish a blended price. Depending upon the phasing in of that blended price, obviously the oil import compensation program would be phased out.
However, the hon. member ought to bear in mind that one of the objectives of the government is still to maintain a single price for Canadian consumers, so that consumers in the Atlantic provinces would not be asked to bear a greater burden than consumers in any other part of Canada.


Mr. Clark:: How high a price?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday, that the phasing-out of the $3 billion oil subsidization program would be borne by the consumer is, as he stated, government policy. If so, how much will it mean to the consumer in the way of an increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline and home heating oil?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is obvious to the hon. member, as it was obvious to the former minister of finance, that any increase in the price of oil in Canada is bound to involve a reduction in the oil import compensation program.
The purpose of the blended price was to share that burden among the various components of the market and to ensure that the same burden would be borne by all consumers in Canada. The point seems to have escaped-and, I think,
honestly so-some of those who have expressed concerns, that we intended to ask consumers in the Atlantic provinces to bear no additional burden. It will be a single price for all Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is a single price now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member also asked me what will be the increase in the price of home heating oil or gasoline at the pump. That will depend on the results of the pricing agreement and when we know what the increases in the price of oil will be in Canada.


OIL PRICING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO ALBERTA
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to some of the questions which were asked earlier this afternoon.
Last week, officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources went out of their way to impress upon the media in the west that the present government had made an identical energy package proposal to the government of Alberta as the proposal made by the previous Clark administration. This was confirmed yesterday on television by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. For the benefit of the Prime Minister, I will quote the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources exactly. He said:
I did put forward another offer . . . which would have put into effect identical conditions to those contained in the Conservative budget of December 11.
A few minutes ago, as the Prime Minister entered the House, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it would be a mistake to conclude-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think it is time for the hon. member to come to his question.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question to the Prime Minister is: in view of what the Deputy Prime Minister just said, namely, that it would be a mistake to conclude that the same proposals were put, somebody is either lying-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -outside of the House or-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have just had an indication that it is much better to come quickly to the question. If the hon. member does not put his question very rapidly, I shall have to give the floor to another member.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I was trying to bring the Prime Minister up to date because obviously he did not hear the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon. My question is: someone is not telling the truth. The government cannot have it both ways. One or the other is right. Which one?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That seemed to be a statement and not a question. Please ask the question.


An hon. Member:: He just did.
June 16, 1980


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question to the Prime Minister is: which one of these two ministers is telling the truth?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I have not read what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said over the weekend, and 1 was not in the House when the Deputy Prime Minister asnwered the previous questions.
It seems to me, from my acquaintance with what the minister said to some of his colleagues last week, that he intended to propose an interim settlement with regard to price which would have had the same effect, in an interim fashion between now and October, as that of the previous Tory budget.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what Marc Lalonde said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told by the Leader of the Opposition that that is not what was said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would you like the transcript?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: You don't like the truth.


Erik Nielsen: Weasel around that one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that we on this side do not intend to break the tradition of the line dividing us.


Harvie Andre: It is a piece of paper, not a sword.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are some very useful pages over there who would be happy to bring the piece of paper to me.


Erik Nielsen: We do not do acrobatics from our seat, either.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I wish we would resume the question period in the usual fashion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the hon. member will understand that it is difficult for me to answer the previous question since I did not hear the answers which were given in the first half hour of this question period. Therefore, I cannot see the contradiction which the hon. member says that he sees. I would imagine that the contradiction is a matter of debate, and debates are always in order but not during question period.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the Prime Minister that the so-called tradition he speaks about has more to do with pointing a sword than with crossing the floor. In any event, what I was attempting to do when you cut me off before, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the heckling does not stop it will encourage the hon. member to prolong his question, and I should like him to be brief.
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the words "identical proposals" in the transcript-the Prime Minister has now had a chance to read it- of what was said on national television over the weekend. That is clearly wrong, and I want to find out from the Prime Minister whether he believes it is clearly wrong as well, and whether he rebuffs his own minister for saying something like that on national television when he should not have done so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my previous answer, on the contrary, did not rebuff the minister but used the very same words that I now see in the television transcript, that the minister was talking about an interim agreement which would have had the same effect with regard to prices between now and October.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Identical conditions: it does not say prices.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All right. The whole point is that it is not the energy package that we have been trying to negotiate and will continue to try to negotiate. It is an interim settlement between now and October which was proposed by the minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is he? Bring him in.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there seems to be lack of unanimity on the other side.


An hon. Member:: Where is he today?


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, we in this corner will not try to take part in the Pierre, Joe and Allan show. It is ironic to us that they have an identical policy. My question is for the Prime Minister, who may be aware that this weekend, in Halifax, the Premier of Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will get to my question in a minute. In Halifax, this weekend, Premier Lougheed announced that the Alberta Heritage Fund is willing to finance the Donkin coal mine in Cape Breton by providing ten times the financial backing offered so far by the federal government, which is some $300 million.
My question to the Prime Minister is a serious one. Would he care to say what the long-term implications are for confederation and for the principle of regional equality if the federal government continues to renege on its responsibilities for regional development, and allows the Alberta Heritage Fund to emerge as having the real decision-making power over which Canadian projects receive financial backing and which do not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the government would take objection to the use of the

June 16, 1980
Oral Questions
word "reneging" in the question of the hon. member. We have made various proposals to the government of Nova Scotia over some months, and we are not reneging on any of them. We have offered to participate in certain ways in the development of infrastructure and resources in Nova Scotia, and these offers still stand.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Perhaps some people in Nova Scotia consider it reneging if Alberta is going to finance the project, even if the Prime Minister does not.
Let me put this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Instead of focusing on pricing, as we have been doing with oil pricing in the House for the last month, or fighting the last election as the party to my right seems to be doing, has the Prime Minister focused on the distribution of the projected increase in oil prices? Has he had any discussion with his provincial colleagues about the establishment of a joint federal-provincial fund to invest in alternatives to oil, like the Donkin coal mine and other alternatives? Has he had those kinds of discussions with his provincial counterparts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the essence of the energy package being developed by the minister, and put forward by the government, is precisely to have a price structure and revenue structure which would permit the federal government to ensure that energy and other products in other projects in other parts of the country can be proceeded with, particularly such things as pipelines to Quebec and the maritimes. This is in order to permit substitution for the consumption of oil by the consumption of gas, other projects which have energy-saving capacity, and so on. This is very much part of the energy package and I am grateful to the hon. member for giving us the occasion to bring that out.
The point the minister has made repeatedly is that the consuming provinces cannot expect to see these various projects proceed if all the revenue is to remain in the hands of one province and of the multinationals, rather than being channelled through the federal government into projects for the benefit of the whole country.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the apparent general support among potato growers for the concept of a national potato marketing agency, will the minister ask the Farm Products Marketing Council to initiate public hearings this summer in order to move toward that objective; and if they will not do that, will the minister immediately establish a commission of inquiry, on an urgent basis, to look into the potato industry in Canada?


Erik Nielsen: The "eyes" have it!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have had discussions with the National Farm Products Marketing Council about hearings being held to inquire into the potato industry.
I believe I can safely say that hearings will be held this summer on the proposals, especially by the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, that a regional agency be established for the eastern production region of Canada, including Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


PRIVACY
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The minister has stated in this House that the Privacy Commissioner looking into the abuse of social insurance numbers is due to make her report some time in August of this year.
In the meantime, would the minister tell the House if he is aware that certain unions are using the social insurance number on mailing labels which are readily accessible to anyone handling these items of mail? Would the minister also tell the House if he is prepared to put a stop to this unauthorized and flagrant abuse of what is supposed to be a confidential number?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that unions are using these social insurance numbers on mail, but 1 shall look into the matter. I should indicate that at the request of the Privacy Commissioner we are conducting investigations within government to ensure that SIN numbers are used in accordance with the law.


John Horton McDermid: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Specifically, would the minister look at the UAW solidarity brochure? Union members are coming to me, saying they are very concerned that their name and social insurance number appears on this brochure. Will the minister approach this union and ask them to stop using the social insurance number on mailing labels?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the matter should be drawn to the attention of the Privacy Commissioner, and I shall do so. As the hon. member knows, the Privacy Commissioner is looking into the use of social insurance numbers in the private sector, and I shall ensure that this matter is brought to her attention.
June 16, 1980


PUBLIC SERVICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. As the clerical and regulatory group of public servants, numbering some 47,000, have not had a contract with the federal government since November 11, would the minister indicate what attempts are being made by his office to reopen negotiations with this group in order to avert the necessity of going to the conciliation board and possible strike route?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in this House in the past, our door is always open when it comes to negotiations. We have attempted to bring the parties back to the negotiating table, which we did some time ago, but negotiations have since broken off.
The designation process is continuing, however, and I expect-at least, I hope-that a negotiated settlement will be reached once we can bring the parties back together, which 1 hope will be in the near future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question. Would the President of the Treasury Board undertake to make a specific overture to this group and invite them back to the negotiating table, bearing in mind that this group in the public service has been fair in the past with regard to their demands and has given every indication that they want a settlement again as opposed to a conciliation strike route?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is aware that negotiation is a two-way street. We will do everything possible to arrive at an equitable settlement-equitable both to the union involved and to the public.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since we seem to have blown our chance of selling wheat to the Soviet Union at as good a price as Argentina, and since there seems to be some mix-up between the two ministers in charge of the Wheat Board-one suggesting we will sell 3.5 million tonnes; the other, 3.8 million tonnes-would the minister straighten things out and tell us how much grain we are going to sell to the Soviet Union this crop year at the reduced, bargain price?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 3.8 is the figure.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, again to the Minister of Transport. The other Wheat Board minister in the other place
Oral Questions
said on CBC radio on the weekend that the new limit for grain sales to the Soviet Union will be 5 million tonnes in the new crop year.
Since Canada has not sold 5 million tonnes except once in the past ten years, this means that to all intents and purposes there will be no embargo in effect. Will the minister confirm that this is the level planned for 1980-81, and would he care to explain why the Soviet Union would want to buy that much wheat from Canada-


Erik Nielsen: Because they are hungry.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: -when this government has turned its back on its second most important customer by joining this embargo and forcing the Soviets to buy Argentinian wheat at prices $40 per tonne higher than the Canadian price?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the situation is that 3.8 million tonnes is what it is expected Canada will export to the Soviet Union in the present crop year. With respect to the next crop year, as I explained last week, the discussion is going on among members of the cabinet. A decision will be announced in due course, but no decision has yet been made.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.


An hon. Member:: What is this, a Liberal holiday?


Erik Nielsen: Another one? It's Monday, and there is another one coming.


Peter Joseph Lang: In view of the fact that Mr. Maurice Carter has made anti-German remarks which were a slur on the Canadian-German identity and an insult to all people of German origin, I would like to ask the minister if the federal government participated in any sponsorship of Mr. Carter's involvement with the Le Mans race, as indicated in an editorial in The Toronto Sun this morning.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: First, Madam Speaker, I might say that if we are looking at empty spaces, there are a lot more over there than there are over here today.


An hon. Member:: There are empty heads over there.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I will not comment on empty heads. The federal government did not participate in this particular car, its program or its race at Le Mans. I am pleased to say there had been an approach made for us to participate but an agreement was not reached. I hope 1 speak not only for the government and members on this side, but all members of this House when I say we find the comments made by that particular individual to be repugnant. They do not represent

June 16, 1980
Oral Questions
Canada's long and close relationship with a military ally, Germany, nor our sense of commitment to our own German-Canadian community.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, who I am sure is aware of the problems surrounding limousine licences at Toronto's Malton airport. The origin of that problem is that licences cannot be issued to individuals.
The question I ask the minister is this. Is the minister aware that the companies, which are the only ones under his rule who can obtain a licence at the moment, are now requiring their drivers, if they wish to work, to enter into contracts whereby they pay all the costs of the car, all the gas, all the maintenance and, further, that they pay the owners the sum of not less than $50,000 a contract, a contract which also allows those owners to fire them on 30 days' notice without returning any of the money they paid?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am aware that the situation varies from one airport to another, but generally speaking a contract is entered into and the terms of the contract have to be applied.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, it is true that the contracts vary from airport to airport. It is also true, and surely the minister recognizes this, that to require Canadians to pay for the right to work is not a Canadian tradition.
My supplementary to the minister is this. Will he undertake a full inquiry of the terms surrounding some of the contracts at Toronto's Malton airport? Is he, further, aware that one of the drivers, Peter Patsiopoulis, who has attempted to have this clause clarified in court, has been unable to do so because the provincial courts will not deal with his suit for unlawful dismissal as it is a federal licence. Will the minister undertake to review Mr. Patsiopoulis' case and consider urgently granting Mr. Patsiopoulis a temporary licence so that he may continue to earn his living as a Canadian while this matter is pursued through the courts?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do so, Madam Speaker, but I do not see anything particularly distasteful in a worker providing his equipment. Many people do that every day.


OIL PRICING-UNILATERAL IMPOSITION OF SETTLEMENT IF AGREEMENT NOT REACHED WITH ALBERTA
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. A few moments ago the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made an offer to the province of Alberta on a very short-term basis, with the consent of the cabinet.
Did the minister, also with the consent and knowledge of the cabinet, yesterday over television say that if there was no agreement, the federal government was going to impose a settlement on the province of Alberta with regard to oil pricing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here again. Madam Speaker, it is a question of the transcript, but my information is that the minister was answering a hypothetical question about what would happen if there was no agreement by the end of June and if Alberta moved unilaterally. My understanding is that the minister indicated that then Canada would have to consider whether unilateral action on the part of Alberta would mean unilateral action on the part of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the Prime Minister feel that the federal government has authority to move in on any other province, including Ontario and Quebec, with regard to the export of electrical energy, which is also part of the energy question in this country, and that Alberta presents a special case only because public plundering is the theme of the day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That seems more in the nature of an argument than a question, Madam Speaker. However, if the hon. member is asking a legal and constitutional question, the answer is, yes, of course the law is the same for all provinces: Alberta is no exception.


THE CONSTITUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us whether, during his consultations with the various provinces immediately after the Quebec referendum, he received from the governments of all the oil and gas producing provinces a firm agreement that the question of oil pricing should be kept separate from the question of the constitution?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I raised the problem and always clearly indicated to all premiers that I hoped that the basic rights of Canadians would not become a negotiable item. I think it would be fine this way. I raised the
June 16, 1980

problem with each of the premiers and they told me that they did not intend to negotiate agreements on resources and basic rights of Canadians, including the fact that we then wanted to obtain a statement on the basic principles involved in drafting a new Canadian constitution.


Charles Joseph Clark: I asked the question because yesterday, in his famous television interview, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated explicitly that there was an agreement on the part of the oil and gas producing provinces. The minister has said he raised the matter and there seemed to be some general positive response.
Is it the view of the Minister of Justice that he received a firm agreement of the kind referred to by the minister of energy yesterday from the oil and gas producing provinces, that the question of oil pricing should be separate from the question of the constitution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot say there was a firm agreement. I raised the problem of having to deal with the two matters at the same time. The indication I received from them was that they did not want to discuss the two at the same time-that the constitutional problem was one problem and that the pricing of oil was a different problem.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final question to the Prime Minister. Why did the Minister of Energy say yesterday on television that there was an agreement, when the Minister of Justice says today there was not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I listened to the minister, Madam Speaker. Nobody is talking about a signed agreement tied down in every way. The impression 1 got from the minister's answer just now is compatible with what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said-that he pleaded with the premiers that they should not tie the rights of the people and the necessity to renew the constitution and to come in with a renewed federalism, with which the Leader of the Opposition agrees, to bilateral questions affecting energy, resources and other things.
To the extent that the Minister of Justice talked about this with all the premiers and that they seemed, if my understanding is the proper one, to say that it was a correct argument, then in that sense there was an agreement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman is aware, having met on Friday with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, of the serious concern of residents of the
Privilege-Mr. Althouse
Vancouver area about the large number of prostitutes, some as young as 11 or 12 years of age, in Vancouver's downtown streets.
What action does the minister intend to take in this serious situation? Specifically, will he assure the House that he will put an end to the double standard which presently exists in our law in that the woman who is harassing a man for purposes of prostitution is charged, but the man who is harassing women on the streets is let off? Will the minister assure us that these "Johns" will also be charged?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I recognize that there is a serious problem in light of the interpretation of the law by the courts. I understand that one of my predecessors, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was proposing to deal very rapidly with that question at the time he was responsible for the department.
As to the problem of how you treat the other parties, in this modern society we even have men prostitutes on the streets, so we have to look at all aspects. I would like to proceed as quickly as possible, because I recognize there are some problems with this kind of social development in Canada. I should like to deal with it as quickly as possible, and I hope that in order to achieve it I shall have the co-operation of the House.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 17(2) to present a question of privilege, notice of which was sent to your office on June 13. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) informed us as members of Parliament that it was his intention to circulate, as part of the Agriculture Canada farm letter, a draft of which is already published, an argument in favour of plant breeders' rights legislation, legislation that is still pending.
It is my contention, Madam Speaker, that to make such an argument at taxpayers' expense prior to the passage of the legislation is a breach of privilege on the part of the minister. He is presenting at taxpayers' expense an argument for a bill which is not the law of the land but is simply the policy of his party. As a result, I contend he is breaching his privilege as a minister of the Crown and I therefore move to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the motion of the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). I think we are looking at something today which is the beginning of a very bad practice if it were to be carried on by other ministers of the Crown, namely, that in a newsletter of the Department of Agriculture the minister is talking about a

June 16, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Alt house
policy in relation to which he hopes to produce a bill in the near future.
We do not have the bill before the House. We are not studying that particular bill. It is one which will be very controversial. Yet the minister is using a newsletter put out by his department to push a certain point of view about a bill which is to come before the House. Some may say we have white papers which argue a particular point of view before we consider government bills, or that we establish task forces which argue points of view before a government bill is put forward.
I suggest that those two methods are different. They are different because when a specific group of people, such as a task fore, sets out to study something, or a white paper is published, those points of view are made public in Parliament by a minister or by a department. In this case we find a minister taking it upon himself to present an argument for a bill in a newsletter put out by the Department of Agriculture. The department is not a political vehicle, it is a department of government and it is paid for by all of us. The minister is using that vehicle to make a partisan, political argument on behalf of himself and the Liberal party.
I think that is a rather dangerous practice to follow and I would ask your Honour to consider seriously whether or not the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has a valid question of privilege on a matter which will be very controversial and important, not only in this country but all around the world. The minister has many vehicles at his disposal and many opportunities to make his arguments and to make them in such a way as to conform with the past practices of this House and of the ministers which have preceded him. 1 wish the hon. gentleman would utilize those practices instead of starting down a new path which could lead to an infringement of the privileges of all of us. It would be something which he, as a minister, could do but which you and I Madam Speaker, could not do since we lack the facilities of the Minister of Agriculture. We may wish to present argument which is similar to the hon. gentleman's or which is quite different from his, but we do not have the same forum, the same vehicle, because we do not sit in the ministry as Minister of Agriculture.
This is an infringement of our privileges as members of Parliament as we try to represent our constituencies equally, regardless of whether or not we have a cabinet post, whether we are government backbenchers or whether we sit in the opposition in this chamber.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if I understood the last speaker correctly, I thought I heard him say that the bill had not been presented to the House. The bill was given first reading, Madam Speaker, on May 29. Both bills pertaining to the Seeds Act are available for public scrutiny. They are available to anyone who wants them. If I understood the hon. member correctly, I thought he said they were not presented.
The newsletter we sent out was circulated after these bills were presented to the House. Departmental publications have been used on many occasions to inform people about proposed bills, so when the hon. gentleman says we are creating a precedent, following a new practice, I do not agree. We want the information to be given to the public. Many hon. members have said we are lax in informing the public or that we do not do it in a proper fashion. This is just a way of trying to inform the public about the legislation, an attempt to answer some of the things which were said about the proposed legislation even before it was presented to the House.
The hon. member finds that annoying. How does he think I feel when someone-and I am sure it is not he-is guilty of such a misdemeanour as to criticize plant breeders' rights or any other piece of legislation before it is presented to the House, describing how catastrophic it was going to be to the public and so on? Madam Speaker, I ask you to look at what I and my department have done and at how we have tried to inform the public of just some of the pertinent facts about this legislation. Many things have been said in the past, and there have been other publications published in this nation also with the support, I understand, of some government funds. Perhaps the hon. member should also mention those funds which were made available for publication, again concerning a piece of legislation which had not been presented to the House.
I am glad this legislation is presented to the House. It has received first reading in the House, and I will be even happier when it is given second reading so that it can to go the committee and be thoroughly discussed. The letter of information, as I call it, can be discussed there. It is customary for my department and this ministry to send out to the public from time to time information concerning bills which are presented to the House. This is something which is not really new. Your Honour will also find, if you investigate the hon. member's charge that this minister uses his offices to propagate philosophies and so forth, that this minister is responsible for a department which from time to time has been awarded the highest awards for informing the public the most about what it is doing.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take a moment or two to speak in support of the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). I do so by recalling an incident which comes to my mind. It took place a number of years ago. It involved a person who is now quite ill and for whom those of us who have been around here for awhile have a great deal of regard, namely, the hon. Judy LaMarsh. It was when we were debating in this House a piece of legislation known as the Canada Pension Plan.
It just so happens-I hope it does not spoil the argument-[DOT] that I was very much a protagonist of that piece of legislation and that I was annoyed about some of the attacks which were being made on it in the press and in other ways. I had the audacity to speak to my friend Judy and ask her if she could
June 16, 1980

put out some leaflet or some advertising answering these arguments and telling of the virtues and benefits of the legislation. Her reply to me was that she had thought about it and that she wanted to do it but that she was told by Treasury Board and others that it was not proper to spend public money advocating or telling of the virtues of a piece of legislation which has not been passed.
1 suggest that if that practice applied then-that would be in the middle 1960s-the same rule ought still to apply. It is hardly proper, if there is a piece of legislation before this House-there being two sides to the argument-that one side should have taxpayers' money to state that side and the other side should not have that opportunity.
I suggest that my friend is right in raising this as a question of privilege, because it does interfere with the privileges of free and open debate on the floor of this House for the government side to have that special recourse to the treasury.
[Translation\


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I only want to give a specific detail. Let us come back to modern times, to 1980. I merely wish to point out that the bill is listed on page 10 of the order paper as Bill C-32.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 must rule that I do not see a prima facie case of privilege in the motion presented by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). I fail to see how the privileges of the House have been breached by too much information. It seems to me that the minister has used customary or usual means of communicating with the population in order to tell the people what were his intentions or the main points in a particular bill. It seems to me that this is a normal practice.
The hon. member did speak about a breach of privilege of the minister. The privileges which ministers enjoy in this House are not different from those which other hon. members enjoy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh?


Madam Speaker:: I think perhaps the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre would be better equipped to discuss the bill because this additional information has been given to the population in general and, by that fact, to himself.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) invoked a precedent. I always listen very carefully to what that hon. member has to say about points of procedure. However, it seems to me that if it was the practice of the then treasury board not to adopt this kind of policy of informing the public, that has to do with the practice of the treasury board; that practice might be changed today, as might be evidenced by what has happened and by what the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre is objecting to.
I really do not see a matter of privilege in this question, and I therefore must rule that it is not a question of privilege.
Introduction of Bills POINT OF ORDER


MR. FORRESTALL-CORRECTION OF SECONDER OF S.O. 43 MOTION
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, earlier today in seeking approval for a motion under Standing Order 43 having to do with the release of technical information to maritime unions-which I am sure your Honour will recall-I inadvertently mentioned as seconder the distinguished hon. member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). While I know she is all for freedom of information, it would be wrong for me to have referred to her as seconding my motion when I intended the seconder to be the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I extend my apologies to the hon. member for South West Nova and to Hansard. I ask that that correction be made.
Again, it is not that the hon. lady is not all for freedom of information; it is just that this happens to be in conflict with the government she supports.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, with your permission I would like to present a petition signed by 3,655 members and friends of the United Electrical Workers' Union, which is Local 524, in Peterborough, Ontario. This local represents employees of the Peterborough plant of Canadian General Electric Limited, and the petition asks that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) meet with the union representatives to hear their grievance and that the sale of the power cable and building wire division of Canadian General Electric to Pirelli Cable Limited, a foreign-controlled company, be blocked by the Foreign Investment Review Agency.
On behalf of the petitioners I ask for serious consideration of their requests by the Government of Canada.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
B. Keith Penner: for leave to introduce Bill C-600, to change the name of the electoral district of Cochrane.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions TRANSPORT

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented to the House on Friday, June 6, 1980, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 203, 224, 249, 276, 278, 281, 284, 354, 365, 621, 625 and 848.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Export Development Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: In so far as
Export Development Corporation is concerned:
1. Total revenue 1977 Total revenue 1978 Total net earnings 1977 Total net earnings 1978
2. (a) None.
$138,964 million $183,213 million $16,847 million $31,730 million
(b) Loans by the Government of Canada to the corporation at the Crown corporation rate:
1977	$150,000 million;
1978	None.
(c) Investment by the government in the corporation:
Dec. 31/77 Dec. 31/78
Paid Capital $125,000,000 $225,000,000
Retained Earnings	Total Equity
$ 76,251,000	$201,251,000
$107,981,000	$332,981,000
There was no write off.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the past ten years, what amount was paid by the government in branch line subsidies related to the cost of moving grain at Crowsnest Pass rates and what amount was borne by the railways?
2.	What is the average cost per ton of grain moved under these two subsidies?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: In response to part 1 of the question, it should be noted that there is no specific subsidy paid for the movement of grain under Crowsnest Pass rates. Subsidies are paid under sections 256 and 258 of the Railway Act in respect of branch line losses, regardless of the commodities carried or the location of the line. Therefore, total branch line subsidies include subsidies paid for lines handling little or no grain traffic, and grain traffic is handled on profitable branch lines for which no subsidies are paid.
The amount paid in branch line subsidies over the past ten years is shown in the attached table. Section 256 payments include both prairie and non-prairie lines. Section 258 payments are all in respect of Prairie lines, and the majority of traffic handled on these lines is grain. However, as mentioned above, no separation of grain and non-grain traffic is made for subsidy purposes.
With regard to the second section of part 1 and to part 2 of the question, estimates of the average cost of moving grain, and the portions of these costs covered by revenue from statutory rates, by government subsidy and by the railways, were made by the Commission on the Costs of Transporting Grain by Rail-Snavely commission. These estimates are available in the commission's report, volume I, October, 1976, (chapter V). An update of these estimates to 1977 levels was prepared by Snavely, King and Associates in their report "1977 Costs and Revenues Incurred by the Railways in the Transportation of Grain under the Statutory Rates", September, 1978, (Chapter IV). Copies of these reports are available from the grains group upon request.
Subsidy payments made to the railways under sections 256 and 258 of the Railway Act during fiscal years 1970/71 to 1979/80
Fiscal	Section 256 Uneconomic
Year	Branch Lines
1970/71	_ (I)
1971/72	14,800
1972/73	16,848
1973/74	11,488,036
1974/75	1,030,160
1975/76	240,108
1976/77	649,157
1977/78	6,549,314
1978/79	11,098,842
1979/80	12,689,625
Total	43,776,890
Section 258	Jointly Under
Designated	Sections 256
Branch Lines	and 258
_ 0)	
33,282,000 22,883,859 25,247,990 85,504,766	
108,684,913 104,419,236 67,022,152 98,854,045 105,850,758	68,900,000 (O
651,749,719	68,900,000
(0 For the fiscal year 1970/71 there were no payments made over and above the normal payments under section 413 of the Railway Act.
(2) This payment is in respect of claims under sections 256 and 258, filed by (1) Canadian National Railways for the claim years 1971-1976 inclusive and (2) Canadian Pacific Limited for the claim years 1970-1976 inclusive.
June 16, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the past five years, how many refugees have been admitted to Canada from (a) Ethiopia (b) Zimbabwe Rhodesia (c) Vietnam (d) Bangladesh (e) the Gaza Strip, the West Bank of the Jordan River, Lebanon and Syria (f) Sudan (g) Cyprus (h) Somalia?
2.	Is there a quota or any limit on the number of refugees that can be admitted to Canada from these countries in the current fiscal year?
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Employment and Immigration):						
	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	Total
1.					(prelim.)	
(a) Ethiopia	I	1		24	27	53
(b) Zimbabwe Rhodesia						
(c) Vietnam (i)	3258	2311	765	1755	24,815	32,904
(d) Bangladesh						
(e) Gaza Strip (ii)	4	1	20	6	31Egypt (iii)	2	4	1	2	9Jordan (iii)	5	3	8Lebanon (iv)	8	6034	3580	1122	384	11,128Syria	9	3	13(f) Sudan	1	1	2	4(g) Cyprus	4	4(h) Somalia	1	1	2Notes	[DOT](i)	includes all Indo-Chinese designated class (i.e.) persons from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.(ii)	Israel and North Sinai included.(iii)	There are no separate data for the West Bank of the Jordan River.(iv)	includes special measures Lebanese Humanitarian Program (discontinued August 15, 1979).
Figures above: (a) include both persons meeting the UN Convention definition of a refugee and others selected for humanitarian reasons; (b) reflect country of last permanent residence rather than country of nationality of the refugees.
2. At the beginning of 1979 Canada established for the first time an annual refugee settlement plan, projecting the source and number of refugees which Canada would have the absorptive capacity to resettle in this time period. The refugee plan is an estimate of the appropriate level of Canadian involvement in international refugee resettlement efforts, taking into account existing commitments, international developments, the absorptive capacity of Canada and the provinces, and the availability of federal, provincial and non-governmental resettlement services. The plan will be developed on an annual basis in consultation with the province and non-governmental resettlement provinces. The plan will be developed on an annual basis in consultation with the provinces and voluntary agencies as part of the annual immigration level exercise.
The annual refugee plan incorporated a target of 10,000 refugees for 1979, comprising 5,000 Indo-Chinese, 2,300 Eastern Europeans, 500 South Americans, and 200 convention refugees from other parts of the world, as well as contingency reserve of 2,000.
Order Paper Questions
On June 21, 1979, the federal government announced that the 1979 refugee intake of Indo-Chinese refugees would be increased by 3,000, using the 2,000 contingency reserve in the plan and adding an additional 1,000. This brought the total government commitment to 11,000 refugee landings in 1979. A further 1,000 family reunification landings were expected to come direct from Vietnam. On July 18, 1979, Canada expanded the previous commitment to make it possible for a total of 50,000 Indo-Chinese refugees to be admitted by the end of 1980. Then on March 19, 1980, a federal cabinet decision was made to modify the program to admit an additional 10,000 government-sponsored refugees before the end of 1980, bringing the total for 1979-80 to 60,000.
The refugee plan for 1980 calls for the admission of 5,000 refugees apart from those from Indo-China. The targets are for 3,000 from Eastern Europe, 500 from Latin America, 500 from other world areas, and a contingency reserve of 1,000. Up to 300 of this contingency reserve was recently committed to assist with Cubans who have sought asylum in the Peruvian Embassy in Havana.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was transferred to the National Library purchase account?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Library as follows:
The following amounts were approved in an appropriation bill by parliament for the National Library book purchase account for the years indicated below.
Fiscal Year	Amount
1974-75	$639,000
1975-76	650,000
1976-77	650,000
1977-78	650,000
1978-79	650,000
1979-80	900,000
RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING FUND	

Question No. 278-Mr. Herbert:	
In each of the past five years, what amount Grade Crossing fund?	was transferred to the Railway
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-	
ter of Transport):	Outstanding
As at	Commitments
1975-76	$25,000,000
1976-77	None
1977-78	25,000,000
1978-79	20,000,000
1979-80	10,000,000

June 16, 1980
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the National Film Board operating account?
2.	(a) 44;
(b) (i) 10,
(ii) None.
3.	None.


Peter A. Stollery: 1 am informed by the National Film Board as follows:
Fiscal Year
Amount
March 31, 1975
1977
1979


[Stage Direction]
2,500,000 (forecast)
Note: The above figures are the actual amounts outstanding at the dates indicated and as shown in the books of National Film Board. The figures shown in Public Accounts for each of the same years are modified by crediting to the account the cash receipts after March 31 which pertain to the Fiscal year completed on that date.
Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the Railway Grade Crossing fund?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
1.	(a) 61;
(b) (i) 11,
(ii) 4.
2.	(a) 44;
(b) (i) 7,
(ii) 4.
3.	Yes, Parks Canada transferred to the Department of the Environment. Consequently, the number of SXs employed declined from 61 to 44.


[Stage Direction]
As at
March 31, 1975 March 31, 1976 March 31, 1977 March 31, 1978 March 31, 1979
Outstanding
Commitments
[Stage Direction]
Amount Carried Over
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Six lawyers, employed by the Department of Justice, are assigned to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the associated Department of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979, (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Public Works (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the department since March 31, 1979 and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SXs employed?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a) 44;
(b) (i) 9,
(ii) None.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Ministry of State for Economic Development?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Four officers.


Mr. Howie: 1. Did the government assist New Brunswick with a spruce budworm spraying operation in (a) 1978 (b) 1979 and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) what areas were sprayed?
June 16, 1980

2. Was an analysis of the spraying operation made and was it generally considered effective?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1.	(a) No, except for technical advice for pre-and postspray analysis.
(b) No, except for technical advice for pre-and postspray analysis.
2.	Yes. The analysis, carried out jointly by Forest Protection Limited, the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and the Maritimes Forest Research Centre, showed that the spray program in both years was generally successful in meeting its objective of tree protection.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise to address this motion to create an important new concept in the development of social policy in Canada, a small ministry to be known as the Ministry of State for Social Development. The ministry is being established to assist the government in integrating current social programs and developing more equitable social policies for the future. [Translation]
The 1960s and 1970s were a period of social reform in Canada. In those years we developed the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the guaranteed income supplement, Medicare and a host of other new social
Social Development Ministry
programs. We greatly improved family allowances and old age security and we pioneered the use of tax credits to deliver child benefits.
These programs have contributed greatly to the well-being of all Canadians and they are something of which all Canadians can be proud. But they were not without problems. The integration among programs was not always perfect. Costs sometimes ran higher than they might have in order to achieve the desired results. It was not always clear what government priorities were meant to be. Moreover, we have not yet solved the great social problems facing our country. The distribution of income in Canada is largely unchanged despite all the social policy changes of the 1960s and 1970s. Crime and poverty have not disappeared. Today, Canada has more poor children than ten years ago and the problems of many pensioners are still with us. The majority of Canadians still have no pension coverage other than that financed through the public sector. [English]
We felt, on returning to office, that we could do even better than we had and we vowed to continue to improve the policymaking process to allow us to achieve that.
Hon. members have already heard in the Speech from the Throne of our government's determination to deal with such pressing social issues as job creation and the incomes of the elderly. Members will recall as well the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the recent election campaign to finance, over the long haul, additional social spending by reductions in existing programs or by increases in government revenues. Our commitment to social justice and fiscal reponsi-bility is clear. What I am suggesting to the House today is that we cannot hope to achieve these goals-to improve the substance of policy-unless we first improve the process by which social policy is set.
This concept will already be familiar to some members of this House, particularly those on the benches opposite. In addressing this motion, I wish to acknowledge the role of the previous government in moving toward the integration of policy setting and expenditure management. I hope, therefore, that members opposite will want to give ready assent to this motion.
They, too, wish to see our limited dollars go where they are most needed. To that end, it is essential, first, that ceilings be placed on expenditures and that all expenditure growth be carefully controlled, based upon careful planning and projection; second, that new high priority programs should be financed largely out of the proceeds from the elimination of other expenditures; third, that ministers must make conscious trade-offs among various possibilities in deciding what new proposals to lay before the House; and, fourth, that the choice of such programs should benefit from the advice of all the ministers within a sector.
[ Translation]
We must put well-established limits to expenditures; we also need a mechanism by which ministers can properly consider
2134

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
their priorities, compare one policy proposal with another and choose among them on the basis of clear trade-offs among the almost infinite array of policy proposals ministers face. Mr. Speaker, only in that way can we be certain that the dollars will go where they are needed most and only in that way can we be sure that all departments work together. Our proposals will ensure that all the relevant ministers and departments are genuinely involved in decision-making and that each is aware what others are doing. I must mention, however, that our concern is certainly not to save money at the expense of social, cultural and legal programs. Rather, it is to ensure that the money which we do spend-some S26 billion of it next year- goes where it will do the most good.
I wish now to speak about the elements of this process. A series of resource "envelopes" have been created, comprising all the programs in a given policy area. The social policy and justice and legal envelopes with which we are concerned today are the largest of these by far in dollar terms, for they include all the programs of Justice, Solicitor General, the Penitentiary Service, RCMP, CMHC, Environment Canada, the very important Department of Employment and Immigration, as well as the departments of Health and Welfare, Veterans Affairs, Indian and Northern Development, all of the cultural organizations which report to Parliament through the Secretary of State, and both research councils.
Once the cabinet committee has received the allocation for its sectoral envelope it knows its expenditure ceiling for that fiscal year. There may be room for expansion under that ceiling-for example our social policy envelope for 1980-81 will be increased by an amount sufficient to pay for our increased guaranteed income supplement which, as we know, Mr. Speaker, was raised by $35 a month by an act the House of Commons and the Senate approved a few weeks ago. But normally once that ceiling has been reached, any new expenditures must be financed through the cancellation of old, lower priority programs. Thus ministers must sit together and make trade-offs. They must clearly decide upon their priorities and they must do it together. That is what I mean when I say that all ministers are involved and that choices are now not Indian Affairs choices or Health and Welfare choices but social policy choices-for all these areas are considered together and decisions are made collectively. In a very real sense there is now an over-all social affairs budget, which in time should permit much better co-ordination of social policies.
I wish now to turn to the proposal to establish a ministry of state which will assist the cabinet committee of social development ministers, among other things. The terms of reference of the proposed ministry are before the House.
The kinds of deliberations I have described today require very considerable support. The committee deliberations must be informed by a thorough knowledge of all the operating
programs in the social, justice, legal and cultural policy fields. They must be supported by an accurate, up-to-date allocation system so that ministers always know their exact budgetary situation. They must be informed by a competent monitoring of social, demographic and economic trends so that decisions take proper account of what lies ahead. They must be informed by properly designed evaluations of program delivery. They must be informed by thorough liaison at all bureaucratic levels so that the ministers' officials know enough about what is happening in other areas to propose good policies and to suggest places where duplication may be eliminated. They must be informed by a well-developed planning capacity to suggest creative improvements to social, cultural and legal policies. Finally, they must be informed by a thorough knowledge of provincial government activities in an area where provincial jurisdiction is crucial.
All of this requires a new structure. The one we are proposing is a small, highly competent ministry staff consisting mainly of professionals. My feeling is that eventually a ministry of some 50 to 60 officers will be needed to perform these functions. A ministry of comparable but slightly larger size is performing a similar function for the committee of economic development ministers. The ministry will advise the committee chairman. It will help ministers to set priorities and allocate resources. It will increase the capacity of ministers to establish trade-offs. It will support the re-evaluation of programs, but most of all it will help integrate social programs within an over-all social development strategy.

It is our intention to create new policies which will attack these problems directly by the creation of carefully directed and closely integrated policies which will allow the federal and provincial governments and all parts of our large federal social policy apparatus to work together. It is our intention, also, to foster and develop Canadian culture and to enhance our identities as Canadians. It is our hope that we will solve, by dynamic leadership, some of the social policy dilemmas which have beset us throughout recent decades. The new policy co-ordination and management systems which I have been discussing are an important element in these intentions. The new Ministry of State for Social Development will be a keystone in this process. I appeal to all members of the House for their support in the creation of this body, for it is important to all Canadians.

The creation of this ministry is a follow-up on what was started by our previous administration prior to last spring when my colleague, Mr. Andras, became the first minister in charge of the Board of Economic Development Ministers where all departments were co-ordinated that way. The following administration that was in power last spring and last year established that ministry, but they did not have the time to proceed with this motion in the House of Commons. I was pleased to take over that responsibility from the then secretary of state, Mr. McDonald. I had occasion to work with the group
June 16, 1980

that was established under Mr. Rawson, who was the former deputy minister of national health and welfare. In the last little while I have been involved in the program, I think it has been quite useful to have all ministers of different departments together to see what is happening in all those fields in which we are spending $26 billion every year.
[ Translation]
Because, Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of this House believe that it is very important to maintain in Canada the services and social benefits implemented during the last few generations. I think that we can all be proud of the progress accomplished in the field of social security and cultural policy and of the sophistication that we have reached in the last decades in the social and cultural fields. Our work is not over yet, but it is very healthy to review all programs within a given period.
In the past, as I saw myself when 1 was President of the Treasury Board, decisions have very often been made because of an immediate need to reduce government expenditures, and sometimes, this was done very arbitrarily. We hope that by establishing the Ministry of State for Social Development, all ministers who have a role to play in the social vocation accepted by the government or Parliament on behalf of all Canadians will now be able collectively to analyse our priorities and budgets, and to identify the programs which have lost their usefulness or which must now give way to higher priorities in the present context, and that the ministers will be able to do so collectively in full knowledge of what is happening. For my part, in the last few months, when I had the pleasure of presiding at the meetings of the Committee on Social Development, I saw that even though the ministry had not yet been officially established, it was already operating as it had done under the previous administration. 1 was able to see that the ministers involved can now know what are the priorities, what are in general the claims made on the government and what are the available resources.
We have been able collectively to appreciate the potential which exists within the administration, and to change our priorities and budget allocations so that the new priorities can take over from other programs which might be still useful in society, but which must now, in light of our experience over the last decades, give way to new priorities, because governments and Parliaments must always consider what constitute the priority for the population when they sit in the House.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the minister with respect to his additional responsibility. I think he has three responsibilities in concrete terms-federal-provincial relations, Minister of Justice and now Minister of State for Social Development. I was quite impressed with the comments of the minister respecting the fact that he hoped the ministry would be a small and highly competent one. So say we all. Also I should like to take
Social Development Ministry
the opportunity to wish him well with it, particularly in connection with the new bureaucracy he inherited. Mr. Rawson and his staff are highly competent and will do their best to keep the minister out of trouble.
It seems to me the hopes for the ministry in terms of integrating ministerial responsibilities and the workload of bureaucracies may well be realized. But this may be more than counterbalanced by the fact that, at least for an early period, it will rain confusion upon most people who are trying to attach responsibility as to who is responsible for what in the social policy field. I say that in spite of the minister's comments. If we read the order in council outlining the responsibilities, we see that the minister is not responsible for simply going around and getting the best and latest thoughts from the various ministers and delivering them somewhere. He is in fact charged with the responsibility of developing and leading. Indeed, the language used in the order in council encompasses responsibility for developing and leading in respect of policy initiatives in the whole field of social policy and social development.
I do not think one ought to see the intention of the government as simply one of better management of resources. In fact,
I think it is otherwise. The intention of the language in this order in council is to create ultimately a fairly vast bureaucratic network dealing with social policy development. However, other members wish to raise that point in more detail, and my concern today is otherwise.
I would like to assume that the minister would like some helpful thoughts on how he might go about his new responsibility. One of the things that has always bothered me about any new bureaucratic arrangement is that somehow there is the assumption that life begins when you start. This is a common thought by most human beings, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker.
It seems to me that the social development field, if it is going to get anywhere, has to take some cognizance of the past. 1 recognize that one may say, "There go the Conservatives again talking about the past", but it has always seemed to me useful to see where we have been so that we might better find out where we ought to be going.
I am glad I spent a little extra time this morning feverishly trying to find out where we were in 1960. The minister talked about 20 years ago and gave a recitation, as is the Liberal party's wont, about all the wonderful things it has done on behalf of Canadians. For that I want to thank him. I think it is also worth while reminding people exactly where we were in 1960 so we might see where we want to be in the year 2000. I would like to spend a moment or two on that.
In 1960, oh blessed day, the Conservatives were in power. You may remember that Mr. Speaker. The prime minister, of course, was the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. The Conservative party had 50 seats in the province of Quebec. Major General Georges Vanier was Governor General, it was the Twenty-fourth Parliament and the outlook for the nation

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
was reasonably good. As reported in the Toronto Star, unemployment was down to "moderate levels", and national revenues were rising. The chances, said the Toronto Telegram, for a balanced budget for 1960-61 were excellent. The real issues of the day, again according to the Toronto Telegram, included defence and finance. Even then they were talking about what kind of defence policy this country wanted and how much we were willing to pay for it.
That year, 1960, was a leap year. That was the year the Hon. John Turner, who was then a lawyer from Montreal whose major claim to fame at that point, as I recall, was that he danced with Princess Margaret, was asked, since it was a leap year, who might ask him to marry. He said he would rather drop dead than answer the question. For the record, John Turner was married in 1963.
A United States study at the same time showed that only 3 per cent of working women had ambitions to be executives. McLean-Hunter started a new magazine which was called Canadian Homes and Gardens. As you flip through the pages of Maclean's and Canadian Homes and Gardens of 1960 you will see ads promoting brand names as quality standard. There were no no-name products at that time. Metrical was brand new, and it has become, of course, part of the flab-conscious society in which we live. Metrication started a little later. Governments were still fighting the same dilemma; they were cutting costs and personnel, according to the Toronto Star. The employment picture was pretty good, and salaries are interesting to read. A plumber in Halifax made $1.25 an hour, a carpenter in Montreal made $2.35 an hour, an electrician in Toronto made $3.40 an hour, a labourer in Winnipeg made $1.65 an hour, and a plumber in Vancouver made $3.14 an hour.
The year 1960 was the year of the duck-tail haircut, the year of the cha cha cha, and the year of the TV show "Mr. Lucky". Some hon. members may remember that. It was the golden age of live TV. Jack Parr put us to bed. Johnny Carson now does that. It was all in black and white, of course, because we were not sure about colour television, and, indeed, there was some thought that it may offer distressing opportunities, or the lack of opportunities for reproductive possibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: Hon. members may remember that issue.
The "Sound of Music" was on Broadway, Mitch Miller was singing along on Sunday night, just before Ed Sullivan, and Elvis Presley was big-very big. We remember Connie Francis, and Anita Bryant was on the hit parade with "Paper Roses". We had Brenda Lee, Fabian, Paul Anka with "Puppy Love", and we could never forget "The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini". "South Pacific" came out that year in film and the album sold millions.
The streetcar fare in Toronto was six tickets for a dollar. You could get a free car wash with a $3 gas purchase. If you drove a Volkswagen I guess the problem was that you could not get $3 worth of gas into it. Gasoline was 19 cents and 20 cents a gallon.
A house in downtown Toronto, the house that you dreamed about with six bedrooms, two bathrooms and a private driveway, could be purchased at Avenue Road and St. Clair for about $22,000, and that is roughly the geographic centre of metropolitan Toronto. You could still buy a number of houses in Cabbagetown at the time for $7,000 to $8,000 each. A beautiful dress in Eaton's cost $25. Button-down collars were on their way in and Bob Newhart was a new comic with a button-down mind. Medic Alert was just a gimmick and you had to send away to California, the home of all gimmicks, to get one. The Richardsons from Regina became the champions in curling.
On the front page of Maclean's in 1960, and throughout one whole monthly issue of Maclean's, there was nothing about energy except one thing, and that was on page 24 where there were six lines as follows:
Natural gas will answer an ever-increasing proportion of Canada's energy needs in the 60s, plans for building new pipelines, looping present lines and provisions for exporting gas to the U.S. are calling for a $1 billion expenditure.
Energy did not occupy anywhere near the space that it does today. A column by Blair Fraser in Maclean's was headlined "The backbenchers' unemployment problem-they're able, anxious and bored stiff'. That was in 1960. A column by Leslie Roberts, a freelancer from Montreal, entitled "The maritimes should secede from Canada" appeared. In those days Nathan Phillips was the mayor of Toronto and Jean Drapeau was the mayor of Montreal. The mayor of Moncton was M. M. Baig, and the mayor of Yellowknife was Ted Horton.
Those were the good old days when sugar was nine cents a pound, bread was 15 cents a loaf, sirloin was $1 a pound, milk was about 24 cents a quart, and now it is 79 cents a litre, whatever that is.
Ottawa had a brand new police station in 1960. You might remember that, Mr. Speaker; you probably voted for it. Ottawa has since outgrown that one and is now looking to build a brand new one. A magazine article in 1960 dealt with the eyesores of Ottawa, one of them being the temporary war buildings. After 35 years, those buildings are just coming down.
The best movies were "Sunrise at Campobello", "Elmer Gantry", "Inherit the Wind" and "Spartacus". Jack Kennedy was running for president. A Bill of Rights was brought into the House by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. Alvin Hamilton was minister of northern affairs and solving bear problems in national parks by having their derrieres painted red to distinguish the good ones from the bad ones. Marcel Lambert was parliamentary secretary to the minister of national revenue.
Peter Lougheed was the vice-president and director of the Mannix Company in Calgary. For those who are interested in the continuing struggle, Marc Lalonde was teaching law at the University of Montreal and, indeed, was an assistant to the Hon. Davie Fulton. Jean Chretien was practising law and
June 16, 1980

trying to get a job with the former member for Eglinton, the Elon. Mitchell Sharp.
Vance Packard wrote the "Waste Makers", Joy Adamson wrote "Born Free" and William Shirer wrote "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Coin-operated dry cleaners were a new fangled idea from the United States. Floyd Patterson was the heavyweight champ. The Pittsburgh Pirates won the National League and the New York Yankees won the American League.
Canadian athletes did extremely well in 1960. Barbara Wagner and Robert Paul won the world's pairs competition. The fixed bankrate in 1962 was 6 per cent. This year interest rates soared to 17 per cent, and they are now dropping to around 12 per cent. To date the Argonauts had not won the Grey Cup. In 1960 the government spent $1,242,000,000 on pensions and family allowances for Canadians. Today the income security branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare spends $9.7 billion.
In 1960 a licence to do business cost cabbies $15,000 in Montreal and Toronto and now it costs about $45,000. Cigarettes were 40 cents to 45 cents a package. A cab driver remembers TTC tickets as costing a quarter for two or a dollar for eight. The rule of thumb when shopping was that you paid about $3 for a bag of groceries. Now you are lucky if you can get the bag for that! A hair wash and a hair set in 1960 cost $3 and you tipped a quarter. To rent a house in a relatively good part of Toronto, let us say Etobicoke, with five bedrooms, one bath and parking was $135 per month.
In giving those little bits of information, Mr. Speaker, I hope I did not take too long, but I wanted to make the point that there were many things 20 years ago which we felt were important and which were not, and there were many things to which we did not pay attention and they were important. If we are going to have any social policy in this country that is useful to Canadians in the year 2000, then it is not, in my view at any rate, useful for us simply to rest on the recitation of the social measures which this House has agreed to in the past.
Indeed, there may be changes in the future, between now and the year 2000, for which we can see some sense now. It is always difficult to prophesy. I think there is an oversupply today of prophets, futurists and soothsayers of one kind or another who will tell your fortune and your future. There are people who will tell your future through cards, through tea-leaves or through polls. There are various ways in which people try to determine the future.
There are also straws in the wind, and one can get a sense of what the year 2000 might have to offer. I remember a line from Bismarck who said, when someone asked him how he figured out foreign policy for the future, "I catch the wind of God and the trees and hang on". Perhaps that is good advice for the minister of social policy. If I can give an example of when we tend not to pay attention but ought to, on August 8, 1960 a man by the name of Munro Rathbone who had an office in Rockefeller Plaza made a decision. He was the chief executive officer for Exxon. The decision he made was to cut back on the taxes being paid to the oil producing countries.
Social Development Ministry
Within a few days of Mr. Rathbone making his decision, the other oil companies followed suit and within three months, by September 9, 1960 the hard hit oil producing countries got together in the ancient and fabled city of Baghdad and organized an outfit known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries-OPEC. It was not until about 1973, 1974, or 1975 that people in the west heard of this organization. As hon. members will remember, it really took the Yom Kippur war to bring OPEC to the attention of the United States. It had been formed in 1960, however.
In the same way, I think we can get a sense of what is coming by the year 2000. Most futurists, those people who try to figure out what is coming at us in the future, agree that fundamental to all changes in the future at any time is that one will find a change in the pattern of behaviour which we establish for the production, distribution and consumption of our goods and services. If there are changes in the production, distribution and consumption of our goods and services, there will ultimately be changes in art, music, the kinds of songs we listen to, the kind of art we like, our sense of neighbourhood, our sense of who we are and our sense of time and space. This all has an effect on families and institutions such as the church and so on.
If hon. members have not had the opportunity over the last couple of months to read Alvin Toffler's new book, "The Third Wave"-I get no royalties at all for this-I would recommend that they do so. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in a quick gaze into what the future will bring. In brief, he argues that over the next 20 years, indeed the next decade, there will be striking changes relating to the workplace. Increasingly we will be able to do more work at home. As we move from the actual dealing with goods, the changes in technology and computer science, and thus in the flow of information and in communications, will allow us to do far more work at home. He refers to this change as the rebirth of the cottage and calls it the "electronic" cottage. There is kind of a whiff of the space age about the book.
This morning while I was shaving, 1 heard an announcement on the radio which said that the planning board of the city of Ottawa is, this very night, accepting suggestions from its citizens to relax, expand and otherwise modify-if hon. members remember the words as well as I-the zoning bylaws with respect to employment enterprises in residential areas. This is because they want to allow for an expansion in residential areas of work opportunities. It was not a big item and they do not have the trumpets out, but it is a straw in the wind. I think we will see more of a change in that connection.
Indeed, Toffler goes on to argue that the next 20 years will be characterized by a number of changes. There are four changes which he singles out. The first is that we will see a restrengthening, if not a rebirth, of the family. He is not referring to the family which we may know as well as the one we have, but to the institution of the family. As always, it will remain, but its specific form may change. In fact, he says there will be a number of forms and a variety of roles in this family.

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
Recently the Toronto Star did an article on the kinds of families which are emerging today. There are an amazing number of kinds of families which are emerging with different roles. There are lots of people who are not going to have children. In fact, I gather there are lots of people who are not going to get married and have children. There are a variety of ways in which we are going to renew the family.
Second, neighbourhoods and places of living are going to be changed because the workplace and the living place, Toffler says, are going to be the same.
Third, the corporation will change. The corporation began as an economic instrument but it will increasingly be judged by its social policies as much as its economic policies. Indeed, that is already the case. It is increasingly being measured not only by its economic performance but by how well it manages the environment in which it is involved, by how well it deals with its employees and how well it organizes itself in relation to the social problems of its own employees. The corporation is already changing and will have changed even more so by the year 2000.
Fourth, Toffler says there will be a rebirth of the sense of community and the need for community. It may be very difficult for some people to see this but if we look around we can see that what the minister is involved in has indeed changed. Change is basic to the human condition, but so also, is order and continuity. If we look ahead 20 years we will see that our major problem of social development will be to find a way to deal with that change and convert it into order and continuity.
In the past we have relied upon the life rafts that have always been there-the church, the family, the neighbourhood and social groups. The minister's responsibility is to find ways to deal with the change that is coming-ways to pour new wine into old bottles. It is incumbent upon him to find ways of renewing our institutions-family, neighbourhood, church and social groups-so that change can be converted into order and continuity. It is within that context that I should like to use the time remaining to me to look at some very specific issues regarding social development in the 1980s.
First of all, over the next decade it will become essential to relate economic policy to social policy. For a long time there has been an artificial split between the two. The interdependence between economic policy and social policy is so clear in our everyday lives that we forget how important they ought to be in the organization of government services. Income security programs, for example, are not just a question of the right to social assistance; they can be affected by programs in relation to income tax, employment and manpower retraining as well.
Just the other day some questions were put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) about the indexation of income tax. The questions were essentially about whether the government needed more money in order to meet its deficit. Important as that may be, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians feel that the real import of that policy is whether it removes the
protections they now have against inflation through indexation of income tax. Although it may fall into the category of an economic policy, the removal of indexation of income tax will have a devastating effect on Canadians, particularly those in the low income group or those of modest means.
The second issue is one which I touched on earlier, the matter of corporations. We will not only be concerned with their economic performance in the future but also their noneconomic performance as it touches upon consumer protection policies, the environment, the problem of alcoholism among employees or whatever the social problem may be. It may also lead to new observations about new forms of corporations that relate to the community. Community economic development is another straw in the wind but it will become more important as we become increasingly dependent upon communities.
Third, we will have to deal with the problem of equal pay for equal opportunities as it concerns handicapped people and women. There has been a lot of talk about this in the past few years but I think now the talking stage is over. I am sure the minister will be interested in developing policies to ensure there will be no distinction in the opportunities offered to our sons and daughters. Every father and mother knows that their daughters and sons are equally bright, equally intelligent and equally able. A society that does not offer them equal economic opportunity is no longer acceptable.
Fourth, we will have to deal with the question of income disparity. The billions of dollars which have been injected into income transfer programs in the past 20 years have not changed the range of disparity at all. The programs were welcome because things would have been worse without them. We put a great deal of time into trying to find income supplementation programs for the working poor. I like hockey players, Mr. Speaker, but we must think about the money we pay them when compared to the salaries paid to doctors. It is becoming more important that we find a way to put some relative and reasonable limit on the range of incomes.
Housing is another problem. In 1978 the government decided to get out of the housing business and now there is no housing policy. Things look worse for the future. On Saturday 1 had the opportunity to preside at the opening of the J. S. Woodsworth housing co-operative in the city of Toronto which is the fifth in the Cabbagetown area. The minister might want to consult with the minister responsible for CMHC to see what can be done about co-operatives because I believe they are becoming increasingly important.
The minister was far too modest in his comments, Mr. Speaker. He has an overriding responsibility in this field as set out in subparagraph (c) on page 3 of the proposed order in council as follows:
(c) he shall lead and co-ordinate the efforts of the Government of Canada to establish and to clarify co-operative relationships with the provinces and with public and private organizations, to foster conditions that allow and assist the development of the individual, the family and the community;-
That does not say that he takes notes from other ministers or that he is just there to integrate; it says he shall "lead and co-ordinate". I take that very seriously, Mr. Speaker, because
June 16, 1980

it will become more important over the next 20 years or even the next five that the federal government reassert its influence in the social policy field-not necessarily its power, Mr. Speaker, but its influence. Indeed, it struck me that since the government has been in office, and even when they were in office before, it has always missed the point that there is a big distinction between power and influence. It worried about power and lost its influence. Indeed, the way in which we have attempted to negotiate medicare with the provinces is nothing short of a scandal. You cannot expect people to co-operate if you are hitting them over the head.
I emphasize to the minister that if we want to have Canadian standards in social policy, and I do, then this government is going to have to learn that if it wants to expand its influence, it will have to curtail its concern for power. That way we will be able to be assured. For example, 1977, in the negotiations for EPF, much heralded, the federal government lost a considerable opportunity to continue to establish Canadian standards in the health care field.
In many of my remarks I have attempted to show that you can learn from the past and that you have to look at the future if you are going to do anything more useful than merely reorganize a bureaucratic framework. When I was preparing some of my notes, I had the feeling I had been listening to "All That Jazz" about "everything old is new again" coming true. 1 remember a passage from Robert Frost, and I pass it on to the minister for whatever value it may be to him. I quote:
For dear me, why abandon a belief Merely because it ceases to be true?
Cling to it long enough, it will turn true again,
For so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life Is due to truths being in and out of favour.
I suggest that the institutions which have served us for so long, and indeed have not been in use in the past 20 years, will become very useful to us in the next 20 years. I hope it is in that spirit that the minister approaches his responsibilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the proposition before us this afternoon is wrapped up in beautiful paper, tied with a gorgeous piece of ribbon and has a very nice greeting card attached to it. Therefore, I suppose we are expected to accept it eagerly. However, I say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that inside the package there is a dangerous weapon. There is a time bomb. We do not think this motion should have the support of this House.
I shall comment in a few minutes on my reasons for the stand being taken by this caucus. However, may I first say that while the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) was telling us everything that was happening in 1960, I naturally wondered what my friends around here were doing. Therefore, I asked them one by one, "What were you doing in 1960?"


David Edward Crombie: Svend was a member of kindergarten!
Social Development Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) told me she was writing some academic treatises-


Mr. Cullen:: As a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and also that she attended the Liberal policy gathering held at Kingston, Ontario. She went there as an academic for Carleton University. I gather that was the beginning of her disillusionment with the Liberal party.
I asked the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), whom we welcome back to the House after his illness-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -what he was doing in 1960. He told me that he was a station agent at Richmound, Saskatchewan. When I asked the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) what he was doing in 1960, he told me the biggest issue he had to face that year was whether to walk to high school or ride his bicycle. I do not think he remembers how he solved it. I asked the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) what he was doing in 1960. He said he had just graduated from high school in Toronto and was entering Victoria College in Toronto. These, of course, are the older members of the group.
I spoke to my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He told me that in 1960 he was in grade three in Westview Elementary School in Transcona.


Mr. Benjamin:: That's as far as he got.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not tell how many years he spent in that grade. The record among those who are here seems to go to the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He was in grade two that year. He does not quite remember what school it was. No one seems to want to know what I was doing in 1960, but I am going to tell them anyway.


An hon. Member:: You were right here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are wrong, I was not here.


An hon. Member:: He was in the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was preparing to come back. From 1958 to 1962 was the one respite I had from this place in the last 38 years. During those four years, like the Minister of Justice, I held several positions. One of them was as an executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. Another one was that I was chairman of the national committee for the New Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was the group which did the groundwork that led to the formation of the New Democratic Party. In 1960 the CCF held its last convention as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. That was in Regina. At that

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
convention we passed the necessary resolutions to take part in the ongoing proceedings that led in 1961 to the formation of the New Democratic Party.
There is something else about 1960 that I should like to mention, and this does lead into the discussion on the motion before us. I see a couple more have arrived. My friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was probably a druggist then. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller)-


An hon. Member:: Just another kid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, he was another kid. I am sure the hon. member for Rosedale in his recital of all those things that were happening to 1960 led many other members to think about what they were doing, those who can remember that far back.
I would like to mention that in 1960 the old age pension was $55 a month, payable at age 70. There was what was known as old age assistance which was available on a means test basis between 65 and 70, but the old age pension itself was $55 a month, not payable until age 70. The Liberals had increased it from $40 to $46 just before the election of 1957. When the Diefenbaker Tories came in in 1957, having said that that was not enough, they put it up to $55 before the election in 1958 was held. Before the election in 1962, they put it up to $65.
At this important point in time that the hon. member for Rosedale was talking about, in 1960, the old age pension was only $55 a month. That was the maximum amount of the old age security. It was also the amount of old age assistance that was payable on a means test basis. Members of Parliament were getting an $8,000 indemnity and $2,000 in expense allowances. A lot more has happened to them than has happened to the rate of old age pensions.
I am about ready to join all this to my objection to the bureaucracy which this motion proposes to set up by asking this question: I wonder, if we had had this bureaucracy throughout the last 20 years, whether the old age pension would be $190 a month, as it will be in July of this year. I doubt it. As I say, this package is wrapped up in beautiful paper and tied with a gorgeous piece of ribbon, but to my mind the heart of it lies in one sentence, namely, that the minister of state for social development is to have the authority to advise on the allocation of finance, personnel and other resources to federal programs which provide support for individual and social development in Canada. In other words, it is not so much this minister but the bureaucracy of which he is to be the head which will have the "say" about all social expenditures. This means it will have the say about social security and the guaranteed income supplement, it will have the say about veterans pensions, about public servants' superannuation, about grants, whether to old people or to native groups, and so on down the line. It will have the say when it comes to vetting or checking all of them and my prediction is-if you can call it a prediction 20 years later-that if we had had this kind of checking to hold these people back we should not be seeing
such high levels of social security payments as exist at the present time.
I believe that for all the fine talk about the desirability of having a group to plan new ventures and developments, the true effect of the order in council which this motion proposes to endorse will be to check social expenditures. That is why I say that inside this beautifully wrapped package there is a dangerous weapon, a time bomb which could do damage to our social programs and I do not think we should go for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are presently, in a number of our departments, excellent people who do a lot of good, hard work-all the research necessary to come up with programs. This is true of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Many of the programs which either the Liberals or the Tories have brought to the floor of the House as legislation were developed and planned by the professionals who are there in that department. The Department of Veterans Affairs is another example. We have a lot of trouble trying to get veterans legislation on to the floor of this House; I think that is because the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has a lot of trouble getting his programs past the Treasury Board and other members of the cabinet because of the dollar question. Nevertheless, in that department there are first-rate public servants and many of them-one used to be able to say all of them-are veterans who keep coming up with ideas as to what is needed to recognize the rights of those who defended this country as members of our Armed Forces.
As time has gone on, the needs of veterans have changed. I know that in the department today the officials are thinking far more about the needs of the older veterans than they used to, because, of course, the veterans are older. Those people do a good job and I suspect that in some of the other departments with which I am less familiar, for example, the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State, where training grants are administered, or in other departments which are concerned with public servants and their training, ideas are put together, becoming the basis of legislation which ministers try to get through. I believe it is an excellent thing that there should now exist a cabinet committee of ministers who are responsible for programs involving grants, pensions and other things that are good for the individuals who make up our society.
The Minister of Justice described that committee today, but it seems to me that the place where the hard bargaining should be done for senior citizens or for mothers or for children or for veterans or for people seeking jobs or training is in the departments which are concerned with those things. Even now, those departments have an awfully hard job getting their ideas across because of the various levels of bureaucracy which already exist. A department can come up with an idea and sell it to the minister, or the minister can supply the idea to his department and have his staff work it out. But after a project has been fully agreed to by the minister and the department there are the Treasury Board, the Privy Council office, the
June 16, 1980

Bureau of Economic Development, cabinet committees, and, finally, cabinet itself to be persuaded.
To my mind that is more than enough for the departments which are interested in particular groups and individuals to contend with. To say to these people that there is now to be yet another level of bureaucracy superimposed upon the departments concerned with ideas is just going to slow down the process still further. 1 feel that these 50 or 60 new bureaucrats the Minister of Justice talks about are just going to get in the way of social progress instead of advancing it. That is why I used the figure of speech I did about this being a beautiful package. The words are lovely, I admit. We are given a beautiful sermon about the government's intentions. But tucked in there is the authority of the minister who is to be the head of this particular bureaucracy to say no to pension increases, to say no to family allowance increases, no to training grants, no to veterans benefits.
In my view, it is an insult to a minister like the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to say to them: "You may have your ideas but they don't count; somebody superior is going to do this work". It is not that I feel that way about the present Minister of Justice. A while ago we talked about years gone by, about 1960. The hon. gentleman was not here then, though he was trying to get here; I do not know what the young man was doing but I do remember meeting him very shortly after he came here for the first time in 1963, after I came back. That same year we met on one of those trips, down to Florida I think it was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When hon. members get through having their fun, may I say it was a trip under the auspices of the Canada-United States parliamentary group and we went down to see the installations at Cape Canaveral in the days when they were talking about going to the moon as though they really meant it. The thing I remember most about my good friend the present Minister of Justice is that at that point the number of English words he knew was very few. When I consider how he came from almost no English at all in 1963 to his capacity now not only to speak in my language as well as his but also to debate and argue in it, he has a great deal to his credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: So much for the nice part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say to the Minister of Justice-so that he does not need to be worried about what I said-that it was all to the good. Over there they never know when they should listen and when they should not. He should have been listening. 1 have his attention now, and I say to him that it is not that I think he is going to be a person who is going to lord it over the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Employment and Immi-
Social Development Ministry
gration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who is in charge of the RCMP, or the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), who is in charge of many training programs, culture and so forth, but this bureaucracy is.
The minister says that this new bureaucracy will be comprised of 50 or 60 people. I did not know until today how many there were to be. I am all for jobs for public servants, we could not get along without them around here, but I do not see the need for these extra 50 or 60 public servants to do a job which is already being done by the Treasury Board, by the Privy Council office, by a cabinet committee and by the cabinet itself, and in the process really to say a few more "noes" to proposals for social development. I think that it would be far better if this did not happen at all.
This, as I say, is the reason for our taking our stand against this motion. I realize that, as so often happens, the government has gone ahead as if the motion had been passed. I listened, as I have already indicated, with a great deal of interest to the speech by the hon. member for Rosedale, but he did not seem to be very strong one way or the other as to whether he was for or against the motion. Of course, he was for it because they had the same idea last time. It is part of that envelope system.
I just do not think that these things work. I think we will get a better deal for our pensioners, our veterans and all those who are involved in programs of social development if we leave the fighting for those programs to the ministers and departments concerned about them.
At one point the Minister of Justice said we could congratulate ourselves on the progress we have made through the years. That sounds to me as though he has heard the speech 1 make about once a month about the progress I have seen in social development since I first came here in 1942. I talk about pensions being $55 a month in 1960. They were $20 a month in 1942 when I came here, and there were no family allowances and many of the programs we have implemented since. That is fine, we can congratulate ourselves on what we have done; but we still have a long way to go, and 1 do not think we enhance the possibility of moving forward by setting up this 50 or 60-person bureaucracy to check on what departments like the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs are trying to do for the people they represent and on whose behalf they work. As I say, that is why we are opposed to this motion.
As the government so often does, it proposes something and then goes ahead and acts as if it has already been done. 1 noticed that in the Hansard list of cabinet ministers the Minister of Justice is already listed as "Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development", even though the ministry of state has not yet been set up. Apparently the bureaucracy is already there.
I realize too that we are operating under a statute which provides for a motion like this to be debatable for only seven hours, and then the House has to decide on it. With the Liberal majority and the Conservatives apparently feeling that they have to go along with what they were doing last time, it

these things out. But over there in the departments, in the public service generally, I suggest that this bureaucracy is going to add to the confusion. Nobody will quite know who is in charge. The picture will be that there is the Minister of Veterans Affairs, there is the Minister of National Health and Welfare, there is the Minister of National Defence, there is the Solicitor General and head of the RCMP, there is the Minister of Employment and Immigration, there is the Secretary of State, and these are all ministers concerned with programs and problems affecting people. They think they are producing the ideas, but no, their ideas get nowhere unless they get the okay of the super minister, the Minister of Justice with his new title of "Minister of State for Social Development".
Again I say that I am not worried about him as an individual-he is too nice a guy for me to worry about him-but who is busier over there than he is already? He is so busy with federal-provincial relations that he can hardly touch his work as Minister of Justice, and now the government give him another job, that of being a super minister over all the departments and functions that deal with social development. Again I say I think it is a gross mistake. It is adding bureaucracy to bureaucracy, and instead of advancing the cause of social development it will slow it down.
So, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think we would be as far ahead of where we were in 1960 as we are today if we had had this organization, I dread how slow progress will be in the next 20 years, and I hope the House will have the intelligence to say no to this resolution.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on this motion to set up the Ministry of State for Social Development. No one can argue that there is a correlation between economic development and social progress or between justice in legal terms and justice in social terms, for without justice in social terms there is no justice.
I have listened to the interventions of my colleagues on the other side of the House as well as the intervention of the minister himself, and I want to congratulate the minister for bringing forth this motion today. I was rather intrigued by the lesson in history which we had from the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) but I want to compliment him on what appears to be a well-developed social conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I understand that the next speaker from his party to follow him will be the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and I do not think that that member has to prove his sensitivity to social justice to anyone in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I hope that the attitudes they display will permeate their entire caucus and
Social Development Ministry
that the party will in fact support the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development.
I was also intrigued by the comments of the venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). However, it seems to me that his comments are a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Rather than being an impediment to the development of social programs and social justice in this country, it is indeed time we had a ministry whose responsibility it is to advance in a correlated manner the social development of the citizens of the nation. I do not believe that that can be accomplished adequately so long as all the various departments which the hon. member named are working without a proper kind of correlation among them. Rather than seeing this development as one that will place another obstacle in the way of obtaining funds from the public treasury for the development of necessary social programs, I look upon it as giving those departments, in cabinet and in the Treasury Board, another powerful advocate to promote and defend their cause and to see that the funds expended by the federal government are expended wisely to promote the social development of less advantaged individuals in our society.
I noticed also that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has sneaked in his normal derogatory remarks about members' pensions and expenses when he was talking about the increases in old age security. That does not surprise me.


Miss Jewett:: What was derogatory?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I was surprised by the way he did it, because as an advocate of the rights of women and of children, which he has always been, it is surprising for him to think that the spouses and the children of members of Parliament should suffer because of the fact that we are here. But it seems to me that that is what he said. Also, he neglected to mention that today senior citizens have the advantage of having the Canada Pension Plan, which was not in effect in 1960.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So have members of Parliament.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: He also neglected to mention how the salaries and pensions of those working in the private sector, and even of those who work in the public sector of our nation, have increased since 1960. I suggest to him that there is more correlation between the benefits of members of Parliament and those of members of the provincial legislatures than there is between those in the private sector and those in the public sector.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is the point of that? You just lost me.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Les, you were away for awhile and you have just come back. Catch up before you ask questions.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I do not intend to speak for a long time.

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I thank members for the applause and I hope they will learn a lesson or two in brevity from me.
I want to point out that the development of a social policy has, in my view, two primary concerns. The first of those two concerns is the redistribution of wealth, and there are certain areas in which that redistribution must take place. It must take place among the regions of the country and, to its credit, the province of Ontario has always been one of the greatest givers in the redistribution of wealth. Of course, Ontario has had more of the benefits from confederation over the years than have the other provinces of this country, but that is not the fault of Ontario, it is a result of the policies that were designed in the beginning of this country, policies which were probably necessary at that time but which require refinement now.
There is the necessity for a redistribution of wealth among the provinces and, I am afraid, we see provinces more and more trying to compete one against the other, closing their borders one against the other and preventing the movement of labour and goods from one province to another. Those are dangerous activities that are harmful to the progress of a good social development policy for our country.
Also there is difficulty with the redistribution of wealth within the provinces. For instance, in my own province traditionally there has been a vast difference among areas of the province, particularly the two basic areas of the province, the northeast and the southwest. Traditionally, there has been much greater opportunity, much greater earning power and much greater wealth in the southwest than in the northeast. Giant strides were made in the 1960s to redress that problem. Much redress has taken place, but that is not to say that all the problems have been solved. I am sure the same applies to other provinces.
As I become more and more familiar with the province of Ontario, I see great disparities among various regions. 1 am told by people I meet from other provinces that the same applies there. So social justice requires that the federal government and the governments of the provinces have good, well-developed social policies.
Finally, in this regard there must be a redistribution of wealth among individuals. Of course, that is one of the main purposes of the income tax system that is often criticized and maligned, but without doubt is the fairest of all taxation systems because it taxes or should tax on the ability to pay. I am not sure it always works that way in Canada, but I suggest to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) that he urge upon his colleagues in cabinet an immediate in-depth review of our income tax policies and a refinement of our income tax system so that in fact people and corporations will be paying income taxes based
on their ability to pay and not on the basis of the loopholes they are able to find in the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Ask the CPR.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I will not comment on the gibes from across the floor. The hon. member who intervened from his seat should have corrected the CPR when he was there.
Another area in which social policy and development is required is in protection, promotion and stability of our institutions of democracy, the family, education, the economy and the individual. I want to elaborate on those a little bit. It is impossible to hope for the continuation of democracy if one of the basic tenets of that democracy is not to bring about social equality among the people who live within that democratic system.
In that vein it is urgent that we as a government take steps to enhance the basis of Canadian society, that is, the family. There are many obstacles being placed today in the ability of the family to stay together, to work together and to grow together as the family did in the early days and certainly up until at least the end of the Second World War. Without the family there is really no basis for society, unless we want to go to the kind of communal living some societies have tried to develop and have found to be failures.
One important basis of the family is a respect for the heads of the family. I am referring to the father and the mother. If they are to have a strong family unit, it is important that they have the income to provide for their children the necessities of education, health care, proper nourishment and protection from the elements. Those are the most important things a social policy must provide. I suppose it would be scary if we knew the number of children who have died in this country prior to the introduction of hospitalization in 1960 or thereabouts and the introduction of medicare in 1970. They were not able to take the places they might have had in our society because their parents could not afford to take them to a doctor or to hospital, and because they were afraid of debts they would never be able to pay.
The next item with which I want to deal is the protection of our economy. I suppose I should have put that next to our system of democracy, because our economy cannot provide for the proper social development of the nation unless the economy is free, but not so free that it becomes our master rather than our servant. Of course, the economy of any nation should be the servant of the nation. Therefore, we must ensure that the growing number of multinational units in the economy are designed so that the government of the country in which they operate has effective control over them to ensure that they function in the interests of the nation and not just for their own interests.
Finally I want to deal with the rights of the individual. In a nation as blessed with wealth, resources and opportunities as ours, every individual has the right to be able to look forward,
June 16, 1980

to the pursuit of health, liberty and security. In order to do that again I say we must protect the institutions which support the individual. 1 believe no one will be able to deny that the institutions which have served us well need to be maintained and strengthened. No one can deny that we must have and continue to have a respect for the basic laws of our country which protect the rights of the individual. Sometimes those laws are used against the individual, nowadays very often in ways against which the individual cannot protect himself. One of the most dangerous things facing society and family life today is the insidious habit of some of our social institutions- and 1 am thinking particularly of hospitals-to grant to those people who wish it a system which in fact amounts to abortion on demand. Here again we are showing a disrespect for life and its great potential that we are not permitting to develop. When the Ministry of State for Social Development comes into being, I hope it will take priority-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Public service-Rehiring of laid-off personnel; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Air transport-Status of transport commission decision on Halifax-Toronto route; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Mur-phy)-Industry-Assistance to Inco plant.
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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
CONTRIBUTION MADE BY CHINESE CANADIANS Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:
That this House recognizes the contribution made to the Canadian mosaic and culture by the people of Chinese background.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce into this Canadian House of Commons, the centre of our Canadian
Canadian Culture
democracry, the above resolution. I do so because this recognition is long overdue. In my speech here in this House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I will not only outline in a brief way the history of the Chinese in Canada, but will try as best as I am able to touch on the current problems and successes in the Canadian Chinese community today.
I am aware that the Canadian Chinese community is made up of Chinese Canadians from many diverse backgrounds. There are Chinese Canadians whose families have been in Canada for four generations-four generations, a fact that many other Canadians sometimes forget-and there are Chinese Canadians who came in the recent past from such places as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other countries.
Although the Chinese have contributed a great deal to the history and economic development of Canada, and in particular to my own province of British Columbia, it sometimes appears that the only thing most Canadians know about the Chinese is Chinatown and exotic Chinese food.
There are reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. One is that the Canadian government has effectively sealed away the history of the Chinese people in Canada, depriving them of history or "roots". In history courses in B.C. schools, for example, there is no mention of the Chinese. I find it unsatisfactory that children can go through our educational system and not know how Canada treated Chinese immigrants. That history, if properly presented, would show much hardship, discrimination and racism, but we could use it to our advantage. Only by showing that some of our ancestors were intolerant and bigoted and that their intolerance was based on ignorance can we start to deal with the problems of racism. That history will also show us an incredible struggle for equality.
Let me briefly summarize for this House of Commons some of that history. Between 1858 and 1923 there were two major influxes of Chinese people into Canada. In 1858 about 15,000 Chinese labourers came to build the Canadian Pacific Railway. Later another 20,000 came in the "gold rush" days. These early Chinese led a hard and miserable life and were regarded as strange people from a far-away land who willingly came to toil for long hours at extremely low wages and to provide abundant muscle power. But they were not allowed to have any involvement or influence in the country.
When some of the Chinese remained in the country and attempted to live a more reasonable life, the fear of the "yellow peril" became an issue. John Robson said in Vancouver in 1871, "Let this new empire be for our own race". In 1881 when a Chinese potato farmer was prevented by an inspector and five Caucasian workers from bringing a truckload of potatoes into the city of Vancouver, a scuffle ensued. The British Colonist, a newspaper, described the event: "John Chinaman is putting on airs". An 1887 poster on a Vancouver street announced: "The Chinese have come; mass meeting in the city hall tonight." Eventually these feelings led to the Chinatown riot in September, 1907, and the passage of a provincial act banning Chinese from employment. Already there was a "head tax" on every Chinese person; $50 in 1885 and $500 in 1903.
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1980
Canadian Culture
If members of this House of Commons find it difficult to believe there could be such a law as a head tax, they should also know that in 1923 the Chinese exclusion act was proclaimed. The act was so tough only a handful of Chinese entered Canada between 1923 and 1946. They were excluded from Canada. As a result, the total population of Chinese in Canada dwindled from over 46,000 in 1931 to under 35,000 in 1941. Chinese customers were refused service in so-called decent restaurants, not permitted to buy a home in the so-called good districts and were disqualified from taking up any professional training.
Very few non-Chinese challenged this racism. I am very proud of the fact that the forerunner of my New Democratic Party, the CCF party, did advocate the vote for the Chinese Canadians. I am sad to say the Liberals and the Conservatives of that day ran advertisements in the Vancouver newpapers saying: "A vote for the CCF is a vote for the Chinaman." As a matter of fact, in the Daily Province newspaper of Monday, October 7, 1935, the following ad appeared:
50.000	orientals in B.C. CCF party stands pledged to give them the vote! The Liberal party is opposed to giving these Orientals the vote. A vote for any CCF candidate is a vote to give the Chinaman and Japanese the same voting right that you have! A vote for a Liberal candidate is a vote against Oriental enfranchisement. Vote for your Liberal candidate!
In 1935, on October 10, in the Daily Province the Conservatives ran an ad as follows:
50,000 Orientals in British Columbia to whom neither the Conservative nor the Liberal party will give the vote. But, there are 40,000,000 Orientals in Japan who threaten Canada's workers and industry. Vote Conservative!
I personally believe that this, along with the deportation of Japanese Canadians, was the low point in Canadian political history. Let me make it clear; I do not suggest for one minute that members in this House of the parties represented here would follow those lines today, and I am inviting members of these parties to support this resolution today.
But the Chinese, with a sense of endurance, a respect for the law and their increased knowledge of the local community, survived the political persecution and gradually gained the support of the rest of the community. At first, however, the Chinese fell back to protect themselves. The organization that did this was the Chinese Benevolent Association, first registered as a non-profit organization in 1906 in Vancouver. The CBA was needed to protect the Chinese, provide for their needs, defend their interests and promote the general welfare of the Chinese people. In 1907 when the B.C. school board decided to bar Chinese school children from the public schools, the CBA built a school of its own. As Pat Chen, writing in the Ubyssey in an article entitled "Chinatown Fight", dated September 28, 1978, pointed out, during the race riots when some
30.000	bigots rampaged through Chinatown, the CBA demanded compensation from the Canadian government, petitioned against such unfair laws as the head tax and, during the depression, provided food, bedding, transit, and medicine for the old and sick.
In 1939 when Canada joined in World War II, in spite of the dismal record of discrimination toward them Chinese people rallied to the support of their adopted country and
many enlisted in the armed forces. After the war, the Chinese exclusion act was repealed and Canadians of Chinese descent were enfranchised by the federal government in 1947 and by the B.C. provincial government in 1949.
From 1946, with the change of immigration law, Chinese Canadians were able to bring in their long-estranged wives and children-many after 20-25 years of separation. In 1967 we saw the end of Canada's openly discriminatory immigration laws. Asians were finally treated as equals to Europeans. From 1967 to 1975 another significant influx of Chinese immigrants came to Canada from many parts of the world, with a large component from Hong Kong. Included in this group were a large number with strong financial resources, professional and technical skills and good personal assets.
Much of this history of the Chinese in Canada is taken from a lecture by Dr. K. C. Li of Vancouver, reprinted in the March 18, 1980, issue of Chinatown News. Dr. Li notes that today Canadians of Chinese origin are part of the mosaic of this country. They are represented in every walk of life, including the professional fields. The greater number that remain in the traditional trades, such as grocers, vegetable farmers, launder-ers, skilled and unskilled labourers and restaurant operators, now work under better conditions than before. Chinese are scattered all over the country, although they still prefer to live in urban areas, particularly Vancouver and Toronto. The 1971 census recorded about 118,000 Chinese Canadians in the country with 44,000 in British Columbia. An updated figure suggests there may now be approximately 200,000 Chinese in the country.
Although the days of race riots, head taxes and harsh discrimination are thankfully over, Canada is still a prejudiced society. On behalf of the Chinese community, I raised in the House of Commons a short time ago the matter of the CTV network program "W-5", which in a televised program entitled "Campus Giveaway" portrayed Canadian students of Chinese origin as foreign students who were receiving a free education at the expense of Canadians. The program said that Chinese Canadians were taking up the space of Canadian students in universities. In the program were pictures of students who were, in effect, Canadian citizens. Of course, the viewers did not know otherwise and assumed these people to be foreigners.
Later CTV admitted that the program was "racist in tone and inaccurate in information". May I tell hon. members of this House that I talked to a Canadian-born lawyer of Chinese ancestry whose daughter was attending Simon Fraser University. This lawyer had switched from medicine to law to become one of the first Chinese Canadian lawyers. Now, a generation later, he feels for his daughter, who could easily be stereotyped a foreign student because of that TV program. This is simply unacceptable in Canada in the 1980s.
Last year, again on behalf of the Chinese community, I raised in the House of Commons communications committee the matter of the National Film Board film "Bamboo, Lions and Dragons". It was a portrait of the Chinese community in
June 16, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Vancouver which many Chinese leaders found condescending, patronizing, inaccurate and portraying a false picture of the Chinese community. Typical of the over-simplification contained in the film was the suggestion that anyone of Chinese origin could telephone anyone across the continent having the same surname and be sure of receiving help. Another was that all new immigrants from Hong Kong were either professionals or from the merchant class. A third was that half of Vancouver harbour is covered with pleasure craft which are owned by the Chinese. The National Film Board should know better.
The battle is not over by any means, but I should tell this House of Commons that there is a renaissance, a growth today like never before in the Chinese Canadian community. The community is alive, active and participating as never before in Canadian life. They are not about to take discrimination or stereotyping any more. A large rally in Toronto, which was organized by my friend, Dr. Joseph Wong, and attended by my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), protested the "W-5" program. As a result, there was an apology.
In other places at other times the threat to the traditional cooking and serving of barcecued meats was met by petitions. The Chinese Benevolent Society was democratized. A beautiful Chinese cultural centre is being built in Vancouver. The community is blossoming in Toronto, Edmonton and Montreal.
In the riding adjacent to my riding, represented by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), Canadians of Chinese origin have been farming some of the richest agricultural land in Canada. They have shown exceptional skills in the intensive truck farming of this valuable land. Our agricultural industry has learned a great deal about land management from these people, and these skills continue to be honed. My motion today is a recognition and encouragement of this progress by the Parliament of Canada.
The younger generation of Chinese have growing expectations, which is normal. They are increasingly turning to the larger society for fulfilment of personal and professional aspirations. There has been a worry that, in their quest for a better life, the young Chinese Canadians would be pulled into the mainstream of the dominant society. This has led to action to preserve and promote Chinese heritage and culture. Across the country Chinese cultural associations are being established. This, of course, is basic to the Canadian mosaic when a group tries to preserve its own culture within the larger context of the Canadian culture.
My friend, David Chong, who is a Vancouver lawyer, puts it rather well when he says, "The children of the immigrants of the 1950s are now graduating from universities in great numbers. They are going to do very well in the next decade in Canada, particularly in British Columbia." These young Canadians are not only entering the professions and businesses, but also the arts and sports activities. If David Chong has his usual good judgment, we will hear from these people. 1 think that this House of Commons should celebrate the energy and talent of these young Canadians.
Canadian Culture
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that there have been conflicts. The Chinese Benevolent Association matter in Vancouver which 1 spoke about is one. But 1 think that those days are gone by and that the culture and heritage appeal will be a cause to unify the community. I might say, since I have many Chinese Canadians in my own riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, that I feel the role of a member of Parliament is to aid his community by listening to its people, not by interfering in that community. That is why I am trying to bring the House up to date on developments in the Chinese community in Canada.
One of my constituents, a teenager named Barry Hong, who worked for me briefly last year and has now gone temporarily to Hong Kong to teach English and "to find his roots", has given me, an outsider, a bit of an inside look at the present and future of the Chinese community. He wrote this for me, and I would like to share it with hon. members of the House of Commons:
One of the problems Chinese Canadians face is the never-ending quest for identity. At least once in his lifetime, a Chinese Canadian born in Canada will have encountered this mind-crippling dilemma. Caught between two worlds, being neither Chinese nor completely Canadian, since neither group fully accepts him, the Chinese Canadian is in an awkward, if unique, position. In an attempt to deny his Chinese heritage, the Chinese Canadian, when faced with this identity problem, tends to view assimilation into white society as the solution. What Chinese Canadians should be aware of is that although the process of assimilation may be inevitable, they should at least know where they are coming from.
I think my young friend knows where he is coming from, and he is achieving what I hope the future holds for all Chinese Canadians-the full and equal rights, responsibilities and privileges of any other Canadian regardless of race, together with the value of the Chinese heritage. Or, as Dr. Li says:
Generally speaking, citizens of Chinese origin place great emphasis on respecting the law, respecting seniors, on peaceful co-existence with others, on the virtue of productive work, on the virtue of sound education and on the virtue of avoiding over-indulgence of alcoholism and drug use.
There is a Chinese saying that one step is the beginning of a journey of a thousand days. We in the House of Commons cannot change the past, but we can recognize the toil given to this country by people of Chinese background, and we can anticipate, optimistically, their future. We can, above all, associate ourselves with the struggle for equality by Chinese Canadians. In the words of Normie Kwong of Calgary, the chairman of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multicul-turalism, "Our settlement and progress as a nation have been a shared achievement". I urge the House to adopt this motion.
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lend my support to this resolution. I will not take up too much time because it is my understanding that it will receive quick passage. All hon. members have Chinese constituents in their riding.
I do not intend to make a political speech as my friend, the armchair socialist, has done. I take exception to some of his remarks but I will not talk about those exceptions right now. The resolution itself is great. It reads as follows:

June 16, 1980
Canadian Culture
That this House recognizes the contribution made to the Canadian mosaic and culture by the people of Chinese background.
The motion is long overdue. I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) for moving it today.
When we think of the contributions made to the development of Canada by people of Chinese background, we are tempted to dwell on their involvement with the railways. It is not often mentioned that parallel to the development of the railways were the lumber and mining industries, which also opened up the west, and that they employed many people of Chinese background.
In view of the hard work done by these people and their obvious desire to contribute to the development of Canada, it is unfortunate that the Liberal government of the day saw fit to pass such discriminatory laws as the Chinese exclusion act. It was not until the 1940s that such laws were repealed and people of Chinese background were able to receive full citizenship.
Undaunted by the many obstacles they faced in their adopted country, these people concentrated on the education of their families to the point that today they have achieved the distinction of being one of the most highly educated of the ethnocultural groups in Canada, having among their numbers many lawyers, doctors and scientists. Their contributions in the fields of science and medicine are outstanding. Who has not heard of Normie Kwong, Canada's outstanding athlete, who was raised in Calgary and became famous in Edmonton?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Were you team-mates?


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks if I was a team-mate of the "China Clipper". I was, and I must say that I contributed to his success. After all, there had to be somebody to block for him!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They don't come any better.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Kwong is president of the new National Elockey League football club, the Calgary Flames. It was the Progressive Conservative Party under its present leader that appointed Mr. Kwong president of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, which is not only a recognition of the man but of the community. Lie is a great man and an outstanding Canadian. Their achievements have put the people of Chinese background in the category of one of the most rapidly developing groups of Canadian citizens.
As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, we of Canadian Polish or Ukrainian background like our cabbage rolls but during the last war we could not get the rice for them. We had many Chinese friends in our neighbourhood, however, who received a weekly ration of rice and they were good enough to pass it along to the Polish and Ukrainian communities so that they could have their cabbage rolls. In return, we gave them all the butter and anything else they wanted. So it was a form of barter.
I do not intend to take up any more time of the House, Mr. Speaker, as 1 know other hon. members wish to speak on this resolution. I trust that it will be passed as soon as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) has spoken.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the riding with one of the largest Chinese communities in the western hemisphere, I regard it as an honour to support the motion before the House, and I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) for bringing it forward. My remarks will be brief so that the motion may be put and passed.
After listening to the hon. member describe the history of the Chinese community in Vancouver, I should like to bring to his attention the fact that the Chinese community in eastern Canada has quite a different history. The Chinese in Toronto came from the eastern United States before the CPR was finished. They were artisans who did the kind of handwork that was not too readily available in the Canada of that time. In fact, the earliest Chinese as far as we can discover was a goldsmith in Toronto who specialized in making particular kinds of religious articles.
The Chinese community which had settled around York Street in Toronto in the 1870s and 1880s went through a bad period brought about by the Chinese exclusion act mentioned by the hon. member and the extraordinary persecution of people with oriental backgrounds. They were subjected to this persecution not only in North America but in the rest of the occidental world, I believe, until World War II. The United States had passed laws similar to ours against people of Chinese and Japanese backgrounds.
Most of the Orientals who originally came to Canada were males who worked hard and sent money back to China and Japan. As there were very few females, there were consequently very few children. The laws which prevented more Chinese coming to Canada were a gross form of discrimination and an expression of an attitude that wanted the Chinese community to disappear.
A couple of years ago I wrote an article about the history of Toronto's Chinatown for the magazine Toronto Life, which I would recommend to the hon. member. I am sure many hon. members know that it is not too long ago that the single men from Chinatown used to stand around street corners because they had nothing else to do, the government having forbidden the entry of their families to this country. This was a dreadful and unprecedented example of discrimination that we have a hard time understanding today.
Hon. members might like to consult the debates that took place in this House on the subject many years ago. I believe it was an hon. member from Saint John in New Brunswick who around 1910 said things about people of Chinese background that today we would find it hard to believe could be said by a normal individual about others who live in this country. That kind of thing that went on for so long and with which we are familiar is the reason why a motion such as this is particularly
June 16, 1980

appropriate. It talks about the Chinese and Japanese, the Oriental Canadians who for so long were discriminated against in such a gross manner in Canada and in almost all western countries.
1 have had the honour of visiting that part of China from where most Chinese Canadians come. There is an interesting feature about those who have come here from China. Until recently, most came from the province of Canton which has 100 counties. That province has the same population as Canada. Until recently, 90 per cent of those Chinese who came to North America came from only one out of the 100 counties, the county of Toishan.
That place is not far from Hong Kong. However, it involves a rather difficult sea voyage. When I visited the county of Toishan four or five years ago, I was taken to a village. There are 450 people who live in that village, and 453 from that village who now live outside China. It was interesting to see photographs in the houses in that small village in rural China showing relatives standing outside their house in Don Mills, Ontario, in a Canadian winter.
The story of the trials of those Chinese who emigrated to Canada starting in the mid-nineteenth century is incredible. There were many acts of discrimination against them, particularly in British Columbia. I do not think any other areas has quite as bad a record.
The poll tax in British Columbia and the race riots around the turn of the century were not very inspiring. I know the situation has changed dramatically. As I say, it was a sad story.
Approximately two weeks ago a man who has lived in Canada for 77 years visited my Toronto office. He is now 97 years old and still has his certificate from when he had to pay the poll tax. Fortunately, he got back in before the cut-off in 1922 from one of his visits to China. Because of the exclusion act, he was not able to bring over any of his family. At 97 years old, he lives alone in Toronto. Most of his family in China have died. It is not very nice to see those certificates from our past. That man had a special passport that was not given to any Canadians other than those of Chinese background.
The hon. member spoke about the tremendous contribution the Chinese had made to Canada. The Chinese community is going through a tremendous growth period in Canada. It is making an enormous impact for the good on our multicultural country.
It is with sadness when one looks over the past year at an advertisement that appeared in The Globe and Mail, paid for by the National Citizens Coalition. It concerned the Vietnamese refugee situation. It was nasty and provoked a racist reaction against people of Oriental background. That was followed by a program on "W-5", which our Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) worked very hard to resolve. We are very happy that CTV made an apology.
Canadian Culture


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the hon. member that it was the multicultural minister of the day who solved that problem.


Peter A. Stollery: I am not going to get into an argument with the former minister of multiculturalism. I do not care which minister solved the problem. I hope he had some role in resolving it before his government was defeated in December. However, as the actual apology was not delivered until a couple of month ago, it would be technically difficult for him to have had as much a role as he would like to imagine. However, I do congratulate him. I am sure he worked very hard to correct the implications in that program.
The motion before us gives us, as members of the Canadian House of Commons, an opportunity to express our dismay at the discrimination against these people. I hope we are not looking at a new period of discrimination. I do not think so. We have to be positive. As members of Parliament, we must protest against this kind of discrimination starting once more.
Again, I wish to take this opportunity to register my disgust at some of what has gone over the airways in the past year, as well as the advertisement sponsored by the National Citizens Coalition, implying that those of Oriental background would not make as good immigrants to Canada as anyone else, even though we are supposed to have a non-discriminatory policy. Generally speaking, we do have a non-discriminatory policy. I thank the hon. member for giving us this opportunity to say a few words on this subject. It is immensely interesting and complex, and I thank him for once more bringing it to our attention. We on this side will certainly support the motion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly complete my remarks well within the time allotted because I too would like to see this motion voted on and passed. I cannot let the opportunity go by without paying tribute to those Canadians of Chinese origin. The motion mentions their contribution to the mosaic.
1 would like to thank the hundreds of Chinese people who came to this country in the early years. For many years they were the only ones who operated restaurants in our small towns, and laundries in small and larger towns. I do not know what we would have done during the hungry thirties for a cup of coffee in many places in this country had it not been for the Chinese people. There are many stories told about Chinese restaurants, but most people in their hearts really appreciated what the Canadians of Chinese origin did with regard to feeding the rest of us during those hard years.
The attributes of the Chinese people are qualities for which we should all be grateful. I go as far as to say we can all learn from them. They are hard workers; they do not expect handouts from government. They work hard and try to earn their keep. They want to contribute to their country and they want a good life for themselves. I congratulate them for that. Another attribute is respect. I do not know any race of people which shows greater respect for the aged, for parents, grandparents,

June 16, 1980
Canadian Culture
and the things that are good. I hope we can bring more of that spirit into our mosaic of cultures in this country.
We can learn, as I say, from Canadians of Chinese origin. I like their long memories. I have never known a Canadian of Chinese origin to forget a good turn that was done for him or for his family. Years afterward they will continue to express thanks and make gifts to the person who brought about something that pleased them. Then there is their public spirit, their desire to contribute to a greater Canada. Again, this is an attribute we might all try to emulate.
I think of people of Chinese origin in Edmonton, men like Victor Mah and Ned Lee and Tom Mack, who came over and made good by dint of hard work and who, today, are contributing to the sports world, to the food servicing world, and to the worlds of arts, medicine, and science. I remember going to the first Grey Cup game which was played in Vancouver. The Edmonton Eskimos were playing the Montreal Alouettes. I sat behind a large group of Canadians of Chinese origin. There was a tremendous finale to that game when Normie Kwong by dint of his boxcar strength pushed himself across the line and won the game for Edmonton. The crowd went wild. There was a Canadian of Chinese origin in front of me. If he was a year old, he was 90, and he jumped up and down and said, "He my uncle! He my uncle!" He wanted to establish a relationship with Normie Kwong. Afterward I saw boys of all ancestry stroking Normie Kwong's jacket. They had respect for this young man who had done so much in the world of sport.
I remember Normie Kwong saying to me once when I was in Highways in Alberta, "Would you please get that highway to Calgary fixed up and paved because I have to get down there to clean your shirts?" He operated a laundry there, and he had a tremendous sense of humour.
My thought in supporting this motion is that some of these attributes will, as time goes on, play an important part in the Canadian mosaic-hard work, respect, long memories. And if the dragon depicts all those things let us make sure that the dragon, or whatever the Canadians of Chinese origin wish, becomes part of our great Canadian mosaic.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Waddell) agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business is expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.46 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. Pinard (for Mr. Trudeau):
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the debate on item No. 1 under government business was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) had the floor. That hon. member is not present; therefore, we will move on to the next hon. member who seeks the floor.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a very important debate and that it deserves far more attention than it received from the minister who is the sponsor of this resolution today. It might be well to refer to the order in council, which really is the heart and soul of the resolution which is now before the House and which, in fact, sets out the terms of reference for the new ministry of state for social development. If we read the terms in the order in council, we find that the new minister, and I quote:
(a)	-shall advise on the allocation of financial, personnel and other resources to federal programs that provide support to the welfare of the individual and social development in Canada;
(b)	he shall develop approaches to improve and to integrate the delivery of social benefits to Canadians;
(c)	he shall lead and co-ordinate the efforts of the Government of Canada to establish and to clarify co-operative relationships with the provinces and with public and private organizations, to foster conditions that allow and assist the development of the individual, the family and the community; and
(d)	in respect of research and policy development he may,
(i)	initiate and co-ordinate research and policy studies,
(ii)	initiate proposals for new policies, programs and activities, and
(iii)	evaluate existing and proposed policies, programs and activities to ensure their consistency with federal social development policies and recommend changes therein.
The terms set out in (c) are of crucial importance.
This is more than just another ministry. This is much more than another bureaucracy we are putting together today. I was surprised to hear my good friend, the esteemed and hon.
June 16, 1980

member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in his speech today indicating that he and his colleagues were going to oppose this resolution. He set out his reasons for doing so. Quite frankly, I found it difficult to appreciate what he was saying betause what he was saying, in effect, was that he was opposed to this kind of planning and co-ordination. It has to be a first for this House when the distinguished and learned member who is the spokesman for the NDP on matters relating to all aspects of social policy indicates that, in this particular field, he is against the kind of planning that is called for in this resolution.
We support the resolution. We support it because we believe that this kind of planning and co-ordination of social programs is vitally essential. What concerns us, however, is what appears to be the rather indifferent approach of the government to the proposal setting up the new ministry.
For example, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who has a very important role to play in this program and who, indeed, will have to develop a very special kind of relationship with the new minister of state for social development, was not in her seat today. I am sure that the minister has very important public business which is keeping her elsewhere, but the fact is that when we raised this question in the standing committee on Friday last, when we had the minister before us with her estimates, she indicated to us in reply to a question as to just exactly what was the relationship of her portfolio with the new ministry of state for social development that these questions would be addressed when the debate was before the House on Monday. I listened very carefully to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). He made no reference whatsoever to his role as he sees it vis-a-vis the role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
When we consider that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, apart from perhaps veterans affairs and certain responsibilities relating to the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is vested under the statutes of this House with the responsibility of preparing and delivering social programs in this country, it is difficult to understand how the Minister of Justice could rise in his place today and speak as he did without defining just exactly what the role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is vis-a-vis the new ministry of state for social development. Indeed, I would expect, considering that this is only a seven-hour debate, that the minister would be in her place and would speak to this very problem because that is the one aspect of the proposal before us which, quite frankly, disturbs me and, I believe, disturbs other members of the House.
As I see it, what we are doing today is institutionalizing a cabinet organization structure, but in so doing we are developing a new responsibility for a minister who is already, in my view, overburdened. We are going to burden a minister who has the responsibility for the administration of justice and the responsibility for federal-provincial relations-he is, in fact, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations-a min-
Social Development Ministry
ister who is charged with the responsibility of constitutional renewal-with another responsibility which, in my opinion, will make the role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare extremely difficult. It would seem to me to be logical and eminently sensible that the responsibility should be vested in the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She would then be in a position not only to discharge her own responsibilities with regard to social programs in Canada but she would be better able to co-ordinate the social policy programs of the other departments.
Reference was made by my colleague, the member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), with respect to the relationship of social policy and economic policy. Indeed, you cannot divorce the two. We are talking in the House about doing away with indexing in income tax, for example. That will have a direct impact upon the working poor of the country. When we talk about the relationship of economic policy with social policy, does this mean that the minister of state for social development will operate within the cabinet structure, completely removed from the economic development committee? What will be the relationship between the minister of state and the economic development committee of the cabinet? The minister, in his remarks today, did not touch on that aspect.
It is interesting that the Canadian Council of Social Development, which will be commencing its national meeting in St. John's tomorrow, made reference to this in one of the working papers. It said:
-the objectives, means and consequences of social and economic policies are increasingly intertwined as never before. The need for public policymakers to deal simultaneously with social and economic policies will be a major challenge of the 1980s.
I hope, sir, that we will have somebody from the government side of the House, either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Weatherhead), or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Robinson), or perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) himself, speak on the role and the responsibility that are now about to be assumed by the Minister of Justice, in regard to the co-ordination of the social programs of the government with the economic development programs.
For example, we can think of a number of departments which have an impact on the working poor of Canada, an impact on social programs. Coming as I do from the Atlantic provinces, I can think of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its ongoing pursuit to end regional disparities in this country. Surely one would expect regional development programs not to operate in isolation from the over-all social development goals of the government. Yet there is no indication of how that kind of co-ordination is to take place.
Of course we can go on to think of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who, I presume, is a member of the economic development committee of the cabinet. Here is a minister whose programs and policies have a direct impact on social programs, and yet that minister will not be a part of the social development committee, as I understand it.

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
I can go on down the list. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, for example, which has a direct impact upon the rural areas of Atlantic Canada and a direct impact on the social welfare of these rural areas, surely is another department which cannot operate in isolation. Other such departments are the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Treasury Board, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, of course, the Department of Veterans Affairs. So there is, and there must be, a very special relationship between social policy development and economic policy development, yet that fact was not spelled out nor indeed was it even alluded to by the minister when he introduced the resolution in the House today.
I am sorry that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in her place tonight because there are a number of studies and reports which she has tabled in the House on which no actions has been taken. I should like to know, for example, what the role of the new minister of state for social development will be with regard to the implementation of the recommendations in these reports. Let us think, for example, of the report of the task force on retirement income policy which was tabled in the House on April 21. Yet we have had no indication from the Minister of National Health and Welfare of what she proposed to do with the recommendations set out in the report of the task force. I tried, by way of a motion under Standing Order 43, to have the report referred by the House to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. At least this would have given the House an opportunity to be seized of the recommendations of this very important report. Unfortunately, the necessary consensus was not forthcoming. Is this report to go the way of all reports?
I can go back in memory to a number of reports, which have a direct impact on social policy, which have been commissioned by the House and the other place, such as, for example, the Senate report of 1972 having to do with retirement policy. What has become of the recommendations in that report? As I recall it, the report was the result of some very substantial and intensive hearings held by the Senate committee. It was an excellent report which I would commend to the minister of state for social development.
I come to another report which was tabled in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 30, namely, the report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child. That report has some very important recommendations. We were given to understand that this report would at least be the subject of a reference by the government to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Indeed, the agenda worked out by the standing committee makes provision for the committee to take up the report. Quite frankly, we are supposed, according to that schedule, to be dealing with that report tomorrow. Yet, of course, we cannot deal with it in the absence of a reference by the House to the standing committee.
One of the important recommendations in that report is recommendation 14.4 which reads:
The federal government establish a responsibility centre within the most appropriate federal structure to examine and initiate legislation and departmental policies affecting children. This centre should have a co-ordinator with deputy minister status and a policy link with cabinet.
Is the report of this very important commission to be the responsibility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or is it to be part of the ongoing co-ordinating responsibilities of the new minister of state for social development?
Speaking of the report of the Commission for the International Year of the Child reminds me of an initiative I took in the Thirtieth Parliament. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development will recall that, because he was a member of the committee at the time. It was a bill dealing with a bill of rights for children. It was referred to committee. Although we had exhaustive hearings and heard many witnesses, events overtook us and the report of the committee died with the Thirtieth Parliament. It is interesting to reflect upon the recommendations of the draft report. I underline the fact that it was only a draft report; it was never accepted by the committee. I should like to refer to recommendation No. 1 of the draft report which reads as follows:
The federal Minister of Justice should examine the Criminal Code, the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Divorce Act, as well as all other federal legislation affecting children, to ensure that their rights and entitlements are clearly enunciated. Where his study reveals this not to be the case, he should introduce remedial legislation in Parliament to ensure that this goal is attained.
It goes on to recommend that the minister meet with his provincial counterparts to discuss areas of overlapping jurisdiction.
Recommendation No. 3 reads as follows:
The federal government should convene a federal-provincial conference on "Children's Rights in a Changing Society" before the end of the International Year of the Child.
The International Year of the Child is gone; it is behind us. All we have now are the recommendations contained in the report of the task force. I want to place special emphasis on this because I believe it to be very important. Interestingly enough, in his speech today the minister made reference to the fact that we have more poor children in Canada today than ten years ago. That speaks to a problem of income distribution. I realize the government has already brought in the child tax credit plan, which I think is an excellent program. In terms of addressing the problem of poor families, the child tax credit program tends to benefit more the middle-income families in Canada. Quite frankly, that is something about which we should be thinking in this Parliament.
Before this seven-hour debate concludes-and it is only a seven-hour debate-I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be in her place in the House so that she can address some of these questions.
I have referred to two or three studies which have been made on social policies. There is a whole array of studies commissioned by the House, the government and the other place over the past decade. They have been pigeon-holed and
June 16, 1980

left to gather dust, while we still do not have a co-ordinated approach to the development of social policy. As 1 indicated at the commencement of my remarks, that is one of the reasons why 1 feel this resolution should commend itself to the House. It should commend itself to the House because surely the time has come when we must address all the problems which have been the subject of various studies and, quite frankly, will not go away.
I am referring to the problem of the single parent family, for example. It speaks to special housing policies which we should have devised to provide for single parent families that are on the increase in Canada as a result of changes in our society.
We have heard reference made to the problems of the elderly and the inadequacies of the present system to address those problems. Last week there was another increase in the cost of living. If one takes a look at the increases in the consumer price index over the years and compares them to the increases, for example, in the old age assistance program under the indexing provisions, one will find that the gap is growing wider and wider. Old people in this country are finding it more and more difficult to cope as inflation continues to be a serious problem. Of course there are the problems of working women and families where both spouses are required to work because of inflation.
Also there are income disparities between the sexes which have been the subject of a study by the Human Rights Commission. It speaks to inadequacies in the government service itself where we have allowed this injustice not only to continue but indeed it would seem as if we are condoning it by allowing, for example, a situation to develop in the public service where women are paid less for the same kind of work.
These are just some of the very many problems which I believe are important. Hopefully we will find the kind of co-ordination called for in this resolution to ensure that these problems are in fact addressed by the government.
I am concerned because the government has seen fit to give the responsibility for the co-ordination of social policy to a minister who, in my opinion, is already overworked. He has more to do than any minister should be expected to do, when one considers the responsibilities of constitutional renewal, the responsibilities of dealing with the provinces on revisions of the constitution, the responsibilities of federal-provincial relations, and the responsibilities in the administration of justice.
These are serious problems that we are talking about in this debate. We are talking about the problems of the working poor and the elderly. We are talking about the social plight of retired single women. We do not seem to be able to address it, although we have made a half-hearted attempt at it in terms of the spouse's allowance that I am pleased to say was one of the first bills introduced by the government of which I was a member.
We have not addressed the problems respecting the Canada Pension Plan. If my memory serves me correctly, an undertaking was made by the government over there that it would make it possible for the homemaking spouse, who, by and large,
Social Development Ministry
happens to be the housewife, the mother of the family or the female spouse, to qualify for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. In my view it would certainly go a long way down the road in addressing the problems faced by women as they reach retirement age. I recall a speech that was made most eloquently on this subject by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) during the Thirtieth Parliament. I can tell the House that we as a government were well under way to making provision for the homemaking spouse to qualify under the Canadian Pension Plan. We hear suggestions from time to time that the Canada Pension Plan itself is in trouble, that down the road, as more and more people retire and look to the plan for retirement benefits, it may not be able to deliver. On an actuarial basis I am told the plan is not in a very healthy condition.
The principal problem which concerns some of my colleagues and me is the very special relationship which must exist between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the new minister of state for social development. I doubt very much whether we will have the opportunity before the seven hours lapse to hear from the minister, because I understand she is going to Newfoundland tomorrow where she will be participating in the opening ceremonies of the national meeting of the Canadian Council of Social Development. Perhaps we will have that opportunity when she once again appears before the committee, because I believe this is a problem that certainly should be addressed before we are called upon to vote on this resolution. In any event, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues let me say that we intend to support the resolution, with some of the reservations I have placed before the House.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF FORMER QUEBEC MINISTER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. parliamentary secretary I wonder if I might call upon all hon. members to recognize, as is the tradition in our House, a distinguished visitor now sitting in the Speaker's gallery, the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs for the province of Quebec, the Hon. Bill Tetley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Trudeau):
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my support to the motion by the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), a motion which, if passed by this House, would create a new, small, co-ordinating social policy secretariat to be known as the ministry of state for social development.
I would like to take this occasion to explain why I feel the establishment of this new agency is essential in order to improve the economy, efficiency, effectiveness and control of federal activities in the area of social policy.
I listened with great interest today to the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who said a number of things. In particular, I was almost entranced by his taste of nostalgia for the 1960s, his reflections, if you like, on what was happening in Canada some 20 years ago. He suggested in effect that change should not be taken just for the sake of change, but rather change in society, a change for a return to the family and changes that would take place in the workplace. I think all of these are somewhat idealistic. However, they are achievable and are things we are all looking forward to in the not too distant future.
The government too is looking for change, not change just for the sake of change, but change to something worthwhile for all Canadians. The hon. member for Rosedale also mentioned that we need to have economic and social policy. Let me mention to the hon. member that I have been a member of the social planning council of metropolitan Toronto for 14 consecutive years and have worked toward this end for a great deal of time. I would suggest to him that we have to put the practical and the theoretical together, and what we are really talking about is not just economic and social policy, but public policy; it is for everybody.
The hon. member also mentioned there was considerable disparity. I suggest to him that the disparity could have been a great deal worse if in fact we had not put into place some of the programs we have put into place over the years from 1960 to 1980, for instance, the transfer programs from the federal government to the provincial governments. Had this not taken place I really wonder what might have happened so far as the provinces are concerned.
The hon. member talked about co-ops. I would say to him that, as far as co-op housing is concerned, the first co-op housing project in Etobicoke, the borough where I live, is in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, and it was the first one funded under the bill proposed by the Liberals when they were last in power. There was nothing done in the last short
Parliament, unfortunately. I am not blaming the former Parliament for that. I think it would have liked to have done more. I just suggest to the hon. member that I too feel this kind of social consciousness as far as co-op housing is concerned, and 1 was very pleased, indeed, that the first one in Etobicoke was located in my riding.
The hon. member also talked about power and influence. I suggest it is very difficult to have one without the other. What we have been doing federally for a long period of time is to give money by way of transfer payments to the provinces. We have the power to give away the money, we have the power to raise the money, but we do not have much influence on how they carry out programs once they receive the funds. This is something we may have to address. This is a good point brought before the House today. It is something we will have to look at in the future when we are talking about transfer payments to the provinces. Certainly we can learn from the past, and we can look into the future. I agree with him to some extent in this regard.
I was, however, somewhat disappointed by the pessimistic approach taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is not usual for him to take this approach. I would have thought he might have looked at this organization, this new responsibility, as one that would coordinate efforts which up until now seem to have been somewhat helter-skelter. It seems to me this proposal is one step in the right direction. He talked about senior citizens, veterans, mothers and so on. I am not suggesting we should have a department for each, but we should certainly have a coordinating process. It seems to me this new office we are suggesting, that of social development, is a step in the right direction, and hopefully it will not slow the process, but rather will hurry it. There will not be cutbacks but there may be some savings. There will be co-ordination which I think will be in the best interests of all Canadians.
In my view this new department will be concerned about responsibility, and we have a responsibility in this House to see how our departments are spending the money. If we cannot make the department officials responsible for how they spend the money, then certainly we as parliamentarians and politicians responsible to the taxpayers have to be concerned about how we and how the departments spend it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does the Treasury Board do now?


William Kenneth Robinson: I am not so sure it is co-ordinated the way it should be, and as I understand it that is the reason for the department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Kenneth Robinson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has even suggested that we might have a department for senior citizens. I suppose that would add additional bureaucracy as well. Believe me, I am not one to consider adding bureaucracy for the sake of adding bureaucracy, because we have enough of it already. However, if we can do this from the point of view of having some
June 16, 1980

influence on our planning, progress, and programs, then I think this may be a step in the right direction. 1 will support it, but I will want to take a good look at it, just the same as hon. members over there.
I want to say to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) I was disappointed when he suggested there might be an indifferent approach on the part of members on this side of the House. 1 do not think that is the case, and it certainly is not from my point of view. I certainly know that is not the intention of the minister either. It is true we would like to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) take part in this debate. I assume that she will, but 1 know there are certain representations to be made on her behalf as the minister, and certain on behalf of her department.
I do appreciate, however, the hon. member's support for this motion. As I said before, 1 think this is a step in the right direction. There is no question that the Minister of Justice is, as you have pointed out, somewhat overworked. He has very many responsibilities, but he is capable and competent, and he is prepared to take on this task. I am sure he will do a good job on this as he has on other jobs.
Let me also mention to the hon. member for St. John's East that I appreciate his concern about children. He has a social concience, but we on this side do too, and I think he will agree with me that when we have discussed matters concerning child abuse and others concerning health and welfare, we have pretty well agreed that this is the kind of thing with which we want to deal. It is unfortunate, however, that more action had not been taken on the task force report with regard to the international year of the child. Maybe in due course this kind of thing can be addressed as well.
In addition, let me say with regard to his suggestion concerning the single-parent family and other groups in society which have not been considered as much as they ought to have been in the past, hopefully under this new departmental arrangement that subject will be addressed as well. I will certainly make every effort I can to see that many of these things are addressed in the proper way.
As a country, Canada is a miracle and an enigma. In spite of physical barriers, a hard climate, a sparse population, linguistic and cultural diversity, and the homogenizing influence of our powerful neighbour to the south, Canadians have for over 100 years bonded together to develop this land and to share its benefits. They have built for us a peaceable country of opportunity unequalled anywhere else in the world. The better life enjoyed by Canadians is possible in no small measure because of the social policies they have collectively instituted through their municipal, provincial, and federal governments.
Today, Canadians are guaranteed a minimum income and minimum social services essential to ensuring at least a minimal necessary quality of life through our social welfare and social services programs. Through the federal old age, veterans, blindness and disability pension systems, through federal unemployment insurance and through provincial workman's
Social Development Ministry
compensation, the economic insecurity which can result from life's contingencies has been greatly alleviated.
Through federal-provincial co-operation in funding and providing essential health services, and through federal-provincial and municipal co-operation in support of education, Canadians are assured equal access to the means of maintaining a healthy existence and securing a prosperous future for themselves.
Although Canadians have historically viewed public policy as a legitimate tool by which to improve the quality of Canadian life, and although the public demand for expanding the scope of social policy has been generally uniform across the country, the federal nature of our political system-in which the greater constitutional responsibility for social policy lies with the provincial governments-has allowed the diverse, provincially bounded communities of Canada to define their own specific social goals and priorities and to vary their program approaches in line with their own values. This is a very healthy and innovative factor.
While we have had great success in social policy in Canada, we have had some problems as well. The problems are rooted, I believe, in two increasingly erroneous assumptions which the creation of a ministry of state for social development should help to correct. First, during the 1950s, and especially the 1960s, there was a tacit assumption dominant in almost all western governments that any social problem could be solved by throwing enough money at it.
In those days of affluent governments, policy makers seemed more concerned with getting social programs established quickly to meet obvious pressing needs than in finding the most effective and efficient means of deliverying programs and applying public funds. Given the primitive nature of the analytic tools which decision makers had to work with, mistakes and waste were probably inevitable. But the state of the art of policy analysis and its techniques are becoming more sophisticated. Tools for measuring policy and program efficiency and effectiveness are being developed, and public decision makers have come to recognize that spending money or providing services will not solve social problems unless the delivery is targetted accurately at, at least, public cost. This will be a major concern of the new ministry of state for social development.
The second erroneous assumption was that any social problem could be effectively dealt with by a neat compartmentali-zation of responsibility within functional government departments. In the past, insufficient attention was, in my opinion, paid to the interrelationships and interdependence between programs. As society and its problems become increasingly complex, the inappropriateness of this myopic assumption becomes more evident.
For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare cannot achieve its income security mandate without taking into account the functions of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Department of Labour. We are becoming

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
increasingly aware of the fact that the public purpose is interlinked and therefore cannot be compartmentalized or fractionated. That is, some social problems cannot be solved without aggravating others, and some must be approached on different fronts simultaneously if success is to be achieved.
Our government is most aware of these realities. In order to ensure that its decisions are comprehensive and that the activities of the federal government are integrated interdepartmentally, are effective and efficient, the government must be able to draw upon the policy analysis services of a support staff whose focus is on the interlinkages of social policy between programs, a support staff whose objectivity is not jeopardized by ongoing program delivery responsibilities, and an agency capable of applying the newest techniques of policy and program analysis. These, among others, will be the responsibilities of the ministry of state for social development.
Finally, I would like to speak for a few minutes of the financial and administrative scope of the federal government's social policy activities. Recent statistics show that Canadian governments-municipal, provincial and federal-annually spend about 23 per cent of the GNP on social policy activities related to social security, health, and education. This amounts to 51 per cent of all government expenditures. In these areas of social policy, the federal government provides the funding for 42 per cent of all activities, yet directly administers only 26 per cent of those social programs. Practically all of these federally administered programs are in the form of direct income transfers to individuals.
The provinces and municipalities, on the other hand, directly administer 74 per cent of government expenditures on health, social security and education, but fund out of their own revenues only 58 per cent. If education is excluded, the federal government funds over 52 per cent of all social expenditures in health and social security, but administers only 34 per cent. The federal role in social policy is thus characterized as largely that of providing funding to provinces and providing income transfers directly to individuals.
This year $26 billion, or 45 per cent of the federal government's total expenditures, has been allocated to the social development and legal affairs envelope. Additionally, in fiscal 1980-81 the federal government will transfer to the provinces an additional $4.4 billion for health and post-secondary education in the form of tax points. Given the financial magnitude of the federal role, the fact that its social policy initiatives are under the direction of seven federal departments and 14 other agencies, and seeing that in many areas the federal role is indirect, it is incumbent that the federal government have the support of a central agency mandated to advise the government on ways of achieving federal social priorities in a coherent, interdepartmentally integrated, efficient and effective manner.
The concern of the minister of social development would be in the areas I have just mentioned. In reference to the minister who will be involved in this new creative social development policy, I would refer hon. members to page three, item (c) of the motion, which reads:
he shall lead and co-ordinate the efforts of the Government of Canada to establish and to clarify co-operative relationships with the provinces and with public and private organizations, to foster conditions that allow and assist the development of the individual, the family and the community;
That, in essence, sums up what has been said by those who support this motion. I support it as well.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, first 1 would like to say that 1 have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien). I know that he has a genuine concern for Canada, Canadians, and social development.
I would also like to say that it is an honour for me to participate in this debate and to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) because, during his distinguished career as mayor of the city of Toronto, he gave a real meaning and purpose to the social development of that great city. He insisted that Toronto stop and take a look at itself, and he sharpened that city's social conscience. I do not really think that any member of this House has the experience which the hon. member for Rosedale has, both at the street level and at the administrative level. However, I did not think that the year 1960 was quite as long as he made it this afternoon, but I do respect his efforts in this area.
I want to commend the government for bringing forward this motion at a time when it faces the challenges of the 1980s. The development of the individual, the family and the community are fundamental to the future of Canada. Without a demonstrated concern for social development, the government faces the charge that it is not concerned about these vital issues. The government must demonstrate its concern by creating an agency which is charged with the responsibility of co-ordinating government policy, of eliminating duplication, and of improving the effectiveness of its social policies. The ministry of state for social development can be such an agency.
I say "can be" because those of us who are relatively new to politics, after a lifetime in the private sector, view the creation of another government agency or another ministry with a certain amount of ingrained suspicion.


Mr. Murphy:: You don't look that old.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: This leads me to suggest some guidelines to the government. The word "development" implies a process which looks to the future. 1 implore this government to look to the future in this ministry because we are faced with some unique challenges and unique opportunities in Canada over the next 20 years. We must anticipate the challenges and the opportunities. There is the challenge of an aging society. This challenge must be identified now in order that we can cope with the problems this will present as a greater proportion of our population comes to be made up of senior citizens. That is the challenge.
At the same time there are opportunities open to Canadians because of our wealth of untapped natural resources which we have to develop. The Minister of State for Social Development
June 16, 1980

should undertake an immediate study so that we can integrate the people resources with the natural resources. That is the opportunity. For too long we have been dependent upon natural resources and have failed to think about people. For too long we have been hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have not thought about the people drawing the water and hewing the wood.
Our immigration policy has to be co-ordinated with the provincial educational systems so that we will have the technicians with the ability to put these resources to work. Where the need is immediate we must adjust our immigration policy at once. Our long-range goal should be to employ Canadians and provide job opportunities.
1 suggest that the government avoid creating a bureaucratic nightmare. The objective should not be to see how many people can be employed or if another office building can be erected in Hull. The government should not come back year after year with requests for more man-years until they become enmeshed in red tape. People should be hired on the basis of past peformance rather than their ability to multiply, or their political allegiance. We must search for opportunity to co-ordinate existing services rather than trying to recreate the wheel. People want us to cut through red tape in order to get things done, and to meet for the sake of accomplishment rather for the sake of holding meetings.
I suggest that this ministry should not only co-ordinate, Mr. Speaker, but it should eliminate. Where the federal government duplicates a provincial program or finds that a certain program is ineffective in regard to the social development of Canada, then it should be eliminated. 1 believe the ministry of state for social development can play a very important role in co-ordinating the efforts of various levels of government.
In the Speech from the Throne this government came up with a very telling admission when it suggested that the Canadian people wanted more effective government, not necessarily less government. In view of the longevity of this government's reign we can only hope that perhaps this is one of the things they have said which they will put into action. Every Canadian wants effective government. That means that we stop playing games and start governing Canada for the benefit of all Canadians. If the governing should be done at the municipal level, let the municipalities govern; if the governing should be done at the provincial level, let the provinces govern; and if the governing should be done at the federal level, let us get on with it.
In the text of the proposed order in council there is reference to the welfare of the individual. This ministry should try to re-establish the true meaning of the word welfare for Canadians. The concept of concern for the welfare of the individual is a key to the development of a strong Canada. The concept of a welfare state for Canada will destroy us. For too long we have been concerned with the welfare state, the hand-out, the free lunch and now, finally, under the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), we have the ultimate-the paid free lunch. If we strive for sound development of a social policy we will ensure the welfare or well-being of the individual.
Social Development Ministry
Earlier I referred to "street sense". That term is often used in reference to politicians. The civil servants to be employed by this ministry would do well to develop street sense and combine it with the wealth of degrees which I am sure we will find in that ministry. In fact street sense may be more important to it than a Ph.D. in sociology. If our society is to develop, those charged with the responsibility for its development must know what is actually going on in the streets of the villages, towns and cities of Canada.
As the housing critic for the Progressive Conservative party, I would urge the ministry of state for social development to play an independent role in examining and integrating the various housing and shelter programs of the Government of Canada and the provinces. We must strive for the best possible affordable housing for Canadians within a sound community environment. Innovative concepts such as the mortgage interest and realty tax credit which we introduced, and co-operative housing, should be examined from an objective viewpoint rather than subjective political viewpoints. Canadian housing policy, or the lack thereof, affects every Canadian because shelter is a basic need. We have social housing policies and programs, but we have not solved the basic problem. We do not have enough adequate housing at a reasonable price for Canadians.
An independent examination of the situation is necessary. With no axe to grind, the ministry could look at such areas as CMHC priorities, provincial-federal duplication, and integration of tri-level administration in the housing field. The ministry should work toward co-ordinating the responsibilities of all government bodies at each level of government. The ministry of state for social development can help all Canadians if it examines the purpose of a housing policy.
If a housing policy is designed to meet the universal need of every Canadian for shelter, then it is fulfilling its purpose. If, however, housing policy is merely an economic tool used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to stimulate or dampen the economy, then we are only paying lip service to the needs of millions of Canadians for adequate shelter.
Housing starts are too often used as a measurement of federal government success in providing shelter for Canadians. In fact an independent shelter review by an agency, independent of CMHC, would reveal that the majority of Canadians do not get adequate housing if multiple dwelling starts are depressed in areas such as Vancouver while single family dwelling starts increase in Ontario and people are not moving in. Social development progress in housing must meet the needs of all Canadians, especially those at the lower end of the economic scale.
In the fall of 1978 the Progressive Conservative party introduced the concept of a tax reduction based upon mortgage interest and realty tax paid by Canadian home owners. Ninety per cent of Canadians want to own their own homes. Our program would have made that goal, home ownership, more easily available. We introduced that legislation into this House. It was debated vigorously by my friends on the other side of the House who whipped up a paranoia unequalled in

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
modern parliamentary history. In the end, the legislation disappeared with the Thirty-first Parliament, but not before the vote in which three members opposite with a social conscience voted in favour of the legislation. We knew on that night who those members were. I commend them for their good sense, but fear for their political future in that party. We remain committed to the concept of a mortgage interest and realty tax credit based upon the social goal of adequate housing for Canadians. We see it as a stimulation and a social tool rather than an economic tool.
The ministry should co-ordinate a study on the impact of a shelter allowance to solve the housing needs of Canadians. A shelter allowance could be substituted for present housing production subsidies, or used to supplement them. I suggest that we look at what the individual can afford to spend on housing and make that our criteria when deciding on a shelter allowance. The ministry must be able to stand aside from the ingrained thought of CMHC and look at things on an independent basis.
1 would suggest that the ministry review the activities of CMHC and see whether it makes sense to co-ordinate a lending and a mortgage insurance function with the concept of social housing. Is it fair to ask CMHC to apply the principles of profit and loss and balance sheet analysis to the social question of adequate housing for Canadians? More important, is it fair to Canadians?
Another area where the ministry of state for social development could play a major role is in co-operative housing. It is safe to say that it is doubtful if society will ever reach the stage where every Canadian is capable or desirous of owning his or her own form of shelter. There will always be a segment of society which cannot afford adequate housing. We have to work with this government to reduce that segment which requires public housing.
I suggest that co-operative housing may be an attractive alternative to public housing. Co-operative housing describes housing constructed or obtained by a group of people who own it collectively. It has the potential for keeping good housing within the economic reach of families of all incomes. Pride of ownership may overcome some of the problems of public housing shelter. We have not really looked at this concept of co-operative housing. I want to see the ministry of state for social development examine that concept to determine its role in the development of adequate housing for Canadians.
I want to deal briefly with a subject that is close to me, the role of the volunteer in society. In my view that role is threatened and, should we lose it, society will be the loser. As the past president of the Canada Jaycees, I wish to read the creed of the Junior Chamber International into the record. I quote:
We believe
That faith in God gives meaning and purpose to human life;
That the brotherhood of man transcends the sovereignty of nations;
That economic justice can best be won by free men through free enterprise;
That government should be of laws rather than men;
That earth's great treasure lies in human personality;
That service to humanity is the best work of life.
Kiwanis, Lions, Rotary, Kinsmen, Y'sMen, and the quota clubs, to name a few of the many service clubs in Canada, have similar creeds. The Cancer Society, the Community Chest, the Association of Conservation Clubs, etc., all have aims and ideals reflecting a belief that men and women should contribute of themselves to make Canada a better place to live.
But the role of the volunteer is being downgraded in Canadian society. The valuable contribution which these volunteer groups can make is threatened. They are threatened by a federal government which attacks their views and undermines their efforts. Two years ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was quoted as follows:
For the last two years, we (the federal government) have not heard the voices of the poor, the old .. . just those of businessmen. Small and big.
That worries me very much.
"We're getting very strong public opinion from small and big business in Toronto and western Canada that we don't need family allowance and social expenditures in Canada doesn't make sense . .. they cost too much.
It's coming from groups like the chambers of commerce and Kiwanis Clubs and I'm very concerned with messages like that.
The chambers of commerce, the Kiwanis clubs, the Rotary clubs, every service club of Canada, have every right to make their feelings known.
They are business people. They represent General Motors, and they represent the corner store. If they have been telling the government something, perhaps they should sit up and take notice. They employ, and they are also employees. They know the increasing bite of the tax dollar. They are well aware of the shrinkage that occurs from gross salary to net salary, just as they are aware that their net salary buys less because of inflation. They know they have to make a profit and operate efficiently.
They know they must face their bankers. I might point out that they do it more than every five years, which is the Liberal habit. In my opinion, the minister's remarks were an affront to every service club in Canada, not just the Kiwanis clubs, the Rotary clubs and the chambers of commerce, but every service club.
I want to take just a minute to examine how we have come to the point where a federal cabinet minister can make such a statement. What we have in this country is a LIP grant psychology which has hurt service clubs and voluntary organizations over the years. Traditionally, service clubs found a need in the community, whether it was to raise funds for crippled children or to build a sheltered workshop for the mentally handicapped. We had to examine the value of the project and we had to prove it to the club executive and the membership. Then we took it and we did it. It usually took a great deal of time and effort. We begged, borrowed and scrounged the materials and manpower. When we were finished, the community had something of lasting significance and the members were left with a sense of satisfaction.
June 16, 1980

Then we got the LIP grant process and it was much different. Grants were initially made under the Local Initiatives Program for seasonal workers during the winter. Then they were replaced by Canada Works grants which were year round. We got to the point where the service club did not mean anything any more. The government had the money and it kept churning it out.
We have spent a great deal of the taxpayers' money, but we have not really solved our employment problems with these one year "bites at the apple". What concerns me most of all is that our initiative may be stifled and the public is losing sight of the role of the service clubs, community organizations, and chambers of commerce in Canada. I am convinced that service clubs, community organizations and chambers of commerce can perform community and service projects more efficiently and cheaply than most Canada Works projects.
We cannot reach the point where Canadians allow these handouts to stifle the concept that we try harder to do things for ourselves. We should know the need of our community and make an effort to fill that need. We should not expect that the need will be filled by the government.
The Speech from the Throne refers to a "new partnership with voluntary agencies and local organizations in a program of community service". The aim of that partnership should be to strengthen the role of the volunteer agencies and local organizations within a strong Canada. I suggest the ministry of state for social development can play a very important role in creating that partnership.
In closing, I commend the minister for his diligence in presenting this motion, but I urge him to make the preamble live in the eighties once this bill is approved. The execution of the concepts which are expressed in that preamble are vital to the future of Canada.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, the programs of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission are some of the federal activities most crucial to both the economic and social well-being of our country. They embrace three major program areas; unemployment insurance, the area of employment service designed to assist in the functioning of the labour market and, of course, immigration.
The $4 billion Canada spends annually on unemployment insurance is designed to help workers when they are between jobs. Since 1940 Canada has been one of the world leaders in the field of unemployment insurance and this government is determined that the unemployment insurance program will be fully effective to meet the needs of the 1980s.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has already announced that there will be a review of the fundamentals of the unemployment insurance program and a high level task force is now being readied by the commission to take a careful look at how unemployment insurance should be arranged in the decades ahead. Since the early seventies, with the extension of the unemployment insurance program to virtually universal coverage, there have been a number of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Social Development Ministry
Now it is time to review the effects of these and see how the program can be vectored better in light of social, economic, and unemployment conditions in the years immediately ahead.
Bill C-3, now before the House and awaiting second reading, proposes only two adjustments to the unemployment insurance program. It seeks to postpone the expiry of the ten-to 14-weeks entrance requirement until the review of fundamentals of the program is complete. Bill C-3 would adjust the financing of the unemployment insurance program. Earlier, a regulatory change was made which had transferred the administrative costs of the employment service-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it is not Bill C-3 which is before us. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that the measure we are discussing relates to a proposed social development ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I had not anticipated I would be entering the debate so soon. I thank the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd) for the inappropriateness of his remarks. I wish him better luck next time.
I begin my remarks this evening on the motion to establish a ministry of state for social development by commenting on some of the statements made earlier by Conservative speakers on this subject. I am somewhat confused, now, as to the rationale behind the support the Conservative party has been giving to the establishment of this ministry of state, especially after listening to the well-articulated criticisms of this initiative by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
First, I think it is important to examine the claims which the government itself makes in support of this initiative. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said this afternoon it would be a ministry of co-ordination, and used the analogy of the Ministry of State for Economic Development; the ministry of social development would take an overview in the same way as the ministry of economic development is said to do. I do not know how other members feel, but to my mind the value and the power of the Ministry of State for Economic Development are very little indeed. Sometimes I wonder whether there is such a ministry; if it is happening it must be happening only at departmental level. In part this may be because the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Olson) sits in the other place, but it reinforces my impression that these ministries of state whose intention is to oversee other departments are, in a sense, fictitious, in that they simply provide the context for another bureaucratic device to escape responsibility for decisions made in relation to certain departments.
Another claim made in support of this motion is that its intention is to integrate. But what is it to integrate? If we could truly believe that this was the beginning of a process by

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
which the government would finally and intelligently integrate all the multiple social policy concerns of the Canadian people and their government, we might be in favour of this proposal in a wholehearted way. As things are, I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the statement setting out what is to be integrated. What is to be integrated is social policy with expenditure management. That is not the integration of policy at all, or, at least, that is not the primary intention, which is, I suggest, to subordinate social policy to the perceived fiscal needs of the government. All this would be done within the third claim made by the government, that this is an extension of the so-called "envelope system" that the Progressive Conservatives brought into government in their short stay in office.
We believe that is not an expansionary move, not a move to innovate and create in the field of social policy but, in fact, a means by which to reduce the commitment of the Canadian government to social policy goals and social policy directives in the years to come. As 1 said before, this is explicit in the capacity of the new ministry of state to decide on the allocation of funds between departments and what I take to be the most revealing statement of the rationale, namely, is that as new social policy needs and goals are established they can only be arrived at by a trading-off process whereby money must come from old programs to go into new programs; it must be taken from old priorities to go into new priorities. It will be the function of the new ministry to decide what programs are to lose in order that other programs might gain. I submit that this is a product of either a certain amount of smugness on the part of the government with respect to the present state of Canadian social policy, a smugness which implies that the present position is so satisfactory that we can afford new programs only by syphoning off money from programs which are already established, or else it is the counsel of despair, a feeling that there will be no more new money, that there will be no more of the wealth created in this country going toward social programs and that, therefore, some very difficult decisions are ahead of us as to the allocation of social policy funds.
Perhaps it is thought that a special mechanism-in this case the ministry of state for social development-is needed to supervise those very difficult decisions and take some of the heat off the on-line ministers when those decisions have to be made. It would not surprise me if in the future, in the context of the new ministry, we were to see a renewal of the fascination with selectivity in social programs as opposed to the maintenance and expansion of existing universal programs, a fascination such as we began to see under the Progressive Conservative government. The minute we start to talk about trade-offs, and say that new things will only come at the expense of old things, and when so many of the old programs are universal programs, then I think this sets a dangerous political context in which one can see the erosion of universality in our programs. I hope this is not the direction in which the government is moving. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is a supporter of universality in social programs, but under this legislation the hon. lady would have less "say" than if this ministry had not been
formed. That is something to keep in mind. She will be a junior minister, and I think that is shameful when we think of the role ministers of national health and welfare have played in the past history of Canadian social policy.
There are too many things to be done, and too many needs to be met. There are too many things to be done to rely on a system that in its very opening rationale speaks of trade-offs. We will need more money in the absolute sense. The so-called economic pie or the funding pie for social programs will have to grow bigger. It will have to have an absolute growth as opposed to only apparent growth in order to do the things which are needed.
Some of the things which need to be done have been mentioned already by hon. members in the course of the debate so far. Particular groups have particular needs. The most recent group whose needs have been brought to our attention is that of the children of Canada. Their needs were brought to our attention by the report of the Commission on the International Year of the Child. The recommendations made in the report of the commission are not going to be able to be financed by robbing from veterans affairs, from income security for the elderly, from health care, or from any number of other things which the so-called social policy envelope will be dealing with. It will not be the way to look after the needs of Canada's children to take from those other groups which have, fortunately, been able to establish the legitimacy of their needs with the Canadian people.
The needs of some groups have not yet been mentioned, or have been mentioned only in passing. I refer to the needs of single parent families and women, natives, and the handicapped, with regard to special training and employment programs. All these things are to be handled within the context of trade-offs and of what can be done by taking money from old programs and old priorities, and I think this is not the way to go about developing an adequate social policy for Canada.
I would like to mention just one thing which has come to my attention as a member of Parliament for only a year or so now, and that is the fact that many people find themselves in a tremendously disadvantageous and humanly unfortunate situation as a result of disability. I am one of those people of whom the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) spoke when he spoke of the year 1960. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned, in 1960 I was only in grade three.
I grew up within the context of the so-called welfare state and under the impression that we, as a people, looked after each other, that we were a progressive, advanced, caring and sharing society, and that no one in Canada would be left in some of the positions of hardship which have come to my attention since I became a member of Parliament. I am surprised that some of the programs we have, and about which we do so much bragging, are in fact so stingy. They go out of their way to make people crawl, beg and scrape in order to prove that they need the very barest of incomes. I am thinking
June 16, 1980

primarily of the Canada Pension Plan disability pension. People have to prove, not that they cannot get a job, but that they are not able to do a job. We find a great many people who certainly are able to participate in some kind of employment, but they are not able to get jobs. It is as simple as that. There is no benefit in being able to do something if there is no one who is willing to employ you at doing it.
Many people, particularly men in their fifties, have worked hard all their lives in warehouse work, or in other work which requires very strenuous physical exertion, and when they get into their fifties, and their backs go out and they are not able to perfom that kind of work any more, they find themselves tossed on to the heap of surplus Canadians.
Those people are not useful to the system any more, yet this Canada Pension Plan disability fund, which is supposed to provide for people in that state of affairs, is unable to help them because the rules are written in such a way as to ensure that only the barest minimum number of people come under the benefits which are provided by this plan. I cite that as just one example of a place where much improvement is needed and something that is going to require a lot of money-and a lot of new money at that-and not just trade-offs between existing programs.
1 have been doing a lot of talking about new money, and I can hear the cash registers ringing in the minds of my colleagues to my right and across the way. They say, "Well, there goes the NDP talking about spending, spending, spending again". Indeed, if we are going to do the things we want to do and if we are going to be the kind of society we want to be, we will have to spend, but the other side of the government spending question and the other side of the restraint mentality is the revenue question and how much revenue the government has at its disposal to do these kinds of things. The other side of the revenue question brings us to the tremendous amount of money made in this country which never sees the door of the revenue department.
The other side of the restraint question and the paranoia about government spending is all the money that never sees the door of the revenue department because we do not have a fair tax system in this country. All that money never sees the revenue department because, in a year like 1978, we spent $32 billion in tax expenditures, and that is not even recorded in such a way that the people of Canada are aware that there is that much money out there not being collected. There is money enough to pay for deficits and for new programs, and yet we sit here-at least some of us do-and whine and moan about the deficit. It never occurs to us to go out there and tax the wealth that is already there so that we can begin the process of living up to the throne speeches of so many varied and inadequate Liberal governments over the years.
We are talking about new social policy goals and meeting the needs of groups, some of which were not even on the scene 20 years ago in 1960, the year that the hon. member for Rosedale spent so much time talking about this afternoon. We are talking about the tremendous needs, for instance, of single
Social Development Ministry
parent families, a phenomenon which, I submit, was not prevalent to the same degree in 1960 that it is now.
There are all kinds of new social phenomena upon us. There is the problem of native people in the cities, the problem of single parent families, which I mentioned already, and the problem of children who, because of advances in learning theory, are perceived to have learning disabilities, and should no longer just be streamed off into more docile occupations. They should be helped to improve themselves, with the knowledge of their particular disabilities. That is just to mention two or three things that are more with us now than they were 20 years ago.
We will not be able to meet these needs unless we have fundamental economic change, and to that degree everyone here today who has said that social development cannot be separated from economic development is right. Without fundamental economic change we will not be able to pay, to build economic structures which will ensure that enough of the wealth which is created in the country comes to the public purse in ordre for us to be able to pay for the kind of society we want. Here the Liberal government and the Liberal party are at the crossroads. I look forward to the next few years because it is in the next few years that the Liberal party and its government will come up against realities which they have been trying to postpone for a very long time and which, indeed, they have been very successful at postponing. The happy coincidence of Canadian liberalism will soon disappear.
The happy coincidence is that hon. members, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and others, over the last few decades have been perceived to be social reformers, while at the same time pursuing the same old economic orthodoxies of which the official opposition is so proud. They will come up against the fact that they have been able to have their cake and eat it too, to the extent they have because the economy was growing and because we were in a period of unequalled expansion. So they could take that incremental growth and distribute it about. And so long as the pie was getting bigger, even if you were only getting 5 per cent of the pie, it was 5 per cent of a bigger pie and you were happier with the government than you might have been otherwise. But now the pie is not getting any bigger and it does not appear likely to become any bigger, not just because of the incompetence and mismanagement of the Liberal government but because of the international and global realities, because of the redistribution of resources which will have to take place globally, unless we want the world to go up in a tremendously violent fight over limited resources. And so now we will be up against it.
Now when the pie is not getting any bigger, we will have to decide what kind of society we really want, because we will not be able to defer to the glorious economic future which awaits all the poor if they would just wait for more foreign investment, if they would just wait for the economy to come out of the recession, if they would just wait for the next boom cycle. All these are vain hopes.

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
Soon we will have to decide what kind of society we want, and we will have to start making our political decisions much more attentive to basic moral and philosophical questions because we will not have this expanding pie with which to defer these very difficult questions. This is the crucible in which I expect the Liberal party to find itself over the next few years, that the promises they have made to the Canadian people in terms of social policy and the promises they have made with regard to economic nationalism and everything else, will come tumbling down and will stumble over the fact that their first loyalty is to the same kind of economic orthodoxies to which their opponents on the other side, the Progressive Conservatives, are committed.
But that is not the only reason that all the laudable goals which are supposedly to be reached as a result of the establishment of the ministry of state for social development will not be reached. Another reason that they will not is administrative. What is happening here is an injection of another layer of bureaucracy between the idea stage and the implementation stage. It is not enough that we have the Privy Council and the Treasury Board. It is not enough that we have the cabinet, and it is not enough that we have the sheer, unending inertia of this government. Instead we have to insert within that process yet another level of procrastination and unnecessary deliberation.
Those of you who have read Franz Kafka's "The Castle" will perhaps be reminded of the difficulty which the main character in that book had in trying to get a hold of what was happening, and trying to figure out just where reality was, just who he could speak to who would make a difference. With the injection of this ministry of state for social development we have another layer of Kafkaesque administration laid upon the Canadian people, and laid upon their already legitimate dissatisfaction with the decision-making process of this government.
It will be just another layer of deliberation and accountability which will remove from this House the ability of the various on-line ministers to rise in their place daily in the question period and answer for the policies of their particular department, or for the lack of policy of their department. Now they will be able to hide behind the coat-tails of the minister of state for social development; they will be able to say, "I would sure like to do that, but it did not come to me through the envelope. Talk to the Minister of Justice, if you can find him when he is not off looking after federal-provincial relations, after justice concerns, or now after his added responsibility, the ministry of state for social development." We have in fact made all the on line ministers here junior. It is a very serious erosion of accountability, and if Parliament is not about accountability, then I do not know what it is all about.
Perhaps the on line ministers will be relieved-given what I had to say earlier about the inability of the Liberal government to deliver on its promises-not to have the full responsibility for this failure, and to defer to their busy elder, the Minister of Justice, who is already overworked.
It is incredible to me that one person should have oversight over social development, justice, and federal-provincial relations, and it lends credence to the theory that all that is happening here is that a particular administrative mechanism is being set up to supervise restraint within this government, a restraint which, I admit, will not be accompanied by all the self-righteous and destructive hoopla in which the Progressive Conservatives are inclined to participate when they embark upon a program of restraint, but nonetheless very subtle restraint. The Liberals always like to-


An hon. Member:: Shift into easy.


An hon. Member:: Silk gloves.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Silk gloves is the analogy which has been suggested to me by an hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Iron fist.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: But really an iron fist to the poor. It was said earlier, I think by the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was being unduly pessimistic when he spoke of some of the concerns we had about this new ministry of state for social development. I realize that to be pessimistic in this particular day and age is almost to sin against the Holy Spirit. What we have is uncritical optimism about the future, and this kind of optimism invades and infects everything we do.
I think it is important, whatever the future may look like, to be accurate and realistic. 1 would prefer to be realistic and to sound pessimistic to the uncritical optimist than to participate in the uncritical expectations that we have heard today about what this particular restraint mechanism will do for social policy in Canada. I realize they have been hard pressed to justify this ministry, particularly as it originated within the Conservative ranks, but it is not the first thing we have seen the Liberal government predisposed to adopt from their Conservative brothers, again lending credence, I submit, to our theory, which becomes more true every day, about Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
It may appear that to be against the co-ordination, integration and planning of social policy in this country is to be unfair and mean to the government. But the burden of truth will be upon them to show, over the next few years, that this initiative on their part is intended indeed to enrich and enhance social policy in this country and not simply to become a mechanism by which they may do, underhand and with less accountability, what they set out to do in 1978 when they first began the cutbacks phenomenon in August of that year. We will have to wait to see whether they can overcome the limitations of reality. They will not be able to do it.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to offer my personal congratulations to the minister for the job he did in the recent referendum in Quebec. He was one of the few cabinet ministers on the other side of the House who spoke with his heart and not the pocketbook. I first came to know him when he was
June 16, 1980

in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He should have stayed there; he was doing an excellent job. I am pleased to rise today to address the motion he introduced.
Naturally I am concerned with the area of social development in this great country of ours, but 1 have a few reservations on the proposals of this government to set up another ministry. I like to think of myself as a compassionate Canadian. It is my hope that the people I serve perceive me as such. I am very aware of the need for direction in all social areas, but I am hesitant in agreeing to let this government increase its spending power in any area without specific proposals and policies.
Can the minister tell us just what his jurisdiction will be over the other ministries obviously involved in social development? What co-ordination policies and terms will be set up for this minister to ensure that the proposed ministry does not just become another filler, a stop-gap measure to very real concerns? Other federal departments and agencies have control over substantive funds which could affect the operation of this new department. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is aware, her territory is definitely in jeopardy if this new creation is given precedence. What kind of funding will be appropriated to social development either to the detriment of other departments or in duplication of duties already mandated to existing departments?
The Liberals are notorious for their ability at duplication. One only has to look at their proposal to establish the Board of Economic Development Ministers back in 1979. The board, the superministry, was to have responsibilities for such things as upgrading the forest products industry, helping the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and implementing new policy for development of the Canadian automobile industry. It was to manage federal programs to develop a stable economic climate for growth and the creation of jobs. We can all see the success of that board. It was given direction for areas already supposedly covered by other departments or agencies. Our stagnant economy has done nothing but deteriorate the social climate and foster unemployment.
The principle of the motion is an important one. It is crucial that this government look at its responsibilities to the Canadian people. However, what guarantees will be given to the department and its minister? Will the minister direct its priorities to the people? What role does this department intend to play in the lives of the citizens of the country? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said "our greatest hope lies, not in new laws or greater use of the power of the state, but in ourselves, in the capacity of each of us to adopt different social and economic values in response to the new reality of our times". What priorities has the government planned for this new ministry? Although in principle there is a real need to have social directions, we must have some indication of where they are to take this country.
As youth critic I am very concerned about the future of our most natural resource. There will be an estimated 4.6 million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 next year. Of what policy direction can we be assured to guarantee that
Social Development Ministry
these young people will have a future to look forward to, a job, a full-time meaningful job? I am not referring to government jobs, although young bright Canadians are needed in government. I am not referring to a part-time job, not one that lasts 48 weeks, but a full-time meaningful job. Today it is a national disgrace that 431,000 young people under the age of 25 in this country are unemployed, or 44 per cent of all people unemployed. We must know what programs and principles will be attained through the development of this ministry. A ten-year plan of its goals and objectives is not an unreasonable request. It would appear to me a three-year intensive plan of its aims should be made known to this House immediately. It is too important an area to be given only vague generalities. What jurisdiction will be given to the minister over employment, immigration, education, health and justice? We do not know.
I do not want to tread on any toes, especially in those areas that belong to our provincial counterparts through the BNA Act, but in the context of the present and forthcoming constitutional discussions, will the minister be examining the area of education under this new super ministry? If this ministry is to foster social development, our educational system across the country must be examined. Education must be tailored to present needs. There is absolutely no point in creating a glut of graduates with Ph.D.s if these extremely brilliant minds have to drive taxicabs to earn a living. Will the financial agreements between Ottawa and the provinces for post-secondary education be examined? Will the government encourage some of the universities experiencing drastic enrolment drops at present to become community colleges? It is interesting to note that the famous Ryerson Polytechnical Institute in Toronto, of which 1 am an alumnus, is now experiencing a number of students coming from universities with B.A.s that have not stood them in very good stead. They are getting some practical training in a great educational setup such as the ones at Ryerson and in community colleges.
As I said, I am aware the educational system falls under provincial jurisdiction, but it must have direction and must be tailored so that young people are educated and employable. We must give our young people marketable skills. The government of the United States has commissioned a study in this area for the eighties. Maybe we should be encouraging the same thing in Canada.
The critical skills committee of the government is a start. I am pleased to serve on it and to be one of the representatives from the Progressive Conservative party. However, it is not enough just to examine the critical skills area. All areas of employment and education must be examined if we are to aim at full employment. How can the minister strive for less?
I am well aware that each and every one of us has social obligations and responsibilities, but will the minister and this ministry foster a stable Canadian indentity, a stable family unit and a stable participation with the provinces so that our children can feel as though they belong and develop a sense of usefulness? Will the policies of the ministry return to the youth of this country a sense of Canada and remove the instability they presently face? As minister responsible for

June 16, 1980
Social Development Ministry
families, what programs and incentives will he offer to foster the family unit? Parents teach their children to be independent; a country should do the same.
What programs are there going to be for exceptional children? What encouragement is going to be offered for children at both ends of the exceptional spectrum; the brilliant child who has a natural talent for music or anything else but whose parents cannot afford to have his or her talent flourish because it costs $3,000 a year or so? What tax incentives will be offered to those parents who are frustrated because they cannot afford the same calibre of cultural education as those in higher income brackets? Why is cultural understanding a prerogative of the rich? Is this minister going to help the parents whose child needs special instruction because of a physical or emotional problem? Just what are the minister's areas of responsibility?
Is this the ministry that will finally develop a firm federal affirmative action policy? We all know there are disadvantaged groups that require assistance within specific areas of federal responsibility; representatives of women, native people and the handicapped. Affirmative action programs exist in certain areas but, heaven knows, progress has been slow and these programs lack co-ordination. The federal government is long overdue in accepting its responsibility in this area. Few of the recommendations made by the task force on the handicapped have been implemented.
Will the minister set up standards to surmount the obstacles faced by the handicapped in employment, transportation, housing, and recreation? Our party is willing to listen, and to try to improve policy on the employment of the disabled. In all fairness, some progress has been made in this area through programs such as LEAP and Outreach, but short-term jobs for the disabled are not enough. A myth stills exists that must be corrected regarding the hiring of a handicapped person. What direction will the minister have to foster awareness in this area through the employment ministry? Before this new ministry is created this House should know its terms and goals, lending credibility to the intent of government to help the mainstream Canadian.
We are all aware of the constantly changing challenges facing individuals, private groups and governments, and one of the most challenging will be job creation in the 1980s. As I have said, what initiatives will the government bring forth to ensure permanent jobs for the ever-increasing labour force? By the end of the 1980s almost half our population will be in the labour market. Our young people have had access to higher education and yet unemployment is their dismal future. The problem must be dealt with now.
I am not suggesting it should be handled totally by the federal government, but action must be taken to stimulate the private sector to create jobs for the young people. Governments must create the climate for the private sector in this area, and encourage entrepreneurs and investment, employers, unions and government, to work together to meet the demand
for skilled labour and properly to implement programs that will meet the needs of our young people. We must foster a willingness to work, and not fall into the same trap set by Bryce Mackasey in 1971 when he assured us that the UIC program would not discourage people from working.
There is a need in this country for a sense of involvement in the community. An awareness of social structures must be fostered. Established voluntary organizations must be adequately funded.
Will this be the umbrella ministry to correct all the social injustices that do exist, and that have been perpetuated by Liberal administration too intent on its own salvation to worry about the direction of the country? What surveillance programs are going to be introduced either through Health and Welfare, environment, or through this new umbrella ministry to monitor areas that affect Canadians every day; problems such as acid rain, methylmercury contamination; yes, the old bugaboo, metrication? The list is endless. There are very few areas if any of an individual's life that are not affected by government.
If I might, I should like to come back to the youth of this country for just a moment. Will the minister in his capacity as justice minister be introducing amendments to the existing young offenders act, marijuana laws, prostitution laws and, if so, has he reconciled these changes with their impact on the family structure? As I have said, this ministry will obviously be responsible for families. What are the priorities intended to foster family unity and, consequently, national unity? Is the minister prepared to look at our social problems in the context of our legal framework? Is the minister prepared to look at our divorce laws and the issue of capital punishment?
Human rights are another area where the minister will have to state his intention. I believe the justice department is currently looking at all federal legislation for possible conflict with the human rights act. Will this proposed department be involved with immigration policy which, in effect, is discriminatory to certain groups? How does he plan to handle the racial tension that, whether we like it or not, does exist in large cities such as Toronto and Vancouver? One of the ministers, I noted this weekend, while speaking in Toronto said that racial tension is caused by youth unemployment; that they are too idle, they have nothing to do, and therefore they have time on their hands and they get into trouble. I could not agree with him more. What is the government going to do to encourage employment for the young?
The authority of the Human Rights Commission is being challenged by federal departments, and this challenge can in no way be said to be productive of progressive, free social thinking.
The publication, "A National Understanding", in 1977 stated that Canadians have a right to education in the official language of choice, and facilities should be provided where numbers warrant it. Bilingualism programs are available to almost anyone, and in most cases with no direct cost to the individual, but right here in the House of Commons the Liberals are fostering a practice of discrimination. Neither
June 16, 1980

French nor English language training is available to the assistants on the staff of members of Parliament, but it is available to all other House of Commons personnel. They vetoed a Standing Order 43 motion to have this discrimination looked into just the other day. I would ask the minister to take another hard look at this with a view to allowing members' staffs take advantage of the language training programs available. I wonder how a party that has not been able to implement its own policies in the past will do so in the future? Is this minister going to have any more success at fostering or developing Canadian culture?
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might call it ten o'clock before I get to another subject I wish to cover.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you are in the chair, sir, because you have a constituency responsibility which is parallel to mine, and that is the subject matter on which I want to address this House this evening.
There will always be reorganizations within the Government of Canada. As a result of those reorganizations many well-trained professionals, clerks and others within the public service, will find their careers interrupted through lay-off, being declared redundant, being put on priority lists, etc. etc. All of these events create uncertainty for families and great difficulties with devastating sacrifices that can only be experienced to be understood. Throughout the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament, I have seen many people in that position, and there is nothing more distressing than the feeling of hopelessness that they bring with them to my office.
The Public Service Commission has recognized the importance of providing some hope to public servants through the work of Ken Sinclair. There have been some astonishing success stories when a person has been found redundant and that same person finds a spot somewhere else. But as good as the existing programs are, they lack one essential ingredient for success. That ingredient is retraining.
During the course of the Clark government the process of devising a scheme began, but we have heard very little from the government from retraining of public servants since the
Adjournment Debate
last election. That is why I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) the following question:
-When is the President of the Treasury Board going to make announcements with respect to the retraining programs for public servants which were promised during the course of the election and about which he has been strangely silent since the election?
There has not been an answer since that question was asked. The minister's answer at that time was:
-I take exception to any suggestion that I have been silent. In fact, I discussed with the hon. gentleman the importance we attach to training and to retraining.
That is correct, he did. He went on to say:
We are, I hope, bringing forward some significant programs in this regard, and I hope to be able to make announcements in the House in the very near future. I shall be delighted to discuss further with the hon. gentleman some of his ideas which sometimes, I must say with respect, are quite good.
I appreciate the flattery. I am available to help in this program as I am sure you are, Mr. Speaker. I believe there is a great opportunity for the public sector to provide leadership to business and industry with respect to retraining. Aside from the maintenance of an experienced public service, I think it is important that the government, as an employer, show a concern for the human side as well.
In February, 1980, the government of which I was a member took a quantum leap forward in that regard. The Treasury Board announced a policy of no lay-off protection which read as follows:
Our policy, that all surplus employees would be offered an alternative employment opportunity, was designed to ensure that there would be no lay-offs solely to achieve reductions. From time to time, there are a number of situations in the public service where positions have been declared surplus for reasons which are not directly related to specific plans for more efficient government. These could result from changes in the work load of programs, from re-organization of work or other internal management changes, as well as from the normal phasing out of some programs. It is the government's policy that employees in these situations would also be covered by the no lay-off policy and would be offered an alternative employment opportunity.
The underpinning for this proposal in terms of public interest and in terms of public servants must be the institution of retraining programs. That policy was made dependent upon retraining programs that the government of which I was a member was developing within the Public Service of Canada to assist public servants to prepare for new employment opportunities. The same obligation rests with this government, and public servants are watching and waiting for some action.
I believe that the government should continue and improve upon the initiatives which my government began. I have some suggestions, and I am sure there are others. A public servicewide retraining program should be announced quickly. It should encompass public servants not yet placed who want to work in the public service and who were laid off as the result of the Trudeau government cutbacks of August 1, 1978, and those public servants should remain eligible and continue on an extended priority list.
The government should use its influence with Crown agencies to ensure that those employees who are laid off, and who
2166

June 16, 1980
Adjournment Debate
fall under Treasury Board guidelines, are eligible for appointment to positions in the Crown agencies as well.
The government should consider using community colleges and other facilities at universities, wherever they are available, to augment, where necessary, the facilities that now exist within the public service.
Clearly, the first step is to announce a no lay-off policy, as we did, with the improvements that I have suggested at the beginning, for those laid off by reason of the Prime Minister's announcement on August 1, 1978. There must, of course, be consultation with the Public Service Staff Association and the National Joint Council so that Parliament knows what the government is doing with respect to those who serve the people of Canada in the public service. It should consider tabling the proposals in this House and referring them to a committee, with a limited time-frame of reference, so that they could be considered very quickly.
A beginning has been made with respect to an important aspect of leadership in employer-employee relations by the development of the retraining program. That development should continue apace and that announcement should be made.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to give us some concrete information tonight, at least regarding the time when such an announcement will be made by Treasury Board. As I said, the public service is watching and waiting.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the subject of work force adjustment-both the placement and retraining of public servants who become surplus to government needs in their current jobs. I would emphasize current jobs, because we are concerned as a government to utilize the skills of public servants as fully as possible in the public service as a whole, not just in jobs they happen to hold at a particular moment in time
We recognize a number of needs in regard to improving the placement and retraining of surplus employees. And that is not to say the departments and Public Service Commission have not done a commendable job in placing these employees in new jobs: they have. But we need to do better, through tighter procedures, better communication and more imagination, in the way we look at the skills these employees have. You know, people are adaptable. They may have spent many years in a certain line of work, and that could lead us to slot them into almost the same kinds of jobs, which may not be available. Such people can be useful in other work, of course, because they may have general skills applicable to a variety of job situations.
The need to recognize and take advantage of the adaptability of surplus employees is especially important in the matter of retraining. In the past we have retrained surplus employees placed in new jobs once they are actually working at them; we have not made a great deal of use of the formal, off the job retraining provisions of current work force adjustment policy. That degree of usage is understandable from the point of view
of the effective use of resources; it makes sense to place a person first in work he or she can readily do rather than divert them into courses. However, we do intend to encourage a more imaginative approach to formal retraining, especially in cases where surplus individuals have many of the qualifications for a vacant job, and formal retraining could bring their qualifications up to the required level. Longer retraining than envisaged under current policy may be required. So might a greater commitment of resources.
As I say, these are needs and principles that we have recognized as a government in examining how to reshape our policy of improving how we deal with surplus public servants. We also have in mind some specific measures to fulfil the needs and give effect to the principles. Before announcing any new measures, however, we want to consult with those who could ensure they will work-departmental officials and employee representatives, as well as officials of the Public Service Commission which has significant responsibilities in both placement and training. These consultations have begun and we are hopeful that they will enable a more definitive statement, working out ideas I have shared tonight with this House.
The hon. member is quite correct in raising this question. We are rather thankful that he has and that the opportunity has been given to us to provide these notes for record.


AIR TRANSPORT-STATUS OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION DECISION ON HALIFAX-TORONTO ROUTE
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1980, I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with respect to the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on the matter of the air routes between Halifax and Toronto and Halifax and Montreal. The decision made by the Canadian Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission allowed CP Air to serve the Halifax to Toronto route and at the same time deprived Eastern Provincial Airways of access to the same route.
Curiously, the decision of the CTC also allowed CP Air to serve the Halifax-Montreal route one year hence. That route is now being served by both EPA and Air Canada. The minister in his response confirmed that an appeal had been taken from the decision of the CTC and that June 16, this very day, was the deadline for the submission of briefs and documents. Therefore the decision will now be made by the cabinet or the Minister of Transport either to reverse, or allow the decision of the CTC to stand.
If I were to criticize the decision of the CTC, I could not castigate them more than did the Toronto Globe and Mail in an editorial. This editorial, written on May 23, 1980, said that the CTC rightly decided to open the Halifax-Toronto route, but then proceeded to "botch the case." The CTC, said The Globe and Mail, was stubbornly committed to obstructing the development of regional enterprise when it chose CP Air over EPA. Let me quote the editorial:
June 16, 1980

The CTC's decision in this case demonstrated an utter and utterly lazy incomprehension of Canada's problems at a time when Canada's problems require the most spirited and innovative attention possible. As EPA has appealed the decision to the federal cabinet, we trust that transport minister Jean-Luc Pepin and his colleagues will act upon their born-again commitment to federal reform, and overturn the CTC. Heaven knows the commission has earned some overturning.
Let us face the cruel facts of government. It will take a determined Minister of Transport and real effort by the cabinet to reverse the decision, but I believe the minister will rise to the challenge and support regional enterprise so that EPA will continue to grow and contribute to the economy of Atlantic Canada. In this respect, I am sure the minister has the support of members on both sides of this House.
Why should the decision be reversed? Because it is patently wrong. First, it refers to a non-existent policy whereby regional air carriers cannot go beyond their adjoining regions. Yet Nordair flies direct from Quebec to Winnipeg. Second, the CTC placed three carriers on the Halifax-Montreal route which is rated seventeenth in Canada, but said it would be uneconomical to have more than two carriers on the Halifax-Toronto route which ranks tenth in Canada and is growing. Third, it said EPA could develop local regional traffic. Then the CTC refused special promotional fares. It should not be hard for the minister to reject these reasons for the conclusions of the CTC.
Then there is public opinion. The four Atlantic premiers have urged reversal of the decision. Nearly all members of Parliament in the Atlantic region, members of provincial legislatures and many municipal councils have supported EPA. In fact the only dissenting voice has come from the tourist industry which promotes travel in its own interest, and the Halifax Board of Trade. I found it hard to believe that the Halifax Board of Trade should fail to support such an important regional industry since EPA employs 900 persons in the Atlantic area and spends millions on services and supplies. I asked the membership of the board to respond to a questionnaire to determine whether the membership really did support CP over EPA.
The executive of the Halifax Board of Trade took great exception to my intervention. In fact, one member responded to me and said that I abused the privileges of a member of Parliament. Let me say to that member that I do what I think is right in the interests of all my constituents. However, the response I have received from the Board of Trade and other constituents has been very positive: there is general support in the area for the EPA application to serve the Halifax-Toronto route. But this is not to say that the people have anything against Canadian Pacific. They recognize the contribution CP has made to air transport in Canada and they would like to have the company in the area, but not at the expense of a Halifax industry.
Canadian Pacific has already announced that it proposes to build a $15 million terminal in Toronto. This is the sort of activity to which we are opposed. We want EPA to be a local
Adjournment Debate
industry, a growing industry, and this requires the assistance of the Canadian Transport Commission. So we hope the minister will reverse this decision of the Transport Commission and allow EPA to continue its contribution to the economic development of Canada.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, on June 6 the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) whether the Canadian Transport Commission's decision concerning Toronto-Halifax air services had been appealed and, if so, to what authority.
I would like to confirm that Eastern Provincial Airways has appealed the CTC's decision to the Minister of Transport under section 25 of the National Transportation Act. EPA has asked the minister to rescind, in part, this decision, in order to allow EPA rather than CP Air to provide non-stop Halifax-Toronto service or, alternatively, to vary the decision in order to allow EPA and CP Air equal rights to serve Halifax-Toronto. I would add that CP Air has also appealed the CTC decision to the minister, although its appeal does not concern the Halifax-Toronto route but rather CP Air's authorization to serve Halifax directly from other points on its domestic licence.
The hon. member for Halifax West also asked when any such appeal will be heard and determined, and what considerations will be involved in the appeal process. Appeals to the Minister of Transport are governed by legal rules under the National Transportation Act. Under section 64 of the act, the governor in council may also vary or rescind CTC decisions of his own motion.
This very complicated issue is now under active consideration and will be decided in the very near future.


INDUSTRY-ASSISTANCE TO INCO PLANT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on May 12 of this year I brought the issue of the closing of a number of iron ore mines and mills in Canada to the attention of the House. The mills which are closed down include the Steep Rock iron mines in Atikokan, National Steel in Capreol, and Inco in Sudbury.
It was the decision of Inco to close down its mill coupled with the fact that they had 500,000 tons of iron ore in their stockpiles which prompted my question. When I directed my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) I was asking, basically, what he was willing to do considering that 35 per cent of the iron ore used in making Canadian steel comes from offshore. The minister replied, in effect, that he would review the situation. I went on to ask the minister whether he was prepared to call in the heads of the various steel companies to consider what could be done to encourage the use of Canadian ore in Canadian industry. In the press the next day the response we saw was, "Gray to Study the Use of U.S. Ore". That was in The Ottawa Journal. In The Citizen it was, "Gray to Probe Steel Firms Using U.S.

June 16, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Ore". In another paper it says, "Gray To Ask Why Steel Firms Using So Much Imported Ore".
I assumed that we were going to get action. By June 5 I saw that no action was taking place, and I realized that Canadian jobs were being lost and that our balance of trade was getting worse as a result of this situation, so I wrote to the minister asking what was happening. "I interpreted his response at that time as being quite favourable. As a result I had been waiting eagerly for an announcement by his office about the details of such a meeting. Unfortunately, I had not heard of such an announcement during the intervening weeks since my question."
Then last week the intention of Iron Ore Company of Canada to lay off 3,000 workers in Quebec came to light, and our New Democratic Party spokesman on economic affairs, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), raised the same questions in the House. At that time, on June 11, the minister replied that he was still trying to set up a meeting with the heads of the Canadian steel industry. That was on June 11, one month after I had originally raised the question in the House.
What did the minister say? He said he would ask these people if the steel companies are importing 45 per cent of their ore. It took him one month. Presumably he still has not set up a meeting to find the answer to a very simple question. It is not a new matter. It is a matter which was raised prior to the sitting of this House. It was raised in the last two Parliaments, yet the minister is still trying to set up a meeting. When the shoe is on the other foot and when the industry wants to meet with the government then we see action.
I would like to quote from Business Week and give certain quotes from spokesmen of various Canadian steel industries. The head of Stelco, Mr. Gordon, said:
Government authorities and Canadian steelmakers have cultivated a warm relationship, and it works so well that the industry apparently feels no need for either a trade organization or company lobbyists in Ottawa.
Mr. Macnamara, the head of Algoma Steel, said:
When we see a problem that might be damaging to the industry as a whole ... we meet with the government to try and resolve it. I don't know why that is impossible in the U.S., but at least in Canada we have an audience.
The steel industry has no trouble getting the ear of the minister, but when the minister wants to have the ear of the steel industry, he cannot even set up a meeting. This Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce talked very toughly about foreign investment in the past. He has talked toughly about the need for control of our own economy, yet it takes over one month to set up a meeting.
We have iron ore sitting in the slag heaps in Sudbury. In the provincial parliament the New Democratic Party has refuted the argument that Canadian iron ore cannot be used in the development of steel in Canada. Bud Germa, Elie Martel and Michael Cassidy have refuted this and other arguments which have been used as excuses for closing down Canadian industries and for laying off Canadian workers. What we need is a strategy to develop the use of our resources. What we need is an industrial strategy to meet the needs of young people, native Canadians, miners and women in the underdeveloped regions of this country. What we do not need is a government which cannot even set up a meeting with the steel companies. Once that meeting is set up, what are they going to do? If it takes one month to set up a meeting, how long is it going to take for them to come to a decision to do something? How many more Canadians have to be laid off? There have been 3,000 notices of lay-offs since we first asked this question a month ago, and nothing has happened.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had an opportunity to look seriously into the matter of lay-offs in the iron ore mining industry. The U.S. recession and the general reduction in demand are at the roots of the problem; indeed, the present state of the automobile industry is an obvious illustration of that. Consequently, in both Canada and the United States the mining industry is operating at a reduced rate. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are constantly monitoring the variations in supply and demand. The Government of Canada intends to raise with the Canadian steel industry the issue of ore supplies and their sources.
Very soon, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and his colleague, the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), are scheduled to meet the supply officers of the companies involved. In addition, at a later meeting, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce along with the officials and leaders of the steel industry will be discussing among other things ways to allow a more rational use of Canadian sources of iron ore. It is the common wish of the government and the industry to find appropriate solutions to all questions having to do with supply and related problems. We are confident those discussions will result in concrete results. Incidentally, and to reiterate what my colleague from Windsor West said on May 12 last, we can be proud of the Canadian steel industry which is 100 per cent controlled by national interests and passes for the most productive, efficient and modern in the world. It is in that spirit that we are advocating policies to increase the processing of Canadian resources at home.


Rodney Edward Murphy: When?


Claude-André Lachance: To answer the hon. member, very soon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 17, 1980