1980-05-21

Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, as yesterday was an historic day for all Canadians, I hope that my colleagues opposite will co-operate so that today may also be an historic day. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the importance and necessity of officially recognizing our national anthem, and the continued efforts to that effect made without avail by several members from both sides of this House, I move today, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House unanimously call on the government to introduce legislation as soon as possible with a view to designating "O Canada" as the national anthem of our country. .


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the introduction of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: "Merci, madame le President." Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 rise on a matter or urgent importance to many millions of
Canadians, namely, the shameful and apparently deliberate exclusion by the CBC's English language television network of a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in last evening's Quebec referendum program.
1 would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemns the officials responsible in the CBC, as the people's national network, for denying the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition time for his full reply in all parts of Canada to the historic decision taken in Quebec and affecting all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that last night's Quebec referendum resulted in strong support for Canadian unity and constitutional reform, and was a triumph for participatory democracy, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House go on record on behalf of the Canadian people to congratulate the people of Quebec for endorsing the process of constitutional change with an expression of unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry; I did hear a "No". I will put the question again, if it is proper. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.

May 21, 1980
5.0.	43


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is apparently preparing a "pain-free" policy to reduce the size of the public service-he has been quoted as saying we are in a period of restraint, and that it has to continue-and since, despite a further statement that he is concerned about morale in the public service, he has indicated he will use lay-offs as part of his policy, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish):
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to table in this House his program of "pain-free" cutbacks before he takes any action on this matter, and that any plans he formulates should include a list of program and service reductions which would occur and a list of any contracting-out of government services which would result from the illusion of a government restraint program.


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.

O)


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I am raising a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Arising from the fact that active support from the new government for the Rehabilitation International Congress, which opens in Winnipeg in June, has been lagging, and realizing that our attitude toward the handicapped is often their biggest handicap, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That the government move immediately to amend the Human Rights Act to provide full protection against discrimination for Canada's disabled citizens, particularly in the areas of unemployment, education, transportation and access, and also take steps to broaden the definition of disability in the Income Tax Act in order to make independent living financially possible for the disabled, rather than having them dependent on expensive institutional care.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FOREST FIRES
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing emergency which I am sure will gain the support of all members on both sides of this House.
In light of the number of forest fires now burning in northern Alberta and the serious threat this poses to wildlife, forests and people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House instruct the government, at the request of the provinces, to call in the armed forces of Canada to assist the present fire-fighting forces and that the federal government assist in any manner possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that there are occasions when members of Parliament present Canadian flags to organizations, municipalities and, on special occasions, honouring outstanding Canadian citizens, and given the fact that the United States has adopted a method whereby outstanding citizens may receive a flag which is suitably packaged and which at one time had flown over their capital, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That at least one flag be removed daily from the Parliament Buildings, suitably packaged, the date affixed as to the day it had flown over Parliament, and then made available to members of Parliament for special occasions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Collenette said "No".


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Doctor No again.
May 21, 1980


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I seek the attention of all hon. members on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the result of the Quebec referendum which last night gave the "Non" supporters a majority, and given the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the event of a "Non" victory, to put into place the mechanism required to modify the constitution and renew Canadian federalism, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That this House express its pleasure at the vote's result, which indicated that a majority of Quebeckers favoured the federalist option and, further, encourage the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures to commence immediately constitutional negotiations aimed at renewed federalism.


Mr. Nielsen:: You left out the territories.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: You left out the north.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the airport terminal building in Fort McMurray, Alberta, was built in 1962 to service a population then of 3,000, which is now close to 30,000 and anticipated to be 60,000 by 1990 due to tar sands development, and that the totally inadequate terminal building requires passengers today to wait up to 45 minutes for baggage clearance, while the plane trip from Edmonton to Fort McMurray, Alberta, requires 35 minutes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House requests the Minister of Transport to give urgent priority to the construction of a new airport terminal building in Fort McMurray, Alberta, and that if the hon. minister does not know where Fort McMurray is, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, supply him with a map.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS


INTRODUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT BONDS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and request the unanimous support of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of this government's commitment to introduce the small business development bond as a temporary interest and tax relief measure to assist Canadian small business, particularly during these times of high borrowing costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Minister of Finance take immediate steps to implement this very important program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to either the Acting Prime Minister or the President of the Privy Council. 1 hope, in light of the events of yesterday, that you will allow me, 'Madam Speaker, a few words to put the question into context.
1 want to begin by congratulating all federalists in the province of Quebec who overwhelmingly demonstrated their faith in Canada and their desire to live and work within the Canadian family. I should also like to take the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Claude Ryan for his leadership and courage in leading the federalist cause in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As a member of this House, I think I can say that all of us would recognize that we are proud of the role played by the right hon. Prime Minister and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as members of the House who have stood together in the cause of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are times when we in this House put aside our partisan interests and when we demonstrate we are proud to be Canadians. Today is such an occasion.

May 21, 1980
Oral Questions
Finally, before I put my question, may 1 say that many prayers were also said by Canadians of all faiths that Almighty God might bring healing and reconciliation to our land. Our prayers have been answered and it is now our opportunity to be peacemakers and nation builders.
1 should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister has set a specific date for a federal-provincial conference, and if he has communicated that message to the premiers as to the date as well as to the agenda of a federal-provincial conference and, if so, would he table copies of that correspondence?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, at the beginning, I would like to endorse the sentiments which have been expressed so well by the hon. member with respect to the results yesterday and with respect to those who participated so successfully in the referendum outcome.
Obviously, every member of the House is pleased that Quebeckers have decided in a very clearcut way to remain within Canada and to seek their future within the federalist system. We also recognize that in voting No yesterday, Quebeckers accepted the notion that it was a vote for a future change in our constitutional arrangements. That, of course, is the point of the hon. member's question.
The Prime Minister, as my hon. friend may know, will be making a statement at three o'clock, followed by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. At that time 1 believe he will outline as clearly as he can the steps that will be taken in order to accelerate the process that we have been discussing, and in order to take advantage of the momentum that has obviously been created by yesterday's historic event.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Many of us look at yesterday and the events surrounding May 20 as an opportunity for a new beginning that does not exclusively pertain to any one region, but encompasses the entire country.
In view of that recognition, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has given consideration, that after the federal-provincial conference is held, a larger forum for a broader constitutional meeting be established with a regular schedule, a meeting which would include not only the premiers and the members of the federal government, but also would include the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other political parties, as well as elected officials and Canadians from other parts of the country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has already made it clear that it is the intention of the government, obviously, to consult with Parliament and to consult with the provinces at an early date to begin the process of constitutional renewal.
The hon. member has added another suggestion that to my knowledge has not been discussed by the government in recent
days. But it is one, obviously, that one would want to consider, particularly if it would accelerate the process that we would want to accelerate.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Privy Council. Now that the referendum debate has ended and the constitutional reform is about to start, will the minister get an in-depth debate on that important subject under way here in Parliament, so that the federal proposals can reflect the opinions of all hon. members and all parts of the country?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member, with the deep respect in which we hold that noble institution, that we shall endeavour to do all that is necessary to make it possible for hon. members of all the parties to be involved in the process of renewing our constitution and renewing Canadian federalism. Her suggestion is interesting and I am convinced that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada will surely take it into account when the process of renewing our federation gets under way.
Whether the provinces should first be consulted or whether the matter should first be put before Parliament is a question of procedure which must be decided very shortly. In any event, the spirit of the suggestion made by the hon. member will surely be respected and I am convinced that Parliament will have a very useful role to play in the process of renewing the Canadian constitution.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS WILL BE SUFFICIENTLY FLEXIBLE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, on a supplementary, can the minister assure us that the proposals of the government for changing the constitution will have the flexibility required, or will it merely be a repetition of Bill C-60?


Yvon Pinard: I can
assure the hon. member that, in light of the referendum results we witnessed last night, it is very obvious that change is wanted; so, the changes that will be suggested and discussed will be those that are needed in the context of the 1980s to make Canada even more viable, more vigorous and more united than ever.
May 21, 1980


GOVERNMENT POSITION IN CONSTITUTIONAL DEBATE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. 1 should like to ask him what will be the federal government position in the constitutional debate. Can he tell us whether or not it is the intention of the government to reintroduce Bill C-60, which was before a previous Parliament, in the form it was in then; or do they suggest reintroducing that bill in some other form, or perhaps tabling a white paper? In what way will they introduce the constitutional debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the Prime Minister will be outlining in some detail later today the steps he has in mind. But I would say it is not the intention of the government, nor has any decision been reached, to reintroduce Bill C-60.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can make a commitment that the government will be making some proposals to the House of Commons before it goes to the provinces. Can he make a commitment that we will have a chance to debate some proposals in this House, so that members of all parties have the opportunity of some input into the federal position?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has already indicated in reply to an earlier question that it is the intention and the desire of the government to involve Parliament in this process, and it seems to me it is an absolute requirement that members of the House have the opportunity to make a contribution and express their ideas.
The hon. member is saying today that before making any proposals to the provinces, we ought to have a debate in the House so that members can express their views. While that is a possibility, and 1 am not rejecting it out of hand at all, I think we have to take a little time to decide which comes first. It may be that the Prime Minister will have some points to make on that matter later today.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES CONCERNING REFORM
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister indicate to the House the government's priorities regarding constitutional affairs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, as the minister responsible for this issue, I can say that we intend to proceed without delay. As other ministers have said, we believe that a No victory yesterday gave a clear indication to all Canadians that Quebeckers want change, those who voted No
Oral Questions
as well as a good number of those who voted Yes and who, in this manner, wanted to tell Canadians that they were not satisfied with the status quo. We intend to proceed without delay. But Canada is a federation and we must consult the provinces; we intend to consult both the provinces and Parliament and to act very soon.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: "Merci, madame le President." My question is for the minister who reports to Parliament for the CBC. In view of the commendable and prominent role taken by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the "Non" side in the Quebec referendum campaign-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -I wonder whether the minister could explain to this House why the former Prime Minister's statement was excluded from the CBC's live television coverage last night on the English-language network; at least, in many parts of this country. I understand it was carried on the French network, but I would like to know why it was excluded from the English telecast.


An hon. Member:: It wasn't newsworthy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I would just like to add that on this side of the House we also felt that the contribution by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to the campaign was, indeed, a most worth while one and a most welcome one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: As far as the precise question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I would be pleased to bring the matter to the immediate attention of the president of the CBC for his consideration and further reply.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I wonder if, when the minister is checking with Mr. Johnson for an explanation, he would also convey to him and to the corporation the unanimous displeasure of this House for this unfortunate and gross omission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I will surely bring the matter to the attention of the president of the CBC, and I shall make

May 21, 1980
Oral Questions
known the point of view expressed by the hon. member in his very strong terms.


FINANCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance.


Mr. Crosbie:: He has no capacity for that.


Harvie Andre: In his mini-budget on April 21, the Minister of Finance indicated that he expected to reduce the $3.1 billion import compensation subsidy by $1 billion this fiscal year. Given the general price increases in imports by all the major oil exporting countries, including a $4 a barrel increase by Canada's major supplier, Venezuela, can the minister tell the House whether it is still his intention to reduce the oil import compensation subsidy by $1 billion to $2.1 billion for this fiscal year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as 1 said in my economic statement on April 21, a blended price system could achieve savings of up to $1 billion.


John Carnell Crosbie: How?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 see it now. That is very interesting.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact, if 1 recall the words exactly, they were "as much as $1 billion".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a great laugh, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is what was said. Obviously, the changes that have taken place in the price of international supplies affect that estimate, as the estimates were greatly increased as a result of increases in oil prices that occurred from December to April. That is one of the unfortunate facts with which a minister of finance must wrestle.
1 can only tell the hon. member that the blended price system can achieve results, but the greater the increase in international prices, the greater the difficulty.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance, when faced with this horrendous $14.7 billion deficit figure, indicated "Don't worry; we will take off $1 billion from the import compensation to reduce that." Now the minister seems to be wavering.
Could the minister confirm to the House, in order to meet the campaign commitment of less than a $4 a barrel increase in domestic crude oil this year, that he will in fact violate the commitment which he made a month ago today, on April 21,
to the House about reducing the import compensation program?
While the minister is on his feet, perhaps he would indicate what he expects the import compensation program to be for this year, since we now know what the price of imported crude oil will cost and, therefore, the demand upon that fund.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member that it is not my intention to violate any of the commitments that were made in the April 21 economic statement. With respect to the question as to what is now the precise burden of the oil import compensation program, I would be pleased to get those updated figures and make them available to the House and to the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker,
1 have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the very serious situation in western Canada with regard to the lack of rainfall. As the minister is aware, there has been a considerable lack of rain, not only over this past spring but over the past winter and the previous fall. This lack of rain has resulted, in many areas, in poor germination, a lack of water and a lack of pasture for grazing animals.
I know that the minister convened a federal task force in Regina which was set up to assess this situation. Would the minister now be prepared to go ahead and assume some responsibility in terms of co-ordinating the various efforts of the provincial governments and some of the local governments to not only transport feed and animals around the pasture, but to pump water to some areas which do not have a water supply?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that several federal departments are involved besides the Department of Agriculture, including the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. They are working very closely with the provincial departments which are also involved.
We have received a preliminary report from these groups. I believe that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board attended one of the meetings informally. However, we hope to be meeting shortly in a more formal way with the provincial ministers to put some of the things mentioned by the hon. member into force.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, any of the programs which can be put into place will be welcome. Another potential problem which is showing up is the lack of pasture. As a result, many producers will be forced into liquidating some of their breeding stock. Would the minister give this House the commitment that he will think about feed supplies as they relate to not only the summer but the fall?
May 21, 1980

In view of the fact that we are now in some cases looking for feed grain from the Canadian Wheat Board, would the minister take steps, now, to see that there will be adequate feed for the summer, into the fall and possibly into the winter? Doing this would go a long way to assuring producers they will not have to sell some of their breeding herds.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I have already had a meeting with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board from Saskatchewan, from the other place. That was about one hour ago. We discussed this very matter to make sure that an ample amount of feed grain is kept in position in western Canada.
The hon. member mentioned the supply of fodder, forage, etc. We will be using the contingency plans which were put in place in 1977 and which are still there to be used if the weather continues to be dry.
We know that the pastures are very bad and that there are no huge stocks of any of the normal forages that will be necessary. We will be taking surveys, if they have not already started, in central and eastern Canada to determine what stocks there are there. The emergency programs will be used to harvest products here if the dry weather continues.
However, we are still praying. 1 heard an hon. member say that our prayers were answered last night. Who knows; they may be answered before the end of May. I am told that if we get rain before the end of May, many of our problems will be partly solved.


DENIAL OF COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the government House leader as a member of the Commission of Internal Economy. It concerns an announcement made yesterday to the effect that some 300 House of Commons employees, mainly in the committees and publications branches, have been denied cost of living increases which are to be awarded soon to other groups of Commons employees. There will be a delay of some eight months, until next December, pending a study to be undertaken dealing with, among other matters, reclassification, pay scales, and so forth.
Since there is no question that this decision of the Commissioners of Internal Economy will cause hardship to at least some of the frozen employees, has the government considered granting a "without prejudice" COLA increase for the period between now and December when, presumably, new classifications and pay scales will apply?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is a matter which is clearly under my jurisdiction. The hon. member is referring to discussions which have been taking place between officials of the House of Commons and some employees of the House of Commons. If the hon. member wishes to have supplementary information about these questions, he can come to my office or
Oral Questions
send me a letter. I would be only too glad to answer his queries.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I accept your kind invitation. My supplementary does not deal with matters which are before your jurisdiction at the moment. May I be allowed to proceed with my supplementary to the same minister?
The existing administrative problems, plus the need for extensive revision of classification, pay scales, grievance and appeal procedures are due in large measure to the traditional denial of collective bargaining rights by House of Commons staff. Since a 1967 parliamentary committee unanimously recommended the granting of equivalent rights to House of Commons employees as are accorded to other public servants, can the enlightened minister tell the House when the government intends to extend long overdue, basic collective bargaining rights to employees of this institution?
[Translation\


Yvon Pinard: In no
way would I appeal directly or indirectly the decision which Madam Speaker has just rendered. The working conditions of House of Commons employees are indeed being reviewed by our Internal Economy Committee which is chaired by the Speaker of the House. A number of meetings have already been held concerning this, others will be held, and I certainly do not intend to report today to the House on the progress of these discussions within the Internal Economy Committee. I might add, however, that the welfare and good working conditions of House of Commons employees are in good hands.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture regarding the very serious problem of drought and the high cost of farm operations in western Canada.
In regard to the domestic wheat price paid to farmers in this very serious area, I wonder if the minister would reconsider increasing the domestic price of wheat to $6 per bushel in order to give immediate relief to farmers in that area.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I will discuss this with my colleagues who are also concerned with the problem.

May 21, 1980
Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


CALL FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION OF DISABLED CITIZENS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister announced outside the House last Thursday, at long last, that she was activating the Canadian Organizing Committee for the 1981 International Year of Disabled Persons.
In order to make certain that 1980 and 1981 will really be banner years for Canada's disabled citizens, will she assure the House that the government will proceed to amend the Human Rights Act in order to provide full protection to the disabled against discrimination, a commitment that was made by the Conservative government and reinforced in the Speech from the Throne? Will this be done before the Rehabilitation International Congress which opens in Winnipeg on June 22?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, since the House has set up a committee made up of representatives from the various parties in the House, including the hon. member, to look into the problems of ail handicapped persons in Canada, I feel it would be more appropriate to wait for the representations which both handicapped persons and hon. members will make to the committee; I am aware, as 1 said, that the hon. member is particularly eager to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect all handicapped from discrimination. That is a matter which we have looked into ourselves in all the departments concerned and which, in turn, the committee will surely want to look into.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, 1 am interested in the reference by the minister to the Committee on the Handicapped. As she knows, this committee was delayed because of the election. It was appointed on November 29.
Is the minister informing the House that this select committee is going to be reactivated so that it may complete its study and report in time for the International Year of Disabled Persons in 1981? It had been my understanding that the committee had been transformed into a task force. Are we now proceeding with a select committee which will report directly to Parliament on all matters pertaining to services to the handicapped?


Monique Bégin: Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I am no specialist in power struggles between some hon. members. I do not know of the different suggestions of problems made by the hon. member. To my knowledge, there was a proposal for a task force which was to start work as soon as possible. It was delayed by the party of the hon. member in interparty negotiations.
I am very anxious that the matter find a solution and that hon. members of all parties start working on that committee.
Perhaps the hon. member could convey his sense of urgency to his leader in the discussions between House leaders.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Inasmuch as this committee started work last November 29 and was interrupted by the election, I am asking the minister if it is going to be reactivated in its original form.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, we had supported the first committee. Democracy interrupted the course of events for a few months. I thought the hon. member had already had a few meetings himself with the chairman of the committee. I do not quite understand the game in which he tries to catch me.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the urgent need for the long promised legislation to provide pensions to widows of veterans where the veteran's disability pension was rated below 48 per cent, and in view of the assurance given to me last Thursday by the President of the Privy Council that I would not have to ask this question many more times, can the minister say how soon he will be bringing in that bill?


Erik Nielsen: Or how many more times you have to ask the question?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I cannot give a definite date but most of the work has been done. The legislation that was brought in previously, as I have said before in this House, was good legislation. I have reviewed it and I am making some adjustments. I hope to be able to bring it forward, at least before my cabinet colleagues, before too long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the minister. When that legislation is brought in, will it also deal with the matter of tying the basic rate of the disability pension to the formula established in 1973, instead of having to relegislate it every few years? Will it also bring forward the promised revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The last question first, Madam Speaker. The revision of the War Veterans Allowance Act will be completed before very long and we will be dealing with that. We have a portion of it now. As far as adjustments to the disability pension are concerned, we reviewed that recently, but I do not contemplate bringing that legislation before the House at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.
May 21, 1980


PETROLEUM-ONE-PRICE POLICY FOR CANADA
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Will the minister give assurance to this House and to the residents of eastern Canada that the petroleum import subsidy will continue, in order to maintain a one-price policy for Canada and to protect eastern Canadian consumers from the unconscionable, unjust and unreasonable prices imposed by the OPEC Shylocks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Be careful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to terminate this particular program until a successful negotiation and the application of a blended price.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are finished.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, the acting deputy minister. It was announced in Newfoundland yesterday that Wabush Mine, which operates an iron ore mine in Labrador, has suffered a 15 per cent loss of sales of its product to the United States this year because of depression or recession in the United States, and as a result for one month-the month of July-all of its workers are going to be laid off or have to go on their holidays.
What steps is the minister taking to try to overcome such effects of the recession in the United States as are now becoming evident in Canada? What steps is he taking to overcome these effects? Can he take any steps at all? What is his position on this?
[DOT] (N50)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the workers affected by the lay-off, as the hon. member knows, they will be able to take advantage of programs especially in place at the present time to get them over what the hon. member describes as a short period.
In connection with the recession that may be taking place and is undoubtedly beginning in the United States, the hon. member raises a question that is very broad indeed. As he knows, there are only, in a sense, two ways that one can act in circumstances of this kind; that is, through increased spending or through reduced taxes in order to stimulate the Canadian
Oral Questions
economy. I have not yet reached the conclusion that that is an appropriate stance to take at the present time.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has now been in office since the end of February. He has taken a very sanguine and somewhat lackadaisical attitude toward these economic problems. I ask the minister this: the forecast in the United States now is that the U.S. recession-and this is the consensus of the economists-is going to run from at least this current quarter to the end of the year with a drop in real output of 2.6 per cent. This, obviously, will have very severe effects on Canada, since 75 per cent of our exports go to the U.S.
We have just seen the effects of this in Labrador and the iron mining industry. Will the minister give us an up-to-date forecast by his department-or can he supply that now-of what they expect economic growth will be in Canada this year? Has the forecast changed since his mini-budget that he bootlegged into the House in April? Has it now changed? Is the forecast worse? If it is, what steps is he contemplating taking, or is he worrying about the situation at all?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, in the statement made in the House on April 21, I attempted to set forth what the prospects were for the Canadian economy. I did reduce somewhat the projections for growth which the hon. member had presented previously, in December. I have not yet changed those economic forecasts.
However, I would tell the hon. member that in these circumstances it may be very difficult for Canada to insulate itself completely from the effects of a recession in the United States. I would also add that if he is suggesting in these circumstances the Minister of Finance take steps to increase the deficit further, probably in the long run we would be doing more damage to the future of the Canadian economy than we would be in taking a short-run step of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the massive fall-out patterns displayed by the volcanic ash created by the eruption of Mount St. Helens, and considering the presence of this ash at a time when climatic conditions in western Canada are already approaching that of a drought, does the minister intend to immediately commission a study to examine the effects of the ash fall-out on wildlife, forests, agriculture and climate?
Has the government yet initiated any investigation, in particular this minister in his role as a member of the planning and policy committee for civil defence, as a precaution against the eruption of Mount Baker, which is located just across the

May 21, 1980
Oral Questions
border from Vancouver and is, in fact, listed as an active volcano by the United States Geological Survey and has shown increased signs of activity recently?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. As to the first part of his question, the atmospheric environment service has already under investigation the long-term effects of the eruption, so it may not be necessary at this time to establish the commission the hon. member requested. I will look into the situation as far as Mount Baker is concerned and report back to him.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the continent-wide fall-out patterns displayed by the volcanic debris from the Mount St. Helens eruption-I might add that that particular cloud is so far-reaching that it in fact passed over Ottawa las night-and considering that these patterns are very similar to that of a radioactive cloud that would be created by a nuclear explosion, and in view of the Prime Minister's tentative response to my question that he would look into this matter last week, can the Acting Prime Minister, who shares responsibility for civil defence planning policies, now offer his assurances to the House that Canadians would be adequately protected against a similar radioactive fall-out pattern resulting from a nuclear war of much greater magnitude than the eruption of St. Helens?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving an indication this morning to the Prime Minister's office that he would be raising this matter. All 1 can tell him at the present time is that there are plans in place to protect Canadians against radioactive fall-out. The responsibility for the detailed implementation of these plans is in the hands of the provinces, but the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence are the federal departments that have the most direct responsibility in this field.


CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. As he knows, the head of the CFDC, Mr. Michael McCabe, resigned. Can he confirm that Mr. McCabe was given one year's full salary for severance pay and, if so, is that not a little too much solicitude for somebody who has resigned?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, Mr. McCabe did, indeed, tender his resignation from the Canadian Film Development Corporation two weeks ago, 1 believe. The resignation is
effective at the end of June. 1 am not aware of what administrative arrangements he has come to to negotiate with the corporation upon termination of his assignment with them.


Benno Friesen: Two years ago, when Mr. McCabe came into that position, he was given the highest recommendation by the former secretary of state, the present Minister of the Environment-indeed, very great accolades. I would ask the Secretary of State the reasons for the resignation, if he had all the competence that the former secretary of state said he had.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to say, on behalf of Mr. McCabe, that the Canadian Film Development Corporation has known a great deal of activity and has been very successful in the two years that he has been the executive director of the corporation.
He indicated in his letter of resignation that he felt he had made his contribution to the corporation, that he wished to return to the private sector, and he thought this was the best time to leave the corporation so that he could pursue his own private interests in the future.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that it takes at least six months for any change in taxation arrangements, or any other stimulus in the economy, to have some effect in combating recession, and given that any substantial increase in the price of oil and, indeed, of natural gas is the equivalent of a very serious tax increase at a time when Canada is heading into a recession, I wonder if the minister is aware and if he would care to comment on the fact that if he waits on any budgetary measures until the fall, this in effect means that the slowdown of the Canadian economy which is already taking place will have taken hold by the fall and will have a firm grip on the country later on.
Is he serious in saying that he does not contemplate taking any measures other than the energy price increases until the fall of this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not believe very much in bringing in a budget that is based upon assumptions rather than facts. That is the difficulty that exists at the present time.
I would also add, in reply to my hon. friend, that I am not satisfied in my own mind that if I were bringing in a budget tomorrow it would be in Canada's interest to run up a further deficit in an effort to insulate the Canadian economy from a possible recession in the U.S. economy. I am ready to receive views on that subject, but certainly I have not reached that conclusion in my own mind yet.
May 21, 1980


Bob Rae: We have all heard of the invisible hand, but this is the first time we have been offered a virtually invisible policy and a virtually invisible Minister of Finance at a time when the country is looking for leadership. The minister has had some time in which to make up his mind, and I think it is about time he did so.
He stated in this interview in the Star that he was particularly concerned about the current account deficit. Given his concern about the level of the current account deficit, how can he justify an interest rate policy applied by the governor of the Bank of Canada which would only have the effect of discouraging investment, exports and export-related industries and drive us into debt as we attract even more foreign investment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the financial critic for the New Democratic Party would have the gall to discuss interest rate policy. His party put forward a motion just after the House opened asking us to reduce interest rates by two points. Presumably his party regarded that as the norm. Well, rates are less than that norm today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).
[Editor's Note: At this point the Prime Minister entered the chamber and was accorded a standing ovation.]
[Editor's Note: The Leader of the Official Opposition entered the chamber.]


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, when I gave notice of my question of privilege 1 did, indeed, think it was of importance. But 1 had no idea it would command the kind of attention it has received.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: 1 should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for attending and I make this offer through you, Madam Speaker; should either of these gentlemen wish to make a statement l would be only too glad to yield the floor and raise my question of privilege later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Quebec Referendum


QUEBEC REFERENDUM RESULT
Madam Speaker:: I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other party leaders wish to make statements, but these should be made when statements are called. 1 do not think there is agreement to change the order of business but, if there is unanimous consent, I am willing to accept now the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister as well as those of the other party leaders.
Is there unanimous consent from the House to hear the right hon. Prime Minister now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, in a provincial referendum, the people of Quebec opted overwhelmingly for the continuation of the Canadian experiment.
It was under trying circumstances that the people of Quebec had to make this fundamental choice. The question forced them to affirm their allegiance to Canada by a negative vote whereas, being people of action and people looking toward the future, they would much rather have done so in a more explicit and more affirmative way. They were forced to say no to an impasse, to a negotiation which was doomed right from the outset whereas, as people of progress and change, they would have preferred to open even wider the doors to renewal and reform. That fundamental choice has often been very painful since in the passionate atmosphere in which the referendum was held, they were urged to dissociate and even to oppose on the one hand their loyalty toward their French heritage, which is fundamental, and their affection for Quebec, which is extremely deep, and, on the other hand, their sense of belonging in Canada which is indestructible.
1 must therefore commend, first of all, the men and women who had the strength to say no in spite of all the attractive features with which that political rupture, which would also have become an internal conflict, had been embellished. But 1 also hasten to express my respect to those who, having supported with such devotion the other option, must now find the strength to yield to the will of the majority. This referendum has compelled us to state where we stand but it must not divide us. I would like to remind both winners and losers that democratic life does not proceed only from the opinion of the majority but also from the expression and inclusion of the opinions of minorities. That is why changes and progress in societies that claim to be democracies are achieved through compromise rather than coercion. The fact that we have lived 113 years in a democratic system in Canada allows me to assure the supporters of the other option that their deep aspirations will be met by political changes, different, of course, from those they contemplated, and that they will

May 21, 1980
Quebec Referendum
continue to stamp the evolution of our society and to stress what makes its originality.
1 would like to express the deep gratitude of the House and of all Canadians to the leader of the No camp, Mr. Claude Ryan. As the leader of the Quebec Liberal party and thus as the leader of the official opposition in the National Assembly, he has become the one who rallied all Quebeckers who refused to give up their national heritage, the land of our ancestors. A tireless Claude Ryan travelled for months to every corner of the province to expound to his fellow citizens the exalting option he had proposed to them as early as February, 1979- choosing both Quebec and Canada. All along the referendum campaign, with a great sense of understanding and despite many conflicting points of view, he was able to mobilize men and women from all walks of life and of every political persuasion who wanted to stand behind Canada's banner. And I emphasize that beside him were constantly standing two former premiers of Quebec, Mr. Jean Lesage and Mr. Robert Bourassa. Their presence was the symbol of a continuity which, from Lafontaine to Cartier, from Mercier to Laurier, from Taschereau to Lapointe and, later, from St. Laurent to Lesage, has always mirrored that of a majority of Quebeckers. Claude Ryan follows in their illustrious steps and his contribution to a renewed Canadian federation will no doubt be irreplaceable provided Quebeckers give him the opportunity and the means.
You are not without knowing, Madam Speaker, for the very reason that you are one of them, that all Quebeckers sitting in this House actively participated in the referendum campaign. You are aware as well that all members from all parties and regions of Canada made things easier for us, either by relieving us of some of our duties or by gracefully agreeing to changes in the conventions which regulate relations between our political formations. To all of them I, therefore, extend my congratulations and the appreciation of a grateful Canadian people.
Madam Speaker, I want to stress at this point the essential part played during the referendum campaign by my old friend and colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien). I need not insist on the generosity, perception and political talents of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, whose outstanding qualities have been at work daily in this House for nearly 17 years. By its very nature the referendum gave us the obligation, as members from Quebec, to take part in the campaign, as we were invited to by Mr. Ryan, but our participation had to be consistent and efficient. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice was in control over that and dicharged his reponsibility with exceptional aggressiveness. He could mobilize and stimulate us when we were in danger of getting either discouraged or overly confident. With the same energy and love of country he will succeed in animating over the coming months the renewal of our Canadian federation.
f English ]
On behalf of all Canadians I would like to thank also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) for supporting the position it was incumbent upon me to take on behalf of the Government of Canada on the fundamental issues raised by the Quebec referendum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The presence of the Leader of the Opposition beside Mr. Ryan and leaders of other federalist parties on the hustings of Rimouski and Shawinigan during the referendum campaign was the living symbol of the unity and solidarity which bind all Canadians. With all his eloquence, the right hon. member for Yellowhead reminded the people of Quebec in their own language that the Canada which our opponents were attacking had ceased to exist, that the so-called status quo was a figment of the separatists' imagination, and that all Canadians from all parts of Canada were pressing for change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The premiers of other provinces also played an important role in the referendum campaign. On behalf of their constituents they too assured Quebeckers that they were not only open to change but also impatient to renew the Constitution of Canada. With remarkable restraint at the meeting of Atlantic premiers in Halifax and at the meeting of western premiers in Lethbridge, and in individual speeches made by Premiers Davis, Blakeney and Bennett, all provincial leaders explained why a vote for sovereignty-association would lead to deadlock, why an economic association not founded on political unity could not be negotiated, and why the government of Quebec, no matter what the result of the referendum might have been, could not possibly have forced them to negotiate on that basis. In so doing the provincial premiers have done a signal service to the cause of Canadian unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would also like to pay tribute to the brotherly understanding and sympathy extended by Canadians in other provinces to their fellow countrymen in Quebec throughout the debate that led to yesterday's referendum. Starting from the early 1960s, faced with the turmoil of ideas, contestation and social changes that excited Quebeckers, Englishspeaking Canadians across the land did not remain indifferent. They came up with a question rather than a refusal: What does Quebec want? That now famous question, of course, reflected a somewhat disquieted incomprehension of the social currents at work in Quebec, but for the main part it spoke for the open-mindedness and understanding of our English-speaking fellow Canadians.
May 21, 1980



The past few years have indeed been trying times for the people of all parts of Canada. The issues raised by Quebec separatists were of critical importance to people in other provinces, since the very existence of our country was at stake; yet the nature of the referendum process launched by the Parti Quebecois tended to exclude them from the agonizing debate and to inhibit their participation in the campaign. There were times when many of them may have felt that Quebec had become a national obsession, to the detriment of their own needs and aspirations. There were times when the frustration and sense of helplessness of many may have become almost unbearable, but throughout this period of crisis people in other provinces followed the critical struggle in Quebec with forbearance, tolerance, patience and hope.
Ironically, one of the greatest tributes to the political maturity and democratic spirit of Canadians may have come from one of the leaders of the Parti Quebecois, the chief architect of the strategy of etatisme, Monsieur Claude Morin. "In virtually all other countries of the world". Monsieur Morin said recently, "what we of the Parti Quebecois have been able to do would have been illegal".
Indeed, where else in the world could a political party have openly advocated the break-up of a country? Where else could a separatist movement have had free access to the media, complete freedom to run candidates in any election, the right to form a government of a province, and the prerogative to use all the resources which our constitution makes available to a provincial administration to advance its cause?
Thus, Madam Speaker, all Canadians can take pride in yesterday's victory. It is not only the victory of Claude Ryan and of Quebec federalists; it is a triumph for Canadian democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We strongly hope and believe it signals the end of a long period of uncertainty, of doubt and strained relations between Quebec and the other provinces of Canada and between French and English-speaking Canadians. It marks a new beginning. It heralds a period of healing and rebuilding. By voting for Canada the people of Quebec have recognized that their fellow Canadians are prepared to listen to them, to understand them, and to meet their legitimate aspirations.
But Quebeckers have also shown that they themselves are prepared to hear what other Canadians have to say, to find out what their aspirations are and to help them to realize their dreams. We Canadians are now agreed on a common destination, and that was the fundamental issue. What we must now do is chart a new course and agree on a common itinerary toward that common destination.

Such is the profound meaning, the only possible interpretation of yesterday's referendum. The majority of Quebec voters have refused to give their provincial government the mandate
Quebec Referendum
to negotiate the withdrawal of Quebec from the Canadian federation even though they had been assured over and over again that that could be done while maintaining some form of economic association with the rest of the country. Those voters said no because they put their confidence in Canada. They said no because they accepted the assurances from Mr. Ryan of the Liberal party of Quebec, and from the other federalist groups in that province. They accepted the assurances from the premiers of the other regions of the country, from the Leader of the Official Opposition, from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, from all my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada and from myself that changes were not only possible within confederation but that the rejection of the option advocated by the Parti Quebecois would take us out of the dead end and allow us at last to renew our political system.
On the other hand, we know that a large proportion of those who voted yes did so not because they were in favour of independence for Quebec but because they had doubts about our assurances and felt that they would better promote changes by giving tactical support to the Parti Quebecois.
I base this interpretation not only on the polls taken before the referendum, but also on the many statements reported in the press these last few months and on the referendum rhetoric of the Parti Quebecois. Altogether, what Quebeckers expressed yesterday was a massive support for change within the federal framework. We cannot venture to ignore this will to change which reflects that of all other areas in the country and to fall short of the expectations of Canadians. This is why, on May 14, I solemnly undertook to launch the constitutional renewal and never stop working at it until Canada finally has a new constitution.
However, we would be deceiving ourselves if we were to believe that it will be easy to keep this commitment. We shall need the constant support of the Canadian people and their representatives within this Parliament. We are also counting on the support of all provincial governments, including that of Quebec. We shall all have to agree on the basic principles underlying our efforts. We have to be receptive to the needs and aspirations of all Canadians, to seek together for methods and mechanisms more effective than those used until now and to be willing to make every effort required to achieve success. For that purpose, I have asked the Minister of Justice to begin immediately a tour of the provincial capitals in order to obtain the views of the premiers on the best way to follow up on their will to change. As for us, our only prerequisites for change are the two which I outlined in Quebec as early as January, 1977.
First, that Canada continue to be a real federation, a state whose constitution establishes a federal Parliament with real powers applying to the country as a whole and provincial legislatures with powers just as real applying to the territory of each province. Second, that a charter of fundamental rights

May 21, 1980
Quebec Referendum
and freedoms be entrenched in the new constitution and that it extend to the collective aspect of these rights, such as language rights.
I had said at the time and 1 say again today that we consider everything else to be negotiable. What we want is to give Canada a new, modern and functional federal constitution which will enable our governments to better meet the needs and aspirations of all Canadians. This new constitution could include, if the people so wish, several provisions in our present organic laws, but, it will also have to contain new elements reflecting the most innovative proposals emerging from our consultations or from the numerous analyses and considered opinions that have flowed in the last few years from the will to change of Canadians. I am referring, of course, to the many proposals made by the Canadian government since 1968, but also to the Pepin-Robarts report, to the policy papers issued by the governments of British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and by almost every province but Quebec, to the constitutional proposals of the Liberal party of Quebec, many elements of which could orient the renewal of our constitution if they were ever put forward by the political authorities of that province.
Having said that, we must look into the possibility of making progress in this direction without the co-operation of the Quebec government. This is why I asked Premier Levesque during the referendum campaign what he would do if the No should win and until now his response has been that he would accept crumbs of autonomy but with some grumbling. But Quebeckers do not want crumbs of autonomy or anything else. They have rejected independence, rejected sovereignty-association while massively calling for changes in Canadian federalism. In other words, Quebeckers will not be satisfied with crumbs because they want a brand new constitution and all other Canadians, through their political leaders, federal as well as provincial, have indicated that they also want a new constitution.
Is Mr. Levesque ready to accept this will to change? Are his party and government ready to put independence or sovereignty-association aside? Is he and are his ministers willing to participate sincerely, loyally, actively in the renewal of Canadian federalism or will they try to maintain the status quo in Canada in an effort to exploit the feeling of frustration which would be the upshot? Madam Speaker, only time will tell.
But that is the general context in which Mr. Chretien is undertaking as early as tonight a tour of the provinces. Once he has reported to me, I will be able to consult with the leaders of other parties in Parliament, to communicate with all premiers and advise as to the best means of achieving the renewal of the constitution. As for now, all I can say with certainty is that my government is deeply convinced that the constitutional renewal process must be undertaken promptly. As for us, we are committing ourselves to see that everything will be in progress before the summer recess.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in the House today by congratulating Mr. Claude Ryan and all the members of his team who won yesterday an important victory for Canada after an honest and strong campaign which showed a deep faith in Canada's future. I also want to commend the role played by my friend, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by all other members who were directly involved in Quebec by their actions or by their remarks in this House during the referendum period.

1 think that it would be well too to underline that many of the Quebeckers, many of the 40 per cent who voted for the "Oui" yesterday in the referendum, were people who were not at all lost to the federalist cause. Many of those who allied themselves proudly and enthusiastically with the "Oui" option did so because, for one reason or another, they had come to lose faith in the force of federalism. I believe we can prove that that faith should not be abandoned among those Quebeckers and among others. I believe it is important for Canadians across the country to know that a large number of the 40 per cent who voted for the "Oui" option yesterday are people who can be won back to federalism.
I think that we, particularly in this House, and those who serve in governments across the country, should recognize that the obligation is very heavy upon all of us to take a role of leadership in reaching out to those who, for a moment, lost faith in the viability of the federal system and to prove to them by our actions that there is a great deal of room for growth, a great deal of room for their aspirations as Quebeckers and as Canadians, to be realized within the context of a broad, large land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Also if 1 may, I want to commend the Prime Minister for acting so quickly after the referendum to set in train activities which will move us quickly toward real progress on the development of a new constitution for the country. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) will be visiting provincial governments. I would hope that he will not forget to visit the governments of the territories.


Erik Nielsen: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In any consultations that carry forward, and in any machinery that is established, I hope there will be an opportunity for the elected members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Council to play a full and an active role in those discussions.
We are dealing with circumstances now which have never before existed in Canada.
May 21, 1980



First of all, as the right hon. Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign, the main federal political parties, my party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as well as the Liberal Party of Canada, have both solemnly committed themselves to a renewed Canadian federalism. The same commitment was made by the provincial premiers who were unanimous in denouncing the status quo. We were sincere in making that commitment and I am confident that the Prime Minister and his provincial colleagues were every bit as sincere as I was when they called for a renewal of the Canadian federation. Madam Speaker, we must make the best possible use of the climate of sincerity and good will that now exists throughout Canada, and see to it that our common objective, a renewed Canadian federalism, is achieved.

The second circumstance that is new is that, for the first time in a long time, it is my view the public of Canada are now interested in constitutional reform. There is a genuine feeling on the part of Canadians, in whatever province, territory or region of this country, that it is time to bring our constitution up to date with the realities of a modern country. That is true and that is important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Finally, a third circumstance that has changed and is significant is that this country, Canada, has changed in the last 20 years. It has changed dramatically. It has changed to the point where old constitutional arrangements no longer fit. In my view it is this last point which perhaps is most important-the old constitution no longer fits the modern country. That is true not just in Quebec but in other parts of Canada where real and profound changes have occurred in the last 20 years. We are not dealing now with an academic matter or a question of interest only to governments. We must bring our way of governing Canada into line with the modern realities of the country.
Constitutional forms are an important part of that process. We need a new constitution. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice which was reaffirmed here today. It is a commitment, which I share, to a new constitution for Canada. We need a constitution that is located here in our country, a constitution that can be amended here in our country, a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental rights, and a constitution that articulates a sharing of powers that is appropriate to a diverse federal country. We now have a climate where that can be achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But I make the point that more than the law and more than the constitution is at issue here. There must also be a positive attitude among citizens and among governments, an attitude which is consistent with the changes in law and the changes in form. Among the citizens of Canada there is developing an attitude of respect for fellow Canadians of
Quebec Referendum
different backgrounds and a growing pride in the diversity and in the strength of the Canadian family.

Perhaps I can speak more specifically of the changes that now exist in Quebec, that exist in the so-called Anglophone community in the rest of Canada, because I am very much impressed by the deep changes achieved outside Quebec especially with regard to the aspirations of the Quebec people and the respect for the French language throughout Canada. There has been a change, a new respect upon which we can build a great country in the future.

I must say, however, that while those attitudes have changed among the citizens of the country, it is not so clear that attitudes among governments have changed. 1 think it is important that we address that question frankly here today.
I want to take the opportunity, in the climate of good will and of near celebration that exists in this House today after the referendum results, to point out to the Prime Minister that it would be futile for the Government of Canada to be seeking to draw provinces together to discuss constitutional change if, at the same time, the actions of Ottawa on other fronts were driving provinces and people apart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think we all know that the sense of being a nation is influenced as much by conduct as it is by constitutions. The success of renewal will be based upon genuine respect for the other partners in confederation. It would be both unwise and irresponsible for the Government of Canada, or for the governments of the provinces, to perpetuate an attitude of confrontation, or to seek to resolve legitimate differences by methods which erode trust or make co-operation impossible.
Hopefully yesterday's referendum in Quebec will provide very real impetus to the process of change and renewal. But the desire-indeed it is more than a desire-the demand for change is not simply a matter of that referendum and indeed not simply a matter of that province. It is a desire shared by all of the provinces and virtually all of the people of Canada. That fact must be reflected in the agenda for change which this government now has a responsibility to place before the country. It must be truly a Canadian agenda not simply an Ottawa agenda, a Quebec agenda, an Alberta agenda or a Newfoundland agenda. Other provinces and other regions have specific proposals for change to which they are equally committed as Quebeckers are, and which they have a right to expect will be debated openly and honestly by all involved in the process.
Certainly patriation, an amending formula, and entrenchment of rights are legitimate subjects for our Canadian agenda, but so is resource jurisdiction, including offshore resources, so is communications policy, and so are proposals to make some national institutions more effective and more representative of regional realities and regional needs. It is not simply that we now have before us a rare opportunity, a rare

May 21, 1980
Quebec Referendum
atmosphere of openness and good will, within which to address the whole Canadian agenda. It is equally that we simply will not achieve a genuine or lasting consensus if some parts of this country or some regions of Canada feel their needs are excluded from the Canadian agenda or are given secondary status in national debate and negotiation.
[ Translation\
I was encouraged by the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister when he said earlier today that except for the basic principles he mentioned, all the other matters are negotiable because, to my mind, that commitment is essential to the future of the constitutional renewal process, since hon. members of the House of Commons and the Canadian people throughout the land view differently some of the constitutional proposals.

For example, I believe the Prime Minister and I have different views about the contribution to Canadian unity of the consciousness of being a people like the Quebeckers, or of being a region like the west, or of being a province. I have a sense that he is concerned that these more local loyalties will drain strength from the larger community. I believe they are a source of strength. Some members of his party agree with me; probably some members of mine agree with him. But, that question must be addressed openly by all sides. We cannot let our work be limited by the prejudices of a Prime Minister or a Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else. We are agreed on the framework of the federal system. The people of Quebec yesterday in a massive and dramatic way indicated their agreement with a federal framework, and now we must build and go where the facts of modern Canada lead us in giving flesh and form to that federal system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to consult leaders of other parties here, and 1 welcome that. I want to anticipate that consultation and make publicly one suggestion that I think should be very much on the agenda of change.
As the Prime Minister and as the House know, one of our weaknesses as a country so far has been our failure, at least to this date, to develop national institutions which genuinely command the respect of the whole country. Some progress has been made. 1 believe progress was made by the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson and his government with the introduction of the Canadian flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 am delighted to learn that today a Standing Order 43 motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), regarding a national anthem for this country, was accepted.
But, Madam Speaker, we sit here today in one Canadian institution, the only one that has live and genuine roots in every corner of this land. Parliament itself can become the strongest genuine national institution, but it will not have strength until it has real power, and the tendency of the last several years has been to take power from Parliament and to concentrate it in parties, or concentrate it in government.
When we were the government, as the House knows, we introduced proposals for parliamentary reform which were designed specifically to increase the influence of individual members of Parliament, and consequently to expand both the range of advice available to government, and the respect available to this institution. 1 would hope that the Prime Minister will recognize that one of the ways to connect the parts of this country to the whole of this country-one of the ways to ensure a genuine sense of the Canadian nation-will be to strengthen the most representative and national of our institutions, the House of Commons itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I said frequently during the referendum campaign that the referendum itself was a question for Quebeckers to decide, but that the work of constitutional renewal was the work of all Canadians. Yesterday's vote in Quebec ended the referendum campaign, but it did not end the demand in Quebec for change; in fact, it reinforced it vividly and reinforced it dramatically. That referendum cannot and should not be used to silence the aspirations of Quebeckers, for in fact it was an expression of faith and an expression of those aspirations.
For the rest of Canada the vote yesterday was an expression of pride and belief in this country in which we can all joyfully share. It represents a demand for change in which Canadians have every reason to join and, indeed, which other Canadians have articulated in other ways for reasons of their own, or reasons relating to their own situations. That result in Quebec should be used, if 1 might employ that term, not to frighten or divide Canadians, and I am happy that there is no hint of that today, but to unite Canadians in a common determination to build a renewed federation which can make this a stronger country, a richer country, and a better country in years ahead.
That common determination, Madam Speaker, exists among Canadians; of that I am totally confident. Indeed, as is so often the case, in a very real sense constitutional renewal is catching up to the attitude of Canadians. Canada already has changed and the people of Canada know it. It has changed for the better in our new strengths and our new maturity. What is demanded now; what is fairly and justly demanded of all of us, particularly in this House, is a political system, a federal system, that recognizes the change that is about us, and shapes that change to the betterment of all of Canada.

The vote which took place yesterday, May 20, was but a date in a continuing process. It was by no means an end but a beginning, and now it is up to us in this Parliament and in the
May 21, 1980

Parliaments of the territories and the provinces of Canada to implement the changes which are being sought by Canadians all across this country.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as leader of the Liberal party, and myself, as Leader of the New Democratic Party, have frequently differed in the past, sometimes over frivolous matters, sometimes over very serious matters, but I want to begin my comments today by complimenting the Prime Minister on the very fine statement he made in the House this afternoon and, in particular, for his magnanimous address to the people of the province of Quebec and to every Canadian last night on television.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the historical debate that took place in Quebec proves that we have already reached a level of political maturity of which all civilized nations of the world are envious. In spite of some deep divisions within the Quebec society and also elsewhere in Canada, we managed to express our differences democratically. I can tell you without exaggerating that last night we showed that we can get along together despite deep differences. The Quebec people deserve our admiration and respect. Personally, Madam Speaker, I would like to say to those who voted yes in the referendum that their message was understood. Quebec society must come out and do so by setting its own priorities, and that can and must be done within our federation.
Madam Speaker, I am, of course, very pleased with the result of the referendum. The Quebec people indicated clearly yesterday that they want to remain within the Canadian federation. But, as I said earlier, we must recognize, however, that this is not a vote for the status quo. Our federal system of course is not without fault. During that debate, all parties recognized that there was an urgent need for constitutional changes. All party leaders in the House pointed that out this afternoon. The polls indicated, as I have noticed myself during my visits in Quebec during the campaign, that the great majority of Quebeckers want changes to take place as early as possible. Canadians in other provinces must take up the challenge. All Canadians, wherever they are, must respond positively to that major historical event and the federal government must act and be perceived, not only by the Quebec people, but also by all the other Canadians, as a government out to promote the fulfilment of the people in all areas of Canada.
While it would be a mistake of considerable proportion to suggest that the grievances felt elsewhere in Canada, such as in the Atlantic provinces and in the west, are of the same
Quebec Referendum
magnitude as those in Quebec, it is nonetheless a reality that must also be addressed at this time of constitutional change. In approaching this constitutional change, the spirit must be one of reconciliation and imagination. A reconciling of the frequently conflicting regional and national claims with imagination could make that possible.
The goal must be to make whatever constitutional changes are relevant as a means of having Canadians, wherever they may be, feel more at home in their own land so that one can be, as the Prime Minister said last night, "at the same time a Quebecois and a Canadian".


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


John Edward Broadbent: Fishermen in Newfoundland, farmers in Saskatchewan, miners in Sept-Iles and people in every region of Canada must see the federal government as an ally, as their government. This is our objective.

It should go without saying that on this day, while it is appropriate to stress the relevance of constitutional change, to achieve this goal it is also important to note that policies, programs and attitudes are of comparable importance both in the short run and the long run. It is not simply the case that the need for constitutional change is now urgent. I would also like to stress that the means are at hand for achieving this change soon.
Members of Parliament and other Canadians have before them the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate of just a few years ago, the considerations offered by the present government when it was a government just a few years ago, and the counterproposals made by the official opposition and ourselves at that time. There is also the Pepin-Robarts report, and the results of the first ministers' meeting in early 1979 which reached substantial agreement on many matters. Then there is the beige paper prepared by the Liberal party of the province of Quebec. It would be a mistake or simply naive to suggest that all of these reports reach the same conclusions. Of course they do not. In fact they conflict on many important matters.
However, it is important to stress at this time that these reports do provide us with just about all the information we need and an analysis of the implications of different choices which might be reached, depending on the decisions we make in opting for one suggestion as opposed to another. Furthermore, there are areas in which agreement between the federal government and the provinces has been virtually reached or, at least, on which differences are not great. These areas include family law, communications and cultural policy, language rights, and changes in the Supreme Court. These areas, I repeat, are among those on which there has already been achieved substantial agreement. Therefore, they are among those areas with which we could proceed in the immediate future.

May 21, 1980
Quebec Referendum
During the referendum debate, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have already indicated, virtually every one of the provincial premiers indicated that they favour early constitutional change. Therefore early action is not only required and desired, but it is also possible at this time. Matters on which agreement can be quickly reached should therefore be quickly settled. Once they are settled we can proceed to more difficult areas, resolve them as best we can in the national interest and regional interests, and give Canada, at long last, a constitution that is located in our own land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, our approach and attitude toward constitutional change will be of very great importance in and of themselves if we are to get the kind of changes that we think are desirable. Now is the time, above all, to rise above partisan considerations.
Over 100 years ago the various elements which were not yet Canada were in a state of crisis in this part of North America. Leaders at that time responded appropriately. The arch political enemies, George Brown and Sir John A. Macdonald, came together in an act of great historical reconciliation. Speaking in the legislature in June, 1864, George Brown explained-and it was difficult for him to do so-the reconciliation with a point which is so relevant to us in Canada today. He said that only the most extreme circumstances could justify reconciliation between himself and his old opponent and that the circumstances which required that were the crises that existed in many parts of the land.
The result of that reconciliation was the birth of a non-partisan approach to nation building. The nation which emerged, of course, was Canada. I would like to suggest that today we are facing similar circumstances and that these circumstances require the same generosity of mind and openness of spirit from members of all parties in the House of Commons.
There are significant matters which divide Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. They will continue to divide us in the future. However, many of the basic constitutional questions-indeed, probably most of them-have absolutely nothing to do with party differences. If we do not recognize this fact now, we will fail both the best traditions of our respective parties and, more important, we will fail the nation, i suggest that we learn from the attitudes of Macdonald and Brown and make a most serious attempt to achieve constitutional reform and consensus as much as possible on a non-partisan basis.
Specifically, I would urge the Prime Minister heading a federal delegation, at the first ministers' meeting or when the time comes, to head a delegation which represents, not only the government party, but Parliament, while maintaining a majority of government members. 1 would urge, in the spirit of Macdonald and Brown, that the Prime Minister give very serious consideration to the inclusion of the leaders and perhaps other members of the opposition parties.
In this context I would point out that the other parties in the House of Commons have representation from parts of Canada
which are not represented in the government party at this time. Also, in this spirit, 1 urge the Prime Minister to make the same suggestions to the provincial premiers. 1 have raised this very matter with Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan. He has agreed to take such an open approach with his delegation to any future first ministers' conferences.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I hope that a constitutional conference will take place this summer and that, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) travels around this country-and 1 appreciate the urgency with which he is now approaching that task-he will discover in the offices of the premiers a willingness to meet this summer to get this needed constitutional change under way. Of course, it is early to predict precisely what should be done at that meeting, but it is unlikely that an agreement on a wide range of difficult matters could be achieved. At least if the meeting could take place early in the summer, say in July, a very specific timetable could be established and it could be expected that two or three months ahead and periodically for the next 12 months or, at most, two years, final and definitive decisions could be reached on the constitution.
I put forward as a suggestion that at least for the discussion of such an agenda, for agreement on such an agenda, a first ministers' meeting be called this summer.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, 1 want to emphasize the spirit of the determination and co-operation that is now needed in our land, and co-operation is the essence. The road ahead will not be easy-we are all aware of that-but 1 am more confident than ever before that Canada will not only prevail but will survive.
[Translation}
Canada and Quebec will continue together on a common course toward a just and exciting future.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) on a question of privilege.


David Edward Crombie: Thank you very much Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I did not know that the hon. member wanted to ask a question. 1 suppose that is why the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is rising. 1 shall recognize the hon. member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was my understanding of the House agreement that, following the opening statement by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and myself, the Leader of the Opposition and I would be allowed to raise questions.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, that is quite in order, but the Leader of the Opposition did not rise. I waited for a while and the hon. member for Oshawa did not rise either. I therefore recognized
May 21, 1980

the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), but I am delighted to recognize the hon. member for Oshawa.
Mir. Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister, notwithstanding what he said about the intention of the Minister of Justice to travel throughout Canada to obtain suggestions from provincial premiers about the best method of proceeding with constitutional reform, what his own attitude is in response to the suggestion I made in my speech about having an early conference in the middle of summer involving the first ministers with all-party delegations, at least to set out an agenda and fix a timetable. 1 suggested a two-year time limit so that Canadians, Quebeckers, and people in other parts of our land would know that the process is going to get under way, and soon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 heard the suggestion made by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. It is a suggestion which 1 believe had been made by a few of the premiers also, to hold a conference in July. I could not, nor would I want to, announce the holding of such a conference now until I have heard from the Minister of Justice. It is possible that other premiers who have not spoken will hold other views. 1 would undertake in answer to a question in the House, or possibly by a short statement, to express the view of the government on this after I have heard from the Minister of Justice when he returns. Presumably he will return within the next three or four days from his visits to the provincial capitals.
In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, 1 think it is a good idea to have an agenda and timetable. Personally, and on behalf of the government, I would tend to be a bit more ambitious than that. I would hope that we would do more, if we have such a meeting, than establish an agenda and timetable. That would seem to be the disposition of all parties in this House, to move on an agenda rather than just establish it.
Concerning delegations which the hon. member also inquired about, it is obvious that at any federal-provincial conference there would be attendance by members of the House and other parties. Whether they could be part of a delegation at a hypothetical conference or not I suppose would depend on the hypothetical question of whether or not we could come together on a common program for action. I would hope that to be the case.
Listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, it does seem that perhaps there is a common basis for action on several fronts, in which case I think it would strenghten the position of Parliament if indeed a delegation were composed of the leaders of all parties in this chamber. 1 would seek to establish this, hopefully successfully, in the course of the next week, after 1 have had a report from the Minister of Justice and have had occasion to discuss with both hon. leaders opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Crombie PRIVILEGE


MR. CROMBIE-STATEMENTS MADE BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), last Wednesday, May 14. 1 might add at the outset that there were some who felt that my question of privilege related to a comment she made earlier in her statement, in relation to her use of French and my use of English and the hearing aid that I was using in that regard. 1 want to indicate at the outset that that was not my concern. I wear the hearing aid, of course, so that I can bring more comprehension to the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).


Eugene Whelan: That is not a point of privilege.


David Edward Crombie: I just wanted to get his attention.


Eugene Whelan: 1 am listening.


David Edward Crombie: 1 should like to take a brief moment, since this is the first opportunity I have had publicly to congratulate the minister on her return to office. Since I held that office for a brief period 1 know the kind of staff that she has available to her and that they have a reputation for good effort and dedication. It is in that spirit that I raise the following question of privilege.
This is a serious matter, because the remarks made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 14 in response to questions relate to the integrity of one of the most significant, if not the most significant, social programs in this country, that is, the maintenance and delivery of our system of medicare. 1 feel there is a consensus in this House, and indeed in the country, that all problems related to medicare must be dealt with openly, directly, and honestly. The previous government's solution in this regard was to proceed with an independent review. We chose Chief Justice Emmett Hall to undertake that review in order that the solutions undertaken by this House would be reached only following extensive representations and consultation, not only with provincial governments but by all interested and all concerned parties.
As a consequence of the remarks made by the hon. minister, my question of privilege falls into three areas: first, misrepresentation by the minister of the facts surrounding the appointment of Justice Hall and the condition and resources within which he was and is conducting his review; second, the misrepresentation by the minister last week in the House on May 14, and indeed in the last Parliament generally, of her authority with regard to the Established Program Financing Arrangement of 1977, the legislation which governs medicare financing; and third, the statements by the minister on the same day in response to the same questions which seriously call into question the credibility of Justice Hall's review and her government's intentions with regard to its impending recommendations. Those are the three areas of privilege, Madam Speaker.
1270

May 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Crombie
Let me deal with the first, the appointment of Mr. Justice Hall. In answering a question in the House on the Hall review, a question posed by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), the minister pleaded ignorance of the details of the Hall review until her party took office again in the spring. That is the beginning of the questions reported at page 1061 of Hansard. Madam Speaker, the Hall review was not announced, appointed or undertaken in any shroud of secrecy. The terms of reference for the review were tabled at a federal-provincial conference of health ministers on September 17, and that was a public meeting. They were tabled publicly. Indeed, those terms of reference were later published in a number of both daily and weekly publications, not the least of which was the November 20 edition of the Medical Post which carried the terms of reference verbatim. I am sure it did not miss the minister's attention because it has a very attractive picture of herself and a fairly attractive picture of myself. It talks about the terms of reference in detail, verbatim. They were produced November 20. We were not in power a very long time, but if my memory serves me right we were still in power November 20.
Further on the terms of reference, the hon. member said, and I quote from page 1061 of Hansard:
-we asked many questions of the government to know what was really the mandate of the commission. We finally found out that the terms of reference were ten pages long, which does not mean anything, and covered everything under the sun.
It is not easy to discern exactly what the minister means, but I will repeat it because I think there is only one meaning you can finally take from it.
-we asked many questions of the government to know what was really the mandate of the commission. We finally found out that the terms of reference were ten pages long, which does not mean anything, and covered everything under the sun.
Allow me to be charitable and say that the minister has confused the terms of reference, which are two pages long and are very exact and very precise, with a ten-page communique which carried my remarks about the two pages of the terms of reference. The terms of reference, those two precise pages, were subsequently circulated to the provincial ministers for their comments. Following that process, those terms were finalized to everyone's satisfaction, including Mr. Justice Hall.
The terms of reference were two pages long, a very specific review. The most central, and that is why I have cause for concern, of those terms of reference which the minister claims not to have had knowledge of until she took office was a set of guidelines, requesting consideration of a set of guidelines for the principles of medicare-portability, accessibility, universal coverage, comprehensive coverage, public administration, reasonable compensation, and uniform terms and conditions. Those were the principles for the requested guidelines.
I might say that toward the end of November a letter was sent to all ministers of provincial governments, with a letter attached by me which again was made public. It indicated to those ministers that we were going to proceed with the terms
of reference which I attached to them. I will not read the whole letter. I indicated:
-I have made some alterations in style, without substantive changes. I have asked Mr. Justice Hall to proceed with the attached revised version-
Also contained in the minister's answer on May 14 in which 1 suggest she again misled the House, she said:
When we were in opposition, the party in power did not send us a telegram with the information pertaining to the commission, how much money it had, what its mandate was, and so on ... Nobody knew the amount of money made available; nobody knew the status of Mr. Justice Hall or the tools at his disposal to conduct a proper inquiry.
That is simply not true. On December 4 in this House the hon. member as she then was, the minister as she is now, asked me a question on the matter. She asked me if I would outline both budget and staff components. 1 have the quote in Hansard if she wants it.


Mr. McGrath:: Give her the page number.


David Edward Crombie: It is suggested I give her the page number. The minister will find it at page 1987 of Hansard. I did not answer that day. I indicated in the House an undertaking to the hon. member, as she then was, that 1 would provide her with the information that I had already provided previously to the ministers in the provinces and indeed that we had tabled in a public meeting. I sent that letter, and that letter contained the information which she requested with respect to the staffing and the funds available. 1 know she received that letter.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude that the record shows that, on the first question of privilege, the hon. member did know the mandate of the Hall review prior to her resumption of office, and that the financial and human resources available to it were also known to her prior to her resumption of responsibilities as Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The second part of my question of privilege relates to the question of the minister's authority. Here I will try to confine my remarks the best I can to the statements made by the minister on the fourteenth. I am also sure that the record will concur that the hon. member recorded again what she said when she was in opposition when she demanded that the government of the day stop cash payments to the provinces in order to force the provinces to stop what she called the diversion of federal health funds to other areas.
The point of all that, and it is one we discussed in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, is that according to the established programs financing legislation of 1977-the agreement was negotiated and agreed to by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) and the right hon. Prime Minister of the day-it was not within and is not within the minister's power to stop or diminish the cash portion of federal assistance without the consent of the provinces. That is as clear as a bell.
It is wrong of the hon. member for Oshawa to ask a question implying that the minister has that power and for the minister to continue the charade that she does, because it is of no help to anyone. According to section 28, subsections (1), (2) and
May 21, 1980

(3) of the legislation that took away the power from the federal government, it is not within the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to alter the cash portion until after April 1, 1982, at which point the legislation allows for changes without provincial consent.
That is why the hon. minister could not take the action which she publicly stated in this House that she should because she does not have the power. That is the whole point of appointing the Hall commission, to make sure that power is not there, and it does no good for the House to be misled, even with the best will in the world, that that power does exist on the cash portion.
The third area of the question of privilege relates to what I think to be perhaps the most damaging aspect. I am hoping the minister will correct me because 1 think we share a community of interest in the final conclusion of the Hall commission report. There seems to have been a continuation of attacking the credibility of the Hall commission. 1 read the minister's comments on page 1061 where she says:
I must be cautious because we are talking about a royal commission of inquiry-
She concludes by saying that we are not talking about a royal commission of inquiry, and seems to imply because it was not and is not a royal commission of inquiry somehow it is less of an authority and will bear less heavily on the decisionmaking process of the government and indeed of this House. 1 simply want to give her an opportunity to correct that impression because, never at any time, was anybody ever suggesting that there ought to be a royal commission, and the record will show that.
The move 1 took as minister of the day was to appoint an expert to conduct a review of existing medical services legislation, with a view to improving it, clarifying it, and protecting and enhancing the principles of medicare. The minister today has an opportunity to state again her interest in doing these things instead of diminishing the credibility of the whole report even before Mr. Justice Hall has the opportunity to deliver it. Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare acknowledge to this House that she did, indeed, know the information of which she professed no knowledge last week and that in these circumstances she should correct the record of this House.
[Translation)


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat embarrassed to speak before the former Minister of National Health and Welfare about an alleged question of privilege, because I feel it is non-existent. I am embarrassed because he took several minutes to tell us that he cares about medicare, that he made every effort through a review of the system to restore it to its full status, on which I fully agree with him and find it wonderful. On the other hand, 1 am embarrassed, because the
Privilege-Mr. Crombie
three parts of the so-called question of privilege which he says concerns me seem to be non-existent.

I shall try rapidly to give my predecessor another image of the same situation-I will not go into the past the way he did, and 1 will not use quotations from speeches and discussions of medicare outside the House. He was rising on a question of privilege related to last week's question period, exactly a week ago. 1 should like him to understand from an opposition member's viewpoint the image perceived or available to us, which is this one, and which is what 1 was referring to last week when 1 answered the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) on medicare and the recent Alberta development, in all good faith, by the way. 1 said, in response to the third question, because the question led me to say that, from an opposition member's viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the general public, if my colleague, my predecessor remembers well, when, in September, 1979, he had an extremely short federal-provincial meeting of health ministers, he issued the press release or a communique, or whatever the name of it was, of about ten pages long. I do not know the exact name given to it but it was a ten-page document which he just referred to once more-


An hon. Member:: A communique.


Monique Bégin: -A communique of September 17 in which he announced extremely briefly-1 mean, it is less than a paragraph-a review of health insurance programs in Canada, a review, and only that, and then that the report should be prepared and made public within six months; and the appointment of Mr. Justice Hall. The hon. gentleman will recall that the House was not sitting that month and took some more time to start its work. This meant we were completely disconnected from information, especially since there was a new government and we were learning our roles as opposition members without all the research tools to which we were accustomed.
A review can be many things. I am not a lawyer but I have conducted a royal commission, I was involved in one myself, and as a minister I know very well the different categories into which a review can fall and, depending upon which administrative or legislative tool is used, the work of the so-called commissioner can be very different. The hon. member has himself stated that medicare is of great concern to all of us. I think it is fair to say that 1, in my capacity-we had lost a government-and the hon. member in his capacity as a member of the new government, did our best to find a solution to medicare.
The hon. member announced the idea of a review which, by the way, we supported, but which we did not institute and might not have instituted, which is a thing 1 have often said and explained why. There are avenues to try to find a solution to the medicare erosion. What was the review which the hon. member announced and about which we often asked questions? How much money was at the disposal of Mr. Justice Hall? Were there other members or commissioners? Were

May 21, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Crombie
there public hearings? We did not know whether the hon. member had this in mind.
Neither we nor the general public knew for a long time whether there would be public hearings. I remember asking questions at the time. A review could be a royal commission of inquiry with varying powers according to what part of the Inquiries Act it is under-a task force, an order in council, or a simple contract between the minister and the commission or commissioners. Each of these definitions is different in its consequences and different in the status it reflects on the subject matter, etc. That is exactly the meaning of the line of questioning taken not only by myself but by several members of the House when we were in opposition.
I do not know why the hon. gentleman, when he was minister of national health and welfare, chose not to state openly the nature of the review. He may not have realized that he never told us immediately. It took quite some time to understand and I am not even sure, from memory, that it was clearly said somewhere that it was a contract between Mr. Justice Hall and the minister. As to the other questions about the budget given to the commission and the number of staff given to the commission etc., the fact is, as the minister said, that I received a letter from him on December 19, 1979, dated December 14. But didn't the government fall around that time? There is such a sequence of events that I do not quite remember.


David Edward Crombie: I fell myself.


Monique Bégin: Yes, the hon. member fell too, but what I am trying to say now is that I do not think there is any question of privilege and I think my colleague, the hon. member opposite, is reading things which do not exist. If I speak English I will be in trouble again because I will use the wrong word, but he thinks there are suggestions against the Hall commission or against himself as the previous minister of national health and welfare in his actions to "save medicare". He thinks this is being criticized or questioned. This obviously is not the case. I think the hon. member knows very well that we supported officially, and have always supported, both in opposition and now as the Government of Canada, the work of Mr. Justice Hall's so-called review. Past that point I could continue and answer for a long period of time each point made by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), but I think it is irrelevant.
1 think the hon. member should know-and I am reassuring him right now-that once instituted and established, the Hall commission became the official tool to save medicare. Anyone with common sense, it seems to me, had to support the commission, which we did do, and will do. So I hope I am clear. It is all in Hansard. The hon. member said that last week I, at one point, said that I would speak French because the question is delicate since it deals with a royal commission and that a few minutes later I said it was not a royal commission. Let us not play with words. It was question period. I had difficulty expressing myself in English because
we were discussing matters which could almost be legal. The hon. member was suggesting that there could be a question of privilege, and I did not want to create any suspicion as to the way he handled the erosion of medicare by instituting a royal commission. We differ on ideas about what avenue is best. The hon. member knows that. We have said it often. There is nothing wrong with that. We differ.
We thought the route which could be taken should be different from that of a commission or review of the situation. This being said, I and my colleagues have the greatest respect for an institution once it is created, and the Hall commission is an institution to which added credibility comes because of the past work of Mr. Justice Hall regarding the creation of medicare in the first place and all his contributions to the development of Canadian policies in many different fields.
I will finish on the expression "terms of reference". I happen to believe, and I am not the only one, that the so-called terms of reference are very general. I cannot withdraw that or swallow it back. I feel they are very general. They could not be broader, and 1 happen to be pragmatic enough that if I had been the minister and if I had decided to have a "review" of medicare, I would have preferred more precise terms of reference. That is a matter which could be discussed ad infinitum, but it has nothing to do with the question of privilege. My past experience with royal commissions or inquiries of any sort is that it may be better in a case like this to have strictly defined terms of reference.
My predecessor, the hon. member for Rosedale, chose a wide avenue; let us put it that way. I quote from his so-called terms of reference as follows:
The review is requested to consider the extent to which the goals set forth in the "Charter of Health for Canadians" proposed by the Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964 are being achieved.
This is one sentence out of three pages I have in front of me. My copy happens to have three pages, and it was attached to the communique of ten pages.


David Edward Crombie: Two pages.


Monique Bégin: I will finish simply by repeating to my predecessor that I think, as we say in French, he is in the potatoes. There is no question of privilege here. He knows he did a great job as minister of national health and welfare. That was the first thing I told him when I telephoned him after I returned to the department. He did things of which I was jealous, except for medicare which we might have done differently, but on other points I thought he had done a remarkable job, which I was discovering literally day by day and week by week at the beginning of my new mandate.
This being said, I hope that I have given enough explanation to the House to clarify the whole situation.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have listened to both sides, and I think I have listened to sufficient arguments on both sides in order to rule on this question.
There is obviously a very great difference not only of interpretation but also regarding what time this interpretation
May 21, 1980

was understood by another party. 1 have listened very carefully to see whether there was a matter of privilege involved.
The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) is obviously not satisfied with the answers he has received from the minister. What was clear to him might not be just as clear to the hon. minister, but that is something over which I have absolutely no power.
The exchange which has taken place, because the hon. member has raised a question of privilege, has served to bring out more information, and that in itself in any parliament, 1 suppose, is a good point, but it certainly is not a question of privilege. Moreover, the hon. member has moved a substantive motion which does not flow really from a question of privilege and, therefore, if the hon. member still wants to raise that motion, that can be done at another time.
So, having heard a speaker on one side and the hon. minister, it is with regret that I must rule that this is not a question of privilege.


MR. KILGOUR-USE OF EXPRESSION &quot;SHYLOCK&quot; BY MEMBER FOR NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, during oral question period the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) used an expression in his question, the word "Shylock", referring, 1 believe, to the members of OPEC. In the last Parliament, Madam Speaker, your predecessor ruled that the word "Shylock", albeit in a slightly different context, was not parliamentary language. The hon. member was kind enough to come back into the House after I raised this with him in the lobby, and I wonder if Your Honour would consider ruling or, alternatively, if the hon. member would consider withdrawing that expression and using an acceptable synonym. I do, however, raise this as a question of privilege.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for advising me that he was going to raise this matter as a question of privilege. I do not believe it is a question of privilege. However, 1 will not argue that point.
1 believe the ruling of your predecessor, Madam Speaker, was on quite a different matter when that word was used in reference to another member of this House. 1 used the word because it is my belief that the OPEC nations are using their availability of petroleum to extort money from the industrialized nations of the western world particularly, and Japan as well. I think that their action is unconscionable. In fact some of the OPEC nations even use their availability of oil as a threat to other nations, particularly our great friend and neighbour, the United States of America, which has done more to assist developing nations than any other nation in the world.
However, 1 certainly would not want to offend with my language any member of this House, or any Canadian. So, if it will please the hon. member, I would be glad to withdraw the
Introduction of Bills
word "Shylock" and substitute therefor the word "extortionists".


Madam Speaker:: 1 think I can accept that the hon. member simply withdraws the word without substitution. However, I suppose what is said is said. I understand that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is satisfied with this correction which has been made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).
mr. Mcknight-statement made by minister of national


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Is it a new one?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Yes, a new one, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The question of privilege which I would like you to hear arises out of a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on May 14, found in Hansard at page 1061. I should like to quote it. It starts in the middle of the paragraph and reads:
-to ask the local population and community to react to financial barriers being imposed when they should not be imposed in the light of the huge payments being made by taxpayers in all of Canada for medicare in Alberta, as everywhere else-though not in Saskatchewan by the way.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to raise a new question of privilege, which I would be delighted to hear, it would be in order that he give me a written notice of it since he is referring to something that has been said in a previous sitting of the House, as did the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) before him. So, if I receive a notice, 1 will entertain the question of privilege when it is presented to me.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-596, requiring the Canadian flag and the flag of the province to be flown on federal buildings.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Madam Speaker, I am very proud the day after a large majority of Quebeckers have expressed their will

May 21, 1980
Order Paper Questions
to remain in the Canadian federation to introduce this bill to provide for the flying of the Canadian flag and the flag of the province on federal buildings.
Madam Speaker, Canadians from Quebec have rediscovered yesterday that they are proud of flying both the Canadian and the Quebec flags together. Given the spirit that prevails today in this House, 1 ask for unanimous consent in order to proceed forthwith and without debate with all stages of this bill.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member be allowed to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that this bill be dealt with at all stages this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Collenette:: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, no.


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

Hon. Charles Lapointe (for Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 18, 181, 186, 218, 243, 260, 329, 405, 406, 610, 613, 694, 727 and 728.
[ Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total, by province, of moneys loaned from the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	What interest is paid on such funds?
3.	In each of the past five years, what amount was (a) received (b) paid out of the CPP?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: 1 and
3. The information sought by the hon. member is equally accessible to him, being reported annually in the Public Accounts of Canada. Quarterly statements of the interest rate earned on moneys loaned and the distribution by province are also issued from the information division of this department, on request.
2. Section 113(2) of the Canada Pension Plan prescribes the interest to be paid on funds loaned from the Canada Pension Plan. The amount of interest received and the weighted average rate are reported in the Public Accounts of Canada.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Polysar Corporation Ltd.?
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?


Pierre Bussières: 1.	Polysar Limited is a private sector corporation wholly owned by the Canada Development Corporation in which the Government of Canada along with some 18,000 other shareholders holds an equity interest. Polysar is neither a Crown corporation nor an agent of Her Majesty nor does the government directly hold any equity in it. The government does not have any official knowledge of Polysar not available to the public. To assist the hon. member, the 1978 Annual Report of Polysar Limited, which is obtainable from the secretary of the company, 201 Front Street N., Sarnia, Ontario, N7T 7V1, shows:
Year ended December 31 1977	1978
Revenues	$576,965,000	$747,762,000Net Income	$14,431,000	$18,518,0002.	(a) Grants and contributions for fiscal 1977 and 1978 that exceeded $10,000 are published in volume II of the Public Accounts of Canada for those years. While this information is equally accessible to the honourable member, we have, however, had a cursory review made of the 1976-77 and 1977-78 Public Accounts volume II and note that in the former fiscal year, Polysar Limited received a grant, contribution or other transfer payment from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce of $244,713, "to advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects on terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board". In fiscal 1978-79, Polysar Limited received a contribution
May 21, 1980

from the same department, under the Enterprise Development Program, for $37,987. The company would appear to have received no direct or indirect subsidies or benefits other than those available to other Canadian corporations or individuals.
(b) and (c)
No loans, advances or guarantees were extended by the government to the corporation in either fiscal year and the government had no investment in the corporation before or after any write-off.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for Canadian Arsenals Ltd.?
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.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.	(a) 1977-78
Total Revenue	$8,128,810
Net earnings (deficits)	(1,156,759)
(b) 1978-79
Total revenue	$14,158,978
Net earnings (deficits)	(181,413)
2.	(a) Direct subsidies received from the government to
cover operating deficits and capital expenditures for the modernization of the plant and equipment were as follows:
1977- 78	$1,200,000
1978- 79	$1,540,000
(b)	Nil
(c)	Nil


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) Since 1964, how many Boeing aircraft were bought by (i) Air Canada (ii) the Department of National Defence (iii) any other Crown corporation or agency (b) what amount was paid for each aircraft and in which year or years were payments made?
2.	(a) Did the same consultant and/or agent act for Boeing in each case (b) what was the name of the consultant and/or agent?


David Michael Collenette: Management of Air Canada:
1. (a) (i) Seven B-747 and 22 B-727 aircraft. Three B-727 freighter aircraft were also purchased second-hand from United Airlines.
All of these aircraft have been delivered since February 1971.
Order Paper Questions
In 1979, Air Canada announced orders for 12 Boeing 767-200, together with options for a further 18 aircraft of the same type. Deliveries of this equipment will commence in 1982.
(b) Air Canada considers the purchase prices proprietary.
2. Air Canada deals directly with Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, and not through any agent or consultant. Department of Supply and Services:
1.	(a) The Department of Supply and Services has procured Boeing aircraft since 1964 on behalf of the Department of National Defence only.
(i)	No procurement by DSS
(ii)	5 Model "707", DND designation CC-137 transports
9 "Chinook" CH-147 helicopters 12 "Voyageur" CH-113A helicopters 6 "Labrador" CH-113 helicopters
(iii)	No procurement by DSS
(b) CC-137-4 at $10,809,272 each. 1 at $9,995,162. All payments made in FY 69/70.
Ch-147-8 at $3,424,086 each. Payments $15,278,590 in FY 73/74, $12,114,098 in FY 74/75.
CH-147-1 at $6,041,760. Payment $5,142,856 in FY 77/78, $898,904 in FY 78/79.
CH-113A-12 at $751,350 each. Initial payment March, 1963, final payment September, 1967. (Records not available for further payment details.)
CH-113-6 at $614,100 U.S. Payment corresponding with deliveries October 1963 to August 1964. (Records not available for further payment details).
2. (a) All contracts were placed directly with Boeing. No agent acted for Boeing.
(b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the total, by province, of moneys loaned from the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	What interest is paid on such funds?
3.	In each of the past five years, what amount was (a) received (b) paid out of the CPP?


Pierre Bussières: 1 and
3. The information sought by the hon. member is equally accessible to him, being reported annually in the Public Accounts of Canada. Quarterly statements of the interest rate earned on moneys loaned and the distribution by province are also issued from the information division of this department, on request.
2.	Section 113 (2) of the Canada Pension Plan prescribes the interest to be paid on funds loaned from the Canada

May 21, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Pension Plan. The amount of interest received and the weighted average rates are reported in the Public Accounts of Canada.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are all post offices required, where it is physically possible, to fly the Canadian flag?
2.	Can replacements be readily obtained for flags which are stolen or wilfully destroyed?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: 1. According to the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian and other flags, approved by cabinet in 1966 and reproduced in the Secretary of State Department's brochure entitled "The Arms, Flags and Emblems of Canada", the flag must be flown at all federal government buildings, airports and military bases and establishments within and outside Canada. Federal departments and agencies must comply with this regulation, which
	March 31, 1974	March 31, 1975	March 31, 1976
(a)			
Balance in Public Service Superannuation Account	$5,427.5	$6,420.3	$7,312.2Rate of Interest on New Money	7.53 per cent	8.98 per cent	9.19 per centWeighted Average Rate of Interest	6.34 per cent	6.71 per cent	7.06 per cent(c)	Balance in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account	$34.9	$75.6	$129.6Rate of Interest	7.19 per cent	7.13 per cent	8.50 per cent
also applies to post offices in buildings owned by the Department of Public Works.
2. Canadian flags can readily be obtained from the Department of Supply and Services stores.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) other employees were on the payroll of Petro-
Canada and its subsidiaries as at March 31,1979?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: (a) 2,068; (b) none.


Mr. Herbert: What amount was to the credit of the (a) Public Service Superannuation Account (b) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (c) Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account on March 31 (i) 1974 (ii) 1975 (iii) 1976 (iv) 1977 (v) 1978 (vi) 1979 (vii) 1980 and, in each case, what was the rate of interest on new money and what was the average rate of interest on invested funds?


David Michael Collenette: March 31, 1977 (000,000's)	March 31, 1978	March 31, 1979	March 31, 1980$8,147.8	$9,041.9	$10,092.7	$ 11,200 (estimated)9.16 per cent	8.95 per cent	9.95 per cent	11.45 per cent7.35 per cent	7.61 per cent	7.95 per cent	8.24 per cent$205.2	$344.8	$501.5	$640 (estimated)7.63 per cent	8.0 per cent	9.88 per cent	1 3.63 per cent
There is no distinction made in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account between the rate of interest on new money and the weighted average rale: Rather the rate of interest credited on the entire balance changes quarterly in accordance with the currently outstanding five year bond rate.
(b) Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA):
Date
CFSA	Acturial Account
Total
31-3-75
31-3-77
31-3-79
2,045,491,841.99 2,116,679,314.41 2,186,562,695.73 2,263,362,998.98 2,333,892,449.03 2,395,774,484.40 2,418,581,637.72
3,059,808,851.27
3,655,451,539.68
4,270,267,250.56
4,742.803,872.70
5.204.825.818.72 5,678,838,368.32
6.134.912.849.72
The rates of interest pertaining to CFSA were as follows:
5,105,300,693.26
5,772,130,854.09
6,456,829,946,29
7,006,166,871.68
7,538,718,267.75
8.074,612,852.72
8,553,494,487.44
1973-74:	Quarter ending 30-6-73-1.5042 per cent
"	"	30-9-73-1.5252	per cent"	"	31-12-73-1.5364	per cent"	"	31-3-74-1.5490	per cent1974-75:	Quarter ending 30-6-74-1	.5642 per cent" " 30-9-74-1	.59 per cent" " 31-12-74-1	.6259 per cent" " 31-3-75-1	.6363 per cent1975-76:	Quarter ending 30-6-75-1	.6612 per cent" " 30-9-75-1	.6724 per cent" " 31-12-75-1	.7109 per cent" " 31-3-76-1	.7209 per cent1976-77:	Quarter ending 30-6-76-1	.7471 per cent" " 30-9-76-1	.7488 per cent" " 31-12-76-1	.7707 per cent" " 31-3-77-I	.7891 percent
May 21, 1980

Order Paper Questions
1977-78:
1978-79:
1979-80:
Quarter ending 30-6-77-1	.8102 per cent	June" " 30-9-77-1	1.8204 per cent	July" " 31-12-77-1	1.8372 per cent	Aug." " 31-3-78-1	1.8508 per cent	Sept.Oct.Quarter ending 30-6-78-1	1.8674 per cent	Nov." " 30-9-78-	1.9102 per cent	Dec." " 31-12-78-	1.9228 per cent	" " 31-3-79-	1.9304 per cent	1979	6561979	4981979	4671979	7021979	4481979	5621979	3,356Total for 1979	8,502Quarter ending 30-6-79-1.9528 per cent "	"	30-9-79-1.9702 per cent"	** 31-12-79-1.9998 percent
The following numbers of people started to receive benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act when their deferred annuities became payable under the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Mr. Herbert: For the year (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979, how many new pensioners received, each month, public service superannuation, Canadian forces superannuation and supplementary retirement benefits?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by Treasury Board and the Department of National Defence as follows:
Number of New Pensioners in receipt of Benefits under the PSSA-Immediate Annuities, Annual Allowances,
Month and Year	Deferred Annuities
Jan.	1977	133Feb.	1977	209March	1977	265April	1977	499May	1977	358June	1977	466July	1977	599Aug.	1977	460Sept.	1977	492Oct.	1977	644Nov.	1977	488Dec.	1977	3,013 Total for 1977 7,626 Number of New Pensioners in receipt of Benefits under the PSSA-Immediate Annuities, Annual Allowances,Month and Year	Deferred AnnuitiesJan.	1978	141Feb.	1978	369March	1978	321April	1978	532May	1978	423June	1978	487July	1978	634Aug.	1978	566Sept.	1978	743Oct.	1978	468Nov.	1978	566Dec.	1978	3,605 Total for 1978 8,855Jan.	1979	169Feb.	1979	242March	1979	543April	1979	382May	1979	4771977	1978	1979Jan.	55	47	51Feb.	41	44	32March	45	53	40April	49	41	47May	44	53	47June	38	56	62July	41	40	38Aug.	41	53	47Sept.	40	53	37Oct.	48	41	52Nov.	29	49	66Dec.	50	45	59Total	521	575	578
For those in receipt of immediate annuities or annual allowances under the Public Service Superannuation Act, benefits became payable under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act in the January following the initiation of payment of the annuity or allowance.
January 1977	January 1978 January 1979	January 19806,805	7,105	8,280	7,924
For new Canadian forces superannuation (CFSA) pensioners and supplementary retirement benefits (SRBA) pensioners on CFSA for years (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979-
			New CFSA	New SRBA
Month	and Year	Pensioners	BenefitsJan.	1977	188	547Feb.	1977	288	184March	1977	283	227April	1977	440	210May	1977	295	225June	1977	316	207July	1977	306	187Aug.	1977	368	201Sept.	1977	343	211Oct.	1977	408	267Nov.	1977	445	242Dec.	1977	419	201Total for 1977	4,099	2,909Jan.	1978	311	598Feb.	1978	338	221March	1978	311	232April	1978	309	229May	1978	260	204June	1978	235	214July	1978	243	176Aug.	1978	321	215Sept.	1978	318	258Oct.	1978	427	190Nov.	1978	370	219Dec.	1978	446	214Total for 1978	3,889	2,970
80086 - 10

Order Paper Questions
Month and	Year	New CFSA Pensioners	New SRBA BenefitsJan.	1979	283	627Feb.	1979	325	219March	1979	240	237April	1979	305	212May	1979	385	237June	1979	240	199July	1979	321	177Aug.	1979	295	192Sept.	1979	330	258Oct.	1979	532	460Nov.	1979	455	238Dec.	1979	387	186Total for 1979	4,098	3,242
New pensioners includes release personnel, widows and children on education allowances.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Department of Veterans Affairs	1	Justice Department
Bureau of Pension Advocates	38
Pension Review Board	1


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of the Environment?


John (Moody) Roberts: There are five lawyers on staff. These lawyers are seconded from the Department of Justice.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Supply and Services for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past Five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the national capital region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.	76.
2.	(a) 76;
(b)	Nil;
(c)	Nil.
May 21, 1980
3.	14.
4.	$609,779.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Since the 1977 flight test, in which an Air New Zealand DC-10 encountered structural damage, has the Department of Transport test flown the DC-10 aircraft to determine if it should qualify for a certificate of airworthiness and, if so (a) on what dates (b) with what results?
2.	Since May 25, 1979, did the department conduct test flights, inspections or investigations of the engine, pylon, wing mounts on DC-10 aircraft operating in Canada and, if so, of what type?
3.	What, if any, standards additional to the U.S. certificate of airworthiness, has the department included in its type approval of the DC-10 aircraft?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
(a)	On August 4 and 5, 1978.
(b)	Flight test results were satisfactory. It was demonstrated that, at the revised minimum speed limitations proposed by the company, there was a strong and effective deterrent to further speed reduction. Prior analysis and flight tests by the company had established that damage would not occur to the elevators if these limitations were observed.
2.	Yes. Engineers and technical inspectors of the department witnessed inspections of the engine, pylon, wing mounts conducted by the Canadian company which operated DC-10 aircraft. In addition, an engineer and a technical inspector of the department participated in the United States Federal Aviation Administration's review of the DC-10 design, manufacture and maintenance.
3.	The Canadian type approval of the DC-10 includes the following in addition to the U.S. federal aviation administration requirements:
(a)	Incorporation of Spoiler System SCN C27602-02 dated, August 1, 1974;
(b)	Incorporation of second stick shaker, SCN C34161-4 dated, April 6, 1972;
(c)	Incorporation in the Aircraft Flight Manual of the revised minimum speed limitations referred to in the answer to question 1 (b).
McDonnell douglas-dc-9


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Did McDonnell Douglas inform Air Canada three years ago to either modify the tail end of its DC-9 aircraft or to inspect regularly for cracks in tail areas and, if so, did the department change the standards required to meet its type approval of the DC-9?
2.	Have any cracks or defects Been found in the fuselages of DC -9 aircraft operating in Canada during the past five years and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were similar to the one that caused the tail cone of a DC-9 to fall off an Air Canada flight near Boston in September 1979?
May 21, 1980

{English]


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. McDonnell Douglas informed Air Canada through a McDonnell Douglas service bulletin, dated May 25, 1976, to inspect regularly for cracks or modify the tail areas of DC-9s. The department did not change the standards required to meet the type approval as the above inspections and modifications were not due to any deficiency in the standards.
2. Some cracks and defects have been found in DC-9 fuselages in the last five years.
(a)	During the service life of a fleet of aircraft scheduled inspections of the aircraft are carried out in accordance with the maintenance instructions.
It is not unusual to find some cracks and defects. These are monitored and repaired as required, and records are kept.
From design knowledge and experience with a fleet of aircraft, the operator and manufacturer have knowledge of the areas where cracks and defects are prevalent, and as well as inspecting the total aircraft, concentrate on these areas. Counting the cracks and defects found in a fleet of aircraft over the years would be very time consuming and serve no useful purpose. A typical inspection of one aircraft could generate up to 500 inspection tickets.
In summary, numerous cracks will have been found over the years, but the exact number is not available without undertaking the monumental task of reviewing the documentation for the DC-9 fleet of 43 aircraft.
(b)	No cracks similar to the one that caused the tail cone to come off were found prior to the accident. Post accident inspections revealed three similar cracks in the remaining Air Canada fleet of DC-9s.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 ask 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.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, it is my intention at this time to introduce a motion under Standing Order 26, followed by a very brief statement in support of this serious motion. 1 ask leave of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the agricultural drought, which might properly be described as a continental drought, which includes the major portions of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the interior of British Columbia.
It is imperative that the implications of this developing disaster, now reaching critical proportions, and the appropriate remedial actions which could be taken, be considered on an urgent basis by the government and the House.
I should like to make a few brief comments about this very serious motion which I have just moved. To begin with, I would say that an agricultural drought in western Canada is not unusual in itself, but after many, many years and many droughts I believe I know that this one is somewhat different, and I want to explain why.
It is most unusual because it is so widespread, spreading from the interior of British Columbia across the three prairie provinces to the east side of Manitoba. It is only a part of the north American continental drought which includes all the northern American states and the portion known as the northwest corn belt in the United States. It extends much farther north in Canada than any previous drought, including the ten-year drought in the 1930s in which I was very much involved.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, and the House, that the last emergency debate dealing with an agricultural matter under Standing Order 26 took place on October 31, 1974, when the subject matter was the beef cattle market price situation. I am sure there are members in the House who will recall that that debate was precipitated by a dramatic slaughter of Holstein bull calves shown in living colour on television cameras and taking place somewhere in the province of Quebec.
It was over three years ago that the last debate on drought took place in this House during a Conservative opposition day on May 3, 1977. On both these occasions the prevailing agricultural crisis was not nearly as serious and as widespread as the present highly critical situation, and I mean that most sincerely. That situation involves the entire western grain industry where, in many cases, the seeding of spring grains has ceased because of lack of moisture in the soil. It includes the grass and feed sector so necessary for our cattle industry covering 45 million acres in western Canada, and it even includes the northern forest fire situation which is so critical. That is another extension of this serious drought.

May 21, 1980
Finally, there has been no appreciable soil moisture since early last fall, and it is definitely true that in the winter we have just been through there was indeed a drought. What 1 am so concerned about is that we came through a winter with no moisture in our soil to show for it, and I see definite parallels to the situation that prevailed in the 1930s. 1 see a situation building up which could last even a few years, and that would be sheer disaster at this time. 1 know the situation is in Madam Speaker's hands and your hands only, but 1 feel there is some urgency here which warrants the special debate 1 am asking for at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) for notice of his intention to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 26. He has given proper notice to the Chair of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this Standing Order.
As the hon. member knows, the Standing Order provides that the Speaker shall decide whether or not the matter which he raised is proper to be discussed at this time. I have looked carefully at the conditions set out in Standing Order 26 and in the precedents. While the matter, of course, is very important and of public interest, in my view it is not a sudden emergency.
Like my predecessors, I must consider that a proper matter to be raised under the provisions of Standing Order 26 must relate to a genuine emergency. The situation described by the hon. member is of a developing nature. In fact those are the very words used by the hon. member himself.
In support of what 1 have just said, may 1 refer members to a similar situation which occurred on June 27, 1961, when the then leader of the opposition, the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, moved a similar motion concerning the drought conditions prevailing at that time in western Canada and where Mr. Speaker Michener ruled that the matter could be brought up through some other procedures. The situation referred to by the hon. member in the precedent that he invoked was, in my view, somewhat different from the one that we are experiencing now.
In this instance I am sure the hon. member knows that the matter can be raised in committee where the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are currently under study, and of course, also there are other ways for the hon. member to bring this important matter before the House. Therefore 1 must rule with regret-because I know a lot of members in this House share his concern over the situation which is prevailing in western Canada-that the matter is not a proper one for debate under Standing Order 26.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, regarding the interpretation of Standing
Order 26, I wish to draw your attention to section (3) which states, 1 quote:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the member shall rise in his place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this order.
So if one considers the statement which was made today, Madam Speaker, first it seems to me that it was not presented without argument, on the contrary, and that it was much too long. I would not want the House to get used to tolerating such lengthy and argumentative statements when motions of this kind are proposed. I simply want my objection to the way in which this matter has been approached today, to be officially recorded. In my opinion the statement was much too lengthy and contained arguments contrary to the provisions of section (3) of Standing Order 26 and I would not like this situation to happen again.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I thought you had made your ruling, but I cannot sit still with respect to the intervention by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). It has always been the practice in this House for a member raising a motion under Standing Order 26 to speak- indeed the Chair has invited the mover to speak briefly to the urgency-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not since 1968.


Erik Nielsen: -to the urgency of the subject matter he raises in the motion itself, to assist the Chair in coming to a decision as to that very urgency.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for his remarks. 1 am not all that clear as to how lengthy the intervention of a member can be when he raises a matter under Standing Order 26. Today, however, I insisted on listening to the hon. member because I wanted to understand fully his reasons for attributing to this matter a sense of urgency.
Now I recognize with the hon. minister that perhaps the hon. member extended a little his arguments to the situation existing in western Canada rather than limiting them in fact in a very narrow way to the reasons which justify the urgency. However, 1 listened to him to be more enlightened, but I take the minister's remarks in good part.
May 21, 1980



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Monique Bégin: that Bill C-16, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
She said: Madam Speaker, on January 15, 1980, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who was then the leader of the opposition, announced a major part of our electoral program, namely, an increase of $35 per household in the monthly guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens.
Today we are giving second reading to Bill C-16, which I think is very appropriate after yesterday's referendum vote of Quebeckers in favour of Canada. This bill illustrates one of the roles of the federal government for Canadians, namely, the redistribution of wealth which, because it varies according to economic times, plays in favour of every Canadian wherever he or she lives in Canada at one point or another in our history.
As many members sitting here today will recall, this is not the first time that we have brought before the House a bill very similar in nature to Bill C-16. Just over a year and a half ago, we discussed and passed unanimously, if 1 remember well, Bill C-20 which gave senior citizens receiving the G1S supplement and living alone an increase of $20 a month, which was divided for couples, each receiving $10 a month. Today's bill presents the same characteristics except that the amount of money is different. It is far more generous than the earlier one, but it serves the same purpose. It narrows the poverty gap in Canada, of course, for senior citizens in this particular case. In other words, it improves the economic situation of those elderly Canadians who are in the greatest need.
We decided that of all those in need of assistance in Canada right now, priority should be given to those most in need, that is, the beneficiaries of the guaranteed income supplement program and the spouse's allowance program.

1 think that all hon. members know that the old age pension supplement is paid to pensioners who receive the basic universal pension but who do not have any other income or who only have a small income in addition to their basic pension. The supplement is also paid to the spouse of a pensioner, aged 60 to 65, when the couple is in need. In other words, those who get the old age security pension supplement need some help and experience difficulty in making both ends meet. Of course, for several years now, more specifically since 1973, the old age security pension and its supplement are indexed every three months. But the fact remains that this is not an increase. Indexing is merely a means of keeping the pension up to date and protecting the purchasing power of the dollar or the income supplement.
Old Age Security Act
At the present time in Canada single pensioners, that is persons who are seperated, divorced, single, widowers or widows, are guaranteed a monthly income of $340.15. By guaranteed, I mean that if a pensioner, man or woman, in Canada depends exclusively on public funds to live and has not other personal income, he or she will get, under the law, $340.15 a month from the federal government. If that person has other income, for instance, interest from a savings account or a pension under the Quebec Pension Plan of the corresponding Canadian plan, then he or she can have a total income exceeding the guaranteed minimum. And that, due to the fact that instead of suddenly cutting off the pensioners from the guaranteed income, we have through the years adopted a scale to which people conform and through which we check the amount of their additional income. I believe everyone knows the rules of the game, that is, for every dollar of additional income from sources other than the old age pension, the pensioner loses 50 cents of the guaranteed income while naturally keeping the other 50 cents.
The amounts guaranteed the aged who are in need are clearly inadequate. On an annual basis, the amount guaranteed by our old age security programs, that is, the basic pension plus the old age supplement combined, represents roughly 80 per cent of the amount Statistics Canada defines as the poverty line. There is no doubt that an income which is slightly lower than 80 per cent of the poverty line is not acceptable in a country as rich as ours and is certainly not enough to live on decently.
The officials of my department estimate that there are approximately 700,000 single, widowed and divorced GIS recipients of the supplement to the pension who are living in poverty. Fully 60 per cent of them are women. Let me refer to a recent report by the National Council of Welfare describing what life is like for these women.


An hon. Member:: That's my line.


Monique Bégin: You had the same in your speech, and that is very good. I am speaking of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), my predecessor, because it is really important in today's Canada, it seems to me, to impress upon people again and again the effect of poverty, which is unfortunately often forgotten.
In this report we have one part of the testimony of a 67-year old "Mary S.", who said:
"I'll tell you what it's like being an old woman alone who's only got the government pension to live on . . . It's wearing out your second-hand shoes going from one store to another trying to find the cheapest cuts of meat. It's hating having to buy toilet tissue or soap or tooth paste, because you can't cat it. It's picking the marked-down fruits and vegetables from the half-rotting stuff in the back of the stores that used to be given away to farmers to feed their animals. "We live in fear. Fear of the future, or more illness, less money, less pride. Fear that the cheque won't arrive and we won't be able to work our way through the red tape in time to pay our rent. Fear that we will run out of food before the next cheque comes in.*'

May 21, 1980
Old Age Security Act
There is no need to say that this is not acceptable to me, and it is not acceptable to the Government of Canada that persons who have given all their lives to working hard, to raising families and to building this country, should have to live this way. It is not acceptable, and that is why this bill is among the very first items to be brought before this session of Parliament.
I know there will be some persons who will say that the situation is not as bad as I have portrayed it. They will say that not all single, widowed and divorced GIS recipients have incomes below the poverty level. Of course, it is true that those who have some outside income and who receive what we call a partial GIS, or a partial supplement, may have in total an income that takes them just above the poverty line. But, it is also true that many single pensioners do not have such outside income. The fact that there are 700,000 GIS recipients in poverty is proof of this. We must help these 700,000 elderly Canadians as well as those who are just at or above the poverty line, under which I am sure none of us would like to live. [Translation]
So the increase of $35 a month proposed in Bill C-16 will allow us to help them. Of course, the amount of money-and I anticipate, of course, the unanimous agreement of all parties- voted by the House of Commons, the amount of $35, will be added to the cheque for the month of July of unattached pensioners, that is single, separated, divorced, and widowed pensioners. So the cheque for the month of July will include the basic old age pension payment, the present supplement, the quarterly indexing-because July 1 is a date of quarterly indexing-and a full $35. I do want to make that clear for all those who are listening. I wpuld add that couples receiving a supplement, whether part or all of the supplement, will have $17.50 each added to their cheque, which makes a total of $35 for a couple.
So, in making that adjustment, what are we doing in terms of fighting poverty since that is the concept underlying this bill? In paying that supplement, we are bringing single pensioners receiving a supplement to their old age pension to about 83 per cent of what is called the poverty line. That is not ideal; there will remain a gap to be filled that we will indeed fill as soon as the economy gets going again. But it is still important to know that this year the July increase will bring single pensioners to about 83 per cent of the poverty line while next year will bring them to 85 per cent of the same poverty line since people will be getting it during the whole year, not only part of the year as in 1980, and it will be indexed every three months.
Now, with respect to couples, here is how the bill will affect their lives. Couples receive a guaranteed income, that is guaranteed for all those who do not have other sources of income, of $628.62 a month. So one can say that their income is equal to the poverty line; it is not below the poverty line like in the case of single pensioners, it is right at the poverty line-one could say that they are 100 per cent at the poverty line. The increase of $35 a couple or $17.50 for each pensioner will
bring them slightly above the poverty line, or about 3 per cent above what is considered the poverty line. Couples will therefore receive an annual guaranteed income of $8,162 beginning in July. It is easy to see from the tables of Statistics Canada that this amount is slightly above the poverty line. 1 believe that we can conclude on this point that bringing these people just above the poverty line is a very modest recognition of the role they have played in Canadian society. We are not talking about a luxury, but about a standard of living that none of us would ever accept and tiiat we are constantly trying to improve.
1 therefore think that I have explained how the life of single people and of couples will be improved beginning in July. I could add for clarification purposes that those who now receive the spouse's allowance will also receive the supplementary amount provided by this bill. Hon. members will immediately note that couples are treated differently from single people. Why is this? Does this constitute discrimination? I do not think so. During consideration of the previous bill a year and a half ago, we introduced for the first time the concept that couples would receive the equivalent of half of the amount proposed for single people. In other words, couples receive for both spouses the same as single persons. Why is this? The history of old age security pensions in Canada shows that, throughout the years, as our policy has developed, we have treated pensioners as individuals. It is now recognized that families have special budget problems and that a single person needs about two-thirds of the budget of a couple and not half as it was long believed. We must therefore increase proportionately the pensions of single persons, which explains the differentiation made in this bill.
Now that I have defined the basic amounts granted to pensioners and what this will mean in the fight against poverty in Canada, 1 believe that it is important to note that since we are increasing the cheques of all recipients of the old age supplement, whether this supplement be total or partial, we are automatically changing the income scale against which private income must be compared to determine whether a recipient is eligible for the supplement or not. By raising the income scale for all Canadian pensioners we automatically allow, as happened in 1979 with the previous hike, some 45,000 pensioners who do not now get the supplement because their meagre revenues are slightly above mark, to become eligible for part of the supplement. I would therefore invite Canadians who will be made aware of that by a special stuffer sent with the July cheque, if they have very low incomes, to see whether they will become eligible for a monthly supplement which, of course, in their cases will be less than $35 a month because it will be a matter of making up for their very slight income deficiency.
May 21, 1980

I shall now describe the cost of the bill which we are debating. Bill C-16 increases the supplement to pensioners by $35 per month. The cost in the first year of operation will be $345 million in addition to the regular program costs of the old age security program in the fiscal year 1980-81. In the first full fiscal year, 1981-82, the additional cost will be approximately $525 million.
The federal government is not the only source of financial assistance to elderly Canadians. It is fair to say that more and more provinces are introducing supplementary programs to assist elderly Canadians. Does this bill affect such programs and what is the relationship between the provincial programs and the federal program? When this House debated Bill C-20 a year and a half ago, hon. members of all parties learned for the first time that, in order to make sure that elderly Canadians living in provincial institutions around the country receive the full benefit of this increase which we are discussing today, a positive decision must be made in that direction by each provincial government.
Consequently, I have written to my provincial counterparts asking that they ensure that pensioners who receive what is called "provincial top-up payments" receive the full benefit of our federal increase. At the same time I have also urged that this principle apply, as far as is possible, in relation to the so called "comforts allowances" availalble to pensioners residing in institutions. I am pleased to inform the House that the government of British Columbia and the government of Nova Scotia-a province on the Atlantic coast and a province on the Pacific coast-have advised me that they will be passing on the full increase to all GIS recipients.
We are pleased and hopeful that the other provinces will respond to my appeal in a similar manner. There is no need to say that I will do everything in my power to guarantee that all Canadians eligible for the GIS or the spouse's allowance will benefit from this increase.

This matter is very serious indeed and I feel I have a duty to impress upon the House the need for a common approach throughout Canada and in every political party, because it is a fact of our democratic life that no single party represents each and every Canadian province, in order to settle the unfortunate situation of income pensioners living in institutions in various provinces.
Let us take for instance my own province of Quebec. Should the Quebec government-which, unfortunately, like seven other provinces, has yet to answer-decide in cabinet not to give the full $35 by increasing the comfort allowance, that province will pocket some $7 million of pensioners' money.
I think that that is quite serious and that members from all provinces should question the slowness which seems to exist everywhere, in order to encourage the provinces to take the proper decision so that pensioners residing in institutions can
Old Age Security Act
benefit directly from the increase provided by this bill concerning the guaranteed income supplement.

I guess it is fair to say that passage of Bill C-16 will present an important step toward assuring all Canada's elderly of the adequate income to which they should be entitled. It is not the only step we intend to take and, as I said, it is not the final step we have to take. Some money will still be missing to bring people living alone above the poverty line. An annual injection of more than half a billion dollars into the incomes of senior citizens in Canada who are in need is an important additional step toward narrowing the gap and relieving poverty in our country.
[DOT] -l
We should like, as we announced in the Speech from the Throne, to convene a national pensions conference, hopefully in the fall, and we would like this conference to bring together representatives of all the economic partners involved in the pension field. I am thinking of the private pension field in particular. There are the federal and provincial governments as employers and legislators, the private pension industry, Canadian workers and their employers, pension groups and other interested parties in this country. We want to know their views on the urgent pension problems facing the country and we want to discuss the issues of concern to them.
We have about one dozen very good reports and we are waiting for the Ontario royal commission report which was due some time ago. It is coming, and I understand it will be so thorough that it may comprise ten volumes. We will have from different sources, from the Ontario government, the Quebec government with the Cofirentes, from the Economic Council of Canada, the National Welfare Council and many other sources, such as the Lazar report, a reservoir of ideas that we must air together and discuss, delineating the avenues through which the whole pension system in Canada can be upgraded to ensure that senior citizens not only have the minimum-which we do not think is enough-but that when they reach the age of 65 they have the good life that they have slowly built through the latter part of their lives.
In concluding my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the co-operation of members of all parties for rapid passage of what I am sure is an uncontroversial bill, Bill C-16. It is only a beginning in this new session of Parliament, a concrete start toward the fulfilment of a promise for a better quality of life for the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, today follows a very historic day in which the people of Quebec decided that their future was with Canada and decided to nurture their roots dating back more than a century. I want to say to the senior citizens who made this country that they can be assured and proud that we decided yesterday in my home province, Quebec, and all of Canada knows and is discussing this vote today, to keep the heritage intact and to leave it in full to our children.

May 21, 1980
Old Age Security Act


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank you for the opportunity to intevene with respect to this piece of legislation. Like the minister and, indeed, all members of the Elouse, I am interested in its speedy passage. I do not think there is anyone who would oppose the bill. I should like also to associate myself with the remarks of the minister with respect to this being an example of the role of the federal government.
f was careful to note that throughout the referendum debate when questions of social policy came up, whether or not they should be shared responsibilities or the sole responsibility of a province or the federal government, very often people were quick to say that social policies ought to be with the provinces. I noticed during the referendum debate that the minister, and indeed the leader of the federalist forces in the province of Quebec, indicated on a number of occasions that it was concern for family allowances, old age security and social policies that come from the federal government, that weighed heavily on the minds of a number of people in the province. 1 think it would be worth while keeping an eye on what happens to social policy over the next couple of years with respect to constitutional talks.
I am one of those who believe there is a proper and appropriate role for the federal government in the field of social policy, both for the amelioration of the range of incomes but more particularly in funding of specific social programs. I am not sure how many in this House agree with that view, but it was something I had hoped to hear the minister mention.
Toward the end of her comments the minister indicated the necessity of provincial co-operation so that there is not what is known in the social welfare legislation business as any "leakage" to the provinces. The minister is quite correct; that can be a problem. I wish her well in discussions with the provinces and if she needs assistance we will be happy to offer it. Everyone here wants to make sure that funds go to those who need them.
1 was careful to note what the bill means to numbers of people. This is a very impressive list of statistics. The $35 increase in the proposal would affect an estimated 721,000 single beneficiaries, 225,000 married couples where both are pensioners, 44,000 one-pensioner couples and 81,000 couples receiving the spouse's allowance-in total, approximately 1.1 million households would receive the $35 increase.
The proposed increase of $35 per household per month, effective July 1, 1980, will ultimately amount to $475 million.
1 think anyone reading those statistics would be impressed that $35 seemingly goes so far, and 1 have some comments to make in that regard. 1 think it is well to put the bill in some kind of perspective, and a historical perspective is always wise.
In 1967 when the GIS was introduced, a single individual received payments equal to 72.2 per cent of the poverty line. That is to say, when the GIS was first introduced we gave enough so that people were brought up to 72 per cent of the poverty line, or 28 per cent below it. That was 13 years ago.
In 1971 the GIS was increased by $20 per month. Without that increase an individual would have been at 68 per cent of the poverty line, but the increase brought him to 77 per cent of it. By 1978 individuals had fallen to 73.5 per cent of the poverty line with the low income they received from government pension plans. By April, 1979, with an increase of another $20 to the GIS, individuals were at 78.5 per cent of the poverty line. Had the boost not occurred, they would have been back down to 73 per cent. 1 am sure you could keep those figures in your head, Mr. Speaker, but others did not.
The point is clear. The indexing of the GIS does not work. That is why there needs to be a constant pumping in of fixed amounts of money. The $35 now and the $20 previously were not add-ons. In fact the total effect of the legislation since 1967 has been to maintain them below the poverty line and have their heads just above water. I know the minister is interested in bringing them up to the poverty line, and even beyond in the case of marrieds in the plan.
The fact is that the way in which we have gone about the implementation of the GIS over 13 years, every time we increased it, it has been purely to keep them where they were at and marginally more. The minister chose her words when she said "narrowing the poverty line". Narrowing is exactly what it is. That is not the fault of the minister, but until we find another way in which to index the GIS, we are not going to see those add-ons as doing little more than simply maintaining what we have got. What we have got, as the minister indicated, are thousands of people below the poverty line, and in this particular instance most of them women.
It is time that the ministry, the department and any incumbent minister gave thought to changing the index that is used for the GIS. The consumer price index, which is the index that is used, does not any longer, if it ever did, have any relevance to the particular group of people we are talking about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Thank you. Let me emphasize that if I can. If you look at the CPI March-April of this year, here is the breakdown for incomes. Think of all the people over the age of 65 that you know and have some sense of how they split up their budget. Food, 21.5 per cent; housing, 34.1 per cent-not in my city-clothing, 10.1 per cent; transportation, 15.8 per cent; health and dental care, 4 per cent; recreation and reading, 8.3 per cent; tobacco and alcohol, 6.2 per cent.
Whatever deficiencies the CPI may have or whatever value it may have as an index for other things, for people over the age of 65, indeed I would argue for people over the age of 55, those getting the GIS, whether we move it below 65 or maintain it at and above, we need a new index. The CPI does not fit our need any longer. The simple reason is that clothing, housing and food increase faster in our society than the other items in the CPI. It is those items on which older Canadians are more dependent.

Despite the welcoming of this bill, and I know hon. members will pass it in a hurry, it is wise to remember that it is simply not an add-on but is in fact required in order to keep up where we have been below the poverty line. Indeed, the index we use is no longer applicable. We should have a new index. I do not know what you would call it, but it should be one that takes into consideration the actual living realities of older Canadians and where they live.
There is another area I want to comment on with respect to the bill and with respect to some of the remarks made by the minister. I was not impressed with that part of the Speech from the Throne which called for a national pensions conference. Generally speaking, I am in favour of conferences. At best, they bring people together who share a common concern. They can exchange views. That is always worth while.
The reason I have difficulty applauding this particular conference is that it is going to take the place of something that is very important, that is, a comprehensive review of pensions and the issues that surround pensions. One of the things in the world of might-have-been's which 1 thought was useful, and hoped the new government would have carried on, was that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs had been empowered by all-party agreement to investigate and make recommendations to the House with respect to issues dealing with pensions generally, in short a comprehensive approach.
At that time, as I recall, there were a number of people, both privately and in the House I might add, who said, "More reports! More meetings! Where is the legislation? Why more reports?" 1 explained at that time, and 1 think it is still fair to say, that the purpose of the committee was not to create any new ones but to be able to synthesize those being done by a variety of other sources and bodies.
When the minister talks about the national pensions conference, 1 gather she sees that as the substitute for legislation. The first step to legislation was to put it in that standing committee. It seems that was the appropriate thing to do, because indeed the issues that surround pensions ought to be known to everyone now. An increase of $35 a month does not amount to a pensions policy, nor does the holding of a conference. The issues have to be dealt with. Those issues are as follows.
First, the actual on-street economic and financial situation for many older Canadians, both below and above 65 years of age, which they find themselves facing. The minister quoted, although she did not identify the page, from the report "Women and Poverty", a report by the National Council of Welfare. On page 12 of that report you will find a description of a 67-year-old woman known as Mary S. It really is a good insight into the kind of reality these people face. It points out that the biggest enemy for these people is not fear but loneliness. Other than that, there is a very good description of what it is like for many, many thousands of Canadians. I quote from the report:
-most poor women who live alone are over the age of 55. While a few are low-income women who never married and others are divorced or separated
Old Age Security Act
women getting inadequate support payments, the majority are widows who were left with very little on which to live after their husbands' death.
Here is the key, Mr. speaker. "In Canada, two out of every three elderly widows have incomes which are below the poverty line." I do not think it needs to be embellished as the first issue, as the description of the reality of where older Canadians exist. That says it, and no amount of statistics or reports will change that fact.
Second, somewhat implied by the first, is the level of protection provided to women by the pension system. The level of protection by both public and private pensions in this country is abysmal. Indeed, the Lazar report which was started some three years ago is a very lengthy report containing a number of recommendations as to what ought to be done with respect to pension systems, both public and private, for women in our society. Let me put it another way. If you want to be poor in this country, be old and be female, because your chances will increase dramatically and no amount of statistics will change that, either.
Third, the performance of the private sector. That is a strong issue, I think, because we have to do two things; we have to assess that performance as the Lazar report and some others too, and we also have to take that performance and measure it against the public systems which are available. While I am on that subject I might add that when we are talking about the performance of those private pensions we need, now as never before, a review of the Canada Pension Plan itself not only in relation to how we "access women" to it but, indeed, what we ought to do in the future in terms of its funding. This is a matter which is fast coming upon us-by the mid-eighties if we do not deal with it soon. Or, like too many things in this country, we will find we are playing catch-up ball with our own ball and bat.
The fourth issue is the introduction of greater flexibility in the age of retirement. That is one of the minister's reports coming in, I gather, from the Senate. Its progress is painfully slow but it is still coming from the Senate. I think it is part of the Croll report. Any policy which envisages flexibility with regard to mandatory retirement at the age of 65 will be welcomed by many people for a variety of reasons, and I do not think the minister need worry about the kind of support she might get in bringing forward a policy of that type.
Fifth, and something which is not talked about very often in conjunction with pensions because it is so often dealt with as a separate category, is the position of the disabled and handicapped in relation to pensions, not only the amount of money but even more particularly, to the disincentive which occurs as year after year both provinces and country and, 1 might add, municipalities, have done their best to handicap the disabled because the way we go about the funding of those pensions in relation to handicapped people does just that.
Sixth, the protection offered families of deceased persons and, seventh, maintaining the purchasing power of the benefits which are paid out. I did not invent any of that, Mr. Speaker.

May 21, 1980
Old Age Security Act
All one has to do is to become somewhat acquainted with the literature and some easy reading will do it. Get acquainted with the literature and you will change your perspective of what you ought to be doing both in this House and as a politician. If you knock on any door, and I can think of them in my own riding as I am sure you can, Mr. Speaker, and look inside and see how older Canadians are spending their days, you will know that not only should this bill be passed quickly but that the issues which I have listed ought not to be only the topics of another conference but that they should be brought forward to the House very quickly to be passed into law, pieces of legislation which would make us more proud than we ought to be today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) in the debate on Bill C-16.
I should like at the outset to congratulate the minister on her reappointment to this important portfolio, as indeed I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosedale on the good job he tried to do during the short time in which he was head of the Department of National Health and Welfare. We in our party sometimes like to give the impression that we are the only ones who have progressives or persons who are interested in the well-being of our fellow citizens, but there are a few in the other parties who have a proper perspective, and I am prepared to say today that 1 know of at least one in each of the other parties.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has shown that she is a small "1" liberal and that she is interested in social policies. Likewise, when he was in the cabinet during the Thirty-first Parliament, the hon. member for Rosedale got the label of being one of the Red Tories, and that is said affectionately. We are all pleased that the hon. member's health has been restored and we wish him well as he continues to be a member of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I associate myself also with the tone of certain remarks which both previous speakers made. Knowing, as they did, that this is the day after May 20, each of them pointed out that there are certain things we would not have in this country, certainly things that Canadians would not have from coast to coast, were it not for a strong federal government. Old age pensions, family allowances, medicare-just imagine what would be the plight of our people in relation to these programs if they had all been left to individual provinces. It took a national consensus brought to bear on national government to bring these things into being and they are examples of the fact that it is really worth while to have a national government, that it is really worth while to be Canadians.
I am also interested in the extent to which both the hon. members who have spoken ahead of me discussed the level of pensions as it relates to the poverty line. The Minister of
National Health and Welfare said that the whole aim of this bill, which she treats as interim legislation, is to narrow the gap between the income of pensioners and the poverty line. The hon. member for Rosedale recognized that as its goal but expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that it does not go very far toward closing that gap. As a matter of fact, I think it is high time-and 1 go along with the hon. member for Rosedale in this-that we found some other way of deciding the level of pensions than by relating them to the consumer price index.
1 say in all fairness to the hon. member for Rosedale that when he was minister of national health and welfare and I complained to him about the consumer price index not being a proper basis for the indexing of pensions, he agreed with me and said he would have the matter studied. In fact some studies did come out of that exchange, but I think we in this House ought to be hanging our heads in shame when it is being said here today that our pensioners for the most part are living below the poverty line.
The hon. member for Rosedale referred to times when it got down to 72 per cent or 68 per cent of the poverty line. The Minister of National Health and Welfare boasts that this legislation will bring certain of our pensioners up to 80 per cent of the poverty level and that, perhaps down the line a bit, they might even reach 85 per cent. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, in a mood of expansiveness, got to one point where she said that down the line somewhere married couples might even have 103 per cent of the poverty level. I would like to know how she arrived at that figure. It seemed to me that she was escalating the pension by the July 1 change which will take place, but she has overlooked the fact that the poverty line will probably have gone up in the meantime, so the likelihood of our getting the mass of our pensioners-50 per cent or 60 per cent of them-above the poverty line by this bill, or by anything that is before this session of Parliament, is very slim.
1 should like to suggest very strongly that we should turn our backs on this idea of pensioners being below the poverty line and that we should build into our legislation a requirement that no pensioner shall have anything less than 125 per cent of the poverty level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is wrong with that? It is not good enough just to keep people at the poverty level, just to keep our old people alive. It is not good enough to say we are bringing them up to 80 per cent, 85 per cent or even to 103 per cent. Surely that implies just keeping them alive as animals, as it were. These are human beings we are talking about. These are Canadians who have given their life's service to this country and who have built the country, and surely they are entitled not just to enough to keep them alive. Surely they are entitled to some measure of the enjoyment of life as they have made it possible.
May 21, 1980

1 remind the Elouse that we do use other indices in some cases. I put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) today about the rate of the disability pension. Actually, I was complaining that a formula which was arrived at in 1973 has not been made permanent and automatic. Nevertheless, the concept in the war disability pension is that the level of that pension for a 100 per cent disabled pensioner must be related to the average take-home pay of five designated categories in the public service. That formula does not talk about the consumer price index. That formula talks about a level of pay. Our problem is that in two or three years after it gets set it has slipped behind, but at least we have been able to persuade the government to introduce legislation to bring it up to date.
If i may mention another subject concerning which my remarks are not always popular, the subject of the pay of members of Parliament, we get an increase every January. Is it based on the consumer price index? No, it is based on the composite wage index, and we get up to 7 per cent if the composite wage index goes up to that point. So there are other arrangements and other payments which are based on something other than the consumer price index, and I agree with the hon. member for Rosedale that the use of that index for increasing pensions has been a failure. I have contended at times that part of the reason is that it is always behind. When you go back to get a three months' period two months ago and compare it with three months before that, and then get that increase a couple of months from now, you are getting an increase that the pensioners should have had six or eight months ago.
Another factor, of course, is that the consumer price index covers all the things which are in that package and is not directly related to the things pensioners have to buy. But even apart from those things I think the principle of indexing by the consumer price index-as though that solves the problem-is wrong. Of course, fundamentally the reason it is wrong is because the base was too low in the first place. But when I propose that the level of pensions should bear a relationship to the poverty line as established by Statistics Canada, we are at least talking about something which has some realism about it.
My colleague sitting next to me asked me a moment ago where this poverty line comes from, and 1 said to him, "Well, the poverty line that the other two speakers are using is the
Old Age Security Act
one published by Statistics Canada". It is, of course, the lowest of most of the poverty lines which are published. Ask any body of social workers or any group of social agencies in any of our cities for a poverty line. It will be a lot higher than the line put out by Statistics Canada. Senator Croll's committee over in the other place has established a poverty line a number of times and has updated it. All those poverty lines, as I say, are higher than the poverty line established by Statistics Canada.
That is one of the reasons I would not dare stand here and say that pensioners should be given a level of pension equal to the poverty line. That is just bare existence. It should be at least 125 per cent of the poverty line as set by Statistics Canada.
May I also point out that when Statistics Canada produces the poverty line, it does it for different kinds of areas. It does it for those who live in the rural parts of the country. It does it for those who live in small communities, small cities and small towns, and it moves up into the 100,000 to 500,000 cities and to the cities 500,000 and over. And, of course, the poverty line varies a great deal depending upon whether a pensioner is living in a rural area, in a small town, a medium-sized city, or in one of the larger cities of this country. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare will confirm, even with the increase she is now bringing in, this $35 increase per household, and even after the indexing takes place in July, it will still be a fact that for our single pensioners they will all be below Statistics Canada's poverty line for people in any of our urban areas.
Single persons who live out on farms or in rural areas may get pretty close to the poverty line by July 1, but the single people in our cities will still be below it. As for married couples, even though the improvement will be there so that some of them will reach the poverty line in smaller cities, if they live in Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Toronto or Montreal, they will still be below it.
Perhaps I can continue this next time, Mr. Speaker. 1 see that it is six o'clock.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 22, 1980