1980-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the deadline for the report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution which is now sitting. In order to avoid any misunderstanding with respect to it, I have given notice of this motion both to the House leadership of the government and of the NDP. The motion, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), reads:
That the terms of reference of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution be hereby amended so that the deadline for the committee's report shall be February 10, 1981, instead of December 9, 1980, and that a message be sent to the Senate asking it to concur in this motion.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of somewhat urgent and pressing concern. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) is at present preoccupied in his role as "Pierre of Arabia", the all-Canadian oil buyer, while oil exploration and development is grinding to a halt in his own country, and in view of the fact that he has been reported to have been seen in exotic regalia while he sits sifting sand, I would like to invite him, because obviously he enjoys wearing clothes of other lands, to come to British Columbia where we are anxious to present him with a costume of feathers held in place with tar.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Prime Minister come to British Columbia at his earliest convenience to receive this well deserved gift.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I also rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion along lines similar to that of the previous speaker. With over a million Canadians unemployed, with double-digit inflation, negative economic growth, an energy crisis and constitutional problems in the major provinces while vitally important constitutional discussions are taking place, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the picture of the Prime Minister of Canada dancing sheik-to-sheik, as it were, be attached to today's Hansard as living proof of the level of concern that this Prime Minister has for the pressing problems within this nation today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Maurice Bossy (Kent):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is widely known and respected by all Canadians-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Louis Bossy: -and in view of an article in the news media about his recent trip to western Canada and the continuing efforts of this distinguished Canadian to bring about better
4880

November 20, 1980
understanding among our citizens, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That this House commend the minister for his untiring efforts to communicate with his fellow citizens and nominate him as the best dressed man of the year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Canadian deficit within the U.S.-Canada auto pact has reached a staggering $15 billion since 1965 and that 25,000 Canadians have lost their jobs within the industry and hundreds of thousands more in associated industries, creating widespread bankruptcies within this vital sector of our economy, and because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), after having been so ineffective while the auto industry crumbled in front of his eyes, has seen fit to send a few officials to Washington merely to modify the auto pact, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to scrap the obsolete and inadequate auto pact so harmful to this country and attempt to replace it with a new package which would ensure that Canada receive its fair share of the assembly and production of fuel-efficient cars as well as parts and components manufactured in Canada for the so-called world car concept, and that during this transition period import quotas on offshore vehicles be imposed and an annual report of the over-all aspects of the auto industry in Canada be produced and tabled by the minister, as recommended in the Reisman report.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I trust the House will say "Yemen" to this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is negotiating with Arabians rather than with Canadians on oil prices, and instead of letting Imperial
Oil "dip" into public funds and "stick" it to the taxpayer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister stop his "whole lot of sheikin goin' on" over there and return to Canada at once, since the only Allah he should be dealing with is "Allah-berta".


Madam Speaker:: I wonder if there are many more of these urgent and pressing motions which require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the present method of voting in the House is time-consuming-the vote on the Bank Act took some two hours-and often results in votes going "on division" rather than having a formal vote, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the Chair and/or the government consider the possibility of installing an electronic voting system similar to the one employed at the United Nations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OIL PRICING AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas in Arabia the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is having an extravaganza dancing with the sheik "sheik-to-sheik", and buying Arabian oil at world prices; whereas in Canada businesses are slowing up, oil rigs are leaving, scores of Canadians are losing their jobs, and hunger and frustration are haunting Canadian fathers, mothers and children, all because our Prime Minister refuses to buy Canadian oil even at 75 per cent of world prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
That the Prime Minister return immediately to Canada and offer Canadian producing provinces a full agreement-not a piece-by-piece agreement as heretofore-in order to keep the money, the jobs and our businesses in Canada.
::

November 20, 1980


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The defence industry productivity program is designed to support selected research and development projects and to provide increased employment opportunities. This program now has a backlog of some 200 applications. The government encourages businesses to apply for reimbursement of 50 per cent of the cost of purchasing new equipment, only to find the program has no funds to meet the federal commitment. Given the fact that the failure of the federal government to meet its financial commitments will result in a large number of lay-offs in the defence industry, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That because of the obvious lack of influence in cabinet of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which resulted in his inability to get the necessary funds for his program which is now in the red by some $66 million, this House calls on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to do the honourable thing and resign his office in protest.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, in view of the discussion which started today at the closed Pacific Rim conference in Vancouver. Given the fact that dredging contracts for the proposed expansion of the Roberts Bank coal terminal to serve the Pacific Rim will be open to foreign contractors, which will mean an even greater loss of jobs to Canadian dredging companies and workers, and in view of the increased sell-out of our raw resources such as British Columbia coal, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) require that all jobs related to the Roberts Bank development go to Canadian workers and that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce, instead of selling off Canada's raw materials,
Oral Questions
establish a western industrial strategy to develop a steel mill in B.C. with secondary manufacturing, and that he also introduce legislation which will require Canadian exports to be shipped on ships built in Canada and manned by Canadians.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that already more than 100 Canadian organizations or individuals have applied to appear before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution. I wonder if he will tell the House why the Liberal members of that committee voted unanimously today against extending the reporting date of that committee?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think that is an extraordinary question. The members of the committee are entitled to discharge their own responsibilities. That is what they have done. 1 believe this is a question which casts a reflection on the action of the committee and it is quite unacceptable on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he feels no regret that countless Canadians, who want to have their views heard on the constitution, have been denied by a Liberal party vote the right to have their views heard. I wonder if the hon. gentleman will tell the House, as a matter of government policy, notwithstanding the unanimous party vote by the Liberals today designed to limit the capacity of the constitution committee to hear Canadians on the Canadian Constitution, whether the Government of Canada would still be prepared to consider an agreement among House leaders to extend the reporting date of that committee to February 10.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the right hon. gentleman is entitled to comment upon the conduct of the Liberal members on the committee, I might be permitted to comment on the conduct of opposition members who, in my view, are putting forward mischievous amendments at a time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 20, 1980
4882__________________________________
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -when the Leader of the Government in the House has already indicated his willingness to negotiate with members of the opposition in a flexible way with respect to the deadline to which the hon. gentleman has referred. That is the situation and it was stated in the House yesterday. Instead of waiting for these negotiations, the members of the opposition took a couple of hours this morning putting forward mischievous motions which could be dealt with in a better way, in accordance with the request made yesterday by the leader of the New Democratic Party who asked for negotiations on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We know the preference of the Deputy Prime Minister is to deal privately with questions which should be decided upon publicly. But we do not share his view at all that it is mischievous for the people of Canada to be given the right to be heard on their own constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. gentleman may know there has been an umbrella group formed under the signature of the Mayor of Ottawa, Marion Dewar, which represents women's organizations, native groups, various churches and poverty groups in the country, among others, which is asking that the unrealistic deadline of November 25 for submission either for written briefs or requests to be heard by the committee be changed to December 31. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether, as a matter of policy, the Government of Canada will accept that reasonable request by that umbrella group to extend the deadline for receipt of requests to be heard or written submissions to be made by Canadians who want to participate in decisions about our constitution to December 31 ?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we are as eager as hon. members opposite to give Canadian citizens an opportunity to present their views before the constitution committee. Yesterday the President of the Privy Council indicated that on this question he was prepared to be flexible, that he wanted to enter into arrangements with members of the opposition and that he was prepared to undertake negotiations with representatives of other parties in order to reach an agreement on this matter. So the government is flexible and is prepared to discuss the matter.
I do not accept the view of the Leader of the Opposition that it is up to the leader of the House, to him or to any one member to dictate the proceedings of that committee. Hon. members have been nominated by this House to sit on the committee. They are adults, they know their own minds and they are prepared to do their own work.


Mr. Beatty:: The Liberals refused.


THE COMMONWEALTH
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since Liberal members on the committee have refused to extend the deadline for witnesses to appear before the committee beyond December 9, 1980, I would like to pursue the question as to the lengths to which the government is prepared to go in forcing through its constitutional package unilaterally.
My question is with regard to Canada's membership in the Commonwealth. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be aware, the latest edition of Maclean's states:
British officials report that extreme pressure has been put on Thatcher by Canada, including even the threat of pulling out of the Commonwealth.
Would the minister tell the House who made that threat and under what circumstances?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I can unequivocally deny that the Canadian government has made any such threat or even any such suggestion to members of the British government or to anyone else.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister is only too well aware that reports such as this are given added credibility by the tactics used by the government of closure and arm twisting, all of which have been going on throughout the course of this matter. If the minister says that the threat of cutting our links with the Commonwealth would not apply, what were the extreme pressures which were brought to bear on the British government referred to in that article?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, no pressures were brought to bear on the British government and no threats were issued because none was necessary. In fact, the British government recognized, from the time of the first meeting on this subject between the two Prime Ministers, that there is a tradition as to how to handle requests coming from our Parliament by way of joint resolution. This tradition was acknowledged from the beginning, and there has never been any occasion for argument on either side about that tradition.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF IMPERIAL OIL COLD LAKE PROJECT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns his announcement yesterday that the government will bankroll Imperial Oil, the richest oil company in Canada and a subsidiary of Exxon Corporation of the United States, the biggest oil company in the world, to the tune of $40 million for the Cold Lake project. In view of the fact that Imperial Oil had profits of $2.4 billion from the years
November 20, 1980

1975 to 1980, profits of something like $493 million last year and an increase in profits in the first nine months of 1980 of 56 per cent over last year, in view of all the money made by this rich company, why is it necessary for the Government of Canada to give the company an extra $40 million? Why could the company not raise its own money to continue the work at Cold Lake?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, there is a very simple reason. I agree that Imperial Oil is a wealthy and powerful company, but it has already spent $120 million on this particular project. For reasons which are well known, the government of Alberta has delayed over the last three years the approval of this project which, in our view, is a very important project if we are to achieve our goal of national autonomy or independence of oil supply.
Rather than see the team of 550 engineers and experts disbanded and this project shelved and abandoned indefinitely, it was felt it would be much better at this time, to ensure that the team would be kept together, to advance the money necessary over the next six months, shoved between the two governments preferably. Since I do not know whether Alberta is going to come up with its share, we said we would provide the full advance if they do not. If the project does proceed, the loan will be repaid with interest by Imperial Oil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: And if the project does not proceed, the government will throw away $40 million, I gather. I do not think the minister and hon. members opposite understand this.
I note that the whole basis of the national energy policy is to Canadianize the industry. What is the first act of Canadiani-zation, Madam Speaker? To give $40 million to Imperial Oil. Imperial Oil has stated that it considers the $38 per barrel oil price offered by the federal government too low to allow the project to proceed. Would the minister not admit that he has boxed himself into a corner? If he wants the $40 million back, he will have to agree with Imperial Oil on the Cold Lake Project as to what the final price will be.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I should like to tell the hon. member that I have already had discussions with Imperial Oil about a very substantial expansion of Canadian participation in the Cold Lake project. Obviously it would appear that this project that is at the present time overwhelmingly foreign owned will end up having a very much larger Canadian participation. I think this has been a very encouraging development in the last few weeks, since the budget has come out.
On the second point raised by my hon. colleague, the debate is not so much about the $38 per barrel as about the rate of escalation, as he well knows. We are reviewing this matter and there will be discussions with the government of Alberta.
I should like to conclude by saying that the alternative he offers as the only alternative is not necessarily so; there are other alternatives, and I would want to keep those in reserve.
Ora! Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the hon. minister saw the movie "The Sting" where somebody got taken as a mark for a million dollars. I suggest that he is the "$40 million Marc".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister suggests that there are some alternatives to fuller Canadian participation. Let me suggest an alternative and ask him if he is prepared to go ahead with it. On November 27, 1979, at the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, the leader of my party, the hon. member for Oshawa, asked Mr. Hopper, the president of Petro-Canada, if Petro-Canada could develop the tar sands and avoid the 15 per cent to 20 per cent profit that the multinationals would take out of it. He replied that there was no question that Petro-Canada could do it.
Instead of giving $40 million to Imperial Oil, why does the minister not let Petro-Canada develop the tar sands for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will not go into great detail in answering the hon. member. I just remind him that we are talking about a heavy oil project here, not a tar sands project.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It becomes more clear every day that the national energy program is having a very adverse effect on future energy development in this country. Companies have suffered a major loss of confidence and trust in the ability of the government to get on with the job and in their real intentions here. The industry does not want bail-outs; they do not want loans; they want an agreement and they want to get on with the job. If we had that agreement we would not need to have any loans to companies of the magnitude of Imperial Oil.
Does the minister not agree that a positive environment developed by an energy policy will do far more for future energy development than bail-outs or loans to major companies in this industry?


Marc Lalonde: I agree, Madam Speaker, and I believe this is what we have produced with the national energy program for the 1980s.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is certainly not apparent from anything that anyone reads or hears spoken about that particular energy program in Canada today, including observers outside this country. Many of the companies that are affected by this energy policy, particularly the small and medium-sized Canadian-owned companies, are reacting nega-

November 20, 1980
Oral Questions
tively in terms of laying off staff, cutting back exploration budgets and reducing purchasing in other parts of the country. Would the minister embark on a detailed survey of the attitudes of the individual companies involved to get a proper assessment before the damage done by this energy program continues further?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I might tell the hon. member that I have already had several meetings with representatives of the industry, official associations and individual companies. My officials have also sat down with representatives of individual companies to compare figures, projections and examine the implications of certain aspects of the program of concern to them.


Mr. Nielsen:: Like Imperial Oil?


Marc Lalonde: These are being examined side by side with the companies concerned. When areas of particular difficulty appear, an examination will be made as to what can be done, if necessary, to adjust the situation. This process is going on. It is quite normal and I am quite confident this will work out to the satisfaction of everyone.


IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I would also like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and thereby give him an opportunity to expand on some of the answers he has given to us which would indicate, perhaps, that we are on the eve of a changed budget.
The minister has stated, in effect, that there have been discussions, presumably with Imperial Oil or with the Rockefeller corporation itself-Exxon Corporation-with respect to getting more Canadian ownership of Imperial Oil. Would the minister indicate precisely what he is referring to ? May we anticipate that Exxon will sell off sufficient of its Imperial Oil shares that its ownership in Imperial Oil will be reduced from the present 69 per cent or so to something which will put the majority of control into private Canadian hands?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the objective of the government has been made public, and it is very clear. First, to achieve at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the industry within this decade; second, to achieve Canadian control of a large number of big companies; and third, to have the Canadian people increase, through the Government of Canada, their share of Canadian ownership. Discussions are now in progress with various companies and will continue in coming weeks and months in this connection. My hon. colleague surely knows
that it would be improper for me to reveal any specific element of those discussions while they are under way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is for the same minister, Madam Speaker. Let me be more specific. Yesterday the minister said, as reported in Hansard at page 4851, the following:
I met yesterday with the president of Imperial Oil.
The minister said there have been general discussions. To be specific, has the minister discussed with the Exxon Corporation, or representatives of it, the possibility of their selling shares, which they now own in Imperial Oil, to Canadians for private Canadian investment?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated that 1 had met the chairman of Imperial Oil, Mr. Jack Armstrong, and had discussions with him. The general policy of the government is well known to Imperial Oil as well as, obviously, to Exxon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who appears to be most unwilling to be communicative. Can he tell us more about the loan that he is making to this very rich company, a subsidiary, incidentally, of the wealthiest company in the world? Would the minister indicate what interest rate he is offering in this cozy deal, bearing in mind that Imperial Oil at the present time is able to borrow funds on the open market at approximately the same cost as the Government of Canada itself? In turn, would the minister tell us why he used the words yesterday that he has instructed Petro-Canada to enter into this deal? Where does he get the authority to instruct Petro-Canada?


Walter David Baker: It is not in the act.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, I would like to remind the hon. member-if I am not mistaken-that yesterday the energy critic for his party indicated to the press that I had taken the right decision in supporting this particular project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What interest rate?


Charles Joseph Clark: Come on, Marc, answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: What about the interest rate?


Marc Lalonde: Secondly, as far as the specific negotiations are concerned-


An hon. Member:: They do not like your answer.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but the wounds in the back of the Leader of the Opposition seem to be hurting him just now.
November 20, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The wounds are in my country, and you are driving them in.


Mr. Crombie:: What is the interest rate?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the negotiations are concerned, 1 have asked Petro-Canada to undertake those discussions with Imperial Oil


An hon. Member:: Look at the separatists laugh.


Marc Lalonde: -and to advise as to all of the details of this particular arrangement. In my discussions with the president of Imperial Oil it was indicated that obviously this money would have to be repaid with interest.


An hon. Member:: At what interest rate?


Marc Lalonde: The exact amount will have to be negotiated as will the arrangements. This is what Petro-Canada is going to do. When such negotiations are concluded, we will be very happy to reveal to the hon. member all of the details.
As to the last question, I would remind the hon. member that the Government of Canada is the shareholder of Petro-Canada and I, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, have the voting share for Petro-Canada, which gives me the power to give instructions to that corporation.


Mr. Andre:: No, you have not read the act.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure he is very fond of his new policy for western Canada, somewhat interestingly called "western vision blueprint". I note he has not yet released it to the public, although I am sure he will in the near future. However, I would like to quote briefly from this document because my question arises from it. The document reads in part:
B.C. Hydro is looking for ways in which to meet peak power demands-many of these projects could have very attractive benefit cost ratios-there is an opportunity through joint development for both parties to meet their goals. We know B.C. Hydro is interested; we also know there are perhaps 20 or more salmon streams that would lend themselves to this approach.
Would the minister tell this House, when he refers to "both parties" whether he is referring to the Liberal party and the provincial Social Credit party or to B.C. Hydro and federal fisheries? In addition, will he table for the information of all members of this House the list of the 20 rivers which he and his department are proposing to dam in British Columbia?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member were more interested in the development and protection of the fishing resource than in
Oral Questions
making headlines, he would have listened very carefully when he phoned officials of my department who fully briefed him about the problems being discussed in this supposed secret memo.
I have stood in this place a number of times and I have said that I did not think the fish could claim the absolute and exclusive use of water. Water is a resource which has to be used for a number of other requirements.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: We know, in case the hon. member does not know, that the flow of water-the hon. member from Broadview might learn something if he listened.


An hon. Member:: He thinks he is so smart, but he does not know anything like that.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I indicated that water can be used very intelligently to produce electricity at certain peak hours and then be used during certain periods of the year to give sufficient water supply for spawning or for the smolts which are in the freshwater system. This is an approach where we think we can work intelligently if our engineers and biologists talk to one another. But obviously the hon. member's position is that the two are enemies who must never get together. That is not my view.


James Ross Fulton: First, Madam Speaker, I hope the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will again rise in his place; he would not want to mislead the House. I did not phone any officials from his department. They in fact called and were crying over the phone to me, asking me to stay away from raising any questions on this particular issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: I wonder if the minister would rise in his place and change the statement that he put on the record today. Also, he beat around the bush. Will he table in this House for members from western Canada which 20 rivers he is proposing to dam in British Columbia? Will he also table in this House the correspondence which has gone between him and B.C. Hydro as to what sort of secret deals are going on between fisheries and B.C. Hydro?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will correct my statement. I will say an official has spoken to the hon. member.


James Ross Fulton: He phoned me.


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, I said I would correct that. 1 said I would correct the impression I may have left. An official spoke to him to try to explain what the simple suggestion is. Instead of seeing water as the subject of a fight between different users, we try to use water resources intelligently so that all users can benefit. If the hon. member does not like that approach, he can continue to take the obscurantist view. I suggest to him that in many cases he will lose important fish runs.

November 20, 1980
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE BAN BY BRITAIN OF IMPORTS OF CANADIAN LOBSTER
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: My question is also to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The important lobster season is about to begin. Is the minister aware of a story in today's The Globe and Mail concerning the wish of Scottish fishermen to have Britain ban imports of Canadian lobster because they say they carry a contagious disease? If so, is he aware of any disease which Canadian lobster carry, or is this a trick to keep the price of lobster down now that the season is about to begin in the southern end of Nova Scotia?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it is a fact that if lobster is eaten alive, which is not an easy job-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: -in some cases there may be a problem. 1 understand that in Scotland lobsters are eaten cooked, in which case they are perfectly safe. The hon. member has suggested that this may be an effort to keep Canadian lobster off the market. I would not assign that kind of motive to the Scottish fishermen, whose lobster is more expensive than ours. Neither would I assign to the best known industry of Scotland the fact that sometimes it is deleterious to one's health.


INQUIRY RESPECTING SIGNING OF OIL PRICING AGREEMENT
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Fahramet Limited, a Canadian company located in Orillia, Ontario, has laid off 125 workers since May because of a slowdown in demand in the petrochemical material supply business such as valves, pumps and castings. I talked to an official of this company today and it will be a relief to know he did not ask for a $40 million loan, but he did say that the lack of an energy pricing policy or agreement was severely hurting Canadian manufacturing and costing Canadians jobs. What we have is Canada's energy opportunity becoming a crisis. 1 would ask the minister this. Canadian businesses, and I do not mean the oil rig business but manufacturers in Ontario and across Canada, the little guy, want an opportunity to participate in building and selling. When will this agreement with the oil producing provinces be reached and when will it be signed?


Marc Lalonde: As soon as there is an agreement, Madam Speaker. We hope to have an agreement as soon as possible. We have indicated our willingness to sit down at the officials or ministerial level, or at the prime ministerial level, at the convenience of the government of Alberta. The government of Alberta has indicated they prefer to have discussions starting first at the officials level, and ministerial meetings will take place at a later time. We are available and ready to discuss.


PETROCHEMICAL DEVELOPMENT-OPPORTUNITY FOR CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When Celanese Canada built its latest plant at Edmonton, a $5.2 million contract for reformer tubes went to the United States, although there were competitive bids from Canadian companies and sufficient capacity to produce the product in Canada. Has the minister discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, provision in the agreement they are going to reach with the producing provinces to provide a means whereby Canadian manufacturers will be given a clear opportunity to participate in the development of the petrochemical industry?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, providing increased opportunities for Canadian manufacturers to participate in the kinds of activities the hon. member has mentioned, and in the benefits from our energy development generally, is very much a part of our national energy program. I spoke about it at some length at the conclusion of the budget debate the other week. I hope from what the hon. member just said that he will be supporting our efforts to have this national energy program in place, helping Canadian companies and workers as soon as possible.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roeh La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in the same vein, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A quite recent survey conducted among 11,000 Canadian businessmen showed clearly that most of them were experiencing tremendous problems because of the interest rate, that 50 per cent of them suffered a decline in profits and that, in Quebec alone, nearly 13 per cent of these businesses had abandoned their development plans in the past six months, which means a loss of new jobs. Under the circumstances, I will not direct my question to the Minister of Finance, because I already know his answer, but I wonder if the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce would consider introducing special measures to help these businesses and indeed create new jobs.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think that the budget introduced by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, laid the foundations for a substantial expansion of all Canadian businesses across the country, but I also hope that the bills designed to implement the budget will soon be introduced in the House, which will indeed bring about the results that my hon. friend is seeking today.
November 20, 1980


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, 1 directed my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on a very specific problem, namely interest rates. The minister asked me to trust the budget. Of course, 1 am not as optimistic as he may be, but considering the situation in the building and in various industries, and it has been demonstrated that they have enormous problems-and 1 say again to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that in Quebec in particular as far as I can understand, 13 per cent of the industries have abandoned their development plans, and consequently job-creation opportunities, because of interest costs, would the minister be prepared to recommend to his colleague a special measure to help those industries and consequently create jobs in an indirect fashion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think there is already such a provision in the budget for small business development bonds, and I hope it will be possible in the very near future to have the measures before us, with the consent of my hon. friend, and to implement them as soon as possible. This provision was originally introduced by his government, and I hope that we shall have the consent and continued support of the House for that necessary measure.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the Science Council of Canada's recently released report on the devastating state of the auto industry in North America, could the minister tell this House, first, whether or not he agrees with the conclusions made in this report and, if he does agree, would he consider implementing a program devised to improve and increase the skilled labour force within the industry, as the report recommends, as well as provide for opportunities in technological research and development in Canada, which would prepare Canada for its fair share of the industry?
If the minister does not agree with the report, will he implement temporary quotas on offshore imports during which time the obsolete and inadequate auto pact, which he is very well aware of, would be completely revamped and not just modified, as his assistant deputy minister is attempting to do in Washington today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Science Council of Canada report, which I have not yet had the opportunity to review in detail, details a number of concerns and problems which have already been indicated in various ways and which we have
Oral Questions
already taken aboard in the development and application of programs to deal with the concerns of the very important auto industry and auto parts industry.
For example, work is under way, in co-operation with my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to have further programs in place to develop necessary skills and upgrade skills; and as part of our discussions with the auto companies-including the head offices, something recommended by the report, and as part of our discussions with the American authorities-we certainly are striving to have in place more activity in the research and development and technological area.
With respect to my hon. friend's suggestion that there be a complete renegotiation of the auto pact, that is not something recommended by the auto industry itself, either the manufacturers, the parts industry or the workers. My hon. friend is completely out of step, therefore, in urging that action upon this House and upon this country.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the minister says that the auto industry is not in support of revamping the auto pact. He is talking about the American auto industry which is not in favour, and that is very clear because the auto pact has cost Canada a deficit of $15 billion since 1965, $4 billion in the last year alone.
I therefore want the minister to explain to us why, first, it has taken him even this long to send his officials to Washington to begin to renegotiate or modify the auto pact, which he knows is not enough. Second, what are those proposals which are under discussion in Washington today? Third, what positive and direct steps is the minister planning which he has not outlined at all over the period of the last nine months? What positive steps is he taking so that Canada will get its fair share of the manufacturing and assembling of fuel-efficient autos as well as the production of parts and components for the so-called world car concept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are working to bring about improvements in the auto pact with respect to areas of concern to Canada. We did not begin that in our meeting of officials yesterday. Instead, the meeting yesterday was only the latest in a series of meetings under the auspices of the consultation to which we agreed with the United States and which was begun at the ministerial level between myself and special trade representative Askew on June 27.
What the hon. member is talking about did not simply begin yesterday. I am sorry he has missed all this. There was a lot of attention given to it in this House and across the country. We are carrying out discussions with the United States as provided for by the auto pact, which calls for consultations with a view to bringing about substantial improvements in the way it operates from the Canadian point of view; and our objective is to have in place a fair share of automotive industry activity for Canadian companies and Canadian workers.
If my hon. friend is asking what steps we have been taking in addition to what has already been outlined in this House, I
4888

November 20, 1980

Oral Questions
remind him of my efforts to create a substantial degree of Canadian content in Japanese imports into this country. My hon. friend may have overlooked the announcement I made a few days ago that Toyo Kogyo, the manufacturer of the Mazda automobile and the third largest Japanese automobile manufacturer, as a result of my discussions in Japan and those of my officials, will send a buying mission to Canada early in December. This is something which I think will have very important results for Canadian companies and workers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Is the minister aware that the factory trawler Calistratus has recently been given a food herring licence despite his department's assurances of two years ago that this vessel would not be included in the traditional fishing industry to process fish such as salmon, herring, and halibut, and that on Monday of this week that vessel was indeed fishing for herring and processing it at sea, jeopardizing the incomes of fishermen and shore workers in British Columbia?
Could the minister explain to this House how, despite the assurances given to the B.C. fishing industry, that vessel was able to obtain a licence for food herring, and will he give some assurances to that fishing industry that this will not continue?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I do not remember the exact amount of herring involved, but it certainly does not constitute a threat to the B.C. industry. That is the first point.
The second point is that the licence was issued, I suspect in good faith, by someone looking at the regulation that registered fisheries vessels are entitled to food or bait herring licences. We immediately contested that, and we recognize that there may have been a mistake or a loophole which was exploited. We have asked the vessel to retreat from that fishery and it has. We are looking for other fishing opportunities for it. We will be plugging the loophole when we have identified exactly what the legal problem is, but the vessel is not fishing any more.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, the fear of the fishermen in British Columbia when this vessel first appeared was exactly what has happened, that it would eventually get into those traditional fisheries in one way or another.
In light of the mistake-if it was a mistake that this vessel was licensed-I would like to ask the minister if he is now prepared to consider a public inquiry into the whole licensing issue in British Columbia before he implements the recommendations of the Sinclair report and the more recent Doucet-
Pearce report, which recommend a public inquiry into the British Columbia salmon industry not only with regard to licensing but also many other aspects of that industry, a public inquiry which much of the industry is also demanding.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, on the second point, this question is very much under consideration and there may be grounds for a good discussion of the issues affecting fisheries on the west coast. I think public opinion would benefit from a discussion, with public hearings, of the issues involved.
On the first question, I must say to the hon. member that the trawl licence issued to the Calistratus had very strict limitations. The problem is that the trawl licence and the herring licence were issued quite separately, and we could not in law, I was told by my legal officers, apply the restrictions on one to the other. That is why we asked the Calistratus to leave that fishery. If there was, as I suspect, a loophole, it will be plugged in a matter of days.


COLD LAKE OIL SANDS PROJECT-ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for York-Peel. With regard to instructing Petro-Canada, could the minister please clarify for us just how this so-called instruction to Petro-Canada took place?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker. After the receipt of the letter from Imperial Oil, consultations took place inside the government and it was decided that we would agree to the proposal of Imperial Oil, that Imperial Oil should be advised as soon as possible and that Petro-Canada should therefore be instructed. We contacted the president of Petro-Canada orally and instructed him to get in touch with Imperial Oil but, obviously, that no steps should be taken until he received from the governor in council instructions in writing according to section 6(2) of the Petro-Canada Act. Therefore, these instructions will be forwarded in writing without delay.


RECEIPT OF LETTER FROM IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister has referred to a letter he received from Imperial Oil. Can he tell us whether that letter was received before his visit and meeting in New York, or after, and before his speech?


Marc Lalonde: 
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in the matter of the discussions to which the minister referred earlier in the question period, when he indicated that with respect to the oil industry and representations and discussions that were going on the government was prepared to be flexible, would the minister now indicate generally in what way the government is prepared to be flexible and, specifically, whether that flexibility relates to the budget proposals as they apply to the oil industry?


Marc Lalonde: The Prime Minister has indicated on behalf of the government that we were willing to undertake further negotiations with the government of Alberta. That statement speaks for itself, and that is as far as I am ready to go.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it deals with the serious matter of plant closings which are resulting in the lay-off of thousands of workers throughout Canada. In addition to adding to the unemployment rolls, scores of communities all over the country are losing the spin-off resulting from the absence of light industries, as well as the purchasing power of employees' wages. I am prompted to question the minister because of the recent closing of an industry in my riding which has resulted in the loss of 300 jobs in one fell swoop. I should like to ask the minister if the federal government has any plans to offer financial assistance to light industries and businesses which have encountered difficulties in the same way as it assists major industries in trouble.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have these programs in place already through the Federal Business Development Bank and the enterprise development program operated by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That program makes available loan guarantees as well as in some cases direct loans, and also in some cases grants, for purposes of technology and innovation, particularly to assist smaller and medium-sized companies to restructure and take advantage of opportunities in order to operate in the rapidly changing conditions in today's economy. In fact, if I am not mistaken with respect to the company which prompted my hon. friend's question, we did have people of the enterprise development program meet with the company in question and with people in the community and we indicated our willingness to provide assistance if a new buyer was found to operate the company. I regret this has not proven possible as yet, but we want to continue our efforts to assist the community and the workers in it.


William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister if the federal government is not
Business of the House
applying a double standard with regard to assisting financially ailing industries in that the larger industries are important and the smaller businesses and industries are not important. May I point out, Madam Speaker, that 60 per cent of all jobs in Canada are provided by the small business sector.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are giving primary and priority attention to smaller and medium-sized businesses. For example, in the fiscal year 1979-80, over $1 billion was authorized for some 29,000 separate projects for small business-oriented programs, such as the Federal Business Development Bank, the small business loan program, the program for export market development and the enterprise development program. We intend to operate these programs effectively, and now that the budget is in place we are in a position to take decisions on their possible expansion. I hope to have my hon. friend's support for these efforts.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question on the business of the House. I think this program is usually well set, but could the government House leader confirm the order for the record in Hansard so that hon. members can look to it for guidance?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, we hope to be able to complete second reading of three bills today, namely, Bill C-42, the Canada Post Corporation Act, Bill C-43, the Access to Information Act, and Bill C-34, the Judges Act. If possible, we would like those three bills referred to committee today. Tomorrow, we start the debate on one of the proclamations tabled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I believe a three-day debate is planned for this first proclamation.
With regard to the second proclamation, House leaders will be meeting later on today to discuss the length of the debate. At any rate, I remind the House that it was agreed, as a precaution, to set aside the last six sitting days in November to debate those proclamations; however, a final agreement has yet to be reached on the length of the debates, and were we to save a day or two, it is understood that we would then proceed with the study of the bills I have just mentioned-all that before December 2.
In addition, I intend to designate December 2 as an opposition day, and the days following up to December 10, the House will sit in committee of the whole according to the agreement and the order of the House made last spring. The House will remember, Madam Speaker, that three of those days will be very long days on which the House will sit without any

November 20, 1980
Business of the House
interruption until midnight; we have had preliminary discussions in this regard, and 1 wish to confirm to my colleagues that, in actual fact, from December 3, the House will sit without any interruption in committee of the whole, and December 2 will be an allotted day.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, unless I missed something in the translation, I think the order of business which the minister announced for today is not in keeping with my understanding. I understood that the first item today would be the Post Office bill and the second item would be the freedom of information bill. As it came through the translation, the judges' salaries bill was to be the second item. It is not; it is the third, fourth, or the fifth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce used the phrase in his remarks "now that the budget is in place". Earlier the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had indicated that he was engaged in discussions with, I gathered he said, several Canadian companies, and I think he included in that group some of the Canadian companies which his policies are forcing to leave Canada. He indicated that, as a result of some of those discussions with energy companies, some flexibility might be shown by the government. My question to the government House leader relates to the House business, and it is whether any changes are intended in the budget.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Not to my knowledge, Madam Speaker. There is no change. To return to the question and comments of my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party, I must remind him that'the Judges Act is not a measure that we would want to be consigned to oblivion. If possible, we would like to deal with it today, if not, as soon as possible after the debate on the proclamations.


Mr. Friesen:: My question is for the government House leader. One of the pieces of legislation tabled in the previous Parliament, and I believe also in this one, was in the name of the Minister of Transport and had to do with the ports act. My view is that that is a long overdue piece of legislation. Withholding it is working a hardship on municipalities which have commissioned ports, because they obtain no revenue.
I wonder if the House leader can give us any indication as to when that legislation will be debated in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Within a reasonable period of time, I hope, Madam Speaker.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the last two Thursdays, on this point of order, I have asked the government House leader
with regard to Bill C-42 whether he was prepared to accede to the request on behalf of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments that the regulation making powers contained in Bill C-42 be sent to the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and that the substance of the bill be sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as is currently contemplated by the government. Last week the government House leader undertook to look further into this and give us an answer. Second reading begins immediately, so could he give us an indication as to what his policy is?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I apologize for having kept the hon. member waiting. I hope that he will extend the same courtesy to the ladies whom he kept waiting this morning at the committee on the constitution. I can tell him two things. In the first place, if we agreed to refer to his committee for consideration the relevant clause of the bill to set up a Post Office corporation, the clause dealing with the regulation making powers, we would somewhat anticipate on his committee report which has now been tabled in the House but has not been dealt with nor voted on. The report has not been discussed nor approved by the House. It seems to me then that it would be premature. On the other hand, I have indeed spoken to the minister and he is ready, merely as an act of courtesy, to appear before the committee of which the hon. member is chairman or vice-chairman. He is ready to appear and provide explanations on the nature of the regulation-making powers liable to be involved in the legislation setting up a Post Office corporation.
Of course, we would like to have the bill referred to the committee as soon as possible this afternoon. Anyway, I confirm that the Postmaster General, as an act of courtesy and unofficially, without any formal reference to the relevant clause of the bill, is ready to appear before the committee chaired by the hon. member to provide some explanations.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I should like to get some clarification. The committee report was unanimous from members on all sides of this House and on both sides of the Senate. The committee asked that the regulation-making powers of this bill and of other bills, including broad regulation-making powers, be sent to the committee for study, for recommendation back to the House, and for amendment, if necessary, at second reading.
If I understand the government House leader correctly, is he saying that our committee would not have the authority to make amendments to the regulation-making authority granted in that bill, that that would remain exclusively with the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates?
November 20, 1980

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what 1 have explained is that we could not prejudge the committee report which was tabled in the House. Surely the hon. member is aware that a special House committee or task force is investigating this matter. We expect it will submit its findings shortly, and I think that December 19 is the date agreed upon. Moreover, there is also the Economic Council of Canada which is looking into this and which is expected to report at some early date in 1981.
I have already suggested to the House leader of his party that it would be wise to wait until these reports are tabled before looking into the two reports from the committee chaired by the hon. member which are now on the order paper.
That being said, I am only being logical when I say no to the request the hon. member has made as to the opportunity to examine at this stage the clause of the bill establishing the Canada Post corporation which deals with the regulation making power. As I indicated before, as a compromise and a matter of courtesy, the minister is ready to appear on a non official basis before his committee and to provide him with all relevant explanations.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 rise again on the same point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have come into the House since the government House leader indicated that, to his knowledge, there would not be any changes in the budget flowing from the flexibility the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated might emerge from the discussions he would be having with energy companies his policies will be driving out of the country, and other energy companies. 1 wonder if the Minister of Finance is able to tell the House whether he is contemplating any changes in the budget which he has not yet had a chance to draw to the attention of his colleague, the government House leader?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I can assure the House that that is not my intention. I have reached no decisions with respect to any changes at all.


Walter David Baker: It is still under consideration.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. NYSTROM-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. MacEACHEN DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to raise a point of order arising out of the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) when he was reflecting upon the deliberations of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada earlier this after-
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
noon, wherein he accused opposition members of engaging in mischief.
In raising that question, I should like to refer to the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. On page 103, citation 316, sentence (e) indicates that a member while speaking must not:
impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a member;
Also sentence (f) goes on to indicate that a member while speaking must not:
make a personal charge against a member;
I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister was making any specific personal charges, even though two of us moved motions at that committee this morning, myself and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). But I suggest on a point of order that while he was speaking perhaps he did "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a member".
As evidence of that I want to say that we moved those motions this morning for what I think are two very legitimate reasons. First, we believe that we need more time for the people and Canada to be heard on their constitution, and second, we need more time as members of that constitutional committee to study what in effect is a very controversial and detailed resolution before the committee. For those reasons we moved an amendment to recommend to Parliament, the House of Commons and the Senate, that consideration be given to extending the deadline to February 10. I think we had the right as a committee to make that recommendation, and we were not engaging in mischief of any sort or kind.
I want to say that we are doing and have done it because we have learned one thing, if nothing else, from the witnesses who have already appeared before us, that they need more time, that Canadians need more time. For example, this morning the Canadian Federation of Municipalities indicated that it needed more time to prepare, and asked for an extension of the deadline. Two days ago the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before us. It indicated that it did not have a brief because it did not have time to prepare one and that we were dealing in this resolution with a very complicated and important charter of rights for the future of the country.
Also 1 have before me a letter which was addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Joyal) and the Honourable Harry Hays, the co-chairmen of the Special Joint Committee on the constitution. It was signed by Marion Dewar who wrote to the co-chairmen on behalf of a number of organizations, and in part it reads as follows:
-respectfully requests that the Special Joint Committee on the constitution extend the final date for written submissions or requests to appear before the committee from Tuesday, November 25 to Wednesday, December 31, 1980.
Our discussions with Canadians in every part of Canada and from many sectors of Canadian life convince us that more Canadians want to be heard than the current timetable of your committee allows.
She is asking for an extension of the time on behalf of the many important organizations which signed their names to this letter. 1 want to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister

November 20, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
thinks we are being mischievous when we speak on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada. Are we being mischievous when we say that we need more time because the Anglican Church is saying that we need more time? The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is indicating that we need more time. Are we being mischievous when we move a motion on their behalf saying that we need more time? The Canada West Foundation is saying that we need more time, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped is saying that we need more time. Is that being mischievous, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Indian Brotherhood, the Presbyterian Church of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization are saying that we need more time. As a result we have moved a motion in the committee asking for an extension of the deadline to February 10.
The other reason we have done it is that we believe members of the committee need more time to study the resolution section by section. We need more time to study its impact on Canadians. We need more time to consider a number of amendments, which no doubt will be coming from all parties in the House, to the various sections contained in the resolution.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider whether there has been an infringement of the rules by the Deputy Prime Minister, or whether indeed he was imputing motives to members of the opposition on that committee.
In closing, I want to say that I hope members opposite will consider revising the artificial deadline of December 9 because it means rushing through a very complicated constitutional package, one that might not stand the test of time, one that may be more divisive than helpful in the country, while we should be seeking a consensus, bringing Canadians together, and healing this country from coast to coast. If we can spend months studying the Bank Act in committee, and years in Parliament, then surely to goodness we can spend at least three months in a committee on the Constitution of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the point of order raised by the hon. member gives me an opportunity to make a comment on a recurring feature of the House proceedings which has been a cause of concern to me for some time, namely, the recurring practice of dealing in the House of Commons with matters which are before committees.
It is true that in my response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) I did make reference to proceedings in the committee, which were introduced into the questioning by the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker, both of us were out of order on that occasion. I propose at some future time to raise a point of order on this very point of order, to receive a ruling from the Chair as to whether it is appropriate for the
House of Commons to deal with matters on a daily basis, which have been referred to a standing or special committee by the House of Commons. There is a clear rule and a clear practice that no references, no debates and no discussion can take place on committee proceedings until a committee has reported to the House. That is a good, reasonable, and sensible rule. I believe-and I stated this quite clearly in my response to the Leader of the Opposition-I did breach that practice, to some extent.
I would like to reply to the member who raised the point of order, which objected to the word "mischievous". I must say that is a rather mild parliamentary attack. I could not find a milder word to describe what happened in the committee this morning. I regard the activities that were taking place quite worthy of the mild description of mischievous, in light of the fact there was a readiness stated by the government House leader to undertake negotiations with a view to dealing with the question of the deadline. He has already expressed his willingness to be flexible on this point. I believe it would have been useful for all members to await the result of these negotiations before launching into a procedure that took up a good deal of the committee's time. I hope in the future I will not breach the rules by discussing the proceedings of a committee of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Such effrontery!


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, 1 wish to say that on behalf of my colleagues 1 moved that motion this morning. It was a very straightforward motion asking that the length of time available to the committee be extended to February 6. It was then amended to February 10. Additionally, it was to extend the period of time for Canadians to submit written briefs or ask to be heard before the committee from November 25, which was the second arbitrary date imposed by the Liberal majority, to December 31.
With reference to what happened in the committee today, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) says that it was a mischievous action on the part of myself, I presume, because 1 was the person who moved that motion. An interesting point is that the Deputy Prime Minister has just said again that the House cannot interfere with the work of a committee and that a committee is to be master of its own proceedings. The hon. gentleman has used that argument, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government House leader. But in refuting the arguments that were made by us in the committee, the Liberal members on that committee used the same tactic. The Deputy Prime Minister wants to use a double standard. The argument which the Liberal members used was that it was not for the committee to decide, that it was to go back to the House. They cannot have it both ways.
When it is in the House they say the committee should decide, and when it is in the committee they say the House should decide. The point is that they do not want anyone to
November 20, 1980

make any changes to their arbitrary date. That is the point. They do not want to change either the November 25 date or the December 9 date.
The Leader of the Government in the House says repeatedly that he will be flexible. There has been no indication of any flexibility on their part without strong pressure from this party to bring about changes. We saw that in connection with television. It was only after extreme pressure that they changed their position on that. They have not changed their minds even on the quorum-they do not want members of the official opposition to sit on the committee when the committee sits. In fact that committee can constitute itself without any member of the opposition there-with only government members there. Only government members need be there to hear evidence or to make decisions.
Consider the matter of the polls. They were not released. That committee is studying the constitutional amendments at this point in time. We know the government has polls paid for by the public which directly affect that discussion. But are they released? No. The Canadian people are not entitled to know. Yet today in the traditional Thursday question the government House leader said that the government wants to move forward on freedom of information legislation. But ministers will not release the polls.
Mauam Speaker, 1 have here a list of the witnesses who now want to appear before the committee. It is an extensive list. What happens in the committee, day after day, is that we get a list of witnesses who are to appear before the committee. The point that must be made is that the committee has not approved the list. Then, when we get a backlog it is we who are called mischievous. Not so. The list is in no way practical to the work of the committee. What 1 have asked for is not an indeterminate extension of the length of time. 1 asked for a two-month extension on behalf of Canadians-a two-month extension. 1 think that is very reasonable. It will enable not only the committee to do its work but, more important, it will enable Canadians who are asking to be heard, time to appear.
Is Mr. Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association mischievous when he says to the committee that he needs more time? Is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce mischievous when its members say to us that they "could not prepare a brief prior to appearing here so what we are presenting to you is a policy position not directly related to the resolution?" Is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities mischievous when it asks for time to hold a board meeting in order that they might bring-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that he should keep to the arguments which will indicate to me that he might have a question of privilege. I am afraid he is entering into debate, and that is not allowed when raising a question of privilege.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, it is back to the imputation of motives. It was my motion. I was not in any way trying to be mischievous. I was trying to get the committee into a working schedule that would allow both witnesses and the committee to
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
do the job we have been asked to do. Under present arrangements, we cannot do that job.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member's attitude this morning in committee was perhaps honest, but it is not the most honest we have ever seen. By far it is not the most honest attitude we might have expected.
The following facts should be recalled briefly. First, the hon. member knew from the answers I gave yesterday in the House to the NDP leader and the Progressive Conservative leader that I intended to meet with the House leaders. Second, even though he knew of this ensuing discussion between House leaders on the length of the committee proceedings, he decided, purely for reasons of political expediency, to introduce a motion in committee asking for an extension of the deadline, knowing full well that the House of Commons, the Senate, the institution of Parliament gave a specific mandate to the committee to consider the matter and report back by December 9. So, when the hon. member refers to the principle that the committee is master of its own procedure only when it is convenient for us, I must respectfully tell him that he is totally wrong. Of course, the committee is master of its own procedure, but within the terms of reference it has been given by the House and, in this case, by the Senate. These terms of reference make it very clear that there is a time limit, namely, December 9. Therefore, the committee knows that its time is limited and that if the House wants to grant an extension, this decision must be made by the representatives of all parties, and it also knows that the House leaders will meet to discuss the matter and that we have already indicated our wish to be flexible, as the Prime Minister said himself last week, and as I said yesterday and again today. In spite of all this, the committee wasted two hours of its time this morning and a group of ladies were kept waiting in a shameful and unacceptable manner, and they are still waiting because the members of the committee are now in the House wasting time by raising procedural questions on this subject. In spite of all this, we heard today a motion under Standing Order 43, a procedure which is much abused, which motion was moved by my colleague, the Progressive Conservative House leader, even though he is well aware that we shall be meeting at five o'clock this afternoon to discuss this matter in good faith, and I intend to show him the type of flexibility we have been talking about. Once again, I do not bear him any grudge for this, but I would still like to note that he should know that we are going to discuss this matter this afternoon. And yet he thought it proper to use Standing Order 43 to repeat before the House the same type of question which was asked in the committee.
I wonder whether the Progressive Conservative Party really wants to take advantage of the flexibility that we are willing to show. I give them the benefit of the doubt, and the meeting at five o'clock will still be held and it may be followed by other

November 20, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
meetings. It will depend on the pace of the negotiations and the discussions. However, I must say that the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party to date seems rather ambiguous to me.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) is also wrong when he tells us that we gave no indication of flexibility as to the date for the report of the committee. I want to state publicly that, as a matter of fact, and I say it again because I have already said it publicly, I told them in early October that this matter could be discussed. Yesterday, my colleague was going around with the minutes of the meetings we had, and 1 hope he will refer to them. I call upon my learned colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to bear witness to that. However, I am convinced that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is candid enough not to deny obvious facts. I also told them that the form of the debate in the third stage could be discussed, and I invited them to do this systematically. In fact, they have always refused to discuss it until now.
As recently as last week I reminded my learned colleague from Nepean-Carleton that we were prepared to reconsider the date and form of the committee report, as well as the length of the debate at the third stage. He took my request under advisement and will hold consultations, and I hope that this afternoon we shall finally be able, a month and a half after my request, to discuss the deadline openly, honestly, without any of the tactics such as the one we witnessed this morning in committee and this afternoon during proceedings under Standing Order 43.
Madam Speaker, may I refer you to paragraph 659 of Beauchesne's, at page 205, which bears out the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the procedure and says very clearly that it is irregular to comment on what is going on in the proceedings of a committee when there is no report before the House. Here is what clause (1) says:
(1)	Until the report and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
(2)	When the report and the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence are before the House, they may be debated at length but members are not permitted to discuss the conduct or language of members of the committee, except so far as it appears on the tabled report.
(3)	If alleged irregular proceedings take place in committee but are not referred to in the report that the committee presented to the House, then it is not competent for the House to go beyond that report to debate this matter.
Madam Speaker, nothing can be clearer and more precise. It is entirely irregular to ask questions and have a discussion about what happened in committee until we receive a report from that committee. And in the future, I shall respectfully point out that we on this side of the House shall insist, out of respect for this institution, on having the rules enforced.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the insistence now of the government House leader on this matter. Perhaps some intimidation of the Chair is intended, but I would hope not. As a matter of fact, if the government House leader will recall, there was a lengthy debate in the House on the question of television and the procedure in the committee. The matter was argued, and a ruling was ultimately made by Madam Speaker. Surely that is evidence of the situation.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know what the hon. member's remarks are leading to, but I do want to make a precise point, on some of the comments made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). When I made the ruling about what was to take place in committees and what was to take place in the House of Commons, I was speaking solely about broadcasting. Beyond that our Standing Orders apply. If there is some kind of reaction or some situation which would require a ruling, I would be disposed to make a ruling. However, in that ruling I was referring to the broadcasting of committee proceedings, and 1 hope that hon. members will not stretch that into other meanings.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 said what I said so that you would know that the debate and the discussion which took place was with respect to the order of reference of this House and how the matter would be conducted. Of course it dealt with the subject matter of television, but it was within the context of the order of reference which established this committee. I want to make sure that the Chair understands the context in which I am placing my remarks.
With respect to a number of matters which were raised by the government House leader, aside from the fact that I am becoming somewhat alarmed about the ability to carry on negotiations, if we are to have another public discussion today of what happens in House leaders' meetings, the government House leader ought to consider, from his point of view, this practice, which has developed.


Charles Joseph Clark: And his parliamentary secretary.


Walter David Baker: Yes, and his parliamentary secretary as well. When we hold our meeting today, I want the government House leader to know that I intend to raise this issue. We either have House leaders' meetings which are a bridge of sanity for the debate which takes place in this House, or they are something else. If they are something else, then they begin to take on a different character.
Perhaps if the government House leader needs a mentor with respect to how these matters should be conducted, he ought to have a chat with the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, who was as experienced as he is and more so with respect to how matters should be conducted and what should happen as a result of what has gone on if it is to mean anything at all.


Yvon Pinard: There was no discussion, Walter.
November 20, 1980


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my friend is saying there was no discussion yesterday.


Yvon Pinard: You refused to discuss it.


Walter David Baker: There was a discussion in the House yesterday-


Yvon Pinard: Not in the meeting.


Walter David Baker: -with respect to the matter as indicated at page 4873 of Hansard. The government House leader, followed by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, did deal with the matter and confirmed that there was a gentleman's understanding with respect to the time allotment on the Bank Act. Whatever it was that occurred, it occurred at a House leaders' meeting and the debate referred to matters at that meeting.
In the left hand column on the same page the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Col-lenette) made an interjection by stating something that occurred at a House leaders' meeting, and even made a statement to the press with respect to the matter. Because the government House leader and I have some responsibility with respect to the operation of the House, this situation cannot continue.
Let us talk about the matter, since it is going to be raised at a House leader's meeting this afternoon. Of course we are prepared to discuss the extension of time at that meeting, not for partisan advantage but for the very matters that were raised by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) because members of the Canadian public are now saying to this Parliament that the artificial deadline established a month or so ago is wrong-is wrong in terms of the basic concept of what we are dealing with, the Constitution of Canada.
I want my friend to know that if he is talking about a limitation of time as the price for answering the request of the organizations of the people of Canada then, having had to submit to closure a little while ago, I am not disposed to submit to closure of another kind as the price for something else.
1 would be a stupid man if 1 agreed to give this government, in advance, a blank cheque with respect to what a committee may report at some future time and with respect to what the government may do with that report at a future time. If that is what they want, they are not going to get it. It is that simple. If my friend is prepared-


Yvon Pinard: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: This is a point of order. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 indicated I would be ready to discuss this with my colleague in the course of a meeting of House leaders. I would not like to take the time of the House
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
and hold that meeting here. I never indicated I would require a specific date. I said I was ready to discuss this, to get an idea of the time-frame, and I also wanted to indicate I was ready to talk about the form of the debate at the third stage. So what my colleague is doing is setting conditions to the meeting we are going to have later. I think this is not the place for it. He referred to my having a mentor. I suggest he also see one.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member on a point of order. That is what he asked me for, but he is entering into debate and I now have interrupted him. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, we can discuss the interruption a little later on. I want to make it clear that the request for the extension of time is not to convenience Parliament, it is to convenience the general public. Thus far there is no precision as to what the government intends even after the committee reports. Since these matters have been raised publicly by the government House leader, I want him to know that it is fundamental to our position that for once he tells us what he intends us to do. He has not done that except in terms of bargaining for time. In terms of the issue, Madam Speaker, that is not flexibility, and he should understand that.


Yvon Pinard: We have a meeting at five o'clock.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in rising to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I am disturbed at the impact of the ability of this House to co-operate and function on actions taken by the government House leader, and by his parliamentary secretary in deliberately making press releases that he knew not to reflect the situation-


Mr. Collenette:: That is not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and indeed, by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen)-making statements, not a press release- and by the Deputy Prime Minister today in first of all labelling as mischievous the activity of members of Parliament designed to ensure that the people of Canada are heard on the Constitution of Canada and, secondly, in his very presumptuous behaviour in lecturing you on how you should do your job, and to lecture me as to how 1 should do mine.
I say to the government House leader that if he continues in this pattern it is going to be very, very difficult for them to remain in this House-


Yvon Pinard: Blackmail.


Charles Joseph Clark: He talks about blackmail.


Erik Nielsen: From an expert.


Charles Joseph Clark: Earlier he talked about trickery. He said he did not intend trickery; then he practised it. I suppose he intends to say that he does not intend blackmail. There is not very much evidence to that effect in the manner in which he has

November 20, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
conducted himself so far. I do not want to be distracted by the government House leader's interventions however.
The point I want to make is that in this House of Commons public business can get done only when certain standards of trust are accepted and established, and the behaviour of the government on this matter very seriously jeopardizes that atmosphere of trust that is essential to this House making progress on any matter at all.
Let me deal with one or two of the matters that have been raised, Madam Speaker. First of all, 1 think it highly inappropriate of the Deputy Prime Minister, who has now abandoned the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Charles Joseph Clark: -the Deputy Prime Minister whose comments caused this question of privilege, who intervened and then left the House-I think it highly improper that he should suggest to you, Madam Speaker, what matters and questions you should find in order, after you have clearly found those matters and questions to be in order. It is no part of his duty to tell you how to do your job.
Second, the House will recall that the government House leader in the other place quite explicitly indicated in answers to questions in that other place that it would be within the capacity of the joint committee to make the request to both Houses to change the reporting date of the committee. That was an undertaking, a statement of the policy of the Government of Canada, made in response to a question, by a minister of the Government of Canada, the House leader of the government in the other place. That was the answer by the government spokesman in the Senate on which the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville were acting today when they sought to follow the suggestion made by a representative of the Government of Canada to seek to have the committee itself act to extend its time.
Now let me deal, if I might, with a point that was made by the Acting Prime Minister before he left the House. He suggested that the questions that were raised by myself and allowed by the Chair were out of order. My questions were designed to ask the policy of the Government of Canada on this question, and 1 would find it quite strange if it were improper, if it were ruled by the Chair that the fact that a particular draft resolution on the Constitution of Canada is before a joint committee of this House and the other place, that that fact alone would prevent this Parliament or, indeed, the Senate of Canada, from asking questions as to the policy of the Government of Canada with regard to the Constitution of Canada. That is the position that has been put forward by the government. It is a wholly untenable and an unacceptable position.
The reason we are asking, for the policy of the government is that it has become so clear that the Liberal members on that committee are operating clearly as agents of the government rather than simply as members of this Parliament and of the
Senate of Canada. They are operating on instructions to the point that some members are even reading briefs that are prepared by consultants associated with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-with the minister whose name is on the bottom of the draft resolution. We have here a situation where the policy of the government must be known because the policy of the government is dictating the behaviour of the Liberal members on that committee.
What we have here-the government House leader, who has been sat down by you, Madam Speaker, for his interventions earlier, is shouting across the floor. He may have an opportunity later to speak. The very clear point with which we are dealing here is that for a series of days the Government of Canada has been seeking some soft way to impose a new kind of closure upon the debate by the Parliament of Canada-by the House of Commons and the Senate-to impose a soft kind of closure upon discussion by representatives of the people of Canada of the Constitution of Canada. He knows he was wrong in imposing closure, the formal rule of closure, on this House in a circumstance where more government members had spoken than members of the official opposition. He knows that was wrong. What he is going to do now is to seek other means-seek closure by some other name. The goal is the same-the goal of the government-and that goal is to limit debate by Canadians of their constitution. To limit that debate, wherever it occurs, whether in the committee or here, or in the public at large-that is their goal. That is why they resisted television; that is why they resisted radio. That is what their secret document said. That is why they imposed closure on this House.
Their goal is to try to keep the people of Canada in ignorance about the contents of the constitutional proposal. They are worried that when groups such as the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Anglican Church of Canada, and Le regroupement pour les droits politiques du Quebec-they are concerned that when these groups come to testify before the joint committee, Canadians will learn just how full of fault and danger this particular measure is. So they are trying to find some excuse to cut off debate. They did it with closure once in this House, and now, knowing that closure is politically unpopular, they are trying to find a softer way to limit debate.
Today, the Deputy Prime Minister referred to groups such as the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canada West Foundation, the National Indian Brotherhood, the Presbyterian Church of Canada and a number of others, as mischievous. I suggest that rather than insulting those groups of Canadians who want to have their views heard on the Constitution of Canada, the Government of Canada should be hearing those Canadians and should be allowing the people of Canada to hear the views expressed by their various organizations and by interested individuals in the Canadian populous rather than resorting to various techniques designed to limit debate in committee and designed to impose a quiet form of
November 20, 1980

closure upon the ability of the people of Canada to have their views heard on their constitution.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, out of courtesy I did not wish to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) while he was making his comments. However, I shall give you notice now that 1 will raise a question of privilege based upon statements just made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to take only a moment or two. I do so because of one other statement made this afternoon by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen). 1 suppose I should not say it was mischievous, except that he thought that was a proper word to apply.
First, may 1 say to the government House leader it is perfectly correct that for several weeks he has been offering to negotiate the length of time allowed to the committee, provided that there would be some discussion of the length of time to be spent on the resolution when it comes back to the House.
I assume we will be discussing that this afternoon when we meet at five o'clock, and I hope we can have a pleasant meeting. Perhaps the government House leader, with his sometime courtesy, will have some coffee and tea available and we can have a friendly discussion.
1 was disturbed when I heard the Deputy Prime Minister say this afternoon that my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), yesterday asked for such negotiations, which is the very opposite of the case. My leader yesterday was asking for an extension of time for the committee on its own. 1 read one sentence to emphasize the point, which is found at page 4848 of yesterday's Hansard. The hon. member for Oshawa said:
What I would like clear from the government House leader is that he is not considering a trade-off.
It may well be that he is, but the hon. member for Oshawa was very clear yesterday that he was asking for an extension of time because of the importance of the issue. I think it was quite unfair, and possibly mischievous, for the Deputy Prime Minister this afternoon to say that the member for Oshawa had asked for negotiations.


Erik Nielsen: Whichever it was, it was deliberate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will have those discussions this afternoon, and we will see how they unfold.


Madam Speaker:: This point of order was raised on a matter protesting the fact that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was imputing bad motives by using the word "mischievous" to qualify some of the motions which have been made by some members of Parliament. That was the beginning of it. He strayed very far from the first indication of what that point of order was all about, but 1 will come to that later.
I have to say that I did not feel the Deputy Prime Minister was imputing bad motives in using that expression, nor was he making the kind of charge which it is customary to prohibit in this House. It is true the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) did quote from Beauchesne, but as a matter of
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom
fact I think the interpretation of these conditions has to be much more generous on both sides.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has explained the kind of "mischief', if I may use that word because I do not dare use another word, to describe what he was up to in the committee. I suppose the House is better for having been more informed about what took place. I gave the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville quite a lot of latitude to expose his point of order. I suppose that disposes of this grievance, because that is what it is; it is not a question of privilege.
My main concern though is a number of references which have been made to committee proceedings. This whole thing was prompted by a question from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). He has explained that he was inquiring about a matter of policy, and he was not referring directly to the actual proceedings of the committee. I must say that I nearly jumped to my feet when I heard him formulate his question, and then decided against doing that, probably because I was sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would never want to do anything against the rules of this House; and I do not think that he has. But then in the response made by the Deputy Prime Minister there was a reference made to committee proceedings. The Deputy Prime Minister himself agreed that he had perhaps breached the rules by making that kind of reference.
I think the rule has been breached quite a number of times subsequently during the course of the debate this afternoon. 1 will have all of these interventions examined so as to determine the number of times when I feel members have come very close to debating proceedings of committees.
The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) quoted the rule, which is quite clear, so I will not repeat it. But it is right here in Erskine May where it is very clear that this House should not be referring to proceedings of committees.
1 have just one more point. I want to remind hon. members that they should not refer to committees, even obliquely, in the House. I will read all of the speeches that have been made this afternoon in order to make it somewhat easier for me to spot circumstances when members are really referring to proceedings of committees. The Chair has some difficulty, because one has to listen to the end of one sentence and then to a second sentence to know whether it is really a breach of the rule. That is why sometimes I have to be a bit lenient about that.
I just want to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when members raise points of order or try to help me to interpret the rules of this House, I am grateful for that kind of contribution, and I do not consider that I am being lectured when members do that, no matter on which side of the House a member sits. It is helpful to the Chair when members try to concentrate on the point of procedure being raised. It is helpful if they bring forward arguments to enlighten the Chair and so help the Chair to make a ruling. Therefore I do not consider that I am being lectured to when that happens. As a matter of fact, 1 welcome it. I think it would be wise to put an end to this debate this afternoon. The exchange that has taken place will,

November 20, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Collenette
I understand, continue at a subsequent meeting which is of no concern to the Chair.


PRIVILEGE
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to refer to comments I made a few moments ago. I had intended to develop a case of privilege at this time. I understand that representatives from the postal unions are in the gallery and there is a disposition on all sides to let the postal Crown corporation bill go through today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I will therefore not impede the debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Who said that?


David Michael Collenette: I understand that is the general disposition. However, that may not be. It may be an understanding, it may be an agreement. I don't know.


Walter David Baker: Stop that right now.


David Michael Collenette: We have to clarify these terms. What I wish to raise, if I may have the floor, is the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did make the statement, and attributed it to me, "made statements to the press he knew not to be true". I wish to check the blues-


Erik Nielsen: That's slimy.


David Michael Collenette: In the interests of time this afternoon, I will not bring this up. However, I will reserve the right to do so tomorrow. It is obviously contrary to citation 320 in Beauchesne's.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am in some doubt as to exactly what the parliamentary secretary has been saying. I understand what his tone has done. His tone, as usual, has made it even more difficult for this House to proceed in any way in which agreements can be made or words can be respected. He has a gift for snideness which is unfortunately corrosive of the atmosphere necessary for co-operation in this House. That is to the side. The government will have to live with that. The rest of us will try to live with it, if we can.
The point I want to make is that I am not clear whether the parliamentary secretary is declining to raise what he claims to be a question of privilege because he has not had the opportunity to read the "blues", in which case he would be seeking the opportunity to raise that tomorrow, or if he is declining to raise it because he wants to get on with other business, in which case he would forfeit his right to raise the question of privilege. I
am quite prepared to deal with the question of privilege, but 1 want to know on what ground the parliamentary secretary is backing away from raising it at this point.


Madam Speaker:: It is of interest to the Chair thai the parliamentary secretary has decided not to raise a question at this time. That's sufficient for me.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I want it to be abundantly clear, and I hope it is clear, that, certainly to my knowledge, there is no agreement that the postal bill will necessarily be passed today. I have been sitting in this House waiting for an opportunity to speak. If I am denied that opportunity of speaking, I would like to know now when was the agreement made which the parliamentary secretary has indicated, because that was not an agreement as far as I have been given to understand.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same question of privilege. If it is not already clear to the parliamentary secretary, it had better be clear that if agreements are made in this House, agreements which are intended to be honoured as agreements, they are made between House leaders.


An hon. Member:: They are made between men.


Walter David Baker: There has been no agreement between House leaders that that will go through today. 1 said something a few moments ago about the importance of the relationship that has to exist among House leaders. In view of the kind of behaviour which the parliamentary secretary exhibited today-


An hon. Member:: Stupid.


Walter David Baker: -the House leader would be doing himself a great service if he got the services of another member of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I say that directly to him as a friend because this kind of thing is not helpful. It is important to the order of this House.
There was a press report, giving a statement to the press which was attributed to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


Charles Joseph Clark: Speaking in his capacity.


Walter David Baker: That is correct, speaking in his capacity. In it he said there had been an agreement between us with respect to the passage of the Bank Act. That was not so, and the record was made clear yesterday. Now again he does the same thing. It is in poor taste, to put it at its kindest, and malicious, to put it at its worst, and unproductive in respect to the relationships that ought to exist. 1 think he owes all of us an apology. He particularly owes me an apology.
November 20, 1980


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, 1 regret to rise again on what really is a fresh matter arising out of my comments. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is correct about some statements which appeared in the press. I discussed it briefly with him privately. He brought this up last night. 1 understand this matter will be aired fully in the calmness of the House leaders' meeting later on, and I say that sincerely.
I have great respect for him as House leader. He is an excellent parliamentarian. I would not want my behaviour in this House, construed as officially speaking for the government, to reflect in any way on his character as an individual. There obviously has been a misunderstanding about the terms used regarding House business. I certainly did not intend to slight the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton a few moments ago.
Hopefully we will come to grips with the terms "understanding" and "agreement", because there was a disagreement yesterday on the floor of the House as to what these terms actually mean. I will come before you, Madam Speaker, and members of this House and sincerely apologize if 1 misled this House in any way. 1 do not intend to operate in that way. It is not in the best interests of the better workings of this House if the relationship between those responsible for conducting House business deteriorates as it perhaps appears to be deteriorating at this point.
I hope we can settle this matter privately, but I would reiterate what I just said publicly, that 1 in no way wish to slight my friend from Nepean-Carleton about statements yesterday. If he wants to pursue this discussion at a later date after our private discussions, I would certainly be prepared to do so, if Your Honour permits. I thought I should rise at this moment and clarify that, in my comments a few moments ago, 1 was talking about what 1 understand to be a general disposition among members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: If I used the word agreement, 1 am quite prepared to stand here and correct myself. I am not that immodest that I would not admit error. I understand it is the general disposition to try to get the post office Crown corporation bill through second reading and into committee. I will not raise the question at this time for the other reason, and also the reason that I have not had an opportunity to check the "blues". I cannot make a definitive statement unless I have seen the "blues", in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, because I wrote the statement down very quickly.
I hope that satisfies my friend from Nepean-Carleton. Quite frankly, I do not think this should go any further. I am prepared to go more than half way in trying to rectify the relationship which appears to have been damaged over the last couple of days. I will leave it at that.
Privilege-Mr. M. A. Dionne


MR. DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR NIELSEN
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in raising a question of privilege yesterday dealing with the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. While 1 will not deal with the proceedings, I want to deal with some of the remarks he made. In his question of privilege he stated, as reported at page 4855 of Hansard:
-there is a growing practice of refusing members of Parliament, who are not specifically named on the lists of members forming standing committees, participation in the deliberations of the committees.
He went on to say that that had happened to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) on Tuesday last, and that he was accommodated by the chief government whip who put him on the committee in his place. He indicated that-


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry that I missed the beginning of my hon. friend's statement, and I apologize to him for interrupting him. I really do. However, I have been specifically asked by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) if the hon. member might hold this in abeyance until the hon. member for Peterborough can be here. He cannot be here today because of other public business he is involved in, and if the hon. member would be agreeable 1 think it might be better that we deal with this all at once. I apologize to my friend for interrupting him.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have no objection to delaying the question of privilege, but my question of privilege really has nothing to do with the hon. member for Peterborough but only with the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon, so I am quite prepared to make my intervention today and leave the ruling with you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has the floor.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I hope that is agreeable to the House leader of the official opposition and to the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am just trying to expedite things. I have no problem with that. However, the reply might be required to be deferred if something comes up which affects the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: He stated further, and I quote:
-the committee chairman and clerk seemed to be of the view that members who are not specifically named on the roster of members forming that standing committee were not entitled to participate in the deliberations of that standing committee.
Those statements are false. I had considered the word "mischievous," but since it caused so much trouble today, I

November 20, 1980
Year of the Child
will omit that word. I will simply say that those statements are false.
Both the clerk and I are well aware of Standing Order 65(9). We have a well-informed clerk who should not be maligned by any member, and especially by one who was not at the committee and therefore does not know what he is talking about.
Further, the hon. member for Peterborough was substituted for the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall)-not for the chief government whip-following my suggestion that his chances of being heard would be better if his name were on the roster of committee members, and he was heard.
Our committee has very good attendance, and naturally members of the committee have precedence over non-members in being recognized by the Chair. That is the procedure agreed to by the committee itself, and it is precisely the procedure the hon. member for Yukon suggested in his last remarks on page 4855. That is exactly the procedure we followed.
Our committee is working very well, and I resent the hon. member's intervention, as I am sure all members of the committee will. In short, I would have to say that the hon. member's comments contained more hot air than cold logic.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to defer a reply to such a picayune intervention by the hon. member. My point has been emphasized by him, and 1 am quite happy with the exposure it has received.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I understand that there has been an agreement to refer a report from the International Commission for the Year of the Child to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and if I have the unanimous consent of the House I will propose a motion to that effect.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect to that matter, I wish to confirm that there has been agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, there has been both an understanding and an agreement.


Madam Speaker:: Then has the parliamentary secretary the unanimous consent of the House to propose his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: That the report of the Canadian Commission for the International Year of the Child, entitled "For Canada's Children", tabled Friday, May 30, 1980 (Sessional Paper No. 321-4/12), be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ English]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 908, 940, 1,519 and 1.540.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Which department funds the Native Council of Canada?
2.	What was the total amount supplied to the council in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979, and what is the proposed funding for 1980?
3.	Does the council purport to represent status Indians or Indians with whom the government has any treaty arrangement and, if not, for what reason does the government fund the council?
4.	What are the government's criteria as to the membership and the right to membership in the council?
5.	What are the government's criteria as to what organization and what person or persons form the executive of the council?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Secretary of State as follows: 1. The Secretary of State, through the Core Funding Program, funds the Native Council of Canada.
2. Secretary of State core funding:
1975-76	$ 450,247
1976-77	450,247
1977-78	477,262
1978-79	508,709
1979-80	519,889
1980-81	544,942
	$2,951,296
3.	The native council does not represent status and/or treaty Indians. Its representation is based solely on Metis and nonstatus Indians. Funds are provided to native organizations at the national and provincial levels so as to create strong ongoing organizational structures which would help Canada's native people in defining and achieving their place within Canadian society.
November 20, 1980

4.	One major objective of the Core Funding Program which is reflected in the contribution agreements is to "provide the opportunity for native people at the community level to participate democratically in the association".
5.	The constitution of the Native Council of Canada provides the basis of eligibility for membership, the structure and procedures for election of the executive of the council.
I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:
1.	The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not have statutory authority or responsibilities for Metis and non-status Indians, and therefore does not fund the Native Council of Canada on a regular basis. However, funding was provided by the department to the council over a three-year period for the purpose of land claims research. This funding terminated in April, 1980.
2.	Total amount supplied by DIAND to the council was:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1975-76	0
1976-77	0
1977-78	SI 77,753
1978-79	$212,207
1979-80	$214,350
1980-81	no funding anticipated
3. The department was responsible for the administration of funds referred to under 2 for the purpose of claims research by Metis and non-status groups.
4 and 5. See Secretary of State's reply.


Mr. MacKay: Does Statistics Canada plan to redesign its import statistics data capture and verification systems in such a way that the corrections would be done prior to the release of the preliminary statistics and, if so, when will the implementation of an interactive computer system similar to the one presently in use for the capture of export statistics be complete?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada Reports: The external trade division of Statistics Canada is now redesigning the import system. This new system will permit the corrections of most of the errors prior to the release of the preliminary statistics. This interactive computer system will be operationally phased-in starting January, 1981. By July, 1981, the implementation phase will be completed.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Were government grants or loans made to the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, 46 Elgin Street, Room 11, Ottawa, Ontario and, if so, by which departments?
2.	What was the amount of grants or loans made during (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In so far as the Department of Indian
Order Paper Questions
Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, the answer is:
1.	Yes, the following grants were made by Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2.	(a) 1977-78:	None
(b)	1978-79: $50,000.00
(c)	1979-80: $50,000.00
(d)	1980-81: $50,000.00 Total: $150,000.00


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many veterans are in domiciliary or chronic care at the Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto?
2.	How many are on the waiting list for domiciliary or chronic care?
3.	How many beds are set aside for domiciliary or chronic care?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	122 domiciliary care.
388 chronic care.
2.	NIL domiciliary.
33 chronic.* *
3.	125 domiciliary care beds.
401 chronic care beds.
*The figures in this category reflect the number of veterans awaiting a bed for the appropriate service of the hospital, (medical, surgical, domiciliary care, etc.)


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,025 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	How many individuals are employed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the (a) English (i) television (ii) radio (b) French (i) television (ii) radio networks?
2.	For each network, what are the job classification titles under which an individual would be employed?
3.	For each network, how many individuals were employed in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 to date and by job classification, how many received incomes per annum (i) of more than $60,000 (ii) between $50,000 and $60,000 (iii) between $40,000 and $50,000 (iv) between $30,000 and $40,000 (v) between $20,000 and $30,000 (vi) between $10,000 and $20,000 (vii) less than $10,000?

November 20, 1980

Canada Post Corporation Act
4.	How many individuals were employed by the C8C on a contract basis in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 to date in the (i) English television (ii) French television (iii) English radio (iv) French radio networks and, what was the total amount paid for such services?
5.	What was the total amount of gross revenues the CBC received from sources outside the government in the (a) English (i) television (ii) radio (b) French (i) television (ii) radio networks?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
about the legislation which the government places before us. I, and other members of this chamber, have an obligation to study that legislation and to think it through, and if we feel we have a contribution to make to the development of that legislation, we have an obligation to attempt to speak in this chamber.
I did use analogies to the constitutional debate. In the three weeks which have intervened, the positive side of that constitutional debate is the fact that members of the Conservative party of Canada in this House, because of the public exposure of this House, have been able to marshall public opinion to the point where the Canadian public now has an opportunity to view on television and to listen by way of radio to how a committee of Parliament functions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-42, to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, in the context of the preceding hour and a quarter I think I have to deal with some of that as part of my remaining 16 minutes. However, I was interested that the parliamentary secretary mentioned that there were members of the postal union in our gallery today. I too welcome them on behalf of the members of this party.
I would like to point out to the members of the union who sit in the gallery that I have been waiting anxiously for over three weeks to finish the speech I started. I would like to point out to members of this House that it is the government which controls the order of business. It is the government which has decided not to debate the postal bill for the last three weeks. It was in fact the government which decided not to bring this bill forward in May, and it is the government which will probably leave this chamber, talk to the news media and accuse us of breaking agreements and talking out bills. That was my experience when I began this speech three weeks ago.
The tone of the press articles related to my attempt to deal with the postal bill had two misinterpretations of what I was attempting to do in this chamber. The first was that I was using the time of the House to deal with the issue of closure, and I was not. I made no deliberate attempt to talk out the bill. I, like any member of this chamber, am entitled to speak
It should be clear to the Canadian public, after the last few days of broadcasting of that committee, that it is in fact the members of the Liberal party, the government party, who control the debate in committees. It should be much more clear to the Canadian public that the rules of this House provide for standing committees to be dominated in their voting strength by members on the government side. It should be clear to members of the House and to Canadians generally that in such a situation it is possible for prime ministers and cabinet ministers to put considerable pressure on members of standing committees to use up the time in asking non-incisive questions and voting as instructed.
Once this House completes second reading of the postal bill, the bill moves to committee where there will be no television, no broadcasting, and no opportunity for members of the opposition to bring to the attention of the Canadian public what may be wrong with the bill. In the House we have a simple tool, that is, television in the House and the potential for radio broadcasting, which gives us as the representatives of the people the opportunity to make Canadians aware of what we perceive to be the positive as well as the negative features of legislation. It is in that context that I wish to continue my remarks for the ten minutes that I have left. We do not seek to delay, we take our responsibility seriously and we seek to improve legislation so as to create a better world for Canadians within the context of pieces of legislation.
Since I began working on this speech three weeks ago 1 have learned a lot. I am a relatively new member of this House and I have the opportunity of watching how this government functions. Today we have had closure imposed on the constitutional committee; we were denied the opportunity to call witnesses and to continue discussions in committee beyond December 9, in spite of the fact that all the witnesses who have appeared before that committee indicated extreme dissatisfaction with the bill. When the postal bill moves to committee, will we face the same kind of closure? If the government is consistent, which I believe it is, then we will face that kind of closure. Ministers will use their majority to decide what amendments to accept, what amendments to reject and what witnesses to hear, and we will end up, as a consequence of a

November 20, 1980

process of that kind, with legislation which is not as good as it could be and should be.
1 said to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) the other evening that a government which deals with a free people, when it seeks to govern without the support, without the help of those who are to be governed, invites revolution and imperils the will of the people affected to work together and, in the case of the constitution, perhaps even the will to survive as a nation. The protection that free people have is a free forum, a Parliament to which people elect their representatives and where the procedures are such that those who are elected are entitled to speak out on behalf of those whom they represent.
It is in that context that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) began his remarks on this bill. I want to remind everyone that he began those remarks by telling us that some ten years ago a Liberal government brought changes to the Post Office without adequate discussion and consultation. The consequence of that action was a postal service which Canadians have judged not to have been satisfactory in this decade.
As we look at the constitutional bill and as we look at the budget we see the mistakes of ten years ago being repeated, namely, lack of consultation, lack of common sense, lack of respect for the process of discussion and dialogue. Not only does this imperil the postal delivery service but, in my view, it imperils a nation in political terms and in economic terms. The government may seek to blame the opposition for delaying this bill and they will succeed in the short term, but those who work in the Post Office and those who represent them here today in our galleries might be wise to listen to the debate and to decide for themselves whether the points which we raise in the process of the debate should be listened to. I would feel somewhat better had the Postmaster General been present to hear any part of my remarks. I hope a person on his staff will at least read them to him.
In the postal bill before us, at page 4 in clause 5(2), we have a provision which looks innocuous. This reminds me of the charter of rights. When Canadians first saw it, it looked good, it looked innocuous. As we hear testimony in the constitutional committee, we find it to be dangerous, badly worded, and likely to change the very nature of this country in some unpleasant ways. That is what we find when we examine it word by word.
If we look at just the four simple objectives of this new Crown corporation, what do we find? Clause 5(2)(a) reads:
the desirability of improving and extending its products and services in the light of developments in the field of communications;
That sounds as if we wanted a better Post Office, and who could object to that? But that objective for the Crown corporation, coupled with what we find in later clauses-the regulatory powers which I am sure the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) will address more articulately than I can-will result in the creation of a new Crown corporation to run our Post Office, a Crown corporation with the power of massive intrusion into the private sector in this country. I ask the Postmaster General: is he handing the board of directors and the president the tools to throw every courier
Canada Post Corporation Act
service in this country out of business? The minister may say he does not intend to do that, but I ask him whether or not these words will allow him to do that, because, if they do, they must be changed.
Canadians do not want the Post Office running more of our economy. They want a Post Office running an efficient mail service, a Post Office which is humane to its employees, a Post Office which brings work satisfaction and which helps the economy of this nation by providing an efficient service. Why does the minister seek, in the objectives of this corporation, greater intrusion into our lives, an intrusion which is not sanctioned by Parliament on a piece by piece basis but which will be sanctioned by a president and a small board of directors?
What does clause 5(2)(b) indicate to us? It indicates:
-the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada;
We would like a post office which provides a good and efficient service and pays for itself. We must be very careful of words drafted by the government opposite, because it also hands that small group of people, that small board of directors appointed by the government, the power to tax Canadians. If it is to be self-sustaining, they get to levy the charge; no one is allowed to intrude on their area of jurisdiction and Parliament has no control over it.
On October 28 we sat in the House of Commons and listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) take another Crown corporation called Petro-Canada and give its board of directors the power to tax Canadians without representation. That is what he did with that Crown corporation, that is what he wants to do with the postal bill. That gradual, creeping tendency to hand over taxation powers to appointed people runs counter to our principle that people should be elected and accountable to the voters of this country when they have the right to tax those voters.
The third objective contained in clause 5(2) reads as follows:
(c)	the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the corporation in a manner that will both attain the objects of the corporation and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects-
Surely that is a motherhood clause which we hope any business enterprise would hold dear. But do they couple it anywhere in this legislation with the requirement for a comprehensive audit which will make it clear to government and to Canadians that in fact that is occurring? I suggest that they do not. They state it as a goal, but the machinery to protect the employees of the Post Office is lacking.
Now I come to the last objective which is a strange one in the context of the preceding three. It reads:
(d)	the need to maintain a corporate identity program approved by the governor in council that reflects the role of the corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada.
In light of the PetroCan experience, I cannot help wondering whether that corporate identity will be invented in New York City rather than in Canada.

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. In order for him to continue he requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to wind up my comments rather quickly. I cannot help wondering whether that logo will be invented in New York City rather than in Canada. I cannot help wondering how much it will look like the Liberal campaign symbol, because historically that has been the experience with the government.
I should like to conclude with one last comment. The reasons for alienation of employees in an organization, or people in a country, are usually found in the little things. The fact that today in the province of Alberta there is a shortage of 150 letter carriers does not do the cause of national unity any good in the present climate. I urge the minister to start correcting some of the little aggravations, and we will help him design a good Crown corporation to do the job. It will take time, but in the meantime the minister should not let his department go; he should do something about improving the mail service in Canada today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, every Thursday for the past three weeks I have risen in my place, at the beginning of orders of the day, to make a request of the government House leader regarding House business. In each instance I have referred him to the report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. The fourth report of the committee was tabled by me in the House of Commons last July. It is before the House at the present time for study by hon. members and by the Canadian people.
The request I made of the government House leader related to Bill C-42 to create a Crown corporation for the Canada Post Office. I asked him whether he would accede to the request made unanimously by the members of the standing joint committee, of which I am one of the joint chairmen, that the government send the regulation-making powers contained in Bill C-42 to our committee for study after second reading. At the present time the government's intention is to send the whole bill to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for study.
My request to the minister was that those portions dealing with regulation-making authority, which would give the government incredibly broad power to make regulations in the dark of night, without consultation with Parliament, should be sent to our committee for scrutiny, for amendment if necessary, and for recommendations to the House of Commons as to whether or not they should be restricted in some way.
An hour ago the government House leader refused that request. He said that he was not prepared to accede to the request of the standing joint committee. Instead he offered that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) would appear as a
matter of courtesy before the committee, but that the whole of the substance of the bill would go to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. That statement is unacceptable to me, and I believe it would be unacceptable to the members of the standing committee who have asked me to make this request of the government.
Earlier this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) indicated that he felt there was an agreement or a disposition on the part of members of Parliament to put this legislation through today. I should like to indicate, as forcefully as I can, that, as the parliamentary secretary later recognized, there is no undertaking on the part of my party that this bill should be put through this afternoon. If the government is not prepared to come to its senses and to allow expert scrutiny of those regulation-making powers, then there are very dangerous powers in the bill which must be debated on the floor of the House of Commons.
I want to make an offer right now-and I will put it as directly as I can to the Postmaster General and the government House leader-if they want this bill through today, they will get it through today if they accede to the request I made earlier this afternoon on behalf of the standing joint committee. If they agree to send those regulation-making powers to our committee, then the members of the official opposition are prepared to accept the bill and allow it through today. But we would ask that all regulation-making authority, including the ability to set postal rates by the Post Office, be sent to the standing joint committee and that that committee have the power refused it earlier today by the government House leader to make amendments to those provisions, if necessary.
Why is it necessary? Why are the members of the standing joint committee concerned about this? Why do they feel that it is a matter of some urgency? I should like to refer the House to paragraph 67 of the committee report which deals with some of the threats that are created when the government asks for a broad regulation-making power which gives it the authority to make regulations in the dark of night without having to come back to Parliament. The paragraph reads as follows:
Far too many statutes contain little or no indication of legislative policy and are neutral documents the object of which is merely to confer powers on the executive to act in certain vaguely defined fields. Moreover, these powers are granted in very broad terms so that little or no detail is given as to the content or type of delegated legislation that can be made. It is too easy to dismiss this type of statute as "skeletal"; the problem is more serious than that. Even a skeletal statute can be fairly specific about the powers it grants and what can be done under them. To many Canadian statutes are not specific in that way.
Further, in paragraph 69, the committee goes on to say:
Your committee is convinced that the so-called principles used by the Department of Justice to justify the inordinate breadth with which powers are invested after passage are simply rationalizations for practices of great convenience to administrators but subversive of parliamentary supremacy over the law. The true practice and principle is simply this: the intentions of Parliament in delegating powers and the scope of the delegation should be beyond all doubt and clearly limited.
November 20, 1980

Paragraph 70 reads as follows:
Insufficient attention is paid to enabling clauses in bills before Parliament. They should be the subject of searching scrutiny during the committee stage. The Regulatory Review Committee-
That is the change in name we are asking be given to our committee.
-is well placed to undertake such scrutiny as it sees week by week the consequences of the powers so readily granted by Parliament in the past. Your committee, therefore, further recommends that the Regulatory Review Committee be charged with the duty and responsibility of examining and reporting upon all powers in bills to make subordinate law or to issue, make or establish other instruments. Its reports should be made to the appropriate standing committees of the Houses having the committee stages of the bills.
What could be a more reasonable request on behalf of the standing committee? That is the request that the members on this side of the House are making to the government today. We would expect some indication from the government as to whether it is willing to accede to that request.
Mr. Speaker, what is there in the bill itself that would give Canadians concern about the regulation-making authority? Members on this side of the House have indicated on numerous occasions in the past that we support the concept of a Crown corporation. We want to see measures taken which will improve the efficiency of the Post Office and make it so that Canadians have a guarantee that when they put a letter in the mail it will be delivered promptly and efficiently. We are convinced the organizational structure of a Crown corporation is one that could go some way toward making improvements, but there are serious flaws in this bill which give inordinate power to the government to operate by regulation.
What am I referring to, Mr. Speaker? I would bring to the attention of the House the regulation-making powers in the bill which make it clear that the Post Office will have the right and the responsibility to make regulations, including about 14 or 15 different regulation-making powers mentioned in here. It includes giving it the power to define, for the purposes of the act, what constitutes a letter. Why is that significant? If you look under the definition section on page two of the bill the government defines the phrase "mail conveyance" as follows:
"mail conveyance" means any physical, electronic, optical or other means used to transmit mail;
And the bill defines "transmit" as follows:
"transmit" means to send from one place to another by any physical, electronic, optical or other means;
The government then is giving the Post Office, by regulation, the right to define what constitutes a letter, including electronic mail, messages sent electronically or optically, not just in the way in which we have conventionally seen mail in the past-something that is physical which you can hold in your hand. When you couple that power to make regulations to sweep in the telecommunications industry of Canada under the ambit of the Post Office, and you couple that with the power of the Post Office, which is included in this bill, to declare a monopoly over the delivery of all mail in Canada, you can see that the government, by regulation, could be giving the Post Office the right to put the telecommunications industry in Canada out of business. This will happen unless it
Canada Post Corporation Act
is prepared to go along with conditions set by the Post Office, as one of the interested players. That would be bad enough if it were simply in the private sector, if it were in areas currently regulated by federal statute. But when you take a look at provisions in this bill you discover that this bill extends the power of the government beyond what it has ever been in the past.
Section 3 of the bill, under Application, reads:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in Right of Canada or a province and on any agent thereof.
What does this mean? It means that telephone companies owned by provincial governments are suddenly to be swept under the regulation-making power of the Post Office and of the ability of the Post Office, by regulation, to define their right to have a monopoly in this area. It may seem absurd for us to think that the Post Office would seriously want, in the dark of the night, to exercise this authority. It may be that members of the House would feel that it is simply an oversight on the part of the government that this was included in here.
I would refer members to the Clyne commission report, which was produced last year. It is entitled "Communications in Canada" and it looked at the predecessor bill, C-27. It reads as follows:
The federal government should consider the introduction of amendments to Bill C-27 (for the creation of a Post Office corporation) with a view to clarifying the role of the corporation in the telecommunications structure as a whole, which must continue to include the private telecommunications carriers.
It points out precisely the concerns which 1 have raised this afternoon. These were concerns which existed in the predecessor bill. It was not just a case of sloppiness, that the drafters of the bill were not aware of the scope of the regulation-making power being given to the government in this bill. The Clyne commission pointed this out a year ago and asked that those provisions be redrafted in a very specific way to ensure that monopoly power could not be extended over telecommunications. Yet Bill C-42, before the House today, has not been changed to correspond with what the Clyne commission report recommended.
Members of the government may say it is silly to suggest they would even want to sweep these people in under their monopoly. And maybe they do not want that. We do not know; there has been no discussion in the House so far.
It is worth while to look at a document put out by the Post Office. We ask ourselves what is the effect of competition on the Post Office. Is the Post Office interested in getting into the electronic mail field? I should make it clear that we on this side of the House do not have objections to the Post Office getting into the field of electronic mail, as a competitor, but we object to them sweeping their monopoly powers over the whole of the industry to put their competitors out of business. Is that something which we should be concerned about?
Mr. Speaker, if we look at a document entitled "Considerations which affect the choice or organization structure for the Canada Post Office", which was produced by the previous Postmaster General in August, 1978, we find appendix C of the report entitled "Impact of Alternative Communications

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Methods and Systems". It deals with potential competition to the Post Office under the titles of telephone, data transmission, couriers, facsimile, word processing, and funds transfer. In the summary it points out:
The information funds transfer market-excluding mail and telephone-could be handling the following millions of letter equivalents by 1995:
It breaks it down to a grand total of 7,980 million letter equivalents. What this means is that the Post Office is projecting itself that by 1995 the telecommunications industry of Canada will be moving the equivalent of almost eight billion one-page letters. Those pressures will indeed be there upon the Post Office to extend its monopoly powers, and I think that Canadians have a right to be concerned. We should ask ourselves: would this also include companies like Bell Telephone? Could they be put out of business by what the Post Office is doing? On a cursory reading of the legislation before the House today, the answer is that probably they could. The Post Office, through its regulation-making authority, its power to define what constitutes a letter, could even define telephone conversations as letters. That power is totally unrestricted in the bill. If the minister wants to say that is not what they intend to do, then my response to him is: let us straighten up the language in this bill to make sure that it cannot be done.
The minister should be aware of the fact that the telephone system in Canada is digitizing and packetizing-if you will pardon the jargon-telephone conversations. What this means is that bits of information are turned into digital forms of communication similar to what is used for computers. They are moved into the packet-switching networks which cross this country, and they are moved along with electronic mail with computer communications in exactly the same way as electronic mail and other forms of electronic telecommunication exchanges. Oral communications over the telephone and electronic mail conveyed through packet-switching networks are virtually indistinguishable. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill would give the authority to the Post Office to sweep even provincially-owned telephone companies under the powers of its monopoly.
The issue is that if what the government is saying is that this is not its intention, and ministers have never said what their intention is in the field of electronic mail, to get involved in electronic mail except as a competitor, then let us word the bill so that they do not have the power, by regulation, without coming back to Parliament, to extend the monopoly powers of the Post Office in the telecommunications field.
If the government is saying that it wants to extend the powers of telecommunications so that there is a monopoly in the field, then it has the responsibility to come to Parliament and ask for that particular authority up front, as opposed to doing it by dark of night, by regulation. We are talking about a multibillion dollar industry upon which thousands of jobs in Canada rely, and about communications between individual Canadians and between businesses in this country. Surely Canadians and surely this Parliament have a right to expect
that legislation put before Parliament should be worded in such a way that the intentions of the Post Office are made clear and that the Post Office is not asking for a blank cheque to extend its monopoly to whatever area it chooses.
This issue is vital to Canadians. I cannot think of a single bill before Parliament at this time in which the government is asking for broader more unfettered regulation-making authority than in the case of this bill.
It is essential that the government agree with the proposition which 1 proposed in the course of my remarks. If it is prepared to reverse what the government House leader said earlier, and send those regulation-making powers, including the power to set rates-which would be done by regulation with only the right of appeal to the Canadian Transport Commission-to the standing joint committee, then the members on this side would be prepared to let the bill go through tonight. But if the government continues to ask for carte blanche authority and refuses the unanimous request of the standing joint committee that this sort of action should be taken, then we would have the obligation to continue to raise these matters on the floor of the House.
I have some other concerns with regard to this bill which I would like to touch upon very briefly in the time that is still available to me. One thought which members of Parliament should have when looking at this whole issue of a Crown corporation is what is the government doing in terms of the powers it is giving to the Postmaster General and the governor in council.
Hon. members should also think about how the government's plans correspond with the stated policy of the government with regard to Crown corporations. Hon. members will remember that in the last Parliament our government tabled a Crown corporation bill which dealt with a number of these areas. That bill would have given the government the power to issue directives in the national interest to Crown corporations, but those directives would be public and would be tabled in the House of Commons within 15 days of their being issued.
This bill, however, gives that power to an individual minister or to the governor in council to be used either openly or secretly. This bill gives the Postmaster General the power to give directives secretly to the Post Office. In our Crown corporations legislation we said that it was essential that the boards of Crown corporations operating on a commercial basis be given the authority to do their jobs. If there are good boards, then let them run their corporations.
Unlike the Crown corporation legislation which may be brought forward in the course of the next two weeks by this government, and the Prime Minister has claimed parentage of that bill-I am glad to give him that parentage as long as I am at least called an uncle when the legislation comes back before the House-we believe it is essential that the board of directors of Crown corporations be given the authority to appoint vice-presidents. This legislation says that any appointments of vice-presidents must be confirmed by the governor in council. One can think of the opportunities of patronage which are available in such a bill.
November 20, 1980

Such appointments would also allow the government to monkey around with the day to day affairs of a corporation just as secret directive powers would give it the same authority. This bill also says that the governor in council, not the board of the new Crown corporation, will have the authority to set the salary scales for vice-presidents of the Crown corporation. Here again is another instance of where there is a collision between these two principles and where the government wants to have political hands on the functioning of the Post Office. 1 believe that should be changed.
There is another matter which should be of concern to Canadians. 1 do not know whether the Postmaster General has had an opportunity to see the article which appeared in Monday's edition of the "Trudeau Star", an authoritative source for the Liberal party. The lead editorial on Monday evening dealt with the issue of Bill C-42. It expressed alarm that if this bill goes through with its present wording, there could be a threat to privacy. The headline of the editorial is "A Threat to Mail Privacy", and it reads in part:
The new act would make the prosecution of those who illegally open private letters more difficult, and it would lessen the penalties that may apply to those found guilty of the offence.
Members of Parliament should be aware of this provision, study it closely, and ensure that the sanctity of the mail remains intact and that the privacy of Canadians is not threatened by the proposals in this legislation.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the minister that we are glad that he is coming before the standing joint committee. However, we hope that it is not a matter of courtesy to the committee, but a matter that the government has accepted the principle that the committee was correct when it asked that the regulation-making authority contained in the bill be sent to it for expert scrutiny and that this committee should have the right to make amendments to the regulations if necessary.
I would point out to the minister the concerns which I have about the relationship between this legislation, the Crown corporation bill which we tabled last year, and the bill which may come down later this session. I would also express on behalf of hon. members of my side concern about the question of the privacy of mail in Canada. That privacy must remain inviolable and the government should not be trying to sneak in through the back door reductions to the privacy of mail for Canadians under the guise of creating a Post Office Crown corporation.
If the government can meet these objections, I think it would be possible for Parliament to move on this legislation and to create a structure for Crown corporations which will allow employees of the Post Office to continue with the pride which has existed historically in the Post Office and which will allow Canadians the assurance that the mail will go through efficiently and on time.


Mr. Ouellet:: Would the hon. member accept a question?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Gladly.
Canada Post Corporation


André Ouellet: Why is the hon. member discriminating against the Post Office Act? His request would be more natural if it were related to the Crown corporation omnibus bill to which he has referred and which he thinks will be before the House in the near future. Then his committee would be dealing with all the Crown corporations, not just the Post Office Crown corporation. Secondly, why is the hon. member making his request at this time when the report of the committee to which he has referred has not yet been approved by Parliament and when there is no precedent for what he is asking?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the minister's questions. We are not discriminating against the Post Office bill.


André Ouellet: You are.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What we are asking for in the report, if the minister would read it-and 1 would be glad to send him my copy-is that the regulation-making authority in all new bills coming before Parliament after second reading be sent to our committee. The single most dangerous regulation-making authority which sits before the House today on second reading is Bill C-42. This is the broadest grant of authority by regulations being asked for by the government in any bill before Parliament today.
Earlier today when I asked the government House leader whether or not he was prepared to agree with this principle, he said "No", that he would take no action on the matter because he was waiting at least until he had a chance to decide whether or not he wanted to agree with the other task force report to be completed some months from now. 1 have received instructions unanimously from my committee, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, to come before the House and request that this bill be sent to that committee.
Also if the government will accede to the request, we would be delighted to receive the Crown corporation legislation and, as we have requested, the regulation-making authority in any other bills which come before Parliament after second reading. That is my offer to the minister and we are asking in good faith. We are saying to the minister that he can get the bill through tonight if that is what he wants. We do not want any more press releases on the part of members opposite, or any claims of broken deals. The offer is being made openly. It is up to the minister.

November 20, 1980
Canadian Merchant Service Guild



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Northern pipelines-Extension of natural gas pipeline to maritimes; the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Finance-Canada Savings Bonds-Inquiry whether interest rate will be increased; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Environmental affairs-Chemical testing-Availability of studies.
[ Translation]
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)) moved:: That Bill S-12 respecting the Canadian Merchant Service Guild be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellanous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Bill S-12, respecting the Canadian Merchant Service Guild which has been petitioned by Mr. Cook and Mr. Sjo-quist, President and Secretary Treasurer of the Canadian Merchant Service Guild. This bill has two purposes. First, it is to ensure the Canadian Merchant Service Guild exists legally. Second, it is to tailor the act to the current needs of the 1980s. 1 have discussed this bill with members opposite and I sense a willingness to proceed with the bill without debate. Therefore, I commend this bill for favourable consideration on second reading so that it may be referred to the appropriate committee for detailed study and analysis.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition. We have had discussions with the parliamentary secretary. We, too, would like to see Bill S-12 concerning the Canadian Merchant Service Guild move into committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is our position, too.
[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Trade), moved that Bill S-13, to revive Montilac Ltd. and Socam Ltd., be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill S-13, an act to revive a company dissolved some time ago under section 133(1) of the Canada Corporations Act. 1 have had the pleasure of discussing this bill with representatives of the parties here in this House, and I feel the House is willing to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders for discussion. I thank the House for its kind co-operation.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have no general observations to make at this time with respect to this bill. However, I did indicate to the parliamentary secretary that there were certain matters we hoped he would comment on, namely, have these companies been able to file with the Quebec authorities? What is the position of the creditors that may be involved with respect to these companies? Finally, what is their standing with respect to Revenue Canada? Have these companies maintained income tax filings, presumably paying whatever taxes that may have been owing?


Mr. Lachance:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member my word that I would get the information he has requested, and when the petitioner, Mr. Gagnon, and his counsel appear before the committee we will have the opportunity to discuss these matters until he is satisfied with the information he is seeking.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we believe the place to discuss this bill is in committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 20, 1980

Native Rights


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.

Claude-André Lachance: that Bill S-14, to revive Tremus Industries Limited, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as in the previous case, this bill seeks to revive a corporation which was dissolved under section 133 (1) of the Canada Corporations Act. As I indicated to the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), I intend to ask the petitioner and his counsel for the information he is requesting so that we may in committee deal with all matters relevant to this bill. Once again 1 thank the House and all hon. members for their courtesy in agreeing to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the statement just made by the parliamentary secretary, we have no objection to second reading being given to this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, agreed.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT, 1867 MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that Bill C-212, to amend the British North America Act, 1867, (native status, treaties and aboriginal rights) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to entrench in the Canadian Constitution those rights belonging to our aboriginal peoples, the Indian, status and non-status; the Inuit and the Metis. Among those rights are their rights to land, their aboriginal rights, their rights to resources, their rights to govern themselves as they see fit, their treaty rights, and so on. I will describe these in greater detail later.
The purpose for wanting to entrench these rights is that they have been continually eroded over the last 100 years by the legislative assemblies of the provinces and by the federal government. By entrenching these rights in the constitution, we would hope to put them beyond the ordinary legislative processes of the federal and provincial governments so that they could not be touched in any other way except by constitutional amendment. I say that their rights have been abrogated, rescinded and reduced over the years. This is true with respect to Indian reserve lands, their fishing rights, their hunting rights, and with respect to their rights to govern themselves as they did before the Europeans came.
The ideas in this bill are not completely my own. These are ideas I have heard over the years from attending Indian conferences and Inuit conferences. They are ideas formulated by examining resolutions adopted at those conferences and by sitting and listening to aboriginal peoples all over Canada. What I have tried to do is put in a form of a bill what I perceive their wishes to be, and with which I agreed.
I must say that 1 drafted this bill last spring. When 1 drafted it and presented it to the House of Commons for inclusion in the list of bills, I realized it was not the best possible bill, that it was subject to some defects and could be much better. Over the months which passed since last spring, better ideas on the subject have been presented. In the speech the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) made on the constitution a few weeks ago, he presented some ideas with respect to these matters which are an improvement on my own. He brought these forward from the ITC and other inuit organizations.
As well, the National Indian Brotherhood has been working on this matter in recent months. They recently came up with what I believe to be a much better draft for these rights than my bill. That having been said, the principles in my bill are fairly close to the principles in both the Inuit and NIB

November 20, 1980
Native Rights
proposals which have been distributed to members of Parliament in recent weeks.
In discussing the constitutional proposals presently before Parliament and now being discussed in committee in Room 200 of these Parliament Buildings, the government said they want to protect native rights in Canada. Consequently, they have put in the proposed resolution for a joint address to Her Majesty regarding the Constitution of Canada, article 24, which they say will protect and guarantee those rights for the time being.
I completely disagree with that suggestion. I want to explain that in this House. I attempted to do it in the very short period of time given to me the other day in committee when I discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I hope I made a few points with him, but one is limited to five or seven minutes in that committee. I did not have much time to develop an argument. Article 24 presently reads:
The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada, including any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada.
Any person who can read and reads this section slowly will conclude that little is protected when it says "the guarantee in this charter shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada." In other words, it is only what is in this charter which will not deny any rights to native people. The article does not say that the rights of native people cannot be revised, abrogated or rescinded by other laws of federal or provincial governments, which is the real basis of my disagreement.
Even if you pass article 24 as it is, the Parliament of Canada could introduce a bill next week expropriating Indian land. The legislative assembly of a province could introduce a bill taking away hunting and fishing rights belonging to Indians. This could go on all over the country. All this article says is that there is nothing in the charter that will reduce Indian or native rights. It does not say that native rights cannot be reduced by any other bill or legislative measure. It is extremely defective in protecting native rights. That is not much better than nothing at all.
What could be done, and I hope the government will consider this seriously, is to amend the constitutional proposals to adopt some of the suggestions in my bill. Better still, it could use the proposals published by the National Indian Brotherhood which will be discussed before the standing committee, hopefully within a couple a weeks. Either they should completely revise article 24 with a series of other articles which will really protect Indian and native rights, or take some measures to make article 24 effective. That could be done very easily.
Some people ask why must these rights be entrenched in the constitution. I will deal with the different ones and go through them, starting with the easiest ones first. First, there is the matter of treaty rights. The Crown on behalf of Canada and the British Crown concluded treaties with many of the Indian groups in Canada when they came in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries because they were taking lands which belonged to these people, as well as their resources. They were overrunning territories these people had occupied for thousands of years when they were sovereign nations. They formed treaties with these people saying that in exchange for certain recognition, they would guarantee their rights.
Over the years the legislative bodies of this country, the Parliament of Canada and the legislative assemblies of the provinces, passed laws which took away those rights which were granted to the Indians in these treaties. I say it is wrong, and over the years the Indian people have said it is wrong. The government of the United States recognizes the treaties which they signed with native people prevail over ordinary legislation. They look on these treaties as international treaties. They have a special status. What the Indian people are asking, and what I am asking in my bill, is that treaty rights be entrenched in the constitution so they cannot be rescinded by ordinary legislation of the provinces or federal government. That is number one.
Second are the rights which were set out for the native people in this country, and that applies to the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis, in the royal proclamation of 1763. In that royal proclamation there are several sections guaranteeing the rights of Her Majesty's Indian, Inuit and so on. That document, which is supposed to be a constitutional document and in a sense should be entrenched, was never entrenched.
The legislative assemblies of the provinces and the Parliament of Canada have taken away some of those rights. They have not respected the rights set out in the royal proclamation of 1763. The courts have not respected them. They looked on that royal proclamation as something less than an entrenched constitutional document. The second thing I ask in my bill and the native people ask in their document is that all the rights in the royal proclamation of 1763 be entrenched in the constitution so they will be protected from the ordinary legislative processes.
The third, aboriginal rights, is more difficult. Some members of Parliament ask what they are. They say because we do not know what they are, we cannot entrench them. In a nutshell, aboriginal rights are all those rights which the Indian nations and Inuit nations possessed in this country before the coming of the Europeans. I must say that I am incensed every time I hear my colleagues talk about the two founding peoples of this country as being the English and the French. They speak as though they were the first to come here, as though no civilization existed here before that. They say that as though the people who were here before were not people at all. However, they were people. They had civilization, societies, laws, languages, cultures and economies. Consequently they had rights, and these are their aboriginal rights.
When the Europeans came here, the French, English and Spanish, in most cases they did not get contracts with the aboriginal peoples. They did not make contracts by which these people gave up their rights legally in accordance with the European legal system. In most cases they took them by force of numbers, arms and, in some cases, advanced technology. They just overran these people.
November 20, 1980

Consequently, in accordance with our own principles of justice, if you have a right and you have never given it up, you still have it. That is what we mean by aboriginal rights. These people had rights then. They have never given them up. They never agreed to the BN A Act of 1867. They were not even asked for their agreement. They never gave up many of their lands. Some of them gave up some of their lands in treaties, but treaties only cover a small part of this country where native people have lived. Aboriginal rights existed, and they still exist.
A few years ago the Government of Canada agreed to negotiate the exact terms of those aboriginal rights with the original people of this country-the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis-and it is in the process of negotiating those rights. In its policies the government agreed that they exist, but now it is just a question of defining them in particular, and I am saying that that policy the government has adopted that there are aboriginal rights, even though we do not know what they are in detail, should be put in the constitution so that those aboriginal rights will not continually be eroded by the Parliament of Canada and by the legislatures of the provinces.
That is taking place, even while the negotiations are going on. Lands which are claimed by different bands across the country and lands which are being claimed by Inuit communities are being sold to non-native peoples. Mineral rights are being granted in perpetuity to large multinational corporations. By the time agreements are reached, we will be in a situation in which it will be very difficult to return those lands to the peoples who really have rights to them.
When we have put questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) with respect to the negotiation of these matters and their entrenchment in the present constitutional document which is before Parliament, they have answered time and again that they are interested in the subject but that they will do it after patriation and that it will be a matter of high priority once the constitution is brought to the country. I have said before, and I will say again, that that is not acceptable, because once the constitution is patriated we will have to go through that very difficult amending formula which is in the constitutional proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: If the government has seen fit to proceed unilaterally on the rights of Anglophone minorities, Francophone minorities, mobility rights, the rights of women and the rights of the aged, which I approve, surely it should protect the rights of the original people of this country who number no more than perhaps 1,050,000 people. The government should certainly entrench those rights as well. It could easily be done. Different formula are already available. My bill is available. The NIB proposals are available. The Inuit Tapirisat proposals are available. It could be done even within the short deadline set by the government.
Native Rights
I maintain that justice demands that we do this in this country. Until this matter is settled it will continue to be a black mark against the majority peoples of this country, and if we think that the protests up to date have been sometimes stormy, as they were in about 1975 when Indians from all over the country marched on Parliament Hill and camped on Parliament Hill, they are going to be stormier still. The native people of this country will not rest until these things are entrenched. Sure they are going to Britain and to the United Nations, and they will go to other international bodies because they are not being listened to in this country.
It is a sad thing that they have to go abroad to get public attention with regard to their rights. In principle we do not like that, but when you have been denied so many times, you will use whatever means at your disposal, and that is what they are doing. I say that justice demands that we correct this. I see two eminent parliamentary secretaries here, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chenier), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin). I hope they will not give me the same answer they gave me on the adjournment debate a few weeks ago. I hope they will be able to tell this House that the government recognizes that article 24 of the constitutional proposal is really not adequate and that the government intends to amend that section to protect treaty rights, the rights in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and aboriginal rights, and that they will be protected in a positive way in the proposal. As I said, they can borrow from my bill or from any other documents. I hope they will say that this will be done now and not after patriation.
Furthermore, I would be extremely pleased if they would do with my bill as has been done with other bills from time to time, that is, agree to refer the subject matter to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution so that the joint committee can consider the proposals in my bill. In that way they will not be talked out or killed tonight as private members' proposals usually are.
I conclude by saying that 1 personally am committed to this cause. I think it is just. For me, not to do it is one of the most glaring injustices in this country, and I will continue to do everything in my power to work for the entrenchment of those rights. I ask the representatives of the government who are here this evening to agree to protect those rights in the way they should be protected.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this bill gives me to speak on the subject of the constitution, and I am particularly pleased to speak about this specific area which greatly concerns me.
I must congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) on the timing of his bill, which appears before the House at a time when the very treaties and special rights of our aboriginal people are threatened. I do not think I have ever heard this subject spoken about more succinctly and strongly. What the hon. member just said to us is right to the point. I agree with him 100 per cent.
4912

November 20, 1980
Native Rights
Obviously, the hon. member must have strongly suspected, or even knew, that the issue of native rights would be left out of the constitutional resolution, and it grieves me that a previous minister and former minister of Indian affairs was not listened to by his caucus and by the Liberal government.
Native people are threatened today by a government which is determined to alter the structure of Canada according to an artificial timetable. The bill which my colleague has presented to the House goes a long way toward reducing that threat.
The importance of this bill cannot be overestimated. It is of vital importance to the native people of our land, and it is of vital importance to all Canadians who wish to see simple justice prevail. If we believe in justice, for heaven's sake we must believe in what this bill is trying to tell the people of Canada.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has said that he would study and consider any written proposals on the constitution presented to him. This bill gives the minister an opportunity not only to study and consider this written proposal, but he can also demonstrate his good faith by supporting this bill. In addition to that, the minister would be recognizing the basic justice contained in this bill. The minister must recognize the basic justice in Bill C-212 because his party acknowledged the legitimacy of the native argument in a recently leaked document. This document is just another in a long line from the government. This time it is from the federal-provincial relations office, and it is entitled "Briefing material on Canada's native peoples and the constitution". What the document does is lay out the game plan of the government vis-a-vis how to handle the problem which will arise with respect to native people. It appears to have been written in the last two or three weeks.
I would like to quote from this brief which has emanated from this increasingly leaky ship of state. On page one it states, and I quote:
Native leaders would like to achieve goals in the patriation process which are remarkably similar to those of the federal government vis-a-vis the Canadian people as a whole.
If native goals are remarkably similar to the goals of the federal government on the constitutional resolution, one would assume that the federal government's sense of urgency with respect to native aspirations would be remarkably similar to that which it is expressing concerning the Canadian people as a whole. If the government denies the urgency or the legitimacy of the goals of the native people, then obviously it must be denying the legitimacy of its own goals concerning the constitution. The government can recognize both the legitimacy and urgency of the aboriginal goals by urging its supporters to vote in favour of Bill C-212. The two issues are not separate, but are remarkably similar.
Bill C-212 recognizes this relationship, and is designed to attack the injustice of trying to treat the native issue separately. The treaties and rights of the aboriginal people of Canada are a type of constitution for our first citizens. When the
patriation and amendment of our constitution is considered, we cannot separate this process from the constitution of the native people. Change in one automatically causes change in the other. Bill C-212 merely acts as the change in the native constitution to compensate for the change in the Canadian constitution.
The sad thing is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognizes this relationship, but refuses to acknowledge it. This can be seen most vividly by a comparison of two documents written a matter of days apart. The first document is the one to which I have been referring-the briefing material on Canada's native peoples and the constitution. The second is a letter sent to the native leaders by the Prime Minister, dated October 30, 1980.
In the five-page letter to the native leaders, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
In short, I believe that constitutional change after patriation will become easier, rather than harder-
In the brief, on the other hand, we are informed that:
-entrenching their rights will be enormously difficult after patriation, especially since a majority of the provinces would have to agree to changes which might benefit native peoples at the expense of provincial power.
Obviously, there is some difference between these two statements. The difference seems to be between public government policy and actual government policy. As usual, the native people are being subjected to double talk, half truths, and false promises.
The Prime Minister has told the leaders of the aboriginal people that they have nothing to worry about; that entrenchment will be easier after patriation. However, when he told the leadership this, he knew that, in truth, entrenchment would be more difficult after patriation. How can the aboriginal people be expected to trust the government to protect their rights after patriation of the constitution, when he misleads them on that very issue before patriation?
There is another area of conflict between these two documents, the public voice of the government and the private voice of the government. The private voice of the government says:
The status of Indian treaties and of existing and future native land claims is not clarified by the proposals of section 24.
The public voice of the government, The Prime Minister, says:
Let me respond to your worries by saying that 1 am personally convinced that your people will lose nothing in this act of patriation.
1 say, balderdash! The native people will lose something for certain; they will lose the opportunity to entrench their rights and treaties. Clause 24 works against the entrenchment of rights and treaties. By failing to entrench clause 24, the government leaves the question of native rights at the mercy of the provinces, which it acknowledges, will not likely agree on this issue. Bill C-212 removes any doubt on this matter. Bill C-212 would guarantee the rights and treaties of the aboriginal peoples. The government has before it today an opportunity to rectify this glaring deficiency.
Bill C-212 has another characteristic which should appeal to the government. It would be quick. Speed appears to be an
November 20, 1980

overriding consideration in this brief on native people and the constitution. Let me quote once more from this informative document. It reads:
Given the need to act, therefore, and the government's timetable, entrenchment of native rights before patriation is not possible.
Later, on that same page, the brief goes on to say:
The native leaders argue that the possibility of federal unilateral action on the constitution under present conditions includes an opportunity for the federal government to unilaterally entrench native rights. This opportunity would be lost after patriation. The answer here again is that the government has decided to move quickly.
The government does not deny the truth in the native leaders' argument. It argues that the artificial timetable imposed on Parliament is the only real time constraint. If the government is determined to ram through patriation within such an unrealistic time-frame, the very least it could do would be to ensure that the rights and treaties of the aboriginal people are protected. Bill C-212 performs this function.
The government has stated that it does not feel the native people have anything to fear from the patriation of the constitution-that it will act to protect those aboriginal rights and treaties to the maximum. A fine illustration of this commitment was recently given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons). Last month the acid-tongued member for Burin-St. George's stated in a speech to the Canadian Institute of Forestry in Ottawa:
The federal government itself owns or controls about 18 per cent of Canada's forest land. While it is true that most of this land is in the north, there are over one million hectares of forest land in Indian reservations within provincial boundaries.
This unilateral patriation of Indian land should come as a surprise to all the native people of Canada. Until the speech was made, they were under the impression that forest land on their reservations was in fact their own property. I am sure the parliamentary secretary was looking to the future when the constitution has been patriated and he can more easily accomplish this land grab. I would be very pleased if we could surprise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment today by robbing him of that opportunity. We could do this by simply passing Bill C-212. The bill before us would protect the aboriginal people from this sort of highhanded approach to their treaties, rights and heritage.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for giving me this opportunity to support his bill. It is an expression of his real concern for the aboriginal people of Canada that this vital piece of legislation is before us today. 1 can only hope that his colleagues will take up the challenge which he has presented to them and vote in favour of this amendment to the British North America Act.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) and to congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) for putting forward a bill which recognizes the aboriginal people of Canada. I am delighted and charmed that members of the other two parties would feel
Native Rights
so strongly about concerns for which my people and the Indians have been fighting for many years.
This bill contains two parts, one on Indians and one on Inuit. It is with reference to the Inuit that 1 should like to speak, albeit briefly. The underlying point is, I think, to advocate official recognition of the aboriginal rights of Inuit in the Canadian constitution as well as establishing mechanisms for acquiring some economic and political control over the structures which rule us in the north.
The government would have us believe that Clause 24, of the charter of rights-in my view, the latest insult to the natives of Canada-is adequate as it protects existing rights and freedoms. These so-called existing rights are contained in the Indian Act which is nothing but an administrative statute which can be overridden by Parliament at any time.
The BNA Act when drafted did not even mention Inuit. It merely gave the federal government power over "Indians and land reserved for Indians." Although the 1924 amendment to the Indian Act placed Eskimos under the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, it did not mention property or any application of the Indian Act to Eskimos. In fact, former prime minister Arthur Meighen said:
The best policy we can adopt toward Eskimos is to leave them alone.
Such is not the case today. Their lands and their rights are being encroached upon in many ways which are detrimental to their livelihood. The section on Eskimo affairs was repealed in 1930. As far as Inuit are concerned, the Indian Act still does not apply to us; and we certainly do not mean any reflection upon the Indian people of this country. So much for protecting Inuit rights.
In the past the protection of our rights as Inuit was not as pressing as it is today. The past three decades have seen many changes take place in the north. Government activities prior to 1950 were minimal. Economic livelihood was largely land and sea based, and the fur trade provided the main source of contact between Inuit and southern society. Increased government presence in the north created a situation whereby Inuit were compelled to learn about southern-styled or world-styled politics, largely out of necessity rather than genuine or spontaneous interest. I am here in Ottawa out of spontaneous interest rather than genuine interest, and I say this in all truth. I do not have any heart to be here, but I must be here because of the encroachment on my people about which I spoke.
This holds true today. The Government of Canada has proposed the patriation of the Constitution of Canada. The constitutional resolution of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not recognize the collective aboriginal rights of Inuit. This may not have been important to us 30 years ago, but the implications today are somewhat frightening.
Especially after the sell-out to the United States every year, the north is now viewed as Canada's and North America's resource warehouse to be developed as needed. The 1980 national energy program indicated that the need for Arctic gas in Canadian markets may not arise for many years, yet we
*

November 20, 1980
Native Rights
should press ahead with exploration so that Canadians may have a secure source of oil and gas available as a safety net for the future. In the face of large-scale resource development, the traditional economy and lifestyles of Inuit, not to mention rights, are subject to constant strain.
We are talking here about very major social and economic changes. Some have occurred already, but more are on the horizon. The constitutional guarantees which Inuit seek will be proposed to the Joint House of Commons and Senate Committee on the Constitution when the Inuit committee on national issues appear before it. Constitutional recognition of the aboriginal rights and freedoms of Inuit will not solve all our present or future problems, but it will provide us with a base from which we can work toward solutions.
I am sure this was the intention of Bill C-212 and I heartily support it. While I agree with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that the wording of the bill is not as exact as we would like it, we heartily support the principle and spirit of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to take part in the debate this afternoon with members such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). And I am very happy to see that the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), almost in opposition to the rest of his party, seems ready to propose some amendments to the constitution.
The subject matter of Bill C-212 concerns matters of fundamental importance to native people in this country-their treaty and aboriginal rights, their lands and their jurisdictional powers to control matters which affect their communities. These are matters which the federal government also views as matters of prime importance.


Mr. Kilgour:: When?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: However, the government differs with respect to the process the bill sets out for entrenching and protecting such rights as may be determined to exist in these areas.


David Kilgour: Big deal.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: The government is committed to a joint rather than unilateral approach toward constitutional change as it relates to native rights in Canada.


David Kilgour: How soon?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) clearly set out the government's position in this regard in his letter of October 30, 1980, to the three presidents of the major native organizations. He made the following points: he is personally committed to ensuring that the voices of native peoples are heard in the process of framing a new constitution and that the government remains committed to working with them toward
this end; that patriation of the constitution will not reduce or derogate from native rights in Canada; that the government remains committed to discussing with native peoples such matters as aboriginal and treaty rights, internal native selfgovernment, native representation in political institutions such as Parliament, and the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments for the provision of services to native peoples. He indicated that other items as well could be introduced in the course of the discussions. Finally, the Prime Minister said that he would seek to place the subject of native rights on the agenda of the next meeting of the first ministers on the constitution.


David Kilgour: In 1987?


Peter Ittinuar: Do you really believe that?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: The member on the other side seems to have a lot to say now, but when his party was in government it certainly did not do anything.


An hon. Member:: In only eight months?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: In particular, at this time I would seek to allay two specific concerns raised by Indian people about the process of patriation of the constitution. First, patriation will not affect in any way the legal status of Indian treaties in the country, nor reduce the commitment of the federal government to honour them in their spirit and in their terms.


David Kilgour: When?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Moreover, as I have already mentioned, the Prime Minister may make a commitment that in future constitutional discussions with Indian people the federal government is prepared to look at treaty rights and examine, with the Indian people, the possibility of constitutional entrenchment of some or all of these rights as may be appropriate. Needless to say, on a number of issues surrounding native rights the process of discussion will both allow and require the participation of the provinces.
Second, I should like to allay a fear which has been expressed by some status Indian people concerning the federal government's use of the term "native" in section 24 of the patriation resolution. The term "native" has been used advisedly by the federal government. It is clear that it includes status Indians and Inuit. However, it also allows for future discussions of what rights may pertain to non-status Indians and Metis.
I should like to reiterate that the federal government is committed to a process of working jointly and co-operatively with native people toward constitutional change.


David Kilgour: Why don't you do something about it?
Mr.' Chenier: Section 24 of the patriation resolution is meant to safeguard special rights of native peoples by not prejudging or predetermining them.


David Kilgour: Oh, come on!

November 20, 1980


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: It leaves open the possibility of future entrenchment of such rights in the constitution, but only after a process in which native people have been able to contribute to their identification and clarification.


Peter Ittinuar: You cannot believe that.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, I could not be more honest because it is the truth. The steps being taken will not reduce the current status of native peoples in Canada. Section 91(4) of the BNA Act, which gives responsibility over Indians to the federal government, will be unchanged. The status of treaties will be unchanged. The Indian Act continues to be in force. The resource transfer agreements embodied in the British North America Act will continue to limit the application of provincial game laws in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with respect to the right of Indians to hunt, trap and fish for food. In addition, the government remains committed to the process of dealing with the claims of native groups.
Section 24 of the constitution continues the existing protection of the native people's way of life by assuring that any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada shall not be abrogated by the introduction of a guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of certain rights and freedoms for all Canadians. This section is purposefully open-ended. There is, as I have said before, the possibility of future entrenchment of additional rights in the constitution such as those demanded by native peoples.

In short, 1 can only congratulate my colleague the hon. Warren Allmand for his interest in the rights and interests of the native peoples, Bill C-212 being an obvious proof of that. However, while I agree on the objectives, I must indicate that I do not share his view on the means to protect their rights and to entrench them in the constitution. The government's position, as stated in the resolution on the constitution and in the various speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealing with the participation of the native peoples in the constitutional review process, is based on consultation and co-operation with them and, when necessary, with the provinces.

We believe that a matter as important as the identification and entrenchment of native rights must take this approach if it is to succeed in the long run.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what the hon. member has just said I would profoundly disagree with virtually all of it. I do not think it is unparliamentary to say it represents nothing but hypocricy from the first word he said to the last. As the Civil Liberties Association pointed out in the committee hearings, what the so-called rights in this charter of rights represent is a diminution in the rights of Canadians. For instance, the first section says:
Native Rights
-subject only to such reasonable limits as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, the Civil Liberties Association and a number of other groups have indicated, these words give the government the right to use the War Measures Act and provide other ways in it they can encroach on the freedom of Canadians and say there is a constitutional right to use such measures. Looking through these so-called rights and freedoms I suggest we will hear from all of the thoughtful people appearing before the committee that they represent a reduction rather than an entrenchment of any rights for Canadians. The section with respect to native rights is, perhaps, as hypocritical as any other in the charter. I will read it:
The guarantee in this charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada, including any rights or freedoms that pertain to the native peoples of Canada.
I suggest that "native peoples of Canada" is an afterthought. I ask the hon. member on the government side who just spoke: what single native person, native group or association has spoken in favour of section 24? I submit there is not a single native person in Canada who agrees with what 1 call the nonsense we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary. That ought to be a pretty good test of whether the native people in Canada have any conviction that the government is trying to protect their rights. One could give a litany of what members opposite have done over many years to try to reduce the rights of native people, rights under their treaties and under the Indian Act. Incidentally, I would agree with everything that has been said by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I think he expressed sentiments, as did the hon. member from the eastern Arctic, which the vast majority of members in my party agree with.
The point government members do not understand is that many natives in this country believe they have a special relationship with the monarch, that is, the monarch of Great Britain. This was better said by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace than I have said it. The native people feel that this relationship is severed by this charter of rights and that they would be losing something. This has been made clear to every member in this House. The special relationship they value has been referred to many times; they talk about the honour of the Queen and say it should not be jeopardized by violating their treaty rights and other of their accumulated rights.
The subject of aboriginal title has been mentioned as well. I do not think the parliamentary secretary appreciates that the concept of aboriginal title has been recognized in civilized countries, including the United States, where aboriginal title has been bought out or terminated at a cost in compensation of some $4 billion. Members opposite do not even recognize aboriginal title despite their charter on the subject. I think it is time that members like the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace spoke individually to members of the Liberal caucus about this.

November 20, 1980
Native Rights
In conclusion, I add my support to the other members in this House who have spoken in favour of the principle of the bill. Since it is just before six o'clock I move:
That the question now be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There is a motion before us that the question now be put. But such a motion is also debatable.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have come to appreciate the deep concern felt by the native people of Canada, a concern which the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has expressed. Time after time he has prodded the conscience of the government-


David Kilgour: What conscience?


Ron Irwin: We do have a conscience.


David Kilgour: Show it to us.


Ron Irwin: I suppose the hon. member opposite would work a lot harder for the Indians if they owned multinational oil companies.


Peter Ittinuar: Is that why you work so hard for them?


Ron Irwin: The proposed Bill C-212 was first read on May 2, 1980. It is a very broad bill and perhaps in its broadness, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, stands its very weakness. For instance, section 133(c) of the proposed bill deals with a staggering number of rights such as aboriginal rights from time immemorial, rights by royal proclamation of 1763, treaty rights and aboriginal rights. Section 133(e) sets out the right to levy taxes. Sections 133(j) and 133(k) are almost as broad. Section 133(d) sets out that there shall be no expropriation without the express consent of the Indian people. This has been the recent policy of the government, a policy applauded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). But I think much more dialogue is needed before this right relating to expropriation is enshrined in the constitution.
Sections 133(/i) and 133(p) of the proposed bill state that the Indian people and the Inuit people shall have all the rights of Canadian citizens. It is my feeling that if they do not have these rights-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour set aside for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Misceilenaous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) had the floor. One would think that he has concluded his remarks in view of his absence at the moment. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Just a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we are continuing discussion of the Post Office bill, I appeal to my friends in the Conservative party to consider permitting a very quick end to this debate so that we might get on with the freedom of information bill which, I understand, is next on the list. I wonder whether my Conservative colleagues would consider that proposal in the next few minutes, in which case perhaps we could proceed to a very important piece of legislation which is long overdue.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, perhaps 1 could respond to the comments of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who has perhaps overlooked the fact that we are not the government today. Unfortunately it is the Liberal party which forms the government and it is their decision as to what order of business will be called at any particular time. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the freedom of information legislation is legislation of which my party has been a proponent for some time, and far be it from us to delay deliberations in this House if there is any possibility that we could be making progress with respect to that bill.
The fact is, the coalition has decided that the first bill they would like to have us consider today is Bill C-42, the Post Office bill. I have never understood why they cannot get their act together because here we have a backbencher of the NDP who does not seem to realize the coalition has agreed that Bill C-42 will be considered today. And that is what we are considering. Accordingly, we in the official opposition are speaking on the Post Office bill.
As my hon. friend indicated earlier today, we believe there are certain provisions in this bill which deserve very acute consideration before second reading is given. We have indicated, though, that if the government would take out the clauses
November 20, 1980

which touch on the regulatory aspects contemplated for the new Crown corporation, we are willing to pass the bill tonight.
We do not feel, however, that we should be called upon to give approval in principle to Bill C-42, so long as those offensive provisions are to be left intact especially when the measure is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates as opposed to the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I have had words with certain officials on the government side, and I hope that in the coming minutes, if not in the coming hours, consideration will be given to implementing our suggestion so that the bill can proceed tonight on the understanding that the questions on the economics, the form and the general character of this bill should go to the miscellaneous estimates committee and the sections which touch on regulatory matters to the standing joint committee.
Having said that, it is important that members give consideration to the question of what we are dealing with tonight because in many ways the deficit of the Post Office developed during the reign of the present emperor who is now over in Saudi Arabia or some place. I do not know where he is doing his dance tonight, but presumably he is doing it in one of those Arabian countries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is tomorrow morning over there.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My colleague from Winnipeg North Centre knows about the night life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know the time of day, which is more than some of my Tory friends know.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is drawing my attention to the fact that there is a time difference between Canada and where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is now being entertained.
Bill C-42 has been a necessity because of the mess which has been made of our postal system by successive Liberal administrations. Slow mail delivery has become a common joke as most of us know. The postal service is used as a synonym for government inefficiency. In many ways I would suggest we see in the post office a small example, or a microcosm of how this government over the years under the present Prime Minister has mismanaged the economy in Canada generally. The inefficiency and inadequacy of the government is reflected first in the Post Office, the subject that we are considering tonight and, second, on a much larger scale, throughout our entire economic fibre.
We have before us tonight the subject of the Post Office and the question whether it should be turned into a Crown corporation. If so, what powers should the Crown corporation possess? It is very strange that we should have this matter before us at a time when the post office is running a deficit of $400 million to $500 million. The "blue book" forecast the deficit for 1980-1981 at $425 million. Yet a member to our left, from the NDP caucus-some say the far left, but these lefties all look
Canada Post Corporation Act
the same to me-has the audacity to stand up in this House and say, "cut off the debate, I have other matters I want to get to". Mr. Speaker, here is something which is draining the public purse to the tune of over $400 million and our socialist friends, in their eagerness to support this Liberal government, are saying, "let us not discuss it too long. Let us get on to other matters".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your anger does not become you.


An hon. Member:: What is the matter with that?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hear another socialist asking, "What is the matter with that?" The saying used to be, "What's a million?" Now they are saying, "What's $400 million?" That, in part, is what I want to deal with tonight.
Let us not forget that when the emperor took power in this country total revenues and expenditures with respect to the post office were approximately $300 million. Now we find that expenditures have gone up to $1,762 million. Revenues, as I have just indicated, are far, far behind that figure.
The significant thing, and I want to put this on the record very early, is the extent to which this government has mismanaged the Post Office. In the fiscal year 1967 to 1968-I hope hon. members will make a note of these figures-the total mail volume by number of pieces was 4.9 billion. In the 1979-1980 fiscal year the total number of handled items in the Post Office was 6.4 billion. In short, there was a 30 per cent increase. Normally, with the tremendous degree of automation we have paid for in the Post Office one would expect there would be a saving on costs, meaning less revenue would be needed, and that the deficit, if anything, would contract, not expand. One would expect that the number of workers in the Post Office today would be fewer rather than more. If there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of items handled, then presumably, with today's automation-the sorting machines and all of the advanced technology-fewer people would be needed to handle what the Post Office is doing.
Let me put some more figures on the record. As I have said, the number of pieces handled by the Post Office has gone up 30 per cent. The total number of people working for the Post Office, based on the estimates for the years 1967-1968 compared to the estimates for the year 1979-1980 has gone up 64 per cent. In short, in that period while the emperor has been in power, notwithstanding that activity in the Post Office has gone up only 30 per cent, the number of employees has risen by 64 per cent. That figure has risen from 36,875 workers in the fiscal year 1968 to the current 60,317 workers in 1979-1980.
In spite of what our socialist friends may want to say, surely the nation would want us to ask why has the number of employees in the Post Office increased at a rate more than double the rise in the actual number of items being handled by the Post Office?
That is only part of the story, Mr. Speaker. If you like, maybe I can put that into more meaningful language and point out that in 1968 every worker in the Post Office from the top down handled 132,000 items. Today each worker handles

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
106,000 items. What has gone wrong? With the massive amount of money we have spent building new terminals, new facilities and new mail-handling equipment? Why are fewer items being handled per worker today compared to about ten years ago? Surely the emperor has to accept some responsibility for what has happened in this Crown corporation under his jurisdiction.
Again, that is only part of the story. As 1 have indicated, the amount of mail volume went up 30 per cent in those years 1 have referred to. I am pleased you are seated, Mr. Speaker, because when 1 give you the next group of figures, I know you will find it hard to stand. During that period, costs in the Post Office have gone up at a rate tenfold compared to the mail volume increase. Costs have gone up from $404 million to $1,762 million, or 336 per cent with the result the deficit we are left with has also gone up 316 per cent from $67 million to $279 million.
Surely with such a shameful record, bearing in mind that letter rates in the same period have climbed from five cents in 1968 to 17 cents at the present time, we should be able to turn to the government and ask what it plans to do now. In the coming years how does the government plan to correct this huge deficit it has allowed to run up?
As we know, in the budget which was delivered in this House on October 28, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) stated:
-I have, therefore, assumed that postal revenues will rise until they equal postal expenditures.
He said this after he mentioned that the new Crown corporation will be expected to cover its costs, the new Crown corporation being the Post Office Crown corporation which we are now considering. Here is the most serious thing to reveal to the Canadian public. How does he intend to make the post office break even? The fact is he intends to disguise the true picture in the post office by simply increasing revenues in the post office to offset the rising expenditures. He is proposing, through postal rate increases that will not pass through future budgets, to net out the high cost of running the Post Office against those revenues in order to take the deficit off the books. It will still be the Canadian public which has to pay the shot for this government's inadequacies.
They can fudge the books, but they cannot fudge the fact that Canadian postal rates will go up substantially if this government has its way. As opposed to running the Post Office efficiently, effectively and adequately, they are proposing to pass those added costs on to the Canadian public through postal rate increases. In short, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that postal rates, which have climbed from five cents in 1968 to 17 cents at the present time, will double before this government is through its mandate.
This brings me back to the question of what has happened. 1 know it is hoped-and we on this side believe there is a good chance this will happen-that by giving Crown corporation status to the Post Office, somehow there will be less friction in
future as opposed to past years with respect to labour negotiations in the Post Office. Here again it is wise to remind the members of this House that this friction in the post office is not traditional. For example, in the first 100 years there were only three strikes in the entire history of the Post Office in Canada. There was one in 1918, one in 1924 and one in 1965-that was a one-week strike in July over wages and it was by inside workers and letter carriers. Those were all the labour disruptions we had in our Post Office up until the time the emperor took power in this country.


An hon. Member:: The sheik.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The emperor or the sheik, whichever is senior. Here is the record of strikes since 1968. In July and August there was a three-week postal strike over wages. In February-March, 1970, there was a dispute in Montreal involving truck drivers represented by the CNTU over contracting of mail transport and job security. In May to September of that year there was a series of rotating strikes over wages and job security.
In October-November, 1971, there were several wildcat strikes in southwestern Ontario and the maritimes over the use of casual labour. In January, 1973, there were wildcat strikes after breakdowns in negotiations over wages and job classification. In April, 1974, there were sporadic local labour disruptions by inside postal workers culminating in a three-day nationwide strike. In February-March, 1975, there were five weeks of nationwide rotating strikes by maintenance workers. Truck drivers refused to cross picket lines. The dispute was characterized by lay-offs, walkouts and so-called "sick-outs".
From October to December of that year there was a seven-week strike by CUPW over contract demands. In October, 1976, there were four days of rotating strikes by CUPW over technological change. In September, 1978, there was a three-day strike by letter carriers over contract demands. In October, 1978, there was a strike by inside workers. Workers were ordered back to work by Parliament on that occasion.
The most recent position with respect to the postal workers is known to all of us. The fact that there were disruptions during the clerk's strike is well known. In short, I am trying to put on record that while in the first 101 years after confederation there was relative tranquility within the Post Office, under this government there has been a steady disruptive force at work as far as negotiations between the Post Office and the unions are concerned.
We must bear in mind what actually transpired during the period. In 1980 the average clerk working for the government earned $12,800 compared to an average postal salary of about $18,000. If we add the overtime the postal workers pick up on average, their salary is closer to $20,000. Currently, and certainly before the last settlement with the clerks, the clerks were getting about $12,800 compared to $18,000, possibly $20,000, for the postal workers.
In 1970, the average clerk earned $5,964 compared to a maximum Post Office salary of $6,450. In 1965 the clerk earned an average $4,600 a year compared to a 1966 max-
November 20, 1980

imum Post Office salary of $4,905. Therefore, there is no question that the gap has been widening. To put this widening gap in further perspective, 1965 was the year of the first postal strike since the twenties, while collective bargaining was introduced into the public service in 1967.
I put this on record because it might be suggested by some when I read the list of strikes and disturbances that perhaps, somehow, government has been keeping a tight fist and running things in a very cautious, severe manner. I suggest that when you review those figures, comparing them as 1 have with clerical salaries, it becomes clear that the postal workers have not done badly. There is now a substantial gap between their wage level and that of the clerks.
This is particularly important when you bear in mind what happened with the most recent settlement with the CUPW union. The present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) virtually set aside the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), and awarded one of the most lavish, rich settlements we have seen in government settlements, if not in history, certainly in recent times. This in turn triggers more aggressive demands from others, not only in government circles, but in the private sector. We then find the government turning around and saying, as the Department of Finance said only last week, that unless workers are willing to begin accepting less in real wages, they are not going to get a handle on inflation.
Let me make two points about that. First, surely it is the government which has to be the pacesetter as far as the wage settlement pattern is concerned. Second, the government has to accept the responsibility for inflation in this country. Through its big spending, big deficits, printing of excess money and extensive borrowing the government is ensuring that inflation continues at the levels we are now experiencing. In short, the government puts us into a "Catch-22" position, in effect it triggers the inflation we experience and then blames others and asks them to accept sacrifice in order to get control of the very inflation it caused.
I know most of us have very little time to speak about this bill, but let me touch on a few other questions. Clause 17 of this bill is the clause which, hon. members will recall, deals with the tremendous regulatory powers of the Post Office. Granted, the present act gives it similar powers, but I think we must bear in mind that what we are now considering is the establishment of a Crown corporation which to some extent will be an entity unto itself. It will certainly be removed from this Parliament and, in turn, if we give the Post Office the same powers to make regulations and to make decisions as are now contained in the Post Office legislation and as are set out in clause 17 of the bill before us, I think we do this country a great disservice. I say this because when we start weighing the implications of where these regulations can lead the Post Office it becomes evident that it is a very dangerous monster we are letting loose if we do not put more restrictions in its way than are presently contemplated.
Canada Post Corporation Act
There is the whole question of competition. I know most of us have heard of various courier services which are indicating that they may be impeded in their activities if the Post Office is allowed to get almost unfettered control over who can carry various objects such as small parcels and so on, but most of us are perhaps not aware of how actively the Post Office has been trying to kill competition in those fields.
Let me simply refer to two examples. One is the United Parcel Service Canada Limited case, and the other is the Federal Express Corporation case. The first case involved an application to the Ontario Highway Transport Board for an extra-provincial operating licence and expanded service rights by United Parcel Service Canada Limited, commonly known as UPS.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Postmaster General of Canada was one of the many who intervened in this case opposing the issuance of a certificate. Application had been made for a certificate to be issued by the Ontario Highway Transport Board, and I will be referring to Ontario Highway Transport Board Decision No. 28655 of October 17, 1980.
Is it not interesting that when we start pointing out some of the repercussions of what the socialists are wanting to put in place they immediately become hysterical, we hear catcalls and there is disruption of the whole parliamentary procedure?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would just like you to tell us that United Parcel is not Canadian.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that those who take the time-and I invite my colleagues to my left to check this-will find that after that tribunal reviewed the facts, it said "no" to the Postmaster General. The board made interesting observations. For example, it said:
The Post Office tendered evidence that in essence addressed the many-faceted national responsibilities with which it is seized. That the Post Office has played and continues to play a significant role in the national 'smalls'-
Apparently that is jargon in the trade meaning, I take it, small packages.
-transportation field is not in question here, and it is evident from the evidence tendered on its behalf that, for many, the service offered is satisfactory. It is also apparent from the growth of the alternative services in the 'smalls' field that the demands of the marketplace have changed and the Post Office service is not satisfactory to a growing section of the marketplace.
I emphasize that this was an independent tribunal which was asked to consider an application for a courier-type service. This tribunal heard out the Post Office and said "no" to its objection with respect to the granting of that licence. The board went on to say:
However, notwithstanding the growth of the latter market, the evidence indicates an over-all increase in the number of pieces being handled by Canada Post, attesting to the use of the mail by a large section of the public. The challenge to the Post Office with respect to retaining their share of this market relates not only to delivery times but to a pick-up service, improved proof of delivery, insurance, and claims settlement. Reference is also made to an earlier statement with respect to a pick-up service being generally available. The evidence presented fails to establish that this service had been made available with anything close to the alacrity promised. Granted, changes on the positive side, as
4920

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
noted, the board is of the opinion that given the continued growth evidenced by the Post Office figures, the Post Office should be able to retain a significant share of the market without detriment to the varied services supplied to the public.
My time is running out, but I could go on and give hon. members the verdict with respect to the Federal Express Corporation case. This, interestingly enough, was a case considered on August 18, 1977, by the Air Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
The committee rendered its judgment granting an application by Federal Express Corporation to operate a commercial air service to transport goods between Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and certain designated American cities. In short, the committee's judgment, which was subsequently asked to be appealed by the minister, was again that the Post Office should not be granted its objection. The Post Office should, in effect, be asked to compete with this type of service as opposed to relying on regulation to snuff out competition. I think this is one of the reasons we have to be very careful about the wording of Bill C-42. If we allow the Crown corporation to go ahead and get powers to regulate to the extent of actually snuffing out competition where it sees fit, it will be the Canadian consumer who will pay the penalty and be the big loser.
In light of the general information available about Crown corporations and in light of the Post Office's own record of performance-and I have referred only to two cases-it is disturbing to note that Bill C-42 could give the Post Office a virtual monopoly over the delivery of mail and parcel service.
As indicated earlier, we are generally concerned about the regulatory powers we would be giving to the Post Office in this bill. Besides limiting our freedoms, the Post Office could also pose a serious threat to our right to privacy. Clause 17(f) would give the Post Office the authority to make regulations allowing the opening of mail in order to determine whether it is undeliverable. At the same time the Post Office would be given the authority to define what is undeliverable. Clause 17 (l)(a) is to that effect. The total effect of clause 17, if put into law, would be to give the Post Office carte blanche, for example, to open mail.
Let me elaborate a little further on this point. It is not being argued that there is no need for government intervention in the economy. Rather, it is being said that government intervention should be kept to a minimum. That is our point. The present government is becoming increasingly interventionist, and I suggest that this bill will not only give the government the power to be interventionist but also that a Crown corporation responding to the government will also have such interventionist powers.
Milton Friedman, one of the most eminent economists of today, has stated, and I quote:
Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to co-operate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised. In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of
political power may arise. The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny-
I mention that because I believe that when we see a chance for such powers to be put not only into the hands of the government but also into the hands of a Crown corporation responding to that government, it is time that we in this House stood up and asked that a halt be put to such a proposal.
Let the position of the official opposition be clear. We believe that the Crown corporation proposal should proceed. We should like to see it put in place as quickly as possible. But we have requested most sincerely that those provisions in the act which touch on the regulatory side should be referred to the appropriate joint committee of this House and the other place to enable that committee to deal specifically with the regulations and bring its supervision and suggestions to bear on the bill before it is passed by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
If the government would accept the suggestion that the subject matter of clauses 2, 3 and 17 of Bill C-42, the measure now before us, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours of our proposal, we would pass this bill before the evening runs out.


Yvon Pinard: Why clauses 2 and 3?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The draftsmen tell us that, for reasons of clarity, clauses 2 and 3 should be included in the reference to the committee as opposed to referring just clause 17. But if the hon. member will read it, I do not think he will find those clauses to be offensive.
That is our position in short. In no way do we feel that the bill should be delayed simply for the sake of delaying the bill or of delaying the government in its legislative program. We believe we are dealing with something unique here. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments has a report before the House at present in which it asks that any legislation being considered which may in future have regulatory relevance be referred to the committee for consideration before being passed. We are simply saying: here is our first bill, let us do it tonight, let us make sure that the committee has a say, that it can review it, that it can see the subject matter. If this could be agreed upon, I think we could get on with passing this bill as has been indicated.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to respond to the comments of the hon. member by indicating that I would be quite willing to appear before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to discuss the subject matter of clauses 2, 3 and 17 of Bill C-42. I understand that the committee basically wishes to look at the regulatory powers which are contained in the long clause 17 on regulations.
Indeed, the remarks and suggestions of that joint committee would be helpful. The idea behind referring the other two clauses, as I understand it, is that they have to do with the
November 20, 1980

definitions and will possibly mean a reduction in the regulations. Therefore, more precise definitions will have to be incorporated in the bill and perhaps more power given directly to the corporation.
With this understanding, I would have no objection to the proposal put forward as it is quite clear that the bill will be going to the appropriate committee in its entirety to be dealt with there and, if necessary, amended in various clauses.
I wish to say that I am responding in a spirit of co-operation on the understanding that second reading will be given to the bill before us at the end of the debate tonight at ten o'clock. If that is the case, I can speak on behalf of the government and say that at the appropriate time, after the bill is passed on second reading, we will support the motion or the order of the Elouse as proposed.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is with some pleasure that I respond to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). The understanding is that the government will do what is necessary to ensure that the subject matter of clauses 2, 3 and 17 is referred to the appropriate committee, and we in turn are prepared to undertake that before ten o'clock tonight our last speaker will close off the debate in time to allow this bill to go to committee tonight.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 am certainly pleased that the minister has indicated his willingness to accommodate the motion I suggested. He has the draft motion which I showed to him earlier. On the assumption that that motion is acceptable, I understand it should be moved only after we have given second reading to Bill C-42. I certainly agree with my colleague that we are making progress and I am very pleased that the government has decided to take this attitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I indicate that what has just been discussed seems acceptable. 1 was a little concerned when I heard that the hon. member was going to try to achieve his purpose by moving an amendment at second reading, which struck me as not being in order. But as I see it, the resolution that has been made is in order. In other words, Bill C-42 will be given second reading tonight in its entirety and will go to the committee to which it is assigned, but we understand that the government, some time in the next little while, will bring before the House a special order referring these three clauses to the committee. My friend, the government House leader is shaking his head-


Yvon Pinard: The subject matter of the clauses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is right. The government will bring before the House a special order referring the subject matter of clauses 2, 3 and 17 to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. To me that is a reasonable and happy resolution of the situation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, that is right. What will happen effectively is that as soon as second reading is given by the House, we will move tonight the motion suggested by the hon.
Canada Post Corporation Act
member. I understand that there will be no debate and clauses 2, 3 and 17 will be referred to the joint committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not think it is necessary for the Chair to add anything except that it would be helpful if the wording of the proposed motion or order were to be brought to the Chair in due course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would not only be helpful, it is required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Otherwise it is understood that there will be an agreement to the effect described later this evening.


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate this evening. I have been connected with the labour movement for some time. I should like to refer to the post office which is located in my constituency. What has happend to the post office we knew at one time? Not long ago, approximately six or seven years ago, one could mail a letter in Calgary destined for Edmonton. If it was mailed early in the morning, it would be received in the afternoon of the same day. Today the Post Office cannot deliver. Perhaps it will take a week, two weeks or even a month. Yesterday I received a telephone call from one of my constituents who had received a parcel in Calgary. It was mailed in Ontario, and it took 1.5 years for it to be delivered. I cannot believe the service has deteriorated from bad to worse. It is not only a concern of the average citizen who sends mail to a friend or relative. The service has absolutely failed the business community because of a lack of leadership in government. I readily understand why. It is because the head of the government is a philosopher who does not give any practical leadership.
Not only has morale in the Post Office deteriorated; employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration, to give one example, are frustrated, disappointed and disenchanted. It is very difficult to believe the type of situation which exists in the government. As a member of Parliament who has been here for only a short while I am beginning to understand the type of democracy which exists here. It is more of a dictatorial system than a democratic one. I did not experience such a system when I was a member of the legislative assembly of Alberta, and it disappointed me when I became a federal member of Parliament.
I remember that at one point the problem in Calgary was blamed on the lack of a new facility. After the new facility was built, approximately one or two years later, it was indicated that the equipment was very sophisticated and it would take the employees some time to learn how to operate it. Since that point the situation has worsened. Approximately a year ago there were 32 to 34 semi-trucks loaded with mail. They were backed up because they could not handle the situation. I can understand this problem to some degree because the Calgary sorting station sorts mail for the entire province of Alberta and part of the province of British Columbia.

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Management is indicating that it is faced with obstruction from the bureaucracy in the government, and it blames the unions for its problems. I have met with labour and union people, and they blame management. Also it should be said that there are labour problems within the Post Office unions. I hope it is possible to correct them.
I am not too sure that the establishment of a Crown corporation will be the answer. Hopefully it will improve the situation, and 1 am prepared to go in that direction. But we must remember that the record of Crown corporations is not very good. As a matter of fact, the efficiency of Crown corporations under the Liberal government is very, very bad. 1 think that is a matter of record.
1 should like to deal with the question of hiring people, an area in which I have had some experience. A few people have aproached me asking how to apply for jobs in the Post Office. 1 have outlined the procedure, they have made applications, and some of them never even came close. On one occasion I had opportunity to review the procedure to which a person is subjected in order to qualify for a job, and I was told by a top person in the Post Office that he questioned whether even he would qualify. Certainly the test that is given is not a practical one. One might think it was designed not to attract people who would be interested in the job or people who would have pride and respect in the job. Some to whom I spoke were concerned and interested, and I asked them why they would work for the Post Office, especially when I knew many employees who were ashamed to admit that they worked for the Post Office because of its record of lousy service. One person likened it to wanting to be a policeman or fireman; he wanted to work for the Post Office. That particular person had a good education, his attitude was good, but he did not even come close to passing the test he was given in order to qualify. There is something radically wrong.
I wish I could be fully convinced that the establishment of a Crown corporation was the answer, that it would eliminate some of the bureaucracy. But as some parts of the bureaucracy are eliminated, others are created. I know the situation is worsening and possibly the establishment of a Crown corporation is the answer. Perhaps it will result in management and labour trying to work together for the first time.
1 cannot blame the trade union movement or even the workers. I blame management. Management has done a lousy job in the Post Office. Certainly we cannot compliment it. I think some surgical operation is necessary in the management area to correct the problem, and I am not fully convinced that it is the establishment of a Crown corporation.
It seems to me the service presently provided is directed more toward the delivery of junk mail. If people feel they have important mail, they send it by courier or find some other means of delivery. The private sector has reached the conclusion that it must find other ways and means of sending mail. In fact, technology has been developed in the area of electronics and telecommunications for sending mail. This will eliminate to some degree the Post Office service. If the Crown
corporation comes into being, if we are really rubber-stamping it, I should like an assurance from the minister at this time that it will expand into some other mechanical area such as data processing or whatever. I would like some assurance from the minister that it will remain as it is today under the same act. It will probably sharpen up the management. I would like to have those assurances from the minister but I see he is not in his place. As a matter of fact, I only see one minister sitting in the House right now listening to the discussion of this very important issue. That is most disappointing and discouraging.
What is the forum by which this Parliament processes its orders and legislation? I wonder if the minister will at one time or another give us an assurance that a Crown corporation will offer some improvement over the service we receive at the present time. I wonder if he will give us his assurance that there will be some co-operation between labour and management, at least much better than it is today when we have seen it at its worst. I hope that before we vote on this issue the ministers' will respond to some of these questions. I see only that the philosophy will not change under this government.
It is clear that few of the ministers-and I don't want to criticize them unduly-have experience in the areas for which they are responsible. I could pick out the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), neither of whom have had too much experience in the fields in which they are asked to perform. I realize that they do not have to know a great deal as long as they can be properly informed by their officials. I know that there are more capable people in the caucus of the Liberal party, although somehow it appears there is a kind of clique. Speaking of that clique, I know that as far as the constitution is concerned the whole Liberal caucus does not support the method the government is using to rush the constitution through. More time has been given to the Bank Act and to other issues of relatively minor importance than to the constitution, which is being railroaded.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the minister will answer some of my questions.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to repeal the Post Office Act and to create the Canada Post Corporation.
The Post Office is probably the most visible government service we have. Every day on most of our streets some person representing the Government of Canada goes from door to door. So, to a large extent, the federal government's reputation with ordinary people is determined by the effectiveness of the Post Office. That effectiveness has not been demonstrated and to a large extent the people of Canada mistrust the federal government because of the inept management of the Post Office.
The story going around my riding, where the Gateway is located, is that it costs 17 cents for the stamp-10 cents for storage and 7 cents for delivery. It is the biggest storage warehouse in the country.
November 20, 1980

I would like to go through some of the clauses of the bill. One of the most disappointing is clause 5(2) which reads:
(2) While maintaining basic customary postal service, the corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have regard to-
The clause continues in paragraph (d) "the need to maintain a corporate identity .. among other things. My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Kushner) spoke of a parcel that took a year and a half to be delivered. I received a parcel myself in Mississauga South from the riding of the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) sent by the Dictaphone Company in Etobicoke. It was mailed on January 17, 1971, and it arrived at my law office on August 29, 1980.
It would be unfair of me, with respect to a bill such as this, if I did not read into the record just two pieces of correspondence which I received as a member of Parliament. The first is from Mumby and Associates, a small business. It reads in part as follows:
Many of my business associates cannot understand why I do not use couriers, at least for my salesmen across Canada. The fact remains that I cannot afford this. Even if 1 considered using couriers, the most that this would accomplish would be to improve the orders written by my salesmen. It would not improve the orders sent directly by my customers. I am losing customers at an astounding rate, simply due to the existing postal service.
The other letter is from Gladys Hudspeth, a pensioner from England. She wrote:
My husband and I are awaiting his veterans cheque from England. It is two weeks overdue,-now this happened also in July, at which time we cabled Britain and also made a long distance call. Reply was, cheque mailed as usual, hold-up must be your end. Well, when we emigrated to Canada in 1954, we could be sure of airmail letters arriving either point, in the space of three or four days. However, computers and the postal code came along, to speed up delivery. Local mail also takes ten days-
Mr. Speaker, it is not just "the customary service" that we have been receiving. It is a disgrace that this bill should refer to "customary service" because the customary service we have been receiving is just awful-inexcusable. More important, sir, is clause (2)(c) which says:
(c) the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the corporation in a manner that will both attain the objects of the corporation and ensure the commitment and dedication of its employees to the attainment of those objects;
The Gateway Post Office is in my city. If the minister were here I would remind him of a question I asked when I was in this House is 1973. At that time I asked him about a special delivery letter from Regina to Mississauga. There is air service between those two cities and the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, we are building one of the most modern mail handling centres in the hon. member's constituency; as soon as this is done, I am sure the service will be excellent in that region.
This is the same minister who said that to me on December 6, 1973, in this House. Well, what has happened? How do we use the human resources?
Let me read into the record another letter, from James Dickson, 2395 Homelands Drive, in the City of Mississauga. He writes:
As you know, every year, the Post Office calls Manpower to send them some Christmas help. I responded and began work Nov. 22, 1979, at a rate of $4.10 per hour on a 7'/2-hour day. When I signed up, a paper I signed at that time
Canada Post Corporation Act
indicated that I would be receiving a pay cheque on Dec. 21, a little late but in time for Christmas. A week before this time, I was talking with Tom Mansfield, a clerk where I worked at the Annex at 1400 Lakeshore Road East, Mississauga, and he said that we probably wouldn't be getting our money in time as they had been mailed from Ottawa and couldn't be found.
Later, I called the pay department at Gateway and was told that I should not expect anything until mid-January.
I will not read the whole letter but let me go through the figures.
My cheque was for $429.21. This was for a pay period in which I had worked 165 hours which would gross at $676.50, a difference of $247.29. As no statement of deductions was included, this can only be for taxes. At this pay scale, they took $100 too much.
The man received his cheque in January. That is the kind of promise which is made to people working at the Post Office, the kind of performance taking place and the way in which many people are handled.
On Saturday, I had a long chat with a Barry Dann, 1015 Roosevelt Avenue in Mississauga. He has been with the Post Office for four years, but not as a permanent employee because there are ways of getting around union organization problems and that is to hire people on consecutive six-month terms. No wonder there are problems. This man has had eight consecutive six-month terms but because he opened his mouth and began to talk to people like members of Parliament, he will not have another six-month term.
Let us put on the record of this House what really happened. This man has been working as a cleaner. His job is to work under a machine which is called the bulk mail handling machine at Gateway. The bulk mail at Gateway is handled by a supervisor who is 26 years old, who has no university education or real academic training whatsoever. It is believed by the union people that he was put there merely because he knew someone. In any event, the major problem in this enterprise is that there is a machine which is supposed to handle bulk mail.
Earlier in this session I spoke of a machine called an elephant which is located at Gateway. Apparently this machine, which is used for sorting, destroys almost as many packages as it sorts on some days. This man's job is to sweep under the elephant. Most of the material from the elephant goes to a place called the UMO, the undeliverable mail office. In many cases the mail is so smashed up and so undeliverable that when people ask the Post Office what happened to their parcel rather than declare how badly it was smashed up by the machinery, they say that it must have been stolen and that they will pay for it.
I am told that there is nothing like the theft which is supposed to take place in the Post Office. In fact, a great deal of the material which is destroyed or lost is destroyed by the machinery and by the system, and that is part of the problem. There is in Mississauga an annex down at 1400 Blakeshore Road, as I have already mentioned. That little annex used to be Canadian Arsenals, but now it is used to sort bulk mail. There are 200 people at the Canadian Arsenal annex who sort

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
50 per cent of the mail, that is sorted by 2,000 employees at the bulk mail centre at Gateway.
Those are just some of the management situations and problems in the Post Office. When we hear about honest, working people going on strike, walking off the job or filing grievances, the truth of the matter is that these people are not rebels or rabble rousers. They are hard-working people who want to do a day's work for a day's pay, but who want to be treated as people. They do not want to be pushed around or put on ten consecutive day shifts. I cannot imagine working ten days straight and then having four days off. It could just as easily be a five-day shift with two days off but that is impossible for this organization.
This organization makes its own rules. They merely forget the contract and make their own rules to the point at which even junior management people are filing grievances. The situation is unbelievable. Surely if we are to have a Crown corporation bill we had better do something to improve the customary services, particularly in the area of human resources.
It has been suggested that making the Post Office a Crown corporation will simplify matters. At the present time the Department of Supply and Services must supply the materials for the Post Office, the Department of Public Works must look after the buildings and the Treasury Board looks after wages and terms of employment. It does not need to be that way. There is no reason in the world why the Post Office Act could not be changed to operate the Post Office as a department of government with the specific right to do its own contacting, pay its own people and buy its own supplies.
There is nothing magic about having to refer all the buildings to the Public Works, all the supplies to Supply and Services and all the pay scales to Treasury Board. There is no need for this diversity, but it has to be the condition and the excuse for turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Perhaps it is nothing but an excuse to get the Post Office out of the limelight of public opinion and away from the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Perhaps it is just an excuse to get the terrible situation which exists in the Post Office one step removed from the political process.
If there is no possibility of public scrutiny, people will be deprived of any easy method to make complaints through their members of Parliament. I am glad the minister is present now because I would like to go over the record since this government took office. Its first Postmaster General was the Hon. Eric Kierans who ran the deficit from $68 million to $100 million. The next Postmaster General, the Hon. Pierre Cote, was much better because he only had $77 million deficit. Then the minister here pushed it up to $177.2 million. The hon. Bryce Mackasey was really good because he banged it up to $546 million. However, he was not the expert. It is the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) who achieved the top record of $578.8 million.


Mr. Parker:: You did not mention John Fraser.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am about to mention the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). During his year it was only $279 million.


Mr. Breau:: You mean six months.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I mean for the whole fiscal year from March, when he was not responsible, right through to March 31 this year.
The present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is projecting a deficit of over $400 million, and we will give him credit for March through to March. One begins to wonder why, all of a sudden, one minister is able to keep the deficit down to $279 million while ministers of the Liberal party get it into the real big figures.


Raymond John Skelly: Are you saying the Liberals screwed up the Post Office?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has said that the Liberals have screwed up the Post Office, and the Canadian public knows that. The real question is, "will this Crown corporation improve things?" Perhaps if there is no postmaster general things will improve.
This bill will go to committee and I am pleased the minister has agreed to refer clauses 2, 3 and 17 to the standing joint committee; we will certainly give him time before ten o'clock to make the necessary motions. I would like to explain to the minister the reason clause 2 must be referred to that committee. It is because it is the section which defines such terms as "mail" as being "mailable matter" from the time it is deposited at a post office to the time it is delivered. However, it goes on to say, "mail conveyance means any physical, electronic, optical or other means used to transmit mail". The definition of transmit is, "transmit" means to send from one place to another place by any physical, electronic, optical or other means."
When you define that the post office has the right to declare what a letter is by clause 17, and declare what constitutes mail, then you find that the post office, with this regulatory power, has the right to determine that every transmission, whether oral or written or transmitted, may well be a letter and therefore mailable matter and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Post Office. That is why all those clauses should be referred. We are going to demand some good explanations for the regulatory powers which the bill appropriates to this corporation.
I always wonder why any organization should have a monopoly. One of the advantages of a system is to have competing services. In a sense, competition for the post office at the present time is the courier service. Indeed, as you know, Mr. Speaker, even ministers of the Crown have used courier service and I would not be surprised if the Postmaster General uses a courier. What about the telegraph and telephone system? It is unfair that we should have one organization with a monopoly. As long as we have competition, we have some-
<6
November 20, 1980

thing by which to judge a service. It is important, in my view, that clause 14 dealing with a monopoly situation should be very seriously curtailed. Surely private individuals should be able to set up a service. Unless the postal service is so disgraceful, any private organization cannot conceivably make a profit. But if they can make a profit, it demonstrates how disgraceful the service is. Competition would give us something by which we can judge services and something by which we can determine whether or not we have a proper post office.
Another of my hon. friend's wishes to speak tonight for a few moments, but I have one more clause I want to refer to the minister. It concerns the penal sections in clauses 40 to 53. I particularly want to refer the minister to clause 43. Under clause 43, if a person delivers a letter bomb, it is just an offence under the Post Office Act. It is not an offence under the Criminal Code. I submit that an offence under clause 43 should at least be made a Criminal Code offence so that anyone who commits it by mailing any explosive, dangerous or destructive substance, or anything likely to injure or damage property or persons should be guilty of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, not just under the regulatory effects of the Post Office.
I wonder why under those criminal sections it is illegal for you or me to sell somebody postage stamps, Mr. Speaker. Surely we are entitled to sell one another postage stamps, but that is an offence under this act. It strikes me there are a number of similar provisions under the act where it is really difficult to determine why certain actions should be made offences and subject to penalty.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by considering the major thrust of Bill C-42, which would create a Crown corporation to be called the Canada Post Corporation.
In my other emanations, prior to my election to Parliament, I was for several years counsel to government. While I held that role, many people would come to me from the public service and suggest that their governmental activity, be it a department, a commission or a board, ought to be continued and carried on as a Crown corporation. Apparently there the myth had developed that government activities, if carried on by a Crown corporation, would automatically become effective, efficient and more mindful of the costs and expenses involved in the administration. That is a myth which might well be perpetuated in this bill. The postal service in Canada is not going to change for the better by merely enacting a piece of legislation which characterizes the postal services as a Crown corporation rather than a department of the Government of Canada. It is only the people who are concerned and involved in the provision of that service who can change its nature and develop a more efficient and effective postal service for Canada.
We do not want to be fooled by the myth of a Crown corporation. We must keep in mind the people who will be operating the postal service, whether they act through the medium of a Crown corporation, a commission or any other form of government organization. Let us think about those
Canada Post Corporation Act
people for a moment. There are 66,000 people, as I understand it, who are now involved in the postal service in Canada. This is a force not much smaller than the Canadian Armed Forces, which number approximately 75,000 to 80,000 people. So we have a vast number of people involved in this transfer. It is on their shoulders that we have to rest the responsibility for the improvement in the postal service which we hope will be brought about by the bill before us.
We have all heard in this debate about the problems which have arisen as a result of the poor labour relations which have existed in the Post Office. I am not one who would deny to any working Canadian the right to a living wage. Indeed, the postal workers for many years were in exactly that position. They did not receive, through their employment, a living wage.
I would like to think, and I believe it is the case, that that problem has to a great extent been overcome. Postal employees now receive what by Canadian standards ought to be and can be regarded as a living wage. That is not to say they ought not to be protected from inflation and other cost factors which affect their ability to provide a living for themselves and their families. But we must put labour relations within the post office-be it a Crown corporation or a government department-on a sound basis. In other words, it must be put on a basis which is sensible and in accord with Canadian traditions applicable to labour-management relations.
What does this new bill do to establish that kind of relationship between the employees of the Post Office and the management of the post office? I have to answer that question by saying it does nothing. It contains only minor technical, mechanical provisions providing for the transfer of employment rights and benefits. What it may give, and what we all hope it will give, is new life to the postal service. In other words, a chance to start again, to get on a new road which will lead to a more effective labour-management relationship and one which will avoid the strikes which have partly wrecked our economy in some areas in the past. So what we look for in a new bill is a new life for the post office.
Let me deal briefly with some other aspects of this transfer to a Crown corporation. I do not want anyone in Canada to be fooled by this device. We think of the business of government as being similar to the business of industry. But it is not, Mr. Speaker. The two are entirely different. The obligation of the Government of Canada is to provide the services which are required to enable this nation to reach its goals and carry on to benefit all Canadians. Under this bill we are asking the new corporation to take over an organization which in 1978-1979 had a deficit of a half a billion dollars. Its revenues of $1.1 billion were that much less than its expenses of $1.5 billion. You have to ask yourself, how can a new business start out with that kind of deficit. The answer comes back immediately. It must seek new revenues or increase its current revenues. There is only one way the Post Office can overcome the deficit with which it is now faced. That is to raise the rates of ordinary mail. By that I mean the letter rate.

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is somewhat of an authority on this. He tells me that in the ten-year period between 1968 and 1979, the letter rate tripled from six cents to 17 cents. It is his belief it will increase dramatically over the next few months. When we look at these facts and figures, we find very quickly that we must agree with him. Canadians ought to be warned that they look forward to a letter rate very substantially higher than the present 17-cent ordinary letter rate. Canadians ought to be warned by this if they want a corporation whose goal and aim is to improve the postal service. If it is indeed the wish of Canadians and parliamentarians to put the postal service on a more sound financial basis, we have to pay the price. That price will be an increased letter rate.
Many people across this country who operate small businesses are very much dependent on the postal service. I often find myself in that position. During periods of postal strikes, cutbacks and delays in service, it is very difficult to operate a small business which depends on service to customers and utilization of the postal service. In that connection, we are very mindful of the monopoly that will be continued by the Canada Post Corporation under this new legislation. That monopoly prevents Canadians who have to depend upon the postal service from having any real alternative.
Notwithstanding this, there has grown up in most parts of Canada courier services and similar types of arrangements whereby mail material can be delivered through means other than the post office. Anyone who has operated a small business in this country during a period in which postal services have been withdrawn appreciates the existence of this courier service. I hope this new legislation and the monopoly which has been given to the postal service will not result in the persecution and prosecution of the courier services which have grown up around the country and which have been so effective in emergency situations when postal services were withdrawn.
I am sure all hon. members are aware that we need a proper balance between private sector courier services and the postal service of the Government of Canada. We cannot expect our public postal service to bear all the costs of postal service from which no profit can be received and allow private industry access to the profitable services. We always face the problem of balancing rates between government and the private sector. I hope the minister and those charged with the administration of this bill will keep this in mind.
I wish to speak briefly about what 1 consider the real pith and substance of the issue before us which is the service to the customers, to all who must use the postal service. During the course of this debate, other members have mentioned some of the horror stories relating to the postal service in the past. 1 could do so as well. However, I will cite just one instance in my constituency in the area known as the Kearney Lake Road. Within the space of a few hundred feet on one public highway, there are three levels of postal service. A few of the residents have access to regular city service. One hundred feet down the road the residents are serviced by the rural system which
allows the rural mail carrier to deliver mail to their boxes. Across the road, the residents must receive their mail through the box system.
One would think a matter like that could be easily cleared up. I have drawn it to the attention of the officials. However, that has not been the case. The situation has continued over the two or three years I have been making inquiries. I hope that with the new life this bill will breathe into the postal service by establishing the Canada Post Corporation, situations and difficulties of this kind will be remedied and that managers of our postal service will not feel they are bound by arrangements which have their base in historic facts no longer relevant to the current situation.
I mentioned the rural mail service. I want to speak briefly about the plight of our rural mail carriers. I said earlier, 1 respect the right of labour to organize and bargain collectively. I am mindful that there are 25,000 members represented by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and 20,000 letter carriers represented by the Letter Carriers Union of Canada. 1 realize friction can develop between those groups and the rural mail carriers who do not have that kind of labour organization, although 1 understand they do have an association. However, they have in common the fact that they are all human beings, citizens of Canada who must earn their way.
The rural mail carriers, as most of us know, were placed in a very onerous position. When their contract expired and they wanted to renew it, they had to bid for the contract in common with everyone else who sought to supply the same service. This applied to contracts over $10,000-in this day and age, considering they have to supply a vehicle in all cases, that is not very much money. The result was that many rural mail carriers had to underbid in order to keep the service they were providing and which was their method of earning a livelihood. In many cases they suffered extreme financial losses.
This is a situation which should not have gone uncorrected for as long as it did. I understand that under the new legislation, it will not exist. I hope the step the government is proposing will result in more reasonable and rational treatment for our rural mail carriers.
In many rural parts of this country-I am sure my colleague for Parry Sound-Muskoka will verify this-residents are almost totally dependent on the mail service as their method of communication with friends and associates across this country and in other parts of the world. Because of the continuation, 1 hope, of six-day-a-week service, they are able to receive their daily newspapers and other periodicals. It is very important to their ability to communicate with their fellow Canadians and others across the world. We who serve rural constituencies are very much aware of the importance of this service. We hope it will be improved under this new bill. We certainly hope that some of the problems which existed in the past will be resolved.
There are one or two matters I would like to mention, but 1 am mindful of the clock, Mr. Speaker. I understand the minister will close the debate in a few minutes. I will just carry
November 20, 1980

on until the clock reaches the point at which the minister ought to have that opportunity. In the meantime 1 would like to mention a matter which is of serious and grave interest to many members, and of particular interest to myself. That is the provision in the bill-I believe it is clause 17-for the making of regulations. 1 sat for some days over the past months with a special committee on regulatory reform. Time and again business interests and labour interests-virtually the whole private sector-came before it to complain that the Government of Canada and in some cases provincial governments were abusing the power to make regulations. Statutes of the Parliament of Canada and of some of the provincial legislatures gave broad general powers to make regulations, so organizations and people in the private sector who were faced with the burden of those regulations simply did not know what the course and result of a particular statute would be.
We are disappointed to see that that kind of legislation has continued in Bill C-42 which, in clause 17, gives a very broad and extensive power to make regulations. I understand the minister has addressed himself to that point and will later on in this debate or at some appropriate time indicate the kinds of regulations which are likely to be enacted under that general authority. However, this should serve as a reminder to all of us who are concerned with regulatory reform and have an interest in removing or minimizing the burden on the private sector resulting from government regulation which in the end acts to the detriment of all Canadians and particularly consumers. Those of us who have an interest in that area would like to see a more general policy applied by the government in all legislation so that we could eliminate this abuse of the regulatory process. I am anxious to hear what the minister has to offer us in that connection so that the private sector can be assured that it will not suffer harm through the exercise of the regulatory authority granted by this bill.
By way of conclusion, let me say that the real purpose and hopefully the goal of this legislation is to improve postal service to customers, those who use the service-and in the circumstances this really amounts to all the people of Canada. If the postal service is not improved and if the charges applied to the services provided by the Post Office are not kept within reasonable limits, this whole exercise will have failed. The Crown corporation concept will have offered nothing in the way of improvement to postal service.
Let us remember-and 1 hope the minister is mindful of this-that all the utilization of the concept of a Crown corporation does, is give the postal service a new start. That new start has to involve better labour-management relations and the implementation and provision of a more effective postal service so that all Canadians will receive the benefits.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker-


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the hon. Postmaster General seeking to close the debate?
Canada Post Corporation Act


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have an indication that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) rises to speak.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be delighted to see the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) close the debate, and I will take only a moment or two.
This debate closes after-I was going to say many months, but many years-many years of a concerted effort by many people to try to work toward a solution to the Post Office problems. This is perhaps a significant moment in that long process.
It was my hope while I had the privilege of serving as postmaster general to bring in legislation similar to this. I think 1 can say-and I know my friend, the present Postmaster General, will accept this in the gentle way it is intended-that the former government intended to have this brought into the House many months ago and passed. Events made that impossible, but 1 want to assure the Postmaster General and the people who make up the Post Office family that the principle involved in this bill is extremely important to my party. We are very happy to see this debate close at this time, and we are happy to see the bill put into committee where some of its complexities will be discussed.
The Post Office is a great Canadian institution. Sixty thousand people work in the Post Office, and they are doing their very best to provide service to their fellow Canadians. If, as a result of our deliberations, we as parliamentarians can make that task easier for them, it will do two things. It will increase the level of morale and the spirit of the people in the Post Office, who are our fellow citizens, and it will increase the efficiency of the Post Office, the consequences of which will redound to the benefit of the taxpayers of Canada.
I want also to say to the Postmaster General that the accommodation he has graciously, but very sensibly, given to us this night has made it possible to end debate at second reading and move the bill into committee. Of course, it will not just be considered in the miscellaneous estimates committee; as well, the subject of certain clauses which are very important to the democratic function will be discussed in another committee, a joint House of Commons and Senate committee which has been established to consider those very matters.
On behalf of my party I want to say that this is indeed a significant event tonight. I want to repeat to my friends in the Post Office that 1 am happy to be able to say that progress is being made. Perhaps it is not being made as rapidly as we all would wish, but progress is being made. Again, I want to thank the Postmaster General for the accommodations he gave to my party this evening.

November 20, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act

Elon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to bring the debate to a close.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), but I am advised that it is a courtesy to the House to warn the House that the Postmaster General will now close the debate.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise and put an end to the debate on second reading of this bill. 1 think that many members of the large Post Office family will go to bed happy tonight realizing that an important stage in the life of the Post Office Department is under way or will end in a certain way.
This bill which will change the department into a Crown corporation is eagerly awaited, need I say it again, not only by the officials of the Post Office Department but also by the representatives of the postal unions and their leaders. I firmly believe that the bill will considerably improve not only the postal administration but also the service and labour relations at the Post Office.
1 thank hon. members on both sides of the House who took part in the debate and most of all were willing to co-operate so that the bill will be given second reading tonight.
I listened carefully when my predecessor, the former Postmaster General, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), stated that as Postmaster General he would have liked to pilot this bill and have it passed by Parliament.
This is only the beginning. Today is November 20. 1 am aware that the postal unions would like this bill to be passed before the end of the year. 1 hope I can expect the same support from hon. members from both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, so that we can work together within the committee and arrive at the necessary amendments quickly. 1 say here and now that some of these amendments have been suggested by hon. members from the Progressive Conservative Party as well as the New Democratic Party, and it is with this attitude of openmindedness and co-operation that I will get down to work with the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, chaired by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), which will have to scrutinize every section of the bill and, should the need arise, approve the necessary amendments.
The committee, I know, is to get to work as early as next week. I hope it can report back before the middle of December, let us say, one month from now, so that this bill may come for third reading before Parliament. I do not want to exert any pressure on my hon. colleagues, make it an obligation for them
or anything, but I should like this bill to be studied, reported on and passed on third reading before Christmas.
In closing, I echo the comments made tonight by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) on the advisability of submitting some of the provisions of this bill to a joint committee of the House and the Senate with a view to their looking into certains aspects of the bill, especially the regulations. Naturally, after the bill is passed, I shall be pleased to put to the House the appropriate motion to refer parts of the bill to another parliamentary committee. That committee shall not, of course, be authorized to amend the act. The only committee that can do so is the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates but I feel that the discussions, recommendations and suggestions of the joint committee of the House and the Senate, the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, can certainly be useful. In that spirit of co-operation, I thank all hon. members, not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of all the Post Office employees who, I trust, are about to make up one of the nice corporations of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May 1 just draw it to the attention of those hon. members for whom this is appropriate that the Chair will now put the question with respect to the second reading, but is not yet equipped with the motion which will deal with the reference to the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following order of the House:
That the subject matter of clauses 2, 3 and 17 of Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With the consent of the House, I shall call it ten o'clock.
November 20, 1980



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1980, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House whether he can ensure that the government will be taking the necessary steps to provide for the extension of the natural gas pipeline eastward to Nova Scotia.
The minister, in response to my question, assured members of the House that the government would indeed take the necessary steps to ensure the construction of a pipeline to the east coast and to Nova Scotia. I had reason to question the minister and the Government of Canada on this matter because in January of 1980 the man who is now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) appeared in Nova Scotia, in fact in my constituency, and stated in very clear terms that if he were elected, his Liberal government would take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes. That was not the Prime Minister's final word on the subject. In the Speech from the Throne the promise was repeated, and again in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on October 28 we heard the same promise.
We in Nova Scotia were well aware that the National Energy Board of Canada had denied the applicant permission to construct a gas pipeline to the east coast. The applicant in that case was Q & M Pipeline Limited which was later joined by TransCanada Pipelines Limited in the joint venture for the construction of the pipeline. The province of Nova Scotia appealed the decision of the National Energy Board to deny Q & M permission to construct the pipeline, and on the very day the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) had confirmed the government's intention to construct the pipeline, the National Energy Board dismissed the appeal.
So I ask the minister how he can guarantee to residents of the east coast that the National Energy Board will now, following the statement of government intention, approve the construction of a gas pipeline to the east coast.
Let me review briefly what is involved in obtaining the permission of the National Energy Board to construct a gas pipeline in Canada. An applicant must apply to the board for a certificate of public convenience. The procedure by which an applicant seeks such a certificate is very time consuming. Indeed, in many cases in the past it has taken not a matter of months, but years. I am told that an application of the kind required for the construction of a pipeline extension to the east
Adjournment Debate
coast could not even be under way until January, 1981, and even then it could take several months more before the National Energy Board could render its decision.
This does not appear to be consistent with another of the pronouncements of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which was that a gas pipeline would be in place by 1983. It is difficult for some of us to understand how the minister could make such an undertaking when he could not even assure this House, or anyone else in any other forum, that an application would be under way before 1981 and speedily dealt with so as to allow construction to start in 1981. Most people familiar with pipeline construction could not imagine the construction work could be completed in less than two or three years. So we in the east are very suspicious that the minister is not telling us the entire facts and truth when he undertakes to have the pipeline in place by 1983.
This link from the east coast to the western gas supplies is vital to the future of Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces which are now totally dependent upon foreign oil for much of their electrical generation and for the heating of their homes, not to mention transportation fuels which are absolutely essential to their economy. Not only is the pipeline linked to our energy supply, but it is an important factor in the development of a liquid natural gas terminal which we hope will be located in Nova Scotia on the Strait of Canso. In fact, proponents of that scheme, which include Petro-Canada, indicated that unless the pipeline is assured to the east coast, the liquid natural gas terminal, which would be part of the Arctic pilot project, would be located on the St. Lawrence River at Gros Cacouna. So, we see competition arising for the construction and location of the liquid natural gas terminal, and if the Strait of Canso is not in the running for that mammoth facility it will be because the National Energy Board failed to give permission to construct the gas pipeline extension.
On bringing these matters to the attention of the House and by raising the question with the minister, I received his firm undertaking that the government would indeed proceed with the construction of the natural gas pipeline extension. In fact, the minister indicated that if the National Energy Board did not provide speedy permission and grant a certificate as required under the legislation, he would present the House of Commons with a bill to implement construction.
I have before me the famous bill of 1956 which was an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Crown Corporation which, as all members know, caused a tremendous controversy. I hope the minister will not create a similar situation so that we will again be dependent upon the action of the government in bringing a bill before the House to implement the construction of the pipeline extension. I hope the minister will urge the National Energy Board to take speedy action and grant a certificate so that the pipeline can be completed on schedule in 1983.

November 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Elalifax West (Mr. Crosby) on October 29 concerning the extension of the gas pipeline to the maritimes, I am pleased to remind the House of the assurance given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that this project is one of national priority. It is a matter to which the government attaches the highest importance.
In the Speech from the Throne in April of this year it was clearly stated that the federal government favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the Maritimes. The National Energy Board approved the extension to Quebec City. Although the board denied the application for the extension of the pipeline to the maritimes pending clarification of environmental specifications and east coast offshore gas development scheduling, the minister assured the House that the board would deal expeditiously with a new application. He gave a further undertaking that as a matter of national policy, the pipeline would be extended without delay, to be completed by 1983.
The National Energy Program, tabled on October 28, gives additional assurances. In the program, the federal government clearly stated that it supports construction of a gas pipeline to the maritimes. To ensure its financial feasibility, the government has initiated the following measures:
1.	The city-gate price of natural gas in maritime communities will be the same as Toronto.
2.	A contingency fund of up to $500 million will be available to assist in financing the pipeline if it is necessary.
3.	Grants of up to $800 will be available to consumers converting from oil heating to gas heating.
4.	Grants will be available to distribution companies to assist them to develop gas markets.
The National Energy Board has stated its willingness to deal expeditiously with a new application from the Trans Quebec and Maritime Pipeline sponsors. In turn, the company has indicated to the board that it is prepared to renew its application. A decision during the spring of 1981 would mean the pipeline could be delivering gas to Halifax by late 1983 and to Cape Breton by 1984.
in summary, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the statement made in the Speech from the Throne last April regarding the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the maritimes, from the specific provisions relative to this project in the National Energy Program, and from the assurance given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House on October 29, that natural gas services will be extended to the maritimes by 1983.


FINANCE-CANADA SAVINGS BONDS-INQUIRY WHETHER INTEREST RATE WILL BE INCREASED
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on November 3 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-
Eachen) if he was considering an increase in the Canada Savings Bonds rate. At that time the Canada Savings Bonds program contemplated a rate of I0l/t per cent. I suggested 11 Vi per cent. Later that day-though the minister did not give me a commitment in this House that he would do it-he increased the rate on Canada Savings Bonds for this year to 11 Vi per cent.
This is not the first time that a government faced with massive redemptions and unsaleable Canada Savings Bonds in a sales program because of rapid changing interest factors has been forced to change the interest rate for one or two years or for the duration of a bond issue. The Hon. John Turner had to do it. My hon. friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) had to do it. This minister has had to do it. It has happened many times before.
Canada Savings Bonds represent a very large demand on the debt structure of the country, although certainly not the demand they once did.
I remind the House that there were outstanding as of November 12, 1980, $15,681 billion of Canada Savings Bonds. At that time the program for the sale of these bonds was still under way for the current sale period.
I also remind the House that the redemption rate has been enormous. In times when interest rates rise very rapidly there is a tendency by people holding Canada Savings Bonds to cash their bonds and put their money into some better investment, some higher paying investment. So in a sense the government is blackmailed into a position where it must increase the interest payable on all its bond in order to slow down redemptions.
On a number of occasions in committee we have asked the government about the cost of the Canada Savings Bonds program. This program costs the Government of Canada about 1.25 per cent to sell the bonds.
I might point out these bonds are cashable on demand at any time. They are probably, in one sense of the word, one of the safest cash investments which a person could ever hope to acquire. However, with the problem of continual redemption, the cost of placing the bonds presents an enormous burden to the treasury. Guaranteed investment certificates are sold with a commission rate of one-fifth of 1 per cent, so that a trust company when borrowing on a five-year certificate, closed for five years, can borrow its money with a 1 per cent commission.
Yet, the government cost on commissions alone is 1 per cent, and with the other costs it comes to about 1.25 per cent. So the government is in a situation where the cost of borrowing money through Canada Saving Bonds is really not cheap. What it must do, therefore, is come up with another method of selling its Canada Savings Bonds.
I would like to offer a couple of suggestions. First, it might contemplate selling a 2 per cent bond plus inflation. Throughout the last century the British government financed itself on what were called British consuls. People received only 2 per
November 20, 1980

cent on the bonds because there was no inflation. People were happy with that rate of interest, which over time has been the safe rate of return which investors want on their money. The reason investors want 12 per cent, 13 per cent, or 14 per cent today is because of our rate of inflation. Investors want 2 per cent plus the rate of inflation.
Perhaps the government would find it much more attractive to sell an inflation-proof bond. By financing in this way, it would save itself a great deal of money on redemptions.
The second thing which the government might consider is a bond which has a flat rate of interest, say, 8 per cent, plus an adjusting rate of interest which floats up or down based on the average half-yearly rate on 90-day treasury bills.
I say this seriously to the government because unless it comes up with another program I shall be raising these points in the House during question period, perhaps next week, because, as we learned earlier, the 90-day rate on treasury bills at the option this afternoon was 13.06 per cent. The rate on the 180-day bills was another 30 basis points higher. Interest rates have risen virtually one full per cent since I raised this question with the minister on November 3. What will happen is the same thing as has happened before and it happens again and again. We will see a run on Canada Savings Bonds. People will cash their bonds and buy a better, higher-paying investment because they want a better return for their money.
If interest rates continue to rise, the minister will have to pay that extra point and make the return on the bond 12 per cent or 12.5 per cent. This is a continuous problem, and if the minister does not raise the return, then there will be redemptions and if there are redemptions, the minister will have to pay to the big boys-the banks and people dealing in treasury bills and bonds-the 13 per cent, 13.5 per cent or 14 per cent that will be required by the marketplace.
The ministry must come up with another system because people in Canada, strangely enough, want to lend money to the government. But they still want a fair return on their savings. Canadians do not want to wind up in the situation where they are receiving perceptively less than market rates for their money. The government must come up with a proposition which gives people a rate of return on their savings bonds that is related to the treasury bill rate or, if you like, to the Bank of Canada rate. Even if it is .5 per cent less than the Bank of Canada rate, then that would be fair, something which would be acceptable and which would save the government a great deal of money.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the question asked of the Minister of Finance on November 3 by the hon. member in which he suggested the CSB rate be reviewed at an early date. In fact, the minister announced at the same time that the rate of interest on the 1980-81 series for the year beginning November 1, 1980, would be raised to 11.5 per cent from 10.5 per cent. Further, the rate for the 1980-1981 year on all outstand-
Adjournment Debate
ing issues was increased by a full one percentage point to 11.5 per cent. This enhancement to the yield on CSBs largely offsets the increases in the rates which have taken place on short-term savings instruments since the terms of the new series were announced on September 12. The rates of return now payable on all outstanding issues of CSBs and the new series are attractive relative to competing savings instruments, given the other attractive features of the Canada Savings Bonds.
The 11.5 per cent first year CSB rate and 10.5 per cent rate payable in the remaining six years are somewhat lower than the current interest rates on other forms of government debt. For example, treasury bills for 91 and 182-day terms as at November 13 were yielding 12.42 per cent and 12.79 per cent respectively. Short, mid and long-term Canada bonds are presently yielding about 13 per cent. However, it is not unusual for CSBs to have a slightly lower rate of return than other forms of government debt. CSBs compete in a different market than this form of debt. The CSB rate is guaranteed for a full seven-year term on the new issue whereas treasury bill rates, while attractive at this moment, may well move down sharply when these short-term instruments mature. Government of Canada marketable bonds pay a higher rate of interest relative to CSBs due to the market risks associated with such instruments. If interest rates move to higher levels, investors will suffer a capital loss when selling Canada marketable bonds, whereas CSBs can always be redeemed at full face value. Another reason CSBs have a lower yield is that they are a more expensive form of financing relative to treasury bills and marketable bonds due to the issuing fees and commission structure. It is generally more expensive for the government to issue its debt in small denominations to a widely dispersed market, and these cost considerations are given careful consideration when determining the CSB rate. Consequently, the rate is set with a view to being as generous as possible for investors while at the same time minimizing as far as possible the public debt charges.
It has been suggested that the CSB rate should be equal to, or better than, the rate of inflation. The new 11.5 per cent first year CSB rate is higher than the inflation rate projection mentioned in the budget. I cannot say that the CSB rate will always be higher than the inflation rate at any point in time. In the past, it has not been unusual to experience periods when the rate of interest on most types of savings instruments has been below the rate of inflation. Such a phenomenon reflects investor expectations of lower inflation rates in the future. In the case of CSBs, investors over the past several years have generally enjoyed rates of return higher than the inflation rate. More important, the CSB rates, which have been increased periodically, have been quite attractive relative to rates of interest on short-term competing savings instruments.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-CHEMICAL TESTING-AVAILABILITY OF STUDIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to the question I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on November 4 concern-

November 20, 1980
Adjournment Debate
ing tests of chemicals by a laboratory called IBT in the United States that were shown to be invalid. I was most surprised at the minister's response because the minister has a reputation of being one of the most progressive members of Cabinet and a person who is relatively sensitive to human and ecological issues. Her response seemed to indicate to me that we were touching on a very raw nerve.
I asked questions concerning chemicals, the IBT affair and the number of pesticides which are loose on the market today. Hundreds of millions of gallons of these products are used over a very large area yet we have found there exist no valid studies which tell us that the extended use of these products will not be harmful to human health, will not cause cancer or damage the reproductive process.
There are hundreds of new chemicals entering the human environment every year. The human chemical environment or world chemical environment has been greatly changed in the last decade or so, but unfortunately we find that the government has an attitude more appropriate to two decades ago. It certainly does not have the tools to deal adequately with this new phenomenon, this radical change in the environment. What we have found in the IBT case is that 99 per cent of the long-term studies were flawed. They were not accurate.
There is a fungicide called Captan. Thirteen of the 14 tests on that are invalid. We understand there are no other studies in existence to show that the fungicide Captan is not dangerous to human health. This product is used in very large quantities in the agricultural sector of this country, yet there are no studies which allow us to believe it is not harmful to human health.
In the past we have experienced some major crises. We all remember the case of thalidomide and the very unfortunate effects of that. There is no assurance that Captan is not like thalidomide, only stretched over a larger space of time. There are no valid studies. Captan is not the only one. IBT has done hundreds of studies. The American Environmental Protection Agency is now telling us that most of those studies were flawed. This is the type of information we have been trying to get from the government. I am not the only one. When the minister tells the House she has been most open with the public and her colleagues in the provinces, the record shows that this is not so, I wish to quote from the August 28, 1980, Leader-Post. It quotes the environment minister Ted Bower-man. I quote:
"Continued use of the chemicals in question with no public statement as to the particular flaws in the testing is an unsatisfactory position," Bowerman said.
"1 am anxious to learn of plans for improving the federal registration procedure and the development of a Canadian capability for conducting tests."
Mr. Bowerman has been asking questions of the department as to how many and what chemicals are involved. He has been asking for details of the chemicals with regard to which studies have been flawed, and for descriptions of the chemicals which were subject to valid studies. The government has consistently refused to let this information be made public. We have to go
to the United States to get the answer. I challenge the government to change its attitude where it relates to chemicals and the testing of chemicals, and to be open with the public.


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the allegations made by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). In a few moments I will provide him with a very technical answer. However, I wish to reply to some of the remarks he made with regard to the minister's involvement and the answers she gave in this House.
Over a period of time the hon. member for Regina East has been making these allegations in the House. The minister, to the best of her ability, has been giving the responses she is capable of giving at the present time. We in the department have made several attempts and have had individual meetings with the member involved to explain this to him.
I understand that the head of our health protection branch had a three-hour meeting with the hon. member to explain to him some of the data which is available to the department and the difficulties which arise from some of the data which have come from IBT, but to suggest that the health protection branch is not at least aware of the problem and doing the best it can with respect to the protection of health and the environment in Canada is a stretch of the imagination.
Approximately three years ago it was discovered that there were irregularities in certain animal studies conducted by IBT, a U.S. firm which conducts safety evaluations on behalf of pesticide manufacturers for submissin to U.S. and Canadian regulatory agencies. I think it is a fact well known to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) that once such data was made available with that kind of irregularity a moratorium was placed on any product on which studies were done by IBT. Since that time we no longer accept the results of studies submitted by IBT to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as to our health protection branch. We no longer accept those results from that particular laboratory. This has forced the manufacturers in those cases where it was found that the tests were invalid to go back, at their own cost, to re-do the studies. I think it is well known that such a process takes considerable time.
Officers of the health protection branch working co-operatively with their counterparts in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have determined that the status of approximately 100 pesticides depends on the validity of critical studies required to ensure that any potential human health risk is minimal. Additional IBT studies which were not pivotal to the original regulatory decision are also being reassessed, as time permits, in order to detect any undisclosed adverse effects. This reassessment may identify other chemicals of concern to those responsible for the safety of spray operators, wildlife, the environment, forest spraying, etc. The current list issued by the Environmental Protection Agency contains approximately twice as many pesticides as the Canadian list. The difference in the two lists is due to two facts. First, the Environmental
November 20, 1980

Protection Agency identified all studies for audit and validation while Canada identified only the critical studies for audit at this time. In other words, Canada identified key pivotal studies upon which a decision to register or not to register a pesticide rested. Second, some pesticides registered in the U.S. for uses such as on cotton are not required in Canada.
1 want to finish this because the hon. member asked for these figures on a previous occasion. As of October 1 of this year, 920 IBT studies have been identified in submissions from pesticide manufacturers. Of these, 247 are valid, 296 are adjudged invalid and 377 have not been audited to date.
Adjournment Debate
In response to the second point the hon. member raised, Mr. Speaker, upon legal confirmation from our department, we will be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but unfortunately there is an understanding that during the adjournment debate the time allowances are very strictly adhered to.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 21, 1980