1980-06-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
1 have received from the townships of Flos and Tecumseh, in my constituency, an endorsement of a resolution from the town of Exeter, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has been criticizing the foreign policies of peaceful nations friendly to our country, while ignoring the recent action of Soviet troops in the killing of 60 innocent school children in Kabul, Afghanistan, on April 26, 1980, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this government show courage and determination in expressing to the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics our disgust and horror at these atrocities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of particular significance to Albertans.
During the summer of 1978, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip made an official visit to Alberta on the occasion of the Commonwealth Games which were held in Edmonton. The Queen officiated at the opening, and Prince Philip officiated at the closing of the games. In addition, the Queen and Prince Philip made an historic and highly successful tour of the multicultural and multilinguistic communities north and east of the city of Edmonton and endeared themselves to these pioneering citizens.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the name of Elk Island National Park be officially changed by the federal government to the Prince Philip National Park, and that Prince Philip be invited to officiate at a name-changing ceremony as part of Alberta's seventy-fifth anniversary celebrations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion. In view of the numerous statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), prior to his appointment to the cabinet, which called for legislation to protect individuals and companies from foreign boycotts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government immediately introduce legislation to protect individuals, companies and businesses from the consequences of foreign boycott operations against Canadian citizens or companies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.

June 17, 1980
Because this government claims to be committed to reducing the amount of paper work inflicted on small businessmen by the federal government, since this government in its April 21 mini-budget introduced provisions which shift the responsibility for the collection of federal sales and excise taxes from multinational oil companies to small, independent oil dealers, and due to the fact that this responsibility placed upon the backs of small, independent distributors causes undue hardships on small businessmen as they are forced to become licensed collectors of federal sales and excise taxes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That this government regain its sanity and return the responsibility for collecting federal sales and excise taxes to the large oil companies, which have the resources to handle this paper work, rather than placing the burden on small, independent distributors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WORLD BANK
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A recent press article reports that former finance minister John Turner is a candidate for the position of president of the World Bank. Given Mr. Turner's record of fiscal mismanagement when he was finance minister, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Canadian government protest in the strongest possible terms Mr. Turner's possible appointment as head of the World Bank, which would give him the opportunity to do to the world what he did to Canada during his disastrous tenure as finance minister.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: In light of the fact that the Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Development today provided information to the Standing Committee on Regional Development which proved that Canadian taxpayers are not receiving their money's worth from DREE incentives to large
multinational corporations-money which is often given only because the companies threaten to locate elsewhere-and since the figures provided today indicate that the $21.5 million given to small businesses provided 4,680 jobs in 1979-80, since the $72.3 million given to large corporations provided 4,690 jobs- a mere ten jobs more for the extra $50 million given to large corporations-and since, in addition, the deputy minister also confirmed that the $23 million in federal funds was provided in the last four years to assist the now closed ITT plant in Port Cartier, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House instruct the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to fund only those operations with less than $2 million in approved capital costs, in order that Canadian taxpayers receive the best number of jobs per dollar spent on regional development projects; and, further, that the government reopen the ITT plant in Port Cartier as a Crown corporation to provide jobs for this hard-pressed region, and ensure that the $23 million spent in the last four years on this new plant not be wasted as another offering to the gods of multinationals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL LOANS ACT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. The Small Loans Act in totally irrelevant. It is causing persons wishing to borrow from credit unions and finance companies to borrow in excess of what they really need because of the strictures on interest rates.
The government has indicated that the act is no longer required nor, indeed, appropriate for today's times. This party has agreed with the government that it would, with limited debate, abolish this unnecessary statute if a bill were introduced to that effect. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House direct the government to forthwith introduce a bill to abolish the Small Loans Act, and forthwith bring the bill on for debate and immediate passage; and this House agrees to pass the said bill through all stages without delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 17, 1980

Oral Questions
ENERGY


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NEWFOUNDLAND-TRANSMISSION OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER THROUGH QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, on April 16, the Premier of Newfoundland wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada indicating that talks between Newfoundland and Quebec over the transmission of Newfoundland hydro power had broken down and were not productive.
Yesterday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seemed to be taking the side of Quebec in this dispute. 1 would make the point, in support of my motion, that Newfoundland has the same right to transmit its power through Quebec as Alberta has to transmit natural gas through Ontario to Quebec. Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House direct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, on behalf of the government, to comply with a written request to the Prime Minister of Canada from the Premier of Newfoundland to exercise its authority under the BNA Act to provide for transmission of Newfoundland hydroelectric power through the province of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to put a motion to this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week the American Defense Preparedness Association will be hosting an international conference on "Trends in Large Calibre Gun Systems" right across the street from this House, at the Government Conference Centre.
In view of the fact that security clearances for the conference will be processed through the Department of Supply and Services, that senior Canadian officials will be participants in the conference, and that Canadian companies-notably, Space Research of South Africa-will be plying their trade at this conference, and in view of the government's announced intention to name an ambassador at large for disarmament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House direct the Government of Canada to have this conference either cancelled or moved from the Government Conference Centre or, failing that, at the very least prohibit Canadian officials from participating in conferences of such an inappropriate nature.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who knows that the present energy agreement runs out in less than two weeks. The minister has had six months since he voted against our energy proposals. He indicated the other day that he has now brought himself to proposing to Alberta an interim agreement by telephone.
In his meeting tomorrow with the province of Alberta, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to propose a detailed and comprehensive energy program, on behalf of Canada, which will deal with both price and security of supply and will extend at least three or four years into the future?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madame Speaker, I have already had meetings with my Alberta colleague. During our last one, I had the opportunity to make him some specific offers concerning the price of oil and gas in Canada. Up until now, my offers have been rejected. I contacted my colleague again to offer him an interim arrangement which would allow us to pursue negotiations and, in particular, to make sure that constitutional talks could go on unhindered by discussions on oil pricing.
Again tomorrow, I will be meeting with my colleague to explore with him other alernatives to those he has rejected to date. As I indicated, these alternatives will comprise many factors which will cover the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has indicated that in his earlier meeting he discussed only questions of price, and that tomorrow he intends only to explore solutions to the problem of renewing an agreement which expires in less than two weeks.
Does the federal government have a firm and detailed proposal to submit to the producing provinces? If not, what has the federal government been doing these last six months?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 17, 1980
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 regret that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition counts so badly. This government has not been in office for six months: it took at least two months to bring down the terrible government we had last year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the point raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is concerned, I want to assure him that the offer I will put forward will be comprehensive.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps I was giving the minister too much credit for foresight. I assume that when he voted down an energy policy which would have given Canada security of supply and an effective pricing increase, he had an alternative in mind six months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: Obviously, he did not.


Charles Joseph Clark: What troubles me is that there is no evidence he has an alternative in mind today, 13 days before the expiry of the agreement now in place. I should like to ask him a couple of specific questions about the comprehensive agreement he intends to discuss tomorrow with the government of Alberta.
Can the minister tell the House of Commons whether there will be a provision for some kind of special help to lower income Canadians who will be affected by the price increases that will come: special help either in the form of the kind of tax credit proposed by my government or by some other means?
Can he tell us whether the federal proposal he intends to put before the province of Alberta tomorrow involves using some of the tax moneys from the petroleum industry in Canada to establish an institution similar to the Canadian Energy Bank that will allow and encourage Canadian individuals to invest in the development of the Canadian energy? Will those details be part of the precise package which he will put before the government of Alberta tomorrow?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition seems to be very exercised about the fact that we have been negotiating for four months. I need only remind him that it took him six months not to reach an agreement with the government of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: We are going to meet again tomorrow, and meet as long as necessary. There have been indications by myself and by the minister of energy for Alberta that July 1 was a target date, not a deadline, and that we were trying to reach an agreement by July 1. I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition has read the press reports both from me and from Mr. Leitch to the effect that if some progress shows up, we would continue our discussions even after July 1.
As to the specific contents of these exchanges, I indicated before that I did not intend to reveal the content of the specific proposals that might be made by the government of Alberta: I do not think 1 should do so unless and until we have met, discussed them and agreed to make them public. I think for the purpose of frank and honest discussion I should at least pay the courtesy to my colleague of having meetings with him first before revealing any of these contents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister is prepared to reveal details on national television, but not in this House of Commons. Can he tell us, in respect of the proposal he is going to put to the Alberta government tomorrow, first of all whether it will be a firm proposal; and, secondly, whether that proposal will include elements other than simply price?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition claims that I have not been willing to give information to the House of Commons. Last week I sat every day in the House expecting a question asking me what offer I would make to the government of Alberta, but I am afraid the opposition was not on its toes. I do not know whether the opposition was asleep, but they did not rise at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us now.


Marc Lalonde: It took somebody from the press to ask me the question whether an offer had been made and what the answer might be. As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I have already said that the offer I would make would be comprehensive.


DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ALSANDS AND COLD LAKE PROJECTS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The June 30 deadline is well known. Perhaps less well known is another deadline-but of vital importance-and that is the August I deadline by which government concurrence is required in order to permit both the Alsands and the Cold Lake projects to commence this year-projects of $6 billion each. Is it the government's position and policy that either, or both, of those projects commence in 1980?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would hope that our discussions with the government of Alberta will have reached a definite conclusion by the end of July, at the latest.


William Herbert Jarvis: Then I do not understand, Madam Speaker, why the minister is, or has been talking in terms of an October agreement and simply an interim agreement. He will be aware that his colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development, in the other place, indicated that Alsands alone in the construction and engineering phases, together with the
June 17, 1980

multiplier spin-off, would create 110 million man-hours of employment or 55,000 jobs, many of which would be in Ontario and Quebec, in manufacturing, engineering and other professional services.
1 want from the minister his commitment that this employment and economic project will not be delayed one full year while the minister talks about interim agreements, when these two projects need concurrence by August 1.


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity of meeting with officials of Alsands and discussing this matter with them. The hon. member also knows, from the past, that the problem with regard to Alsands has not been with the federal government but has been with the government of Alberta which has up to now refused authorization to proceed with the Alsands project.


An hon. Member:: Who invoked the force majeure?


Marc Lalonde: If the government of Alberta gives the proper authorization, I am sure the Alsands group will be very eager to proceed. As a matter of fact, they have decided, as the hon. member knows, to proceed this year with expenditures without even having firm authorization from the government of Alberta to proceed. I think that is a clear indication of where the responsibility lies at the present time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the government's commitment in the Speech from the Throne to world peace and disarmament, and the pending appointment of an ambassador for disarmament, can the minister tell the House why the Canadian government is hosting a secret armaments conference sponsored by the American Defence Preparedness Association here in Ottawa at the Government Conference Centre from June 24 to June 26?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is not the Canadian government that is the host of this conference; it is the American Defence Preparedness Association. We happen to be involved in assisting them because we believe that Canada has an interest in seeing that that conference takes place successfully.


RCMP REPORT ON SPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I beg to differ: the government is hosting the conference and has made available the Conference Centre in order that the conference might take place on the minister's
Oral Questions
permission. A number of senior officials from National Defence, Space Research Corporation and IT & C are taking part. Speaking of Space Research Corporation, I would like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice or, in his absence, the acting minister or the Prime Minister if he is interested.
In view of the participation of Space Research Corporation in this secret armaments conference, and in view of its recent conviction in the United States courts for illegally selling arms to South Africa in violation of the UN arms embargo, will the minister or the Prime Minister inform the House why the RCMP report on the activities of Space Research Corporation has been kept secret and when, if ever, it will be released?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of most of the facts to which the hon. member has referred, but I will be happy to take note of the question on behalf of the minister.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I shall then ask a question of a minister who is present, the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the minister confirm recent reports that the government is considering having Canadian Arsenals Limited acquire a substantial interest in Space Research Corporation, and whether that interest will include the 20 per cent that is now owned by the South African government's armaments corporation, Armscor?
Will he, further, tell the House what contracts government departments or agencies currently have with Space Research Corporation?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, with reference to the first part of the hon. lady's question, this is a matter which is to go before cabinet; therefore, I would hope that the hon. lady would wait until the end of this month in order to permit me to bring the matter before cabinet, which will enable me to be in a position to provide further information to the House.
With regard to the second portion of the hon. lady's question, I would like to take notice of it and I will provide the information at a later date.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS, UNITED KINGDOM
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of members of the House to the presence in our gallery of the hon. Nicholas Ridley, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, of the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2174

June 17, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


GASOLINE-USE THEREOF BY NON-CANADIANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. David  Crorabie@Rosedale: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it concerns energy costs. I have a particular concern with respect to Canadian-subsidized fuel being sold for foreign use.
The minister is aware that the Canadian taxpayer subsidizes foreign businesses and foreign consumers for up to at least 50 cents a gallon for every gallon that is used by foreign businesses and foreign consumers. It is my understanding that this practice is costing the Canadian taxpayer in the order of $100 million. 1 should like to ask the minister if he can confirm that figure; and, if so, could he advise the House what he is doing about it?


Marc Lalonde: On the first point, Madam Speaker, I notice that one hon. member yesterday referred to a figure of $100 million with regard to car use. The advice I have from my officials is that that figure is much in excess of what it would most likely be: it is more likely about half of that amount, in realistic terms. However, that amount is substantial and is not indifferent, even though out of that the road tax going to the provinces would probably represent something like $20 million, so there is an element of revenue.
I should like to assure the hon. member that I am reviewing this whole question both with regard to marine and airline transportation. Consultations are going on with other departments at the present time, and I hope to be able to make some recommendations to cabinet before long.
As far as the question of car transportation is concerned, consultations have taken place with the government of the province of Ontario, where most of the problem arises, and also with representatives of the industry. Consultations have also taken place with other departments, and I am expecting reactions from the industry by the end of this month, after which I should be in a position, again, to make recommendations to my colleagues and advise the hon. member of any steps that should be taken, if some steps are required.


Mr. Crombie:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the advice from the minister that he has the matter under review. There are a good number of Canadians who are not aware of the magnitude of the practice and that we are, in fact, now subsidizing both foreign businesses and foreign consumers to a considerable degree.
1 would ask the minister if he would bring forward information to the House on whether it is $20 million, $50 million or $ 100 million, or whatever the figure may be, prior to whatever course of action he is going to take, so that we can at least have the information as it relates not only to cars and trucks but also to vessels and airplanes. Would he make the information public, so that at least Canadians may be aware of how
much they are subsidizing foreign businesses and foreign consumers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member recognizes, I am sure, that this is not a piece of statistical information. We have to operate on guesstimates and assumptions. The figure I have given to the hon. member is what appears to be a reasonable guesstimate on car-implied subsidization.
As I said, we must also take into account the substantial contribution to provincial revenues by increased road taxes that would be collected on additional gasoline sales. As far as providing statistical information to the hon. member, I do not think we can do that, because that information is not available on a sure basis. At best, one has estimates.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It touches, obviously, on the very alarming figures released by Statistics Canada today, which indicate that in the first quarter real growth in Canada was down half a point-which is 2 per cent if you annualize it over the four quarters of the year.
Bearing in mind that we have not had such a drop since a similar quarter in 1974 just prior to the last recession, would the Minister of Finance indicate whether he holds to his forecast that real growth this year will be a positive .5 per cent?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member I want to tell him that I have not yet revised these forecasts. The Department of Finance has not produced new projections. It may be that as the year advances, further projections, will be relevant and necessary.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I hope that all members of the House noted that the Minister of Finance said he had not yet revised his forecast. Obviously, the war may be over before he gets around to changing his own forecast.
Let me draw the minister's attention to the fact that Statistics Canada says that residential construction is down 6.1 per cent in the quarter. As the Conservative government anticipated there would be a drop in residential construction, and brought in the municipal tax credit and the mortgage interest credit to try to encourage residential construction, would the minister indicate if we may expect comparable legislation or action in order to encourage residential construction in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, we would not want to reintroduce a comparable measure containing the inequities that were in the measure referred to by the hon. member.
June 17, 1980


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. In light of the figures released by Statistics Canada today showing the real decline in the level of the economy, in light of the fact we are now told by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that it will be some time before an agreement is reached with Alberta and that there is an attempt to find an interim solution, also in light of the lay-offs that are occurring every day-which are causing hardship throughout Canada-is the minister reconsidering his earlier indication to the House that he will not bring in a budget until after an energy agreement is signed and, in any case, not before the fall? Does he not think the time has come, as we begin this cyclical downturn, to bring in a budget so that it will have some effect?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the question of the hon. member contains a large number of implications, including the question of whether at this time it would be my decision to undertake further stimulus to the economy or, to put it another way, to add further to the already high deficit.
As the hon. member knows, the current budgetary deficit is running at about $14 billion, which in itself is providing considerable support to the economy. I have not reached the conclusion at this point that it would be appropriate to add further to the deficit in the present circumstances.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would refer the minister to the report of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy on Inflation and Unemployment, which points out that government policy, including provincial government policy, since 1975 has not been in a net way, stimulative at all.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that on December 13, when the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition, he said that his party would support a policy of cutting taxes and stimulating the growth of the economy, may I ask how he and his party could have supported such a motion on December 13 and now have the Minister of Finance tell the country that it is not the policy of the Liberal party to support cutting taxes or stimulating the growth of the economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the statement the hon. member attributes to me. I do not recollect saying those things. It seems to me they are things the New Democratic Party was saying.


An hon. Member:: They got your vote.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member wants to say what his party said, he should say so: he should not say that I said it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
On several occasions the minister said that he wanted to conclude an agreement with the Quebec government for the regional development of eastern Quebec so that the area would no longer be only considered in sectorial agreements now in effect. Could the minister tell the House if such an agreement was officially suggested and what was the response of the Quebec government? In addition, if such an offer was made, could he also tell us what part was played by the Canadian government in that agreement?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, indeed the federal government in 1968 with the government of Mr. Daniel Johnson and later with that of Mr. Bourassa succeeded in concluding an agreement under which both governments set up a fund of regional development for the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. Since 1976, the Quebec government has refused to sign such agreements but yesterday I had the opportunity to explain to the people of the Lower St. Lawrence how since 1976 the investments, expenditures and disbursements have been dramatically reduced since the Quebec government, contrary to the two previous ones, refuses to sign such agreement. This is why I was so much comforted when the Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore Association of Economic Development Officers who belong to various political parties took a position yesterday in favour of another regional agreement, a written proposal which I made three weeks ago-


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. minister means to give us a complete historical account of the Eastern Quebec Planning Bureau, I will have to ask him to mention names which are very dear to me. Could he reply very briefly to the question of the hon. member for Rimouski?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I understand your remarks; may 1 suggest, however, that I find quite unacceptable for a government-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion, what is acceptable is for the minister to reply very briefly to the

June 17, 1980
Oral Questions
question which has been directed to him, because he has already used a good deal of the House's time.


Pierre De Bané: To conclude, Madam Speaker, I will say that in a formal letter, I advised the Quebec government several weeks ago that I was willing to sign with that government another regional agreement concerning the Gaspe Peninsula, the Lower St. Lawrence area and the Magdalen Islands.


DREE PROJECTS-REQUEST FOR PUBLICIZING OF AGREEMENTS WITH QUEBEC SINCE 1976
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. It is always interesting to hear what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has to say.
To cut it short, could the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion commit himself today to make public, on motions or in a statement, all agreements since 1976 that the Quebec government has refused and the proposals it has made to the federal government and that this government has rejected?
To save time, could the minister make a public statement on the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa since 1976?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to making public various projects suggested by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which the present government in Quebec rejected for the sole reason that they would make the presence of the federal government in the province of Quebec more visible.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, My question is to the Minister of Finance and is further to the statement he made in answer to an earlier question. The trial balloon which the government has floated in relation to the removal of indexation on personal income tax is causing Canadians considerable concern, particularly as it would result in a tax increase of over 100 per cent for a married taxpayer with two dependants with a taxable income of $10,000, a tax increase of around 10 per cent on a taxable income of approximately $20,000, and a tax increase of only 5 per cent on a taxable income of about $50,000.
Since the burden of such an increase falls on those in the lower income tax brackets, would the minister not agree that increasing taxes in this manner is most insidious, unfair and regressive? Would it not result in the inequities that he spoke of in such a negative way in his earlier answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to state two things in reply to the question: first, no decision has been made with respect to indexation of the income tax system; second, whatever tax changes were introduced in a budget, I want to assure the hon. member that they would be equitable and they would not attempt to solve the economic problems of the country or the fiscal requirements of the government on the backs of the low income people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, 1 very much appreciate the response of the Minister of Finance. We will remember it if and when he ever brings down a budget. I would hope that in the course of the preparation of that budget he will remember the interests of the fixed income taxpayers of this country, such as our pensioners.
Will the minister agree that the removal of indexation would be a devious tax dodge which would increase taxation revenue, but would deprive Canadians of a tax measure which is widely regarded as being one of the few disciplines left to encourage this government to control its spending increases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there is a difference of opinion in the country, as I have learned, on the question of the appropriateness of de-indexation. It is not something that has happened. It may not happen and, therefore, the hon. member ought not to paint difficult scenarios for the people of the country.
But I would say that just recently the financial critic for the NDP, I believe just a moment ago, referred me to the institute on public policy, suggesting that I should read its publication for my instruction. I understand that that body, as one example, has recommended certain changes in the index system in order to deal with the current situation. I make that point simply to tell the hon. member that it is not something one ought to drive out of one's mind as being totally unworthy of consideration. Even his colleague, the former minister of finance, told us that he had considered the proposal: that is what I am doing at the present time.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services: it concerns Space Research Corporation. Given that this firm and two of its officers have been found guilty in a United States district court of violating the United Nations embargo on the sale of arms and technology to South Africa, and given that a pre-enquete is under way in Quebec to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the firm and its officers in Canada, will the
June 17, 1980

minister give us his clear and unequivocal assurance that during this period of time no new government funding will be provided to Space Research Corporation until at least the full judicial process has been concluded and the outcome determined?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. lady that my department is not responsible in any way for the funding of Space Research, nor is it presently considering funding Space Research. Perhaps the hon. lady would direct her question to the minister whose responsibility it may be to consider such funding.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have not been able to find one.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I will gladly direct my question to the Prime Minister so that the House can be assured there will be no funding of Space Research Corporation during the period of time the pre-enquete in Quebec is under way. Also, is sufficient information available to determine whether or not criminal charges should be laid against the firm in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, earlier in the question period I had an opportunity to give an answer to a question along those lines.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, this is about funding.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I indicated that I was not aware of the facts and that I would take notice of the question.


PROPOSAL TO EXPORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS FROM FAR NORTH
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a proposal by the Arctic Pilot Project group to produce liquefied natural gas from the far north for export to foreign markets.
A report in last Thursday's Globe and Mail stated that the gas would be sold either to the United States or to offshore buyers at the prevailing export price. Does the minister feel that it is in the interests of public policy to exploit northern gas reserves for the sole purpose of supplying foreign markets?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the question of the export of natural gas or oil is one which comes first of all before the National Energy Board, which analyses the situation in the light of total supplies-whether there is a surplus of gas or a surplus of oil. The Energy Board makes such reviews regularly and its reports are published. Then it is up to the government of the day to decide whether or not to approve exports.
Oral Questions
At the present time, no application has gone before the National Energy Board and, obviously, no recommendation has been made to cabinet. I suspect it will be several months, if not years, before the cabinet is faced with the need for a decision of the kind the hon. member mentioned.


Peter Ittinuar: The Globe and Mail of Thursday last also reported that "only a few details remain to be settled" before a supply contract can be signed with Panarctic Oils Limited, and that a letter of intent has been initialled by the Arctic Pilot Project group and its United States customers.
Since the project is now going through the environmental assessment and review process, and still must await the National Energy Board's decision, does the minister not feel that these agreements are premature, and do they not presuppose the outcome of the regulatory process?


Marc Lalonde: I think there is some misunderstanding of the usual practice in this regard. This type of understanding or letter of intent is a regular feature of exchanges between potential buyers and potential sellers. As the hon. member knows, these letters of intent do not have any effect unless and until the Energy Board gives approval for exports.
As a matter of fact, the Energy Board will not hold hearings unless there are specific proposals for sale and specific offers for purchase. The Board will not entertain, I suspect, a hearing on what would be a purely hypothetical offer; there must be a specific proposal, and that is what is happening in this case. It is the standard practice of the Energy Board.


CONVENTION CENTRES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, in view of announcements made yesterday in Toronto and Montreal by several ministers concerning federal financial assistance to convention and trade centres, can the minister tell us what plans he has for Ottawa and, more specifically, for the long-standing commitment of the government in regard to the Rideau area development project?
Can he tell us, also, what he has in mind with regard to securing provincial financial contributions to the development of the Rideau Centre and indirectly to the convention centre?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have been authorized by cabinet to pursue, as the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for reporting for the National Capital Commission, negotiations for the redevelopment of the Rideau area Crown lands in downtown Ottawa.
I have made attempts to continue negotiations with Ottawa region and city officials and with ministers of the province of Ontario. These negotiations are continuing, and I hope in short order to be able to give full particulars to the hon. member.

June 17, 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


PLANS RESPECTING CHANGEOVER FROM OIL-HEATING TO GAS-HEATING EQUIPMENT
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As one of the most effective ways to make this country self-sufficient in oil is to switch over from oil-heating to gas-heating, is it the intention of the government to start this very important process moving along by subsidizing the changeover from oil-heating equipment to gas-heating equipment; and, if so, when may we expect an outline of the government's plans in this regard?


Marc Lalonde: First, I would be very pleased to send the hon. member a copy of my very important speech to the Canadian Pipeline Contractors Association in which I announced a number of firm decisions by this government, whose effect would be to encourage the substitution of gas for oil in a large number of homes and commercial enterprises in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec. I also indicated that there would be upgrading of heavy fuel oil to provide gasoline and diesel oil in greater quantities to the Canadian public.
As for the specific question raised by the hon. member, that is obviously a matter which, if it were part of it, would be covered by a general announcement of new policies and strategies with regard to energy.


George Harris Hees: The minister in his reply outlined everything except what I asked for. He mentioned a few things which he had suggested here, there and all over the place, none of which are 10 per cent as effective as subsidizing the cost of the changeover from oil-heating to gas-heating equipment. That is the key to the whole problem.
I ask the minister once again: is he considering subsidizing a changeover from oil-heating to gas-heating? If he is, would he say so? If he is not, would he admit it plainly and straightforwardly?


Marc Lalonde: I am sure the hon. member knows that since 1974 this government has been subsidizing gas consumption by the introduction of a regime whereby the cost of gas is set at 85 per cent of the Btu value of oil. In that sense, for the last six years-thanks to the policies of the Liberal government-the consumer has benefited from a substantial subsidy when consuming gas rather than oil. Whether we should add further to this subsidy is a matter I am presently reviewing and an announcement will be made in due time.


George Harris Hees: In other words, the government has no intention of subsidizing the changeover.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued a verdict which gives inventors control over life creation resulting from gene-splitting or genetic engineering. As a result of this decision, the inventor of living organisms is guaranteed the right to make and sell his creations.
Apart from the immediate practical advantages of this decision, such as General Electric's solution to oil spills by developing a new bacterial strain, there are serious implications to all of us ranging from uncontrollable organisms and bacterial warfare to the manipulation of test-tube life. Does the government recognize the dangers of this U.S. Supreme Court decision, and does the minister intend to allow multinationals like General Electric to control, through patents, technology which might prove to be the ultimate violation of human integrity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: I thank the hon. member for drawing this decision to my attention. Clearly, this is a complicated matter and I should like to examine it before reporting back to him. What I can say, though, is that-last week I announced the formation in Canada of a committee-a task force to examine the problems raised by advances in biotechnology and report back to me. They, too, are active in trying to assess not only the technological possibilities of their potential impact on society, but also the moral impact and the general social implications which these developments might have for us.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it deals with the classification of low-incidence brucellosis regions by the Health of Animals Branch of his department. A part of my riding in Victoria county qualifies under this classification and has been waiting for some time to have restrictions lifted with regard to the movement and sale of cattle. Would the minister say whether or not this area is to be designated a low-incidence area? If so, when we can expect an announcement?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, all I can say is that I will investigate the matter the hon. member has raised, and if it is true-as I have no doubt it is-there must be some delay occurring or some slip-up somewhere and it will be rectified immediately.
June 17, 1980


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development my question will go to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he is aware that start-up approval was given by the previous government to the Arvik mine, in the High Arctic, and that there never have been comprehensive or adequate environmental investigations.
Could the minister give the House a "yes" or "no" answer on whether he supports an environmental assessment and review hearing in relation to the Arvik mine?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I missed the first part of the question. Normally, this would be a matter dealt with by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It would make an assessment as to the environmental impact, and thereafter opt into the environmental assessment review process. I would be happy to undertake to look at exactly what the situation is now and report to the hon. member.

[ Translation]


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I address my question to the President of the Treasury Board. I would have liked to put it to him last evening at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates but the meeting was cancelled. Therefore I should like to ask him now to confirm to the House whether his responsibility for Statistics Canada has been transferred to the Department of Supply and Services, why that transfer was not announced in the House and what are the reasons for such a change.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, it is true the change was made. I think an announcement was made to the press. I believe the right hon. Prime Minister should be asked the reason for this change.
Privilege-Mr. Rae


PRIVILEGE
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I indicated on May 13 that correspondence from a manager of the Royal Bank in Winnipeg raised a matter of privilege in that there was a fundamental ambiguity in that correspondence, which I read into the record, concerning the lobbying activities of that bank and of the Canadian Bankers' Association.
I also indicated at that time that in our view the letter, which referred to whether or not any bank information could be obtained concerning two of my colleagues in the House of Commons from Manitoba, raised an issue, and that is the question of the confidentiality of members' dealing with their banks and whether that confidentiality would be breached because of such correspondence.
I think it was indicated during that debate that it would be preferable if this matter was dealt with by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs rather than as a matter of privilege. I have always taken the view that if you, Madam Speaker, find that the letter in itself is ambiguous and does raise a possible matter of privilege, the ambiguity should be resolved by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and no where else and that Mr. Beattie, who is the author of the letter, should be asked to testify before that committee as well as Mr. Macintosh, the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association.
The fact of the matter is that the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs have been such that it simply has not been possible to call Mr. Beattie. 1 was working under the assumption that you, Madam Speaker, were going to rule as to whether it was a prima facie matter, which in my view would dispose of the case. I ask for a ruling on this as soon as possible since, in my view, the lobbying activities of the Royal Bank and of the Canadian Bankers' Association do pose a prima facie question of privilege which should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It should be discussed there, and in our view it cannot be dismissed lightly.


Madam Speaker:: It was on May 13 last that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) raised a question of privilege to complain about a letter from the Royal Bank of Canada which requested from certain bank managers information on two new members of this House. The information seems to have been sought in order to lobby members of the House. All members are subject to such lobbying, particularly in this case by the chartered banks. It may be that in this case it was not even that, but merely an internal communication circulated among certain banks. In my view there is nothing to suggest that it was done to influence or intimidate members of Parliament, as was alleged by some hon. members, and we would have to have proof of that.

June 17, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
At paragraph 71 Beauchesne says quite clearly, and I quote:
Direct threats which attempt to influence members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege. They do, however, provide serious problems for the House. They are often made anonymously and it is rarely possible for the House to examine them satisfactorily. The common practice today is to turn the responsibility for investigating them over to the ordinary forces of the law.
Therefore, if the hon. member has any indication that there was an attempt to influence or intimidate the members, then we probably could pursue the matter further.
Erskine May says the following:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Therefore, one has to prove that these actions, and in this particular case the letter written by an executive of the bank, did in fact impede the members from fulfilling their normal duties in the House of Commons. There is no indication that the information collected has been misused or has been used in such a way as to intimidate a member. There is no evidence which leads me to conclude that any member of the House has been impeded or obstructed in the performance of his parliamentary duties by the action complained of.
The suggestion has been made that my decision on this question of privilege be deferred until some evidence is brought out before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which is currently considering the Bank Act. I accepted that suggestion, and that is the reason I did not rule any sooner on this question. I took the matter under advisement until it was again raised in the House today.
It will be of interest for the House to know that on May 13 last, the same day the question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Canadian Bankers' Association released a statement which gave some explanation about the information sought in the original letter which formed the basis of this question of privilege, and I understand that a representative of the association did also give some explanation in the committee to which I referred earlier.
Equally interesting to me is the fact that since the matter was first raised in the House on May 13 it has not been raised in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs up to this day. For some reason members have not found it useful to call upon anyone to raise this question.
After giving the matter the serious consideration it deserves, I cannot find any evidence to persuade me that the privileges of members of this House have been breached, and I must therefore rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege in this instance.


MR. CLARK-TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR STATISTICS CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a new question of privilege. It refers to a matter which just arose in the House when a government
member, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), posed a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) regarding a transfer of responsibility for the operations of Statistics Canada. I raise the matter because I think that the privileges of the House of Commons have been affected in two ways by a transfer of jurisdiction and a transfer of responsibility which has never been explained or presented to the House of Commons.
As the hon. member for Laurier indicated in posing a question to his own minister, he was denied the privilege as a member of Parliament of putting questions which he wanted to put in a standing committee of the House of Commons because the apparent indecision of the government as to which minister is responsible for Statistics Canada led to the cancellation of not one but two meetings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Again the capacity of the House of Commons to carry out its responsibilities has been limited by the mystery or the indecision about Statistics Canada in that members of this House who might want to pose questions in relation to that agency do not know to which minister those questions should be directed because we do not know at this stage who reports for Statistics Canada in the House of Commons.
The President of the Treasury Board was obviously embarrassed and unhappy about the fact that responsibility for Statistics Canada has been taken away from him. That indicates that the matter has been one of some dispute within the government and it suggests that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must have had some good cause for taking away from the President of the Treasury Board responsibility for an agency which previously reported to Parliament through that minister.
It would be very helpful to the House of Commons to know why Statistics Canada has been moved from the Treasury Board, why that decision could not have been announced to the House or could not have been finalized in time to allow the standing committees of the House to carry on with meetings that had been previously arranged. I think that probably the matter could be resolved if the Prime Minister or some other responsible minister would come into the House and tell us exactly what is going on with Statistics Canada; what was wrong with the President of the Treasury Board; why he is not able to carry out his responsibilities of reporting to the House of Commons for Statistics Canada; why, if the decision had been taken some time ago with enough advance notice to cancel two meetings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, that information was not conveyed to the members; and why that information was not conveyed to the whole House.
There is unnecessary mystery here which I think simply reflects an unwillingness on the part of the government to indicate the reasons for its actions to the House of Commons. I simply want to draw Your Honour's attention to it because it has limited the capacity of members to function effectively in
June 17, 1980

standing committees and has limited our ability to direct questions effectively in this House since we do not know which minister is responsible for that very important and sometimes controversial agency of the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 had hoped during the question period-and I understand that the demands of time was the reason it was not possible to be recognized-to clear this matter up by asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether in fact he had sacked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) as the minister responsible for Statistics Canada and, if so, why he felt that he was inappropriate in that responsibility.
I would like simply to supplement the remarks made by my leader because I think the House has been gravely mistreated in this instance. According to the CP report which went over the wire yesterday:
Information director David Davidson said Blais assumed the responsibility Friday and that Johnston had said in a letter to the statistics agency's employees that Johnston had known when he was appointed his post would be temporary.
If indeed it is true that the Prime Minister had told the President of the Treasury Board that that responsibility would be removed from him at the time he was appointed, then the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board had the responsibility to level with the Canadian people and the House of Commons. Instead, we learned about this announcement through a dispatch in the Canadian Press. The fact that no clear announcement had been made and that the government, for some reason, decided to make the change on a Friday, which they knew was slowest possible news day on which it would get the least possible coverage, certainly indicates that there are many questions here which remain to be answered and that the government has not discharged its responsibilities to Parliament and the Canadian people in terms of giving us the reasons for this very important change.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and to the previous speaker that contrary to what they have said, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and, in fact, the public at large were very much aware of the fact that responsibility for Statistics Canada had been entrusted to me by the Prime Minister and that yesterday afternoon, I advised Madam Speaker as well as the chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates that since I had been notified only on Monday that these new responsibilities were entrusted to me, I could not appear before the committee.
Of course, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that during any oral questions period, he could-in fact, he could have taken the opportunity today since this change has been publicly announced today and I had in fact talked about it yesterday with the chairman of the Standing Committee on
Privilege-Mr. Clark
Miscellaneous Estimates-he could seize the first opportunity during oral question period to address himself directly to the Prime Minister who is responsible for public administration and for delineating ministerial responsibilities. He did not take this opportunity, rather he elected to raise this through a question of privilege without any basis to do so, at a time when the Prime Minister was gone, when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was gone, in order to try to make a bit of a show off-


Mr. Ouellet:: Petty politics!


Mr. Blais:: -and petty politics, as the hon. minister puts it, without any legitimate ground.

From my standpoint, Madam Speaker, I might indicate to you that I am most pleased that the Prime Minister has asked me to take on this responsibility. It is only fitting that Statistics Canada, which is an administrative agency, should fit within an administrative department. It is a service organization, and those services for which I am responsible to the House are basically service agencies and administrative departments. I look forward to replying to questions from the opposition and from members on this side of the House relating to the discharge of my responsibilities with reference to Statistics Canada, and also to show up the excellence of that agency and to advise the House of the measures that will be undertaken within Statistics Canada to continue to make it one of the best statistical institutions, not only in Canada but indeed in the international arena.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I did not intend to speak on the point of order raised by the right hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), but I must try to clear the air, having heard the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) imply that somehow it was our obligation to announce this change to the public of Canada. Surely it is up to the government to disclose in the appropriate way- which would have been a statement on motions yesterday- that a change has been made in ministerial responsibility for Statistics Canada, and not wait for a question to come from the opposition.
Let me put this into perspective. One feels that this is not accidental. The fact is that for the last four months, notwithstanding that three reports have been commissioned, as you will recall, by the Clark government and have now been brought down, indicating that some serious things have to be done with respect to Statistics Canada, we have been told by the former minister responsible for Statistics Canada, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), that he has the matter under review. Now we are being told, literally on the day on which the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates was to have the first opportunity to question the minister on the progress he has made with respect to the three reports, that the responsibility for Statistics Canada has been moved to another minister. We hear that the Minister of

June 17, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
Supply and Services has used his power as the new minister to squelch the meeting by simply intervening with the chairman of the committee and saying to him, "I do not want to appear before your committee."
Consider the position in which that is putting all members of the House, including members of the minister's own governing party. In effect, we have been relegated to an inconsequential role. We were not given an opportunity to put questions to the minister with respect to Statistics Canada in committee. Apparently the minister had said that he thought it would be a month before he would be ready to come before the committe. In all likelihood this House might not even be sitting a month from now. My point is that some very serious questions are coming up with regard to Statistics Canada.
I have referred to the reports. As we know, a census will be taken in 1981, before which 33,000 census representatives, 1,800 enumerators and 1,900 commissioners will be appointed. This is something on which there has been considerable discussion. The tradition of the Liberal party has been to follow strictly a governing party approach in appointing those people. We have criticized this in the past and we believe that this is an antiquated system. We are much more in favour of having a completely open system where community organizations and manpower offices can be asked to supply names, as well as all members of Parliament, instead of treating this just as a convenient pork barrel or patronage type of appointment system.
That is why I say that I believe the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has an extremely vital point of order at stake here. We were denied the privilege of knowing in the usual way when the role of a minister has been changed, and I think the House deserves an explanation.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) who seems to find mystery in the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided to transfer the responsibility for Statistics Canada from one minister to another. There is absolutely nothing mysterious in that and I believe the Leader of the Official Opposition and the former president of the treasury board (Mr. Stevens) will have every opportunity to put appropriate questions both to the Prime Minister here in the House because there will be other question periods and in committee to the new minister responsible.
I heard the former president of the treasury board say this is unfortunate but he thinks the minister will not be able to go before the committee before a month and in a month we will probably not be here. I cannot confirm whether or not we will be here in a month but what I want to confirm however is that under an agreement made with his own parliamentary leader,
the estimates are before the committees until December 10, and the House will be sitting well before December 10. The minister will have every opportunity to answer all the questions of the former president of the treasury board and dissipate the sort of mystery that seems to be blinding the former prime minister.
So there is absolutely nothing irregular in the decision of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) earlier put a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). The President of the Treasury Board told him it was the Prime Minister who had made that decision, and the question period had expired. An hon. member on the other side tried to get the floor but it was past three o'clock and instead of putting a supplementary question, he came back on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition to make his point.
All that makes an interesting discussion, of course, Madam Speaker. It is a point of clarification. We know the House will have other question periods. The Prime Minister will probably be here tomorrow, and the Leader of the Official Opposition will probably also be able to put the question to him. There is nothing mysterious in that. The Prime Minister will give an answer and the former president of the treasury board will have every opportunity to question fully the minister now responsible for Statistics Canada before the committee as the estimates will be there at least at the latest until December 10. Once again, Madam Speaker, I find this question of privilege is being somewhat abused. There is absolutely nothing mysterious, everything is in order, and the facts can be put again before the House either during question period tomorrow or in committee later on.


Madam Speaker:: I think the House appreciates the point of order raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) but I have to point out right at the outset that I cannot rule on anything that happened during a sitting of a committee. If hon. members have grievances to express concerning proceedings in a committee, the matter has to be debated by that committee and not in the House.
However, a part of the speech of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is based on the proceedings during the oral question period and having listened to what he had to say, I must say that his grievance seems to me to be quite legitimate, but I must remind him that the whole question of allocating responsibilities within the cabinet is incumbent upon the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself and that the Chair cannot in any way interfere in order to make one minister or another answer given questions. Again I wish to assure all hon. members that when in doubt they can always ask the question directly to the Prime Minister who will answer it himself or tell the House which minister is responsible and should answer in his place.
I think it is now clear to all hon. members that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) is the one to whom all

June 17, 1980
questions relating to Statistics Canada should be directed. They can therefore ask any question they wish in the future and I can imagine they will not miss any occasion to do so.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. Since there seems to be some misunderstanding, I wonder if the government House leader might confirm that, after dealing with the motion now before us, we will be proceeding with Bill C-15, the livestock feed assistance bill, and then with Bill C-20, the bill on the FBDB. Is that correct?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that would be correct if we terminate debate on the order in council before ten o'clock tonight. If we finish debate on the order in council today, tomorrow we will consider Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971. If we finish consideration of the order in council before ten o'clock tonight, rather than going to Bill C-3 for the remainder of the time, we will consider third reading stages of Bill C-20, and Bill C-15.


Erik Nielsen: In the reverse order or in the order expressed by the government House leader? Which is first?


Yvon Pinard: If we are to get the two bills, it does not matter, but if we are not to get the two bills, we would prefer to consider Bill C-20 first.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell).


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I think my question of privilege can wait until tomorrow. I will try to raise it then.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the Table the eleventh report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and finds that it meets the requirements of the standing orders as to form.
Order Paper Questions



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-601, to change the name of the electoral district of Argenteuil.


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

['Agreed.']
Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-602, to change the name of the electoral district of Verdun.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 60, 112, 364, 567, 632, 693, 715, 717, 718, 746, 802, 815, 846 and 879.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the total amount of public money spent to date in bringing into and settling in Canada Vietnamese refugees and what is the estimated cost figure for the entire project?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The preliminary figures to date on the bringing in and settling of Vietnamese refugees in Canada are as follows:
1979- 80	$57,775,000.
1980- 81	$63,666,000.
It is estimated that the total cost for the entire project will be some $122,000,000. This includes staging areas, resettlement, language training, transportation and other costs.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many benefit control officers are there in the province of Ontario dealing with unemployment insurance?

June 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
2. Is there a requirement that they must (a) do 35 investigations per month (b) launch at least one prosecution per month and, if not, what is the requirement in each case?


Dennis Dawson: 1. There are currently 151 investigation and control officers in the province of Ontario.
2. There is no requirement that the commission's investigation and control officers must complete a specific number of investigations or launch a specific number of prosecutions. As part of the normal budgetary and resource planning and allocation process, the commission's field offices are, of course, required to make estimates of work volumes and to translate these volumes in terms of financial and personnel resource requirements. This is a normal budgetary exercise that is essential to the responsible management of scarce resources. It is quite possible that these budgetary estimates are at times misinterpreted. However, the commission has said before, and reiterates now, that there are no investigation or prosecution quotas or requirements in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-SXs


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


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	(a) As of March 31, 1979-38;
(b) (i) 4
(ii) none.
2.	(a) As of May 5, 1980-39;
(b) (i) 4
(ii) none.
3.	Since March 31, 1979, there has been a reorganization within the energy policy sector of EM&R. However, the reorganization has had no effect on the number of SXs employed in the department.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Accredited Diplomats-Polish People's Republic
Name
Title
Date of Arrival
Stanislaw Pawlak Waclaw Tomkowski Henryk Kozlowski
Kazimierz Glowacki
Andrzej Kolczynski Stanislaw Gozdek Tomasz Przygoda Gerard Knap Tadeusz Janicki Eugeniusz Panek Marian Wojcik Wieslaw Matysiak Waclaw Rytel Blazej Kieruzalski Michal Pietrowski
Krzysztof Szwarc
Stanislaw Ladyka
Wojciech Polaczek Zdislaw Kwapisz
Janusz Filemonowicz
Ambassador Minister-Counsellor Military, Naval and Air Attache Assistant Military, Naval and Air Attache Second Secretary Second Secretary Third Secretary Attache Consul General Consul Consul Consul Vice-Consul Vice-Consul Consul and Trade Commissioner
Wlodzimierz JaskiewiczVice-Consul Jan Marianski	Consul General
Henryk Trojanowski	Consul
Krzysztof Smolenski	Vice-Consul
Consul and Trade Commissioner Consul
(Economic Affairs) Consul
Vice-Consul and Asst. Trade Commissioner Vice-Consul and Asst. Trade Commissioner
October 27, 1978 October 8, 1976
December 11, 1979
June 5, 1979 December 14, 1979 July 7, 1978 July 27, 1979 September 4, 1979 June 11, 1977 August 20, 1976 September 10, 1977 July 2, 1977 October 1, 1977 August 21, 1978
May 19, 1976 July 13, 1979 February 11, 1977 April 23, 1977 March 18, 1977
June 29, 1979
December 30, 1977 September 19, 1977
September 17, 1976
September 17, 1976
Members of the Staff-Polish Nationals
Mieczyslaw Antecki Arkadiusz Rybak Stanislaw Leszczynski Jerzy Sarnecki Bozena Wozniak Tomasz Prengler Danuta Piotrowska Roman Brodowski Stanislaw Figurski
June 11, 1977 October 21, 1978 August 10, 1979 August 18, 1978 October 27, 1978 December 1, 1978 July 27, 1979 July 30, 1979 January 11,1976


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows;
Information EMR Branch-4;
Energy Communications-18.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons who are accredited diplomats from Poland?
2.	What are the names, job designations and dates of arrival in Canada of all persons serving the Polish diplomatic service who are either non-Canadians or Polish Nationals?


Mr. Clarke: 1. For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Transport for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?

2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the National Capital Region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.	35.
2.	(a) 31;
(b)	3;
(c)	1.
3.	13.
4.	$181,027.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Public Works in footnote number 11 at page 12.62, Volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada (a) what is a tellurometer and how is it used by the department (b) was the thief apprehended
(c)	what was the result of the investigatory steps undertaken by the department
(d)	in what location did the loss occur?
2.	Did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.	(a) A tellurometer is a device that measures distance by
means of microwaves for land survey work.
(b)	No.
(c)	RCMP and Campbellton police investigated and were unable to determine who stole the property.
(d)	Campbellton, N.B.
2.	Regional directives regarding security of government property have been amended to include instructions for care and safe custody of equipment.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 due to damages of contents recorded by the Department of Agriculture at page 12.62, Volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, for what reason was the loss of $20,000 unexplained?
2.	What is the explanation for the loss?
3.	On what dates and in what locations did the losses take place?
4.	Did the department undertake procedural or structural changes to ensure that such losses do not recur and, if so, what were they?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The location, identification of buildings and estimated cost of damage sustained is all that is required to be reported for the Public Accounts of Canada. All fire losses are reported in detail to the Dominion Fire Commissioner.
2.	A fire of unknown origin destroyed a hay barn containing 325 tons of hay.
Order Paper Questions
3.	November 6, 1978, at the Animal Research Institute, Greenbelt Farm, Nepean, Ontario.
4.	An investigation by the Regional Fire Commissioner's office could find no cause for the fire and deemed it accidental from an unknown origin. The facility will be rebuilt by Public Works Canada in accordance with current National Fire and Building Codes of Canada.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the losses of more than $1,000 due to damages to buildings recorded by the Department of Agriculture at page 12.62, Volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, for what reason was the loss of $54,934 unexplained?
2.	What is the explanation for the loss?
3.	On what dates and in what locations did the losses take place?
4.	Did the department undertake procedural or structural changes to ensure that such losses do not recur and, if so, what were they?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The location, identification of buildings and estimated cost of damage sustained is all that is required to be reported for the Public Accounts of Canada. All fire losses are reported in detail to the Dominion Fire Commissioner.
2.	A fire of unknown origin destroyed a hay barn.
3.	November 6, 1978, at the Animal Research Institute, Greenbelt Farm, Nepean, Ontario.
4.	An investigation by the Regional Fire Commissioner's office could find no cause for the fire and deemed it accidental from an unknown origin. The facility will be rebuilt by Public Works Canada in accordance with current National Fire and Building Codes of Canada.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Ministry of State for Economic Development and/or any boards, commissions or corporations reporting to the minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?


Marc Lalonde: Ministry of State for Economic Development:
(a) 4 - R. Woodbridge	$15,415
M. Fraser	225
P. Bridges-Palmer	14,464
T. Young	488
(b) 3 - V. Chapin	20,127
Nicholson Policy and	
Management Consultants	8,500
Nepean Development Consultants	13,800
Northern Pipeline Agency:	
(a) 29-See list below.	
(b) None.

June 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Northern Pipeline Agency	CANADIAN CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATION GRANT
Contractor	Amount
Blais, Ms. J. Journalized from P.C.O., Secretary, Yukon Office	$ 380.63
Bonnar, Mr. R. Administrative Adviser	22,975.00
Curley, Ms. S. Parliamentary Affairs Co-ordinator	6,778.00
Chamberlin, Dr. J. E. Adviser-Socio-Economic Affairs	37,350.00
Donnelly, Mrs. E. Administrative Assistant	500.00
Emerson, Mrs. L. Secretary	400.00
Fontana, Mr. E. Manager, Administration	4,050.00
Gilhooly, Mr. C. F. Administrative Adviser	33,400.00
Goodman, Mr. R. Industrial Benefits	3,733.87
Gowin, Ms. J. Secretary-Conferences	103.75
Johnston, Ms. M. Secretary-Yukon Advisory Council	3,065.00
Hickling-Smith Ltd. Integrated Personnel System Consultants	51,600.00
Kanygin, Mr. B. Co-ordinator, Hearings	7,500.00
Kerwin, G. Field Co-ordinator, North B.C.	2,520.00
Lafrance, Mr. N. Personnel Policy Adviser	3,870.00
Lawrence, Mr. R. Info Assistant, Yukon Hearings	3,920.00
Lines, Ms. A. Journalized from P.C.O., Secretary, Yukon Office	3,442.47
Macdonald, Mr. B. E. Public Relations Adviser	73,458.00
Mair, Mr. W. W. Chairman, Public Hearings, North B.C.	13,796.50
McCarthy, Mr. J. Co-ordination & Information System Consultants	25,000.00
Morris, Ms. R. Secretary, Yukon Office	959.00
Osmond, Ms. D. Secretary, Yukon Office	195.00
Ovens, Mr. J.-shares costs with principal contractor, CEIC Manpower Delivery	44,275.90
Reid, Mr. T. Financial Policy Adviser	1,500.00
Schneider, Ms. S. Secretary, Yukon Office	80.00
Shadow, M. Translator	50.00
Stead, Mr. R.A. Recruiting Assistant	1,375.00
Vaillancourt, Mr. M. Translator	336.00
Washington, Mr. R. Translator	50.00


Mr. de Jong: Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs plan to continue to grant funds to the Canadian Consumers' Association and, if so, will the grant be increased next year?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Yes. At this time, however, the allocation of the department's contribution funds for 1980-81 has not yet been finalized.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of National Defence?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs ban or recommend against the use of (a) children's toys (b) consumer appliances?


Aideen Nicholson: (a) Yes. Actions during 1978 included removal from the market of four styles of plush toys containing excessive amounts of lead in paints used for decorative lettering. For the 1979-80 fiscal year, enforcement activity with respect to toys was as follows: inspections-1,479; products examined-8,332; recall actions-65 (involving 90,150 product units); removal/ disposal actions-248 (involving 101,790 product units).
(b) No. Household appliances, both electrically-operated and gas-fueled, are subject to provincial laws requiring compliance with safety standards of the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Gas Association. To avoid duplication of effort, the department has not intervened in this provincially-regulated area of product safety. The department does, however, maintain close contact with the responsible provincial authorities and provides some input to the safety standards development process.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government bound by the present total of approximately 45 million pounds of mostly specialty cheeses imported into Canada as a result of GATT negotiations and, if so, will it take steps to reduce this quota as soon as negotiations can be carried out in order to assist Canadian dairy farmers?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: the actual level of the global cheese quota was set at 45 million pounds as part of the over-all dairy program for the current dairy year and thus independently of
June 17, 1980

the Canada-EEC arrangement on cheese. Within the context of the MTN, Canada negotiated an arrangement with the EEC which provides improved access to the EEC market for up to 6 million pounds of Canadian cheddar, as well as an undertaking on the community's part not to undercut Canadian prices through its export subsidy scheme. It is in return for this concession that Canada undertook to maintain the global quota at 45 million pounds until 1982 and to allocate the EEC 60 per cent of this level.
The size of the cheese quota will be subject to review in the near future as part of the next dairy program at which point the government will need to be mindful of our arrangement with the European Community.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Trudeau):
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, before I take up where I left off when I called it ten o'clock last night, I should like to draw to the attention of the House that we are debating a motion establishing the Ministry of State for Social Development, a very important ministry which has a great role to play if properly put together. 1 must say I am disappointed as I look across the floor to see that the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien), who is going to be the minister responsible for this ministry, is not in his seat, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), whose department will be affected drastically by this ministry is not in her seat, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is not in his seat, nor is the Minister of State for
Social Development Ministry
Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). All these ministries will be affected by this ministry, yet not one of those ministers is in the House to hear this brief debate.
There is a time limit on the debate; Liberals call the business of the House, but they do not have the courtesy of being here to hear the debate. I find that shameful. 1 am disappointed and I am disgusted. It is the same old gang over there which does not give a hoot about what goes on in this House. I am just shocked and saddened at this type of display this afternoon.


Mr. Knowles:: There is only one minister over there.


John Horton McDermid: They are probably afraid they might learn something.
When I left off last night I was discussing a number of areas of concern. I finished off the evening by pointing out that Liberals were fostering a practice of discrimination right here in the House of Commons because they allow all House of Commons personnel to take French or English language training, yet the assistants to members of Parliament are not afforded that privilege. I think that is a shame. I was wondering how a party which has not been able to implement its own policies in the past will do so in the future. I ask the minister- and I trust someone over there will pass it on to him-if he is going to have any more success at fostering or developing Canadian culture. Culture was defined by the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism as a "way of living, thinking, feeling. It is a driving force animating a significant group of individuals united by a common tongue and sharing the same customs, habits, and experiences".
The term "multiculturalism" under Liberal implementation has become a cliche, a slogan. I do not want to be misunderstood in this regard. Multiculturalism is Canada and Canada is multiculturalism. The diversity of all of us cannot be denied. We cherish our differences. The acceptance of difference is the mark of civilized man. However, our differences, if stressed to the point where groups no longer see any similarities with each other, in themselves foster bigotry, disunity and isolation.
There are many different views of multiculturalism. Unfortunately, the most widely articulated and of great concern is that ethnic groups, as stated by Rosemary Brown to the second conference on multiculturalism, retain their identities because they are alienated, isolated, oppressed, ostracized, categorized and manipulated as a result of their particular background. The program has done very little in the area of social development, and that is what we are discussing today.
Of a budget of $10 million, only $633,000 was directed to immigrant aid last year. Whether we like it or not, the kindest, most humane thing we as older Canadians can do for new immigrants, new Canadians, is to help them integrate into the Canadian way of life. I am not saying assimilate; we do not have to give up our background or deny our identity, but for our own survival a certain amount of integration, whether through language instruction in either French or English,

June 17, 1980
Social Development Ministry
historical, political or economic instruction, is necessary for active participation in the Canadian social system.
Present policies are not doing enough to help the average person out there in a new land. Dispensing funds to song and dance groups, writers, academics, etc., is a very commendable thing, but is it helping the person out there looking for a job who cannot speak the language and does not know what assistance is available to him? I do not question the importance of cultural and artistic endeavours of ethnic groups being encouraged and funded, not at all. I do question, however, the priorities. There is a certain amount of nostalgic feeling being fostered by multiculturalism. It has become, as in all things Liberal, an elitist idea feeding on the emotions and insecurities of Mr. Average, under the guise of helping him to retain his ethnicity.
We are all Canadians, whether of Lithuanian, German, Portuguese, Russian, Welsh, Chinese, East Indian, Scottish or, as the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Paproski) reminds me, Ukrainian or any other background. Our concern should be directed at equal opportunities being available and known to each and every one of us, regardless of our background, not at whether our child can still be taught to do a highland dance or a polka, but can our child be taught to feel that he or she belongs in university, in the House of Commons or in any other profession and still feel comfortable if he or she wants to do a polka? Multiculturalism has been relatively successful in the cultural areas, but has it removed the idea of tokenism? I do not think so.
The third force, people with ethnic backgrounds other than French or English, as referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), are sadly represented here in the House of Commons.
The principle behind the multiculturalism program is a good one. Liberal implementation has left a lot to be desired, even in the minds of those affected. It has not made sufficient progress in overcoming the inequalities, or ultimately in establishing a true Canadian identity within a culturally diverse nation.
The principle behind this proposed social development ministry is good, but will the implementation get bogged down by bureaucratic mismanagement? Will this new social development ministry have final decision-making powers and become a super ministry over all the areas I have mentioned both today and last night? Will it aid all Canadians, all of us, who must of necessity undergo attitudinal changes in the 1980s in order to survive as a united and free nation, and if we are to economically and socially prosper? We cannot have a healthy social climate without a healthy economy. We cannot have a healthy economy without some drastic realignment of priorities by this government.
Will the minister, if he ever shows up in the House, see fit to answer the questions we have and give this country an idea of just what this ministry is going to do for Canadians?
We on this side of the House support the principle of social development and only hope that the Liberals are not setting up another smoke screen, a gimmick, to dupe Canadians into
thinking the government are doing something about much needed social reform. I hope they are sincere in wanting this ministry to activate social reform and that they are not just establishing another propaganda machine.
We approve this motion but expect action from the department, and we put them on notice that we will be monitoring its performance. We on this side will not put up with just another bureaucracy. We want a functioning and relative department. That is their challenge, Mr. Speaker, and I hope they can live up to it.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my few remarks on the setting up of a new social development ministry by asking a question: Is this trip really necessary? My distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), in his magnificently nostalgic speech about the 1960s yesterday, was fond of quoting the great old song titles, and the one which keeps running through my mind at the moment is "That Old Feeling". Because I cannot help getting that old feeling that once again the Liberals are coming along to give us a social cure when for the past 20 years at least they have been the social disease.
When I question the need for this new ministry of social development, I am asking the question in an historical perspective, after watching the succession of Liberal governments operate as they have during their many years in office. It is true that the short-lived Clark government was actively working on setting up a ministry of social development, so it is not my intention to shoot down the idea in principle, now that we are in opposition. It is a good idea in principle.
But where the principle may be the same, the practice and the implementation of this new social ministry, I suspect, will be vastly different from the plan proposed by the previous Conservative administration. We on this side were setting up such a ministry as part of the total long-range thinking that the Conservative administration had embarked upon, in the same way we had launched a five-year program in the economic sphere. We felt it was important to look at the Canada of the next decade, as my hon. friend for Rosedale did so well yesterday afternoon, and up to the year 2000 in terms of how the federal government's social policy can best benefit all Canadians.
Part of our long-term planning included select special committees of this Parliament, including the study of volunteerism in society and a special study on the disabled and handicapped citizens of Canada, a subject which is so dear to the heart of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Those select committees were hampered at every turn by the then Liberal opposition and they never did become really operational.
Now, all of a sudden, the Liberal government finds it expedient to have a super ministry of social development. Whereas we on the Conservative side were planners always considering the long-term benefits to Canadians as opposed to the short-term appeal to the country's headline writers, the
June 17, 1980_______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________2189
Liberals are resorting to ad hoc political expediency and, I fear, may end up paying lip service to, and watering down the whole idea of, a super ministry on social development in terms of what its mandate should be.
I fully support the program description as it is outlined in the blue book estimates of 1980-81 in section 27, page 4. This section, under the heading "Policy Formulation, Program Review and Assessment", says that the new ministry shall:
Develop approaches to improve and integrate the delivery of social benefits to Canadians and lead and co-ordinate the efforts of the Government of Canada to foster co-operative arrangements with the provinces and with public and private organizations to facilitate the development of the individual, the family and the community.
I could not agree more with the principles expressed in that intention and that mandate.


An hon. Member:: It sounds good.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Yes, it sounds very good, but let us see what happens to it. I also feel strongly that part of this ministry's mandate is to get rid of the bureaucracy that is involved in some of the social portfolios and get rid of the duplication of services as between federal governments and provincial governments. In this sense, I believe that this ministry must really have a constitutional consciousness.
This was the thoughtful way in which we were approaching the setting up of a super ministry of this sort. We were always working for gross in our economic and social programs as expressed in the gross national product, but I am afraid, based on past experience, that the Liberals will regard this ministry as gross, as in the size of the bureaucracy.
When we refer to the bureaucracy, it is most often in a negative sense. I do not think that should be the case. I know well from my reporting years around here and as a member of government that one can feel the capacity for work in the civil service. There is a very real conscientious care for Canada on the part of bureaucrats who can be, and in many cases are, the nicest, most mild-mannered people in the world. They are not vicious, ill-tempered types out to rob the taxpayers blind; they are following the rules.
But these hard working, well meaning civil servants get caught in the vastness of the machine. As soon as a new ministry is hatched-and one sometimes must wonder about the kind of boondoggling and patronage that follows the birth of new department-automatically the talk is about a budget of $8 million to $10 million in today's terms. Human nature being what it is, especially in the public service, any new department must have some status. That is measured in human relation terms by the size of the budget and the number of people in the new department, ministry or agency.
A Consumers Association of Canada survey of 900 of its members, which was released just last night, reveals that their greatest fear about inflation is the rise in the federal deficit. So yet another bureaucracy will come as cold comfort to consumers. Knowing how Liberal governments work, I am very concerned that this new ministry signals the creation of a vast bureaucracy and will grow like crab grass on the lawn.
Social Development Ministry
Let me give hon. members a personal glimpse at the industry I have been a part of for a quarter of a century to illustrate the suffocating effects of government becoming an increasingly vast, amorphous empire. What has happened to the broadcasting industry is that it has been snowed under and smothered by paperwork and slide-rule regulations. Independent broadcasters or family-owned operations found they were not broadcasters at all. They spent all their time reporting to government, filling out forms and appearing before public hearings. They became fed up trying to satisfy the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, and all its predecessors, that form XA-B2-4(1), subsection iii, and similar documents which broadcasters are required to fill out every week, was impossible to keep up with. Many individual broadcast operators I know simply sold out to the larger broadcasting chains.
The effect of a bureaucracy trying to justify its existence is to sap individuals, and eventually their communities, of their spirit. For example, a broadcaster's mandate is to stay in touch with his or her community, and the listening audience with the broadcaster. By knowing what his community wants, needs, feels, the broadcaster can do what she or he was trained to do-be creative, come up with experimental ideas, some of which work, many of which do not; but often a good idea leads to being solidly competitive.
It is an illustration of how ideas from the arts and cultural communities can come from the bottom, not be imposed from the top. No government committee or tribunal could have told Skakespeare "Write some great plays, Will Baby!" Broadcasters-including many of the people involved in the technical end-just do not have time to complete the idiotic paperwork and attend public hearings justifying their existence, and at the same time serve their communities by exercising their ingenuity and imagination. So they give up or sell out to those who can afford bookkeepers.
I have a very real fear that the proposed super ministry could result in the same sort of suffocation of individual spirit, initiative and privacy. I worry about the cross-indexing power that a central ministry of this size could have. They will end up with our OHIP numbers, they will have our SIN numbers, they have our OAS numbers, and they will have our driver's licence numbers. I feel that a ministry of this size, improperly used, could mean the end of legitimate privacy.
In view of what this social development ministry is supposed to be doing, it raises a very interesting question as to the relationship of the new minister of social development to the rest of his cabinet colleagues. I dare say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) stands to become the second most powerful man in the country, exceeded only by the power of the bureaucrats who run this social development ministry.
Let me try to illustrate the amorphous nature of this super-duper ministry in terms of the family. I have been wondering for the past few weeks just who over there on the government front benches is responsible for the family unit. There is where the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-

June 17, 1980
Social Development Ministry
let) sits-at least, where he did sit; he is not here now-he who presumably looks out for the consumers' interests. There sat the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). He is not here either. He is responsible for the status of women in this country and most women I know are consumers. There should sit the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport affecting the health and well-being of Canada's young people especially. There should sit the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) protecting the health of Canadians and determining their welfare needs. She is not here either.
There used to sit the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Fleming) to ensure the preservation of Canada's many non-Anglo-Saxon communities and cultures as expressed through their very close sense of family life. There should sit the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), but he is not here either; he dictates what Canadians should and can watch and hear as families. There should sit the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), but he is not here either; he is forever hearing about his industry's concerns about the family farm. There used to sit, but he is not here, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) who has thus far refused to make the sale of family farms or capital gains tax burdens any easier on Canadian farmers.
There sits, bless him the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), the one minister who takes his responsibilities seriously and who must be constantly vigilant on behalf of Canadian war veterans and their dependants and the futures that these families face. There should sit, but for some reason he is not here either, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who is technically supposed to be looking after the welfare of Canada's native and northern peoples and their social concerns.
1 may have missed three or four other portfolios, Mr. Speaker, but the point is that throughout the list of responsibilities of ten different federal ministries the common concern, the element that knits all those portfolios together, is the family unit. Nobody could describe the importance of family to government better than that very honourable lady, the former member for Scarborough Centre, Mrs. Diane Stratas, when she said on November 20, 1979, as reported at page 1517 of Hansard:
As the basic unit of society all government activity all year round should be directed at the perpetuation and protection of the concept of family, not necessarily family in the traditional sense but family as a concept of life wherein family members are encouraged to live fully as responsible members in community with each other. We must be willing to accept and respect all forms of family life, but above all we must recognize family.
Canadians express their self-worth through their families, and the family unit is the most intimate and important focal point in life for many millions of Canadians as individuals. And yet, as we have seen, Mr. Speaker, of all the senior cabinet ministers and junior ministers and ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries and committee chairmen those people have over there, no one in the federal government has
been charged with responsibility for the family-the average Canadian family unit-until now, Mr. Speaker.
Given this social development minister's umbrella portfolio, its all-encompassing impact on Canadian society, its bringing together so many family-oriented departments and agencies of government, it seems obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that this new minister is responsible for the family unit in this country.
Indeed, we should look at the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Chretien's) own family on that side-his family of portfolios. At least 10 of his cabinet colleagues will be regarding this minister as the government head of the social policy family, and yet how is this minister going to operate for the benefit of the individual Canadian family? How is any Canadian individual and his or her family going to get any new ideas through to this super ministry and their senior bureaucrats?
The family is the consumer, Mr. Speaker, but there is a real difference between the family in the health sense, the family in the welfare sense, and the family in a consumer sense. We need a department of consumer affairs to keep an eye on pricing, advertising or misleading advertising, the cost of living and so on. We need a department of health involving doctors and hospitals and grants to provinces and advice to Canadians on hygiene. We really need a separate department of welfare, in my view, which relates to personal tragedies which are most frequently and most closely tied in with the job opportunities branch of government-that is, the Department of Employment and Immigration whose responsibility it is to get people off the welfare rolls.
If anything, Mr. Speaker, we do not need bigger ministries in this country. We need ministries which are more compact and more in touch with the people and with reality. The bigger a ministry gets, in my view, the less it can be in contact with the people and the realities of every day Canadian life.
It was the former leader of the party and a most distinguished parliamentarian, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, who said in Victoria in a speech about six months ago that government has got to get back to the people. I wonder if the Minister of Justice can assure us that this new social development ministry will be getting back to the people, or will this become a sprawling and appalling thing to the taxpayers of Canada? Does the public have the remotest chance of getting through to this new bureaucracy, let alone having any impact on it? That, Mr. Speaker, is what is almost frightening to me about the way this Liberal administration could deal with the scope and the magnitude of this all-embracing social ministry. What input can the average Canadian have in terms of his own individual social development in the next decade or two, and how can the individual Canadian feel any sense of security about what the government is setting up?
My role as the consumer affairs critic for this party makes me think automatically in terms of how government impacts on the little guy, Mr. Speaker. Speaking of little guys, we have no finer example on this side of the House than the hon. member for Rosedale, who I might point out was very big with the health ministry when he was head of that department. He was the first minister they could ever see through a micro-
June 17, 1980

scope. But see him they could. My colleague from Rosedale was, as minister, and is now as a fellow member of Parliament, as unremote and as accessible, as concerned and feeling a public figure as anyone 1 have ever known while watching this Elouse of Commons. The Minister of Justice, the new minister of state for social development, could well learn from my hon. friend from Rosedale the way to communicate ideas to people.
I know from personal experience that the hon. member for Saint-Maurice is no slouch at personal rapport with his colleagues and with other public officials at home and abroad. My point is that the minister and his new department must learn to communicate with the average Canadian on the all-encompassing impact of his portfolio on the Canadian people.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House would quite happily agree to promote the aims and objectives, both short term and long term, of the "people" side of this new ministry. We could, for example, devote some space in our householder mailings to all of our constituents, to let them know the importance of this legislation we are now debating in terms of how it will benefit the individual Canadian consumer and family unit. I know I for one will be awaiting with interest some specifics which I can announce to the people of Hamil-ton-Wentworth, and to reassure them that this is not simply another level of bureaucracy, another giant super department, another eight to ten million expenditure for openers, another duplication of already established government services. I want to be able to assure the 75,000 people I represent that this exercise of setting up a Ministry of State for Social Development will encourage people to get involved in their communities, will encourage volunteerism, will encourage initiative in the private sector, and will make individual Canadians feel that we are not just OHIP numbers or SIN numbers or statistics of one kind or another. People are sick and tired of that kind of mass anonymity. We are people, Mr. Speaker, we are individuals, and we want an opportunity to express ourselves about the future course of social policy of this government.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will do what we can to educate the consumer, to give Canadians a sense of confidence about this legislation, provided that we on this side are absolutely convinced that, as I said at the outset of my remarks, this trip is really necessary.
I would ask the minister: how will he measure his success as head of this new super ministry? How will he define that success this time next year? How will he look at it five years from now? Obviously the minister must have some idea of his objectives and goals or he would not have taken on this portfolio. Obviously he has discussed this social development ministry in cabinet with his colleagues, like the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Employment and Immigration, since they will be coming to the new minister for their funds for the most advantageous use in any given year. I think it is incumbent on the government in general and on this minister of social development in particular to tell the
Social Development Ministry
House what gauges, what criteria, he will be using to assess his performance in his new ministry.
I note the minister's own statement raises a couple of questions which it would be worthwhile having him answer. In his statement he said:
Since the ministers work within a predetermined expenditure ceiling, new high priority proposals can be financed only by cutbacks in lower priority programs elsewhere within the social sector.
What are those low priority proposals which may be cut, Mr. Speaker? The minister says that he will announce this "conscious ranking of social priorities". I should like to know when he will announce that ranking of social priorities. How will this new minister improve upon the cost effectiveness of the current programs of these social departments and agencies which now exist?
As the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) said, we on this side will surely be assessing his performance in the light of what has been said here yesterday and today. It does not usually take long for the media to judge the effectiveness of a new department, and if the minister is really doing his job well, we will also note the consequent ineffectiveness of other socially oriented departments that he is embracing. As a result, in about a year from now our constituents will clearly draw their own conclusions as to the wisdom of setting up yet another ministry with its attendant bureaucracy.
Bigger government is not always better government, Mr. Speaker. But I have confidence in the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, the Minister of Justice. I hope that his new super department will be a rare exception to the rule that bigger is not always better. I want to wish the minister luck in finding enough time to contribute, to give proper input and to set down guidelines for the development of this ministry along with his responsibilities for federal-provincial relations, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. In principle, the new ministry of social development is go for those of us on this side, but how that principle will be implemented is something we will be watching very closely indeed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the resolution which we are now debating to provide for the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, the minister gave as one of the main reasons the following, and I quote:
-to assist the government in integrating current social programs and developing more equitable social policies for the future.
Members of our party would agree completely that developing more equitable social policies and integrating present programs is a very laudable ambition. After the minister said that, the rest of his speech was devoted to demonstrating why the government really has no intention in the foreseeable future of developing any new programs. Indeed, what the minister was saying when he introduced this resolution was that the real purpose of the ministry was to control expendi-

June 17, 1980
Social Development Ministry
tures for social programs and to see that we do not have any new programs unless the government can eliminate some that we now have.
On the one hand, the minister seemed to be indicating that we had made great progress in the 1960s and 1970s. He listed medicare, the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Assistance Plan as important steps, which they were in improving the lifestyle of many Canadians. Then he went on to indicate that the purpose of this ministry would be to see that ceilings be placed on expenditures. The minister said at page 2133 of Hansard the following:
-that new high priority programs should be financed largely out of the proceeds from the elimination of other expenditures-
The only expansion which the minister could foresee in the coming year was this:
-our social policy envelope for 1980-81 will be increased by an amount sufficient to pay for our increased guaranteed income supplement-
That was a strange objective from a minister who had said a moment or two before the following:
The distribution of income in Canada is largely unchanged despite all the social policy changes of the 1960s and 1970s. Crime and poverty have not disappeared. Today, Canada has more poor children than ten years ago and the problems of many pensioners are still with us. The majority of Canadians still have no pension coverage other than that financed through the public sector.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, and having given a very concise description of the problems which are still faced by millions of Canadians, the minister then went on to say that, despite all that, in effect the government is not going to do anything about them because it does not have the money.
I think we ought to look at some of the problems which are still with us and which the minister alluded to very briefly. For instance, if we look at the distribution of income in Canada and at what has happened over a period of almost 30 years, we see that the families and unattached individuals who make up the bottom one-fifth of the income earners of this country, or the 20 per cent at the bottom, got 4.4 per cent of the gross national product in 1951, while the top fifth, or the top 20 per cent, got 42.8 per cent.
After all these tax programs, all of the income distribution programs, after the implementation of medicare, the Canada Pension Plan and the increase in the old age pension and unemployment insurance-all the programs which governments, federal and provincial, have inaugurated since 1951- what do we see? In 1978 the percentage of the gross national product which the bottom one-fifth of Canadians got had not risen. In fact, it had dropped from the 4.4 per cent in 1951 to 3.9 per cent in 1978 whereas the top fifth of the population received 42.5 per cent of the gross national product. How the minister can let the House and the people of Canada believe that we have solved most of the problems and therefore do not have to think about any new expenditures or new redistribution of income to at least move toward more equity in our society, I simply do not know.
Let me give one more illustration of how the income disparities affect people in this country. If we look at the distribution
of money among income earners, we find that the young and families whose heads are over 65 years of age dominate the lower quintile; that is, the lowest and second lowest fifth of the population. The biggest gainers of income are those families in the 45 to 65 age group, followed closely by the 24 to 44 age group. The situation of the young and the aged is not improving at all.
The argument in favour of the Ministry of State for Social Development is put forward by the government on the basis of planning and co-ordination of federal spending on social programs. The minister indicates that he hopes to control the expenditures, that he wants high priority programs to be financed from other expenditures and he wants to make tradeoffs when presenting new proposals; in other words, eliminating some of the programs that we have been operating until now.
The minister wants to control the expenditures. This is an extremely unfortunate argument when one reviews the social and economic problems in this country. As I have indicated, the income distribution has not improved at all in almost 40 years. That being the case, we find it strange that the government wants to proceed with the objective of holding the line on new programs, which would at least move us toward a more equitable system for our people.
When one looks at the distribution of income, it is evident that those families with heads over 65 years of age dominate the lowest quintile of the income earners. Of the bottom one-fifth of the income earners in this country, 33.5 per cent come from families whose head is over 65 years of age. In 1977 a Statistics Canada study of income distribution indicated that 50.3 per cent of those 65 to 69 years of age, and 63 per cent of those 70 and over, were living in poverty.
Given that kind of information, we find it alarming that the minister would indicate that the government has decided that this country cannot do better for the people who are in need. We find that two-thirds of the unmarried women 65 and over, that is, 400,000 women, were living in poverty in 1975. This is the government which says it cannot do any more. The situation obviously will get much worse in years to come because of our rapidly aging population.
Let us look at another field over which the minister will have a good deal of influence, the situation with regard to housing. A discussion paper prepared by the Canadian Council for Social Development shows how government housing policies have benefited people in the upper and middle-income groups who are largely the people who own their own homes. It is pointed out that in the spring of 1970 the average net worth of home owners was $23,476, while the average net worth of renters was $3,949. The average net worth of home owners thus exceeded that of renters nearly six times over. By the spring of 1977, this economic advantage for home owners had accelerated considerably. Their average net worth was over $71,000, which exceeded the $8,900 average for renters by a little over eight times.
June 17, 1980

Yet given this situation, we see the government doing everything it can to get out of social housing, to turn housing over, almost in its entirety, to the private sector, knowing that the private sector has never been interested in it or able to produce houses for people in the lower income brackets who cannot afford to buy their own homes. This is not the occasion on which to go into the matter in detail, but we know now what a disaster the Assisted Home Ownership Plan has been for people in this country. It inveigled them into getting into programs which they were simply unable to continue once the initial period of subsidy was over. So we see thousands of people in the province of Ontario who are giving up their homes and turning them back to the mortgage company.
I want to say something now about another group in this country whose treatment we can regard with nothing but shame. I refer to the native people of this country. I want to put some figures on record because, in my view, the minister was telling us yesterday on behalf of the government that really there was no new money available for the disadvantaged. That is a disaster for a segment of our society which has lived in misery and poverty ever since the white man came here.
In 1976 the infant mortality rate for Canadians as a whole was 16 per 1,000. The infant mortality rate for native people was something over 32 per 1,000. The average live expectancy of the population as a whole was 67; the average life expectancy of native people was 43. In 1971 96 per cent of the homes in Canada had potable water systems. Six years later, in 1977, only 50 per cent of native homes had potable water supplies. In 1971 90 per cent of Canadian homes had sewer systems. Six years later, in 1977, only 45 per cent of native homes had sewer systems. In 1971, 94 per cent of Canadian homes had indoor plumbing. Six years later, in 1977, only 45 per cent of native homes had indoor plumbing. In 1975 12.2 per cent of Canadians were attending universities. Less than half of that percentage, 5.3 per cent of natives, were attending universities and colleges. What does the government say about that?
What does it say about housing for natives? Well, in a cabinet memo concerning housing construction for native people we find the following statement:
The Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission has now advised the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that from April, 1980 house construction projects will no longer be eligible for relief funding.
Madam Speaker, relief funding was of major assistance not only in providing employment for some thousands of native people but also for improving their housing stock. Yet the department which controls so much of the funding for employment programs has decided that none of this money can be used for employment on native reserves to improve native housing. The results can be seen by anybody who visits native communities on the reserves or elsewhere in the north. In the constituency of Nunatsiaq, which is represented by my hon. friend, only about 1 per cent of the people own their own homes. The cost of operating them and, in particular, the cost of utilities is a major deterrent.
Social Development Ministry
When one visits these communities one is immediately struck by the difference between the way in which the indigenous people live and the way in which the government bureaucrats, 99 per cent of whom are white, live. A visitor to any of these communities sees one set of housing in which there is no running water, no plumbing and no central heating-this, of course, is where the riff-raff, the native people, live-and quite another set of housing which accommodates government employees and a few people from the private sector. This is where one finds indoor plumbing, running water, central heating, all the things one does not see in the native community. These are the circumstances in which native people live, yet the message the minister gave us when presenting this resolution, if one studies it and thinks through the implications, is: We do not intend to do any more for native people than we have done in the past.
Another of the departments over which the minister will have responsibility is the Department of National Health and Welfare. We have heard a great deal in the past year about the decline of a program of which all Canadians have been proud-the program of medical insurance. This program, Canadians thought, had established once and for all that no one in any province or territory of this country would have to worry about the possibility that they would be deprived of the best available medical care on the ground that they could not afford it. However, in recent years we have seen a marked change. Why? Because in the mid-seventies the then Liberal government, with Conservative support, decided to reduce the federal government's share of health care costs. By early 1977 it had replaced the health care cost-sharing program by a system of block funding. Under this arrangement, instead of being given 50 per cent of the cost of provincial programs, the provinces were allowed a certain amount of money along with the right to levy taxes.
We in the New Democratic Party opposed block funding at that time for three main reasons. It removed from the federal government the ability to ensure uniform standards of care across the country, it provided unequal financial assistance to the provinces, and it tied future increases in financing to an arbitrary standard unrelated to the realities of the health care system. As the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted at that time, he was gambling with our health care system. He gambled, and the Canadian people have lost.
Since block funding was introduced there has been a dramatic erosion of the universality of provincial plans and of reasonable access guaranteed to Canadians. In Ontario 20 per cent of physicians have opted out of the provincial plan. In both Alberta and Prince Edward Island 42 per cent of the doctors charge more than the amounts set out in provincial medical fee schedules. The patient, of course, has to pay the difference in cost. In the last five years premiums have increased 82 per cent in Ontario, 50 per cent in British Columbia and 33 per cent in Alberta, and the number of new hospital user charges introduced over the past five years has reached 23.

June 17, 1980
Social Development Ministry
In my own province we have seen the Conservative government not only not match the grants it gets from the federal government, but it has also used the federal government funding to reduce its share of the cost of paying for medical insurance very substantially. During the campaign the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg-Assiniboine, together with the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), promised that a Liberal government would stop that kind of theft- because that is what it is-on the part of the provincial government. Well, we have seen what has happened since this government was elected. Despite repeated requests and proposals from hon. members of our party, the minister has refused to act. The minister has had the lame excuse that she would wait until the Hall commission made its report. I happen to think that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare is one of the best ministers in the present government, but that is not what she was saying during the election campaign. She was not saying that she would wait and that the Liberal government would wait until the Hall commission reported; she said that they would take action and that they would take it quickly.


An hon. Member:: More Liberal flimflam.


David Orlikow: As my colleague says, more Liberal flimflam, and from a minister from whom one would have expected a good deal more.
I want to deal with one more example of the kinds of programs we need and which are going to be hurt by what I believe to be the virtual freezing of fundings for programs, which is implicit in the speech which the minister made yesterday. An increasing percentage of the female population of this country is working. In fact, the percentage of women working is rapidly approaching the percentage of the male labour force. That is not surprising, given the cost of living. Given the cost particularly of purchasing a home in most Canadian cities at the present time, it is almost axiomatic that if a young married couple wants to buy a home, both husband and wife have to work in order to earn the down payment and then to meet the high monthly payments which are required because of our high mortgage interest rates. I am sure there is not a member of this Parliament who has not given up trying to canvass during an election campaign in the day time in most parts of his or her constituency because there is nobody home. Both husbands and wives are out working.
One of the effects of wives with young children having to be out at work is that we have tens of thousands of young children who are not properly or adequately looked after while their mothers and fathers are both working. In every city we can find fairly young children who finish school at three thirty or four o'clock and who wander around the streets by themselves because their mothers are not home until five or five thirty in the afternoon.
What has the government done about that? How have governments, federal and provincial, reacted to that situation? Well, we know that child care centres are few and far between. It is not uncommon for parents to experience a six-month
waiting period for child care centre space. In 1978 there were 695,000 children under the age of six. Of these, only 73,000 were enrolled in supervised child care programs. Lack of accessible and affordable child care has forced 90 per cent of parents to place their children in unregulated facilities. Child care centre space costs on an average between $3,000 and $4,000 per pre-school child per year. Let us compare that with the $1,000 maximum child care income tax deduction. Government subsidies are available to those in need or those likely to be in need, but subsidy eligibility is so restrictive that 70 per cent of available moneys go to the children of single parents or "at risk" children. The res :!t is that day care centre space is available only to the rich and to the poor. Present cost-sharing arrangements between the three levels of government are totally inadequate. Under the present funding scheme the federal government takes no responsibility for site, salary or equipment costs. Subsidies for those with proven need which are cost-shared 50-50 by federal and provincial governments are insufficient.
In addition, provincial governments are under no compulsion to match federal subsidies for child care. Child care workers are traditionally female, underpaid and unorganized. In addition to poor benefits and largely unsatisfactory working conditions, the pay is low. Average incomes range from $7,000 to $10,000 a year. The majority of child care workers do not belong to unions and have no job protection.
Along with many non-political organizations such as women's organizations and organizations representing poor people, members of this party have been urging federal and provincial governments to begin at least trying to meet the problems of child care, which I have outlined very briefly, in a well thought out and organized manner. At least let there be a beginning. I can only conclude from listening to the minister's speech that the government has given up the task before it has really started, because the minister has said that there is really no new money available. We in our party do not accept the argument that there is no new money available. We believe that this country is wealthy enough and has the resources to provide for the needs of its people, some of whom 1 have mentioned in my speech today.
Let me indicate two ways by which we can find the money which is necessary. First, we have one of the highest rates of unemployment of any of the industrialized countries in the western world. It has been estimated that if, instead of the over 8 per cent unemployment we now have and the 9 per cent unemployment estimated by such organizations as Wood Gundy for the last part of 1980 and the first part of 1981, we were to have 4 per cent unemployment, which for many years was the figure for unemployment which the Economic Council of Canada calculated as meaning full employment in this country, we would be producing $5 billion more in the way of goods and services than we are producing now. We would have at least 100,000 and probably 200,000 fewer unemployed. These people would be purchasing goods which are produced by Canadians. They would be paying taxes. The companies for which they would work and the companies from whom they
June 17, 1980

would purchase goods would be doing more business and paying more taxes, and government revenues would rise by something in the neighbourhood of about $1.5 billion a year. That is part of the way in which we would find the money necessary to finance the kind of programs which we believe we should be operating at present.
But there is another way in which the money can be found. The National Council of Welfare, in a document entitled "Hidden Taxation", pointed out that there are more than 60 deductions, exemptions, credits, exclusions and preferential tax rates which make up the invisible tax expenditure budget. They have estimated that these are only 20 per cent of the tax expenditures, and the amount of money which we lose in these various tax exemptions and credits was $7.1 billion in 1976. They have estimated that the full amount would be more than double that figure. Of that $7.1 billion spent in 1976, 53 per cent of the savings were given to the highest 20 per cent of the tax filers. The tax saving was $4,781 for the tax filers with incomes over $50,000; that is 12 times the amount that a person in the middle-income bracket received.
Here is how they estimated where the money went in millions of dollars. We gave up in tax revenues in 1976 through the registered pension plan, $707 million; for the registered retirement savings plan, $859 million; for the registered home ownership savings plan, $156 million; for interest and dividend deduction, $721 million; and for the dividend tax credit, $111 million.
If you look at the registered retirement savings plan, you see that almost $7 out of every $10 that was forgone by the government in taxes went to the highest income 10 per cent of the tax filers, and more than half the benefits went to the top 5 per cent. In 1976 the lowest income 50 per cent of tax filers had an $148.47 average tax saving; the top 5 per cent income tax filers saved $1,449.13-ten times as much. Some 62 per cent of the 1974-76 increase went to the top 10 per cent of tax filers and 43 per cent to the top 5 per cent alone.
In case any member of Parliament thinks that the National Council of Welfare misrepresents the figures, I refer members to a study done by the federal Department of Finance which reported late in December of 1979. They calculated that the federal government is losing at least $32 billion in revenue because of so-called tax expenditures. This is the revenue loss in 1979 associated with about 190 tax exemptions, deductions, write-offs and special incentives listed in the 96 page report entitled "Government of Canada Tax Expenditure Account" released on December 6, 1979.
Let me summarize some of the illustrations of how they got this $32 billion. The special frontier drilling incentives cost the government $100 million a year-$30 million to individuals and another $70 million to corporations. Those are precisely the individuals and corporations who can best afford to pay taxes, yet we give them exemptions or reductions.
In the housing area, the registered home ownership savings plan costs the government $115 million in lost revenue annual-
Adjournment Motion
ly; the multiple unit residential building provision costs $10 million; and the deductibility of carrying charges on land costs $35 million. Again this is a gift to people who can most afford to pay taxes.
For individuals, the revenue loss to Ottawa in 1979 for the following selected items is; tax deductions for registered pension plans and registered retirement savings plans, $2 billion; tax deduction for contributions to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, $480 million; non-taxation of capital gains on principal residences, $2.5 billion; marital exemption, $1.36 billion; deduction for dependant children, $870 million; child tax credit, $810 million; non-taxation of lottery and gambling winnings, $300 million; and employment expense deduction, $500 million.
I could go on and on, but I think I have indicated quite clearly that in the view of our party the argument that we cannot afford to make improvements in our social security system, that we cannot afford to do better for the people in need, that we cannot afford to do better for the aged, that we cannot afford to do better for our native people, that we cannot afford to do better for the poor in our society who still number in the millions, simply does not wash. We believe that the Canadian people can afford to do a better job than we have done in recent years. We believe that the needs of Canadians who are in want can be met; and we believe that this proposal of the government is an attempt to put a stop to improvements, to put a stop to the expansion of our social security system, to put a stop to the very meagre steps which have been taken to try to improve the lot of the poor people, the people in need in this country. It is because we believe that, Mr. Speaker, that we propose to vote against this resolution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the next hon. member to speak, I should like to give the proceedings on the adjournment motion for this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Transport-engine failures on Air Canada aircraft-Call for inquiry and study on air safety; the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker)-Energy- Processing of resources near source-Possible relocation of Sarnia complex; the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-Employment-Reinstatement of outreach program-Restoration of funds for 12 projects.

June 17, 1980
2196_________________________________________
Social Development Ministry



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Trudeau):
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council tabled in the House on 21 April 1980, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Social Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to rise in the House to speak to the order in council which has been submitted to us for approval. A Minister of State for Social Development has been badly needed for a number of years.
Together with my colleagues yesterday, I was very happy to take the trip back through the last two decades to the early 1960s. Because I remember them so well, I am sure I can say without giving offence that the theme song that was brought home to me was entitled, "But, Deary, You're So Much Older Than I." That is why in this world of politics I am looking to the future.
The world of politics is filled with band-aid, ad hoc remedies and that is why the former government made the decision and drafted an order in council to initiate such b department to give some long-term planning to the social and cultural needs of the Canadian people. I am very pleased that the present government has seen fit to reintroduce this order in much the same form.
A department for social justice, a department for social development, would quite obviously be instrumental in securing for all Canadians the conditions necessary for human justice and human fulfilment. But the spectrum of concerns which would flow within the general category of social development is so broad that one can easily understand the need for one agency which will be responsible for the long-term policy which may well outlive various governments and which is absolutely essential for ensuring fundamental human rights for Canadians of the future. We have seen all too many band-aid programs in the last decade.
I, for one, see some hope for the future in the proposed establishment of a social development department. I hope I am not proven to be too optimistic in that regard. More than any other ministry, this one will touch upon the aspects of government which directly affect the rights, the worth and the happiness of individual Canadians in their everyday lives. I believe the minister responsible should be one of the most
important people in cabinet. If issues such as old age security, pensions, employment, housing, women's rights, opportunities for the handicapped, poverty, health care, physical fitness and immigration are not government priorities in this country of ours, then what on earth are?
The spectrum of social development concerns is so broad that I have decided to concentrate my remarks on one important aspect, that is, policies regarding the elderly. That is the third stage of life which should be the golden age but for so many Canadians is not. Being somewhat close to the traditional retirement age myself, and feeling not in the least like being put out to pasture, I find myself becoming increasingly aware of that factor in life on which certainly happiness depends and which, I believe, falls into the category of a basic human right. I am speaking about choice. All too many Canadians upon approaching retirement age suddenly find the choice they have with respect to their lifestyle drastically changes and is curtailed. I am referring to the rights they have previously taken for granted to work, to be useful and productive in society, to earn a decent living and to receive a decent living. All of these things disappear far too quickly upon attaining age 65.
The question of choice naturally brings me to the subject of mandatory retirement. Surely in this age-and I hope in this decade-there should be more personal choice involved as to whether a person finishes his or her career upon attaining age 65. There are many factors involved, such as health, financial position, desire to continue work, ability to continue being productive, enjoyment of leisure, family situation and on and on. An automatic retirement age meets neither the needs of our economy nor the wants and needs of the majority of people.
For this reason our party had planned to devote particular attention to the question of retirement age in its review of the public and private pension plans of the country. The issue is arousing public concern both here in Canada and abroad. I see this as a demand on the part of the senior public sector to be able to exercise greater choice in terms of the decision to retire. As it stands, the individual does not have the right to choose. Human rights legislation leaves retirement policy to the employer, and employees are not protected against discrimination in employment or hiring practices after age 65. To me the key word in the resolution of this problem is "flexibility". Not everyone wants to work over age 65, which is their right and privilege. Not everyone is able to work beyond or even up to age 65 due to health problems or the difficulty of finding work. A 1975 survey by Statistics Canada showed that a full 37 per cent of men had retired by the age of 64, and nearly 70 per cent did so because of ill health or lay-offs. Fewer than one-third of these men had employer-sponsored pension schemes, systems or plans. Most were not eligible for the Canada Pension Plan because they were either not sick enough or old enough.
There is a category of workers who are mentally and physically able to continue working and, for any number of reasons, wish to continue doing so even after age 65, but these workers are forced into what for them is premature retirement.

Studies have shown that barring physical speed and strength most jobs can be accomplished just as competently by a person who is healthy and strong and between ages 65 and 70 as by a younger employee. In many fields it is experience that counts. In this way our country has an invaluable resource in its senior citizens. Furthermore, it has been predicted that by 1984 the Canadian labour force is likely to be short of such experienced and skilled workers. However it is to be done, we must try to maximize the resources offered by citizens in the senior age group. This can only be done by taking an open, flexible approach. Let those who are willing and able to work after age 65 do so.
We should increase opportunities in the work place for part-time work and allow a gradual approach to retirement whereby a person can increase holiday time over several years and take up to five years, more or less, to ease into retirement.
It is the elderly women of this country who have been most discriminated against in the past. It is these same persons who are most discriminated against now through absolutely no fault of their own. Many shared the family work load by staying home to raise the family. Some took years off work to do this and lost all pension-related credit for this time. Most who worked did so for much lower wages than their male counterparts, and a large proportion worked in industries not protected by union agreements. All this adds up to the fact that few women over age 65 qualify today for significant retirement benefits. Therefore, they are forced to rely on their husbands' incomes after retirement. If their marriage dissolves, more often than not they are left out in the cold financially and indeed are in want of protection. If their husbands die before them-and statistically this is more likely to happen-they lose all or at best half of their husbands' pensions.
For women between the ages of 60 and 65 the situation is often quite desperate as they do not even receive old age security benefits. Since one-fifth or 20 per cent of Canadian women are widows before age 65, it goes without saying that when we talk about hardship we are talking about a lot of women, a lot of women who have worked all their lives to live and die in difficult circumstances. In 1975 more than two-thirds of all unmarried and widowed women over age 65 had cash incomes below $3,500. I trust the new minister responsible for social development will give immediate and thorough attention to the pressing problem of pension needs for the 1980s and beyond, particularly with respect to women and to improving the inadequate and inequitable private pension system.
In our short term in office the Conservative party addressed itself to the needs of the elderly in the 1980s, particularly the urgent needs of the women of this country. We introduced legislation which ceased the practice of cutting out spouse's allowance upon the death of a pensioner mate. We reinstated payments to all those who had lost their benefits and still qualified. We undertook a complete review of the pension situation of women, we allocated $15 million for home care programs for the elderly, and we introduced a veteran's pen-
Social Development Ministry
sion bill which would have extended benefits to widows of disability pensioners who had not formerly qualified for payments. While we were bringing in these particular measures we were conducting a comprehensive review of the whole retirement income system; that is, into the present and future income needs of the elderly and the extent to which various public and private pension systems were responding, or not responding, to these needs.
We will be anxious to see what policies this new ministry will formulate to alleviate the present plight of women on pension and to change the system for a better retirement future for our Canadian women. I would ask the minister responsible to examine without delay the possibility of allowing the husband of a woman who is working in the home to contribute on behalf of his wife to the Canada Pension Plan, so that when she enters or re-enters the work force she will not be penalized for these years of service in the home. This would also give women some protection in the case of a divorce after years of staying home to raise a family.
1 trust that the Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Chretien) will see to it that the piecemeal approach to the income needs of the elderly which marked the last decade is put aside, and that this enormous and complex problem is broached in a thorough and comprehensive way.
Along these same lines of permitting the elderly to maintain some control over their own lives, I should like to mention the increasing problem faced by the elderly in keeping their own homes. In my community of St. Catharines, which has a large percentage of elderly and senior citizens, some 8 per cent to 10 per cent live in some form of residential or institutional lodging at a substantial cost to the government. In some cases this is the best answer, but an increasing number of senior citizens who are perfectly capable of maintaining their own homes are caught in the inflationary spiral and are being forced out of their homes.
The Enersave program to help people insulate their older homes has been an enormous success. This was a much needed program and one that has proven popular. More programs of this nature are needed, programs which will have the end result of keeping people in their own homes for as long as possible. The psychological importance of this kind of independence is enormous, and if the government would offer elderly home owners financial assistance and encouragement, this would benefit the home owner and would cost the country a good deal less.
To my mind this problem is a political one. Governments have been caught up in band-aid programs to keep the electorate happy, while much needed long-term planning has been constantly shifted aside. The other day I was talking with a senior director responsible for homes for the aged and for care of the aged in the regional municipality of Niagara. He stressed that there was little or no such long-range planning at the provincial or federal levels. Is it not time, then, that some form of mechanics or strategy was established to facilitate the
2198

June 17, 1980
Social Development Ministry
necessary thinking and planning as we enter this next new decade.
The problems associated with pensions are among the most complex and urgent facing the country today and they are not going to get any better. By the year 2000 the number of senior citizens, now 2.2 million, will have grown to over three million. In Ontario the number will have almost doubled. If something is not done the aged are going to impose an extremely heavy burden on society in terms of pensions and social security.
It is my hope that the prime objective of this new department of social development will be to consolidate what we have learned in the past regarding the successes and failures of social programs, and to assess what the real social needs of the future are going to be. Only then can it realistically be determined what the social priorities for the next two decades will be and how the Canadian government is going to fund these programs. With regard to our growing elderly population, if there is not sound planning and a shift in attitudes, the economic and social implications by the turn of the century will be devastating.
With this anticipation, 1 am happy to support the passage of this order in council, and 1 hope to participate in that support this evening.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: : I declare the motion carried. The hon.	
member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam		
Speaker, the time	normally allotted	to hon. members for
June 17, 1980

discussing or debating private members' bills is now reduced by at least 45 minutes and I am wondering whether, to preserve the principle of democracy, the debate on Bill C-214 could be postponed until the next sitting of the House and whether we might call it six o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.47 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Hon. Charles Lapointe (for Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-20, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Lapointe: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few opening comments, but first of all I wish to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on this side of the House and my colleagues of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party for the interesting proceedings we had in committee when discussing this bill, and I would also like to thank them for having allowed this bill to go through the committee stage in reasonable time.
One of the main questions asked during the discussion in committee, Mr. Speaker, concerned the fact that the bill provides for an increase of the financial ceiling from $200 million to $475 million at the same time as an increase in the debt to equity ratio from 10:1 to 12:1 and even to 15:1. [English]
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening remarks at second reading stage, the bill provides the government with the flexibility to be as sensitive as possible to the needs of the bank's small business clientele while recognizing the government's strained financial position. Because of fiscal pressures the government has retained the provision introduced by the
Federal Business Development Bank Act
last government to increase the bank's capitalization by increasing the bank's debt to equity ratio from 10:1 to 12:1 and ultimately to 15:1. However, reflecting the government's commitment to small business, and recognizing the difficulties that small businesses have financing their operations especially during a period of high interest rates, the government decided that it would also be appropriate to have some flexibility enabling it to increase the capital of the bank through an injection of equity, even to the extent of lowering the debt to equity ratio to as low as 7:1.
The capacity to lower the debt to equity ratio from present levels would enable the bank to operate at a debt to equity ratio more in line with recent experience. Until very recently the bank operated at an eight to one ratio, and as of March 31, 1980, the ratio was nine to one. The legislation before the House will allow the government to lower the debt to equity ratio should the government decide such additional support is warranted. Another reason for providing additional equity is the likelihood of the bank experiencing an operating loss in the current fiscal year. Such a loss would have the effect of eroding the capital base of the bank unless it was replenished with new capital. Finally, as the former minister of state for small businesses noted in his speech in the House during second reading debate, there is also flexibility for the government to fund the venture capital portfolio of the bank with equity if it is deemed appropriate.
I have provided at second reading and committee stages details on the factors the government considered in drafting this bill, particularly those factors leading to a decision to increase the capital ceiling of the bank to $475 million. [Translation]
In these few opening comments, I would like once again to remind my colleagues about the urgency of approving this bill because in a few days the bank will have reached the financial ceiling now allowed and will have to reduce significantly its activities if the bill is not passed.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say that it was with some regret I learned the steering committee for the committee which studied this bill put the bill before committee last Thursday when I had an irrevocable commitment to attend the west coast for some functions and duties. Thus I missed the committee hearings which the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) mentioned in his opening remarks.
Many of the questions which I put on the record in second reading debate appear at page 1361 of Hansard. I believe that Parliament still must decide the degree of subsidy it is prepared to deliver to the Federal Business Development Bank as its mandate requires it to be a lender of last resort. But I do not think Bill C-20 addresses that question. The degree of flexibility Parliament will give the minister and the government under this bill is excessive. Certainly the matter will have

June 17, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act to be tidied up. That question should be answered in the review to which the Minister of State referred several times. It is desperately needed in order to stop this patchwork attempt at addressing the credit needs of the industrial and resource communities of the country.
Bill C-20 will give the government maximum flexibility. It will give them more than they need. Their capital base will be increased by $275 million. In my speech on second reading I could see a need for a $205 million increase. I could go along with $275 million, but on top of that they have asked for us to increase the ratio of capital to lending from one to ten to one to twelve, with governor in council approval to go to a ratio of one to fifteen. It is still my opinion that it is not needed and it is excessive flexibility. Had I been present at the committee hearings, certainly I would have had an amendment for report stage of the bill in the House. However, I have not had that opportunity as I returned from the west coast only a few hours ago this afternoon.
I should like to refer to one of the questions asked of the president of the bank before the committee. It reads:
-do you expect to draw from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada?
The president of the bank answered as follows:
Mr. Minister, Mr. Chairman, 1 cannot answer that question obviously, as I am sure you appreciate, that 1 just explained the point of view of the bank and that is really up to the government to find out if we should be at a seven to one ratio, if we should be at a ten to one ratio-
In other words, the president of the bank at committee hearings could not answer the simple question as to whether there would be a draw on the consolidated revenue fund. I have been able to get through about two thirds of the proceedings of the committee, having received the "blues" at approximately 6.15 this evening. I find that I have no further answers to the questions I asked than I had at the time of second reading debate.
In allowing this bill to go through third reading, we will give excessive flexibility to the minister and the Federal Business Development Bank without the basic and prime questions being answered. I still think the capital they will be given, the increase of $275 million over the $200 million, is enough, and that the ratio should have been left at one to ten. The minister will reply that in the bill there is a cap of $3.2 billion. I would suggest, and warn members of the House, that it would be very easy for a supplementary amendment to be made to the bill at some future time, even before the review is complete, whereby the bank would be out of control. Why they need to move from one to ten to one to twelve is beyond me in light of the new capital they have been given. It was my understanding that that capital would be a cancellation of debt and that there would not be a draw on the consolidated revenue fund. 1 now find from the committee proceedings that that question has not even been answered.
I regret I was not at the committee hearings. I apologize to my colleagues on this side. But a member of Parliament only has one life to live, and if it is 2,800 miles away he cannot be here when he is required on the west coast. I wish the bill were a little tighter and that we were not moving from the ratio of
one to ten up to one to twelve. I have no concern with $200 million of the $275 million increase in capital requested. Probably the extra $75 million should be the limit of the flexibility the bank and the government require in this matter. However, it is all history now. The bank needs the money, as does the small business community. I am sure it will be managed judiciously because I have great confidence in the president and senior officers of the bank. We will just keep our eyes on this situation. We will support the bill through third reading.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to express some concern about the bill. In some ways it is a housekeeping measure, but we do not believe it will really solve the problems that increasing numbers of Canadian businessmen, particularly small businessmen, will be facing in the years to come.
Already we note from statistics that the bankruptcy rates in the business sector have increased dramatically so far this year. Up to the end of April there have been over 2,273 business bankruptcies in the country, with a total liability of approximately $233 million. These are businesses which very often are a result of family effort, a family putting in its life savings to start a small business. It is unfortunate our economic system encourages a lot of small businesses to arise during periods of boom, like mushrooms which sprout after a good summer rairf, only to be wiped out in the times of the busts. Indeed, we are going through a period of bust and we see family investments and savings being wiped out. I do not believe the amendments before us today will make one iota of difference. They will not stop the number of bankruptcies. In fact I suggest that the rate will increase during this year.
The amendments will not stop the type of economic concentration we have seen occurring in our country in the last number of decades. These amendments will do nothing to stop this trend. There is always the suggestion, of course, that members in the opposition to our right and members opposite make, that our political party is opposed to business and particularly small business. We have repeated in this House that this is not so. Our party is definitely committed to that sector of the economy which employs over 30 per cent of our labour force, the small businessmen who employ under 200 employees in their businesses.
We have always objected to the type of economic concentration which has occurred in this country, a type of concentration that in 1978, for example, saw less than 2 per cent of all Canadian businesses, excluding financial institutions, foreign owned, yet that 2 per cent accounting for close to 50 per cent of all the profits made in the country. That is the type of foreign control and foreign domination which is continuing to destroy small businesses in this country, and that is why we have one of the highest business failure rates of any country in the world.
We exist not in a system of economic planning, but small business requires some economic stability. If we do not have
June 17, 1980

economic stability then we will continue to have the number of bankruptcies that we have in this country. As long as we do not have some economic stability and planning we will find the rate of bankruptcies in this country among the highest of any in the world. The bill before us will not stop this, and it will not deal with it.
It is not going to stop the oil companies, for example, from driving small businesses out. For example, they have driven out small garages, resulting often in increased cost and decreased services. Where can you go today to get your car repaired? In the past there were many garages and service stations which did repair work, but they have all been wiped out.
At the turn of the century there were over 200 car manufacturers, and now there are less then half a dozen. We know what happened to the car industry when the big boys took over.
We will not oppose this bill, but we wish to go on record as noting how inadequate it is, how it does not deal with the problems of the small businessman, how it does not come to terms with these problems, and how it makes empty the government's promise of help and support to the small business community. This bill is of no real help and it is of no real assistance, because it does not meet the real problems the businessmen face.


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-20 to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act because of its importance to small business which is the life blood of our nation and the economy. Putting this act in perspective is important. Our government's policies toward small business are really an integral part of our industrial strategy that was enunciated during the past election campaign. Of course the main thrust of this policy was to encourage Canadian owned small business.
As the economic council reported recently, although the percentage of sales and profits going to foreign controlled firms increased during the 1970s, the percentage of total Canadian assets and equity held by foreign controlled firms decreased. The objective of the Liberal government is to continue the latter trend and to reverse the former.
Canadian owned business, regardless of size, will need encouragement in this endeavour. It has generally been the case though that large corporations are much better able to capture a growing share of the market place than small business. Particular attention and vigilance must be directed toward maintaining and enhancing the position of Canadian owned small business in our economy.
It is important to recognize that about two-thirds of all the new jobs created in Canada in the last five years were created by small business. Some 97 per cent of these businesses are Canadian owned, operated in a highly competitive environment, and are community based. Because of this they tend to be more innovative and flexible than larger corporations. It is also noteworthy that a significant proportion of new inventions
Federal Business Development Bank Act
and innovations have come from these individual entrepreneurs and small business organizations. An important trend that augurs well for the future is that younger people are becoming increasingly interested in small business. Encouraging the growth of small business through the Federal Business Development Bank fulfils a number of important objectives- providing jobs, diversifying growth regionally, decreasing economic concentration, stimulating innovations, creating more livable communities, making work more interesting and, of course, increasing Canadian control of the economy.
As hon. members well know, the Federal Business Development Bank was established in 1974 to encourage the growth of small business by providing financial assistance and management services, which include counselling, training, and information. The bank replaced the old Industrial Development Bank which dated back to the 1940s. The bank's aim is to provide financial assistance in cases where it is not available at reasonable terms from other sources. The counselling service it offers supplements those available in the private sector. The role of the bank then is to act as a complement to financial institutions in the private sector, and to government agencies, and in co-operation with one another to encourage and diversify business ventures in Canada.
In order to understand how the bank responds to the requirements of small business it is first necessary to have a look at the amount of loans provided. While about 90 per cent of loans are in amounts under $100,000, almost half are under $25,000. The average loan works out to about $53,000.
Because the bank acts as a supplement lender it takes much greater risks than private sector lenders. As a matter of fact, with the experience the bank now has from a scant five years in operation, and with other lending institutions venturing into term loans, the bank's activities have become much bolder. The bank has fulfilled a very important function in this respect because many already established or newly formed businesses cannot meet the stiff criteria required by conventional lenders. While the potential for expansion may be there, the feasibility and the guarantees offered often do not meet the requirements of these lenders.
Within a relatively short span of time the bank's activities have spread out and generally have become more daring in responding to the needs of small business. As a consequence, private loan operations tend to become involved in large lucrative loans to business in urban areas. The result is that the demand for supplementary financing by the Federal Business Development Bank in small centres and rural regions has increased. In response to this the bank decentralized its services to the point where 60 per cent of its 100 branches are located outside the major cities. In addition, 98 per cent of the loans are approved at the branch or regional office level, thus speeding up the processing time for each application.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the bank plays a very significant role in terms of financing regional enterprises and encouraging regional development. In terms of my own riding,

June 17, 1980
Federal Business Development Bank Act in the 12-month period ending March 31, 1980, there were 790 inquiries made for financial services in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and 236 loans authorized, for a total of $12.3 million. With respect to management services, there were 240 visits by the Federal Business Development Bank officials to 12 centres in the Kitchener area. The information officers in the local branch responded to 874 inquiries for assistance and made 754 referrals to other federal agencies that provide assistance. As well, for the benefit of local businessmen the bank also held 16 seminars.
The counselling assistance for small business enterprises branch of the FBDB responded to 515 inquiries and made 417 consultations as of March 31, 1980. There were 586 clients in the FBDB portfolio with approximately $30 million in loans working for the expansion and development of small business in my riding. So as you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Business Development Bank is a very important link between the small businessman and government in the area I represent.
The changes that have become necessary to the act that governs the Federal Business Development Bank are really alterations that are needed to allow the bank to expand to meet with greater sensitivity and resources the requirements of small business within the framework of an industrial strategy. They are geared expressly to allow the bank to fill its mandate according to the Federal Business Development Act of assisting smaller enterprises unable to obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions, while operating on a cost-recovery basis as a schedule D Crown corporation. The situation we are currently faced with is that the bank has simply exhausted the resources made available to it when it was created in 1975.
Under the original act, the bank's resources were limited to $200 million in authorized capital at any time. Since the bank's total resources of $2.2 billion are already committed, this operating limit may be extended by increasing the debt to equity ratio or increasing the amount of authorized capital, or a combination of both. Bill C-20 does both, by allowing the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), at the request of the corporation and with the approval of the cabinet, to increase the amount of authorized capital, up to a limit of $475 million. It also establishes the debt to equity ratio of the bank at 12 to one with the provision that the cabinet may increase this to 15 to one if necessary.
The bill provides operating limits, as well, in that the total aggregate liabilities of the bank combined with its capital must not exceed $3.2 billion. The reason these changes in the act became necessary was that the bank incurred losses of $30 million in the fiscal year 1979-80. Many of the factors responsible for this were beyond the control of the bank and largely unanticipated, such as high interest charges, the increase in bankruptcies and, more specifically, the loss of big loans to the private lending institutions.
In the last few years the chartered banks have entered the term loan market with vigour. They have concentrated on larger, lower risk loans on which administrative costs have less impact. Also, for smaller loans under $75,000 covering the acquisition of property or equipment, the chartered bank
advances are guaranteed under the Small Business Loans Act program. The FBDB thus finds itself limited to loans where the profit is too low to interest chartered banks, or which are too risky to be covered by the Small Business Loans Act program. This is due to the purpose of these borrowers' programs, such as the need for capital and equipment.
Finally, the bank's involvement is far greater in remote areas, as well as provinces where conventional lending institutions are less active. Again this reflects the supplemental nature of FBDB's lending. Formerly, the Industrial Development Bank required borrowers to have sufficient equity to provide the bank reasonable protection. Under its new charter, FBDB only requires an investment sufficient to ensure a continuing commitment to the business. In light of this, the security held by the bank has decreased significantly. Thus in 1973, 52 per cent of loans authorized were fully secured. This proportion had decreased to 31 per cent by 1978. Moreover, in 1973, 11 per cent of loans had a security shortfall of 50 per cent or more of the loan amount; in 1978 this percentage increased to 26 per cent. In 1973, 56 per cent of borrowers did not have a proven track record at the time their loan was authorized. In 1978 the proportion rose to 64 per cent.
Losses from write-offs, Mr. Speaker, have therefore more than doubled over the past five years. These losses are four times greater than those of the Small Business Loans Act program and the bank's provisions in this respect are proportionately five times more than those of the chartered banks. However, one must keep in mind that the FBDB's market is inherently high risk. Nevertheless, the bank's write-offs are considerably less than those of the Enterprises Development Board and three times less than those experienced by the Small Business Administration in the United States.
The bank's ability to operate on a cost recovery basis according to the Financial Administration Act depends largely on its level of debt. Because its market is more costly to serve than that of private lenders, FBDB requires a debt-equity ratio, which is at least comparable to the private lender's over the years. The bank has operated with a relatively low ratio, reaching its maximum level of ten to one, one year ago. As I mentioned before, the bill is aimed at boosting this ratio to 12 to one or 15 to one if necessary.
In terms of improving its operating revenue, the bank has already taken steps to upgrade its position by setting the interest rate on a loan at the date of disbursement rather than the date of authorization, which provides protection in the event of sudden rate fluctuations. It is also considering other steps which include imposing fees for analysing proposals and setting higher interest rates for high-risk loans. Such measures, however, are often detrimental to the bank's small customers. Just as important, measures have already been taken to decrease operating costs. Many duties previously performed by credit officers have been taken over by administrative staff. To date, the cost per loan authorized by FBDB is three times less than at RoyNat, a private lending institution. However, the size of the average loan, the geographical coverage of the bank's activities, and the close monitoring it provides for each
June 17, 1980

customer, limit the cuts which can be made without affecting customer service.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-20 provides a balanced albeit temporary solution to the current financial difficulties being encountered by the Federal Business Development Bank. The balance has been achieved because, on one hand, the bank is not burdened with excessive debt and, on the other hand, the bank's customers, the small businessmen, have not been hurt by improving the bank's position. In recent months, however, it has experienced problems in exercising its mandate to the fullest possible extent. We must give them the tools to get the job done and I urge the support of all members of the House.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


LIVESTOCK FEED ASSISTANCE ACT
Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-15, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the third reading of Bill C-15 I want to refer very briefly to what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said on second reading. I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their co-operation on this bill at the committee stage in bringing back this bill as rapidly as possible before the House, and I do hope that tonight before the time of adjournment we will be able to give it third reading and start the second reading of Bill C-22 in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who will be here in a few moments. All that to point out that the purpose of the amendments to the Live stock Feed Assistance Act being requested in Bill C-15 are to bring the Yukon and the Northwest Territories within the scope of the provisions concerning transportation costs. So I would not want to prolong the debate further because I would like to allow some of my colleagues on the other side of the House to speak, with the hope however we can once again give this bill third reading in very short order before the adjournment tonight.
Livestock Feed Assistance Act


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government House leader meant to include the Yukon as well as the Northwest Territories in his explanation of the bill. He did not say so, however. That was not what came over on the translation.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had mentioned the Yukon in French. I want to make sure it is clear that these amendments to the Livestock Feed Assistance Act would bring the Yukon, as I said in French, and the Northwest Territories within the scope of the bill.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. We intend our remarks to be very brief, as is usual with members of the agricultural committee. I have always felt that when it comes to agriculture, whether in this House or in committee, members of the agricultural committee,, regardless of their political affiliation, co-operate in order to get bills through as quickly as possible.
We support this bill because it extends the provisions of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The Yukon territorial government has been asking for this since 1975 and it is something that our party has sought for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories for many years.
I remember going up to the Territories in 1974 and being met by a delegation which was very anxious to see agriculture expanded in the Territories. It is unfortunate that it has taken so long to bring this bill before the House because, as I said, the government of the Yukon asked for it in 1975.
Basically, the bill should not be required. It is required however because federal government restrictions over the years have made it impossible for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to develop a viable agricultural base. The potential is there. There is rich agricultural land in the Mackenzie Valley, the Liard River Valley and other valleys. Studies going back almost 75 years indicate the richness of the soil and the potential that is there. About ten or 12 years ago a comprehensive study was made which indicated that potential and the richness of the soil.
About 1972, members of the Indian affairs committee questioned the Minister of Indian affairs and northern development and asked why he was not allowing the development of agriculture in the two northern territories. He said they were busy doing a study. It was pointed out to him that a comprehensive study had been done by the Department of Agriculture five years before then, but he was not aware of it.
It is interesting that it was not until the Conservative government came into power in May of 1979 that an undertaking was given to allow the development of agriculture and recreational land in the territories. That undertaking was to go into effect this summer, but I gather that the present government is not prepared to carry it out.

June 17, 1980
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
At the present time there are in the two territories a total of 25 farms, 1 believe. That is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. These farms have not been allowed to expand, although there is potential for market gardens that would supply the people of the north with fresh vegetables so that they would not be burdened with exorbitant freight rates on produce coming in from the south. It is unfortunate that we must have this bill today but it is necessary because, over the years, the government has not seen fit to allow the expansion of agriculture.
I wonder if the Livestock Feed Assistance Act has not distorted the livestock industry in Canada. There is no doubt that this act has caused hog production to move from Alberta and Saskatchewan into Ontario and Quebec. It has also had an effect on beef production in the west. I suggest that there are certain natural advantages for the production of pork and beef in western Canada, but I will not pursue this at the present time.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the present agricultural situation in western Canada. While perhaps this bill does not apply to the very serious drought in southern and central Saskatchewan, the government will undoubtedly be called upon to give feed freight assistance to livestock producers in western Canada. As I travelled back to Ottawa from my constituency last weekend, I could see that the crops which were planted on stubble have turned yellow. Even a heavy rain or a series of heavy rains will not bring those fields back to life now. There will not be a particularly good crop on the summerfallow. There is practically no forage. Even the ditches, which usually provide a good source of hay and alfalfa, are not worth cutting. The situation is desperate and will become more so.
While the government recently announced that it will put up some $7 million to assist with drought programs, I would suggest that it will require much more than that if we are to assist our livestock industry and ensure that the necessary basic herds are retained.
It will be necessary for the federal government to work in conjunction with the provincial governments. It will be necessary for them to ensure that screenings are not shipped to Thunder Bay, that they are retained on the prairies, because once the screenings are shipped to Thunder Bay, to Churchill, and so on, if they are required-and they undoubtedly will be-then we have to pay the freight back. In my opinion, this is a needless waste of money.
I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will take note not only of what I have said this evening but of what members have said over the past several weeks about the seriousness of the situation on the prairies.
I do not think that I have anything further to say except that we on this side support the amendments in this bill and we will not delay its passage. There is no question that it will be passed by ten o'clock tonight.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on this bill before this Parliament because it may have some significant factors to offer in the development of the north. Not many of us appreciate the great possibilities for agricultural development in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Probably we should all spend some time with hon. members who represent the north, such as the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who can give us some specific insight into the possibilities of agricultural development in those areas.
As an educator with a great interest in agriculture, I spent a considerable amount of time in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I lived in such places as Dawson City, Whitehorse, Aklavik and Inuvik. Some of the things that I will mention here were mentioned before the committee, but I think they bear repeating before this House because they will give some insight into the possibilities of agricultural development in the north.
For example, Dawson City in the gold rush days had a population that varied from 25,000 to 40,000 people. A good portion of the food, particularly green vegetables, was grown in that area at that time. The area also supported a number of cattle as well as a large number of horses that were used in the gold fields at the time. Therefore it has the potential to support many more people than it is supporting at this time.
The Yukon Valley in the Dawson area is very fertile. Because of the almost 24 hours of sunshine or daylight in the north, there is a much quicker growth than one would expect in the south. For example, while living in Dawson City, my wife planted a cauliflower on July 1 and we ate it as a mature cauliflower on August 15, which is Discovery Day for the Dawson City area.


Erik Nielsen: You missed it by two days.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: August 17, sorry.
There were a dozen or so farms in the Yukon at that time, possibly there are more now. There is more land that can be developed if it is needed and development is encouraged.
In the Northwest Territories the whole of the Liard Valley from the B.C. border up to Fort Simpson, part of the Mackenzie Valley, has been tested and could support a considerable amount of agriculture. That area is about 4,000 square miles of possible farm country.
I think many of us have a wrong idea about the climate in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. For instance, I can remember very distinctly being outside at two o'clock in the morning when I lived in Inuvik. It was broad daylight and the temperature was 88 degrees Fahrenheit. That is not unusual in either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. Inuvik is several miles north of the Arctic circle.
In Inuvik and Aklavik it was quite common to see cabbages grow to a foot or a foot and a half in diameter. The missions in that area kept their population going almost entirely on food that they grew locally. We should not neglect the possible
June 17, 1980

development of agriculture in the north, at least not in the northwest part of Canada that I know.
I am also pleased to speak on this bill because it includes a couple of basic principles. These principles are partially established in it. First, what is fair for a large group of people somewhere in Canada is also fair for a small group of people living in quite different conditions. By extending this assistance to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, we are recognizing the right of those areas to be treated as if they were just as important as the rest of Canada, which they are. This is an important principle, be it articulated in an assistance bill, such as this, or in any other piece of legislation which gives equal opportunity to all the regions of the country.
There is also a broader principle brought forward in this bill which I hope this House will consider every time it approaches any legislation which deals with transportation. Much of western Canada's alienation has to do with being put upon by Canada's transportation policies. For example, the western farmer feels very uneasy about the fact that he pays the freight to ship his grain to the east and then pays the freight on the machinery that he buys that comes from the east. This can be machinery, a TV set, or anything else that he purchases that was made in the east. Westerners have become used to paying the transportation or the freight both ways, but they are not happy about it. It is one of the basic complaints and reasons for alienation in the west. Let us not allow this kind of alienation to establish itself in the north. Let us start dealing with it as soon as possible. Let us not allow it to become a factor in the development of the north.
I sometimes dream of a transportation policy based on service rather than on profit which would not penalize anyone because of where that person lives. Maybe the time will come when the northerners will not pay any more to live there than we have to pay to live here in Ottawa.
[DOT] <2100)
There are a few other things about this bill I should like to mention. First, if it turns out that the bill was intended to assist in the development of the cattle industry, the poultry industry and other farm operations of that kind for which grain is needed, well and good, but if it turns out that the greatest benefit of this bill will accrue to outfitters who have very little stake in the development of the life of the territories, we should be cautious about the support we give it. Second, there is a danger of it being detrimental to agriculture because the bill subsidizes the movement of grain into the territories and there is an outside chance that it might cut into the profits of those growing grain locally. Again, we should be cautious about that.
There is another area in which caution is required. Should agriculture be developed extensively until the land claims in the Yukon and the territories have been solved to the satisfaction of the native people in those regions? There are certain aspects of the basic legislation which we are amending by this bill which trouble me somewhat, but they are not dealt with in the measure before us. What we are considering now is
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
extending to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon assi-tance which is given to other parts of Canada, and we support the bill because it bears out a principle we support.
We must be fair to all regions and attempt to treat them in somewhat the same manner. This kind of recognition will be good for the unity of all parts of the nation. The time may come when we shall need to pay far more attention to the agricultural potential and production capacity of the north, and it makes sense to begin recognizing this now. We shall therefore support Bill C-15.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-15. It is an important bill to the areas to which it will extend freight feed assistance, namely, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
It is important we should look at the principle of the bill which is to make it easier to produce livestock in the territories and the Yukon. I should like to underline what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said with regard to realizing the potential for production in this area as part of an over-all assistance package rather than simply doing things on a piecemeal basis, for example, assisting the transportation of feed into the region. The potential of the region to be self-sufficient in terms of what it is capable of producing should also be part of any over-all program.
I had the opportunity to travel into the territories, not very far, but certainly up the Peace River Valley and for a few miles into the Northwest Territories, and it struck me as an area with rich potential for feed grain production. It appears to me that if we were to contemplate making the area self-sufficient in feed grain as part of an over-all policy, it would be a good thing. First, we might try to encourage the production of livestock in that area through feed grain assistance and then, as part of that policy, we might encourage the production of feed grains in the area itself. Such a program would make much more sense to me than simply extending feed freight assistance to the area, probably encouraging farmers there to rely on production of feed grains grown outside their own area, which would be to their own detriment if, in fact, they could, if encouraged, become self-sufficient in feed grain.
The second point I have to make is this: if there is to be any stability in agriculture it is through diversity so that producers are not entirely dependent upon the market for one crop for their livelihood and to meet the expenses of their operation. If there were a feed grain production industry in the Northwest Territories, as I believe is possible, it would be capable of supporting a livestock industry. So, if markets or production turned out to be bad in any one year, producers would have a second source of income. On the prairies, for instance, if there is excess production of feed grains there is an alternative to exporting feed grains to a poor market or a glutted market. A healthy livestock industry means there is a method of marketing feed grains through livestock. This makes sense to me in terms of an over-all plan of encouraging over-all production in the Northwest Territories. If we could do it on more than one
2206

June 17, 1980
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
front it would provide stability to the area and help it to become self-reliant.
There is another area I should like to touch on briefly. We have to be careful that we do not attempt to subsidize the production of everything we have some chance of producing in this country. When this bill was before the agricultural committee a couple of weeks ago I attempted to make this point. Somebody said, "What is wrong with Newfoundland having a beef industry?" Well, there is nothing wrong with that provided it could be done at a reasonable cost. But simply because the rest of the country has a beef industry seems no reason why Newfoundland should have one if it does not possess the resources or the land mass which are needed to support such an industry. 1 tried to point out that Manitoba does not have a deep sea fishing industry but that is no reason for us to attempt to establish one.
The problem with subsidization is that if it is done in such a way as to encourage production in areas of the country which are less efficient than areas where production is traditionally established, it hurts our capacity to produce in total. Therefore, as a country, we have less to distribute. Again, it seems to me we should be looking at this bill not only in terms of assisting the Northwest Territories to develop a livestock industry based on feed grains but in terms of the potential of the whole industry to become self-sufficient.
I should like to refer to a speech the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) gave to the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association on May 23. I have to admit I agreed with what he said-sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. With regard to stabilization programs he made this point:
British Columbia is a wealthy province with revenues derived from many areas besides agriculture. Right now, B.C. is stabilizing agricultural production and farm income at levels the less fortunate provinces simply cannot afford. When times are hard, British Columbia farmers will be able to survive and end up taking over markets lost by farmers in less wealthy provinces.
Earlier he made a point which it seems to me could have been made before the quotation I have just read. He proposed a solution to what I would consider to be a developing problem. He said that he remained committed to a policy of harmonizing stabilization in supply management programs across Canada and that this is essential to ensure the future of Canadian farm families in all of our regions.
I think both those points are important to emphasize, because when we subsidize the movement of feed grains off the prairies it means that with the movement of that feed grain we also take the production of livestock. If in fact the livestock we are subsidizing to be produced in other areas of the country can be produced on the prairies, in this case more efficiently than in the north, we are taking away production opportunities and therefore jobs and income from producers on the prairies, and I submit very strongly that that is where this kind of production is carried out the most efficiently in this country.
This relates somewhat to what is going on right now in western Canada in terms of the dry weather. It seems to me
that we are going to be in very serious shape as far as feed supplies for our livestock industry in western Canada is concerned. We may well be in a situation where we do need some help on an emergency basis for our livestock industry in western Canada, and if what we are doing now is subsidizing and encouraging the movement of feed grains away from the prairies and hindering further the production of livestock on the prairies, it seems to me that we could be compounding the problem in terms of maintaining production where it has been done the most efficiently in the past in this country. That is something which I think needs to be looked at.
The minister makes the point that B.C. is a wealthy province away from agriculture, and I have to agree with him. When I look at the annual report of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, which is the body charged with administering the feed freight assistance under this program, I see that British Columbia has received $4.5 million under this program, which is more than any of the other provinces or areas of the country have received under this program, and it seems to me to be inconsistent with a policy of maintaining equal opportunity across this country when we, as a federal government, can subsidize the movement of feed grains into British Columbia while at the same time the B.C. provincial government, by the minister's reckoning, has a very expensive and a very favourable stabilization program for agricultural production in the province of British Columbia.
That, to me, is something which needs to be addressed by a strong federal government, and I submit that if we are to have a strong federal government this is one of the areas which could be looked at. It is equally as urgent for us in western Canada as some of the grievances of the people of the province of Quebec.
When we talk about top loading, we simply mean that any stabilization programs which the federal government has are administered in most cases equally across the country. That provides a basic level of stabilization for the provinces. However, when we are looking at provinces like B.C., and I think in some cases the province of Quebec, if on top of this basic level of subsidization that the federal government has, the provinces then are able to come in on top of that and add their own incentives and encouragement to production in terms of provincial stabilization, we get a further distortion of the production patterns that we have traditionally had in this country. That seems to me to be a very serious matter in this country, and it is a growing problem which needs to be looked at.
The Canadian Livestock Feed Board, as I said, is the body which is charged with administering feed freight assistance. Several of my constituents have complained to me about the way the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is able to price feed grains off the prairies. In fact there have been cases recently where it has been equally as cheap for producers in eastern Canada to buy feed grains off the prairies as it has for our producers on the prairies. This is something again which we find very hard to accept. We need a healthy livestock industry.
The livestock industry in western Canada has traditionally been a buyer of close to half the grain grown in my part of the
June 17, 1980

country, and if we are going to subsidize the movement of that grain away from those areas of production, it means that the livestock sector in western Canada is going to be disadvantaged. This is not good, not only in terms of the country but also in terms of our ability to maintain a stable and healthy economy in western Canada. As I said previously, in my mind the key to having a stable economy is to have a diverse economy, and that means a healthy livestock sector which is able to take up the excess production when we are in times of good crops. Moving feed grains away from those areas with government assistance is not doing anything in terms of maintaining a stable livestock industry in western Canada.
While I wholeheartedly support the principle of this bill, because I realize that it is very expensive to live with high food costs in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, I would much sooner see this problem of high costs of food attached as an over-all policy whereby feed freight assistance would simply be one part of an over-all policy to encourage more efficient production in that area of the country. Again I have to emphasize the potential of that area to feed itself and, in fact, perhaps even to become a net exporter of certain agricultural products. This is something to which I do not think the present government has paid enough attention.
When it was my pleasure to be part of the previous government and to support the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development, he took it upon himself to see that some of these lands were brought into agricultural production. Had we remained in power, it is my understanding that the objective was to have some of that land in production for the current year 1980. To my mind that would have been an eminently sensible thing to have happen because it would have given that area of the country a chance to become a contributor to the country rather than simply a benefactor of a program like this which, if it is to be used-and 1 am sure it will-will simply make the production of livestock in the area dependent upon this kind of feed freight assistance.
Again I say that while I have no problems in supporting the bill, 1 would like to see the development of the north also a priority of this government, and I would also like this government to see that when it has subsidies and stabilization payments made available to different sectors of the economy that it is done in such a way that it does not distort the comparative advantage in the efficient areas of production in our country.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make a few remarks on Bill C-15 with regard to feed freight assistance. The Canadian Livestock Feed Board was established in 1967. At that time a number of farmers in eastern Canada and British Columbia were having difficulty getting a constant and adequate supply of feed grains. In addition, they did not have sufficient storage facilities to store a certain supply of grain in case the transportation system was unable to deliver grain, especially during the winter months. So the Canadian Livestock Feed Board under the Feed Freight Assistance Act was established to do both things. It was established, first, to supply an adequate and available quantity
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
of feed grains at an equitable price. That is where the subsidy came in. In addition, it was established to assist eastern Canadians, and to some extent British Columbia, in the building of adequate storage facilities to have those feed grains in place.
Western Canadians were producing large supplies of feed grains. At the same time we were a large producer of livestock, but we went along with this bill saying that there should be a livestock industry in all parts of Canada including the mari-times, eastern Canada and British Columbia. At that time the north was left out. We went along with that, saying we had more than sufficient supplies, and the amount of livestock in eastern Canada and British Columbia was not significant enough to cut into the production of those areas where we had a comparative advantage, and those areas where we were the producers of calves and the feeders of those calves to the slaughter stage. This was also the case in the hog industry and to a lesser extent in the poultry industry. However, over the years we found that this comparative advantage that we had, given the Crow rates, the "At and east" rates and feed freight assistance, was in fact detrimental to our livestock industry because it was becoming more reasonable to ship our calves to eastern Canada than to feed them in our areas due to the various subsidies that were being put in place. However, again it was of no significance to western Canada because we were maintaining our traditional levels, and nothing was said. But in the last number of years, that has been changing.
The reason it has been changing-it is difficult to argue with that reason-is that those other provinces wanted to establish livestock industries in their areas and become as close to self-sufficient as possible. I know that, taking the example of my farmers, they want to produce as much as possible. So, given the provincial top loading subsidies that are coming into place, particularly in the last number of years in Quebec and British Columbia, we are finding that more and more production is taking place in those provinces and, in fact, it is stealing away a livelihood which has been traditional in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
In the 1940s we had a third of the hog production in Canada; today we only have 12 per cent. We have lost a number of packing plants in a number of our western cities and, in fact, we now only have one major delivery point for hogs in Alberta, and minor points in Red Deer and in the Grande Prairie. We have only one large slaughterhouse in Saskatchewan-I believe it is in Saskatoon-and one delivery point in Manitoba, substantially down from what it used to be. Not only is that hurting our livestock industry but we are losing a great number of jobs in the slaughterhouse industry. We are finding that it is of great concern to people who have worked in that industry for 20 or 25 years and perhaps only have a few years to go to retirement but are now finding the slaughterhouses are closing down.
You cannot blame that entirely on feed freight assistance because, when you look at the assistance that was given at one

June 17, 1980
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
time when there was not much production in eastern Canada, you find that it was a substantial amount per hog or per steer. But now that the numbers are increasing so rapidly, if you look at the last figure for the assistance that is given the livestock producer in eastern Canada or British Columbia, you find that it amounts to 64 cents to $1 per animal. However, when you look at the total numbers, you find that about $4.5 million is being spent in assisting feed to Quebec, about $4.6 million goes to British Columbia, and almost $4 million to the mari-times. That is a substantial assistance for the livestock industry, and this allows for the comparative advantage to be lost in western Canada.
From talking to our hog marketing board in the province we find that they are very concerned about the loss of a substantial industry in our province. They are saying that the basic reason for that has been top-loading subsidies from the provinces, and when you add to that federal subsidies, it is almost impossible for our industry to compete because the large consumption areas are, of course, in Montreal, Toronto, southwestern Ontario and Vancouver. So we have to ship our livestock without subsidy, after slaughter, to those areas. Consider that a feeder in eastern Canada, given feed freight assistance, given support by provincial governments, and being at the area of consumption, has an advantage over us who, although we have a comparative advantage in feeding the animal in western Canada, must pay full freight to get the slaughtered animal into those markets. Besides that, for some reason which has never been adequately explained to me, there is always a 4 cents to 5 cents per pound difference between the price that an eastern Canadian farmer gets for an animal in markets in Toronto and Montreal and what he gets in markets in Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
If you add up all those factors, it is easy to explain why the livestock feeding and slaughtering industries in our western provinces are in jeopardy. What is the answer? Is the answer to do away with these freight assistance programs? Perhaps it is. If the federal government, under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), were able to convince all the provinces to act alike in the way they treat their livestock industries and allow the federal government to deal with the subsidy programs that they consider to be necessary, then we would have no difficulty. But when you have these federal programs in place, and as well have provinces decide that it is their plan and their goal to become as close to self-sufficient in livestock as possible, and even beyond that, and that what we call their top loading programs are added to the federal programs, we find no alternative but to do away with these federal programs until the national government can sort this out. The only other alternative for farmers in western Canada is to ask their provinces to get into the same game. When you have province competing with province on subsidy programs, you can understand the dilemma we face.
The only other opportunity available to us is the export market in western Canada. Here is an area in which the federal government is not prepared to take leadership, as I think it should. The federal government could become very
active in finding other markets for western livestock in order to keep our comparative advantage in the production of livestock. There is a potential there. The population of the world is growing rapidly and the capacity for growing food is not growing as rapidly as the population. As we look into the late 1980s we can expect-and many scientists assure us of this- that it will be more difficult than it is at present to produce adequate amounts of food to feed the world. So we should be looking for more export markets for the livestock we are growing in western Canada.
With regard to the extension of feed freight assistance to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, I think this is a harmless bill. There are probably only about 200 head of cattle in the Yukon and probably not many more in the Northwest Territories. I can understand the governments in those areas wishing to have the same advantages as other parts of Canada have.
So while 1 have great difficulty in supporting feed freight assistance as a proposal, I can see the justice of supporting this bill, given that this feed freight assistance is in place and has been operating for a number of years. That is why I give my reluctant approval to this bill.
I understand that the potential for agriculture in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is there. As was mentioned by other members, there are some 3,000 to 4,000 square miles that have the capacity to produce hay and grain, probably not grain for sale but grain for forage for the production of livestock. Maybe there is a possibility for expanding agriculture in those areas, the greatest potential being in the cattle industry because the lack of capacity for drying hay and the short frost free periods would make it difficult to produce much in the way of feed grains or wheat. So, if we can establish, through this bill, a livestock industry of some sort in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and get farming going there, that will be fine.
Before concluding I should like to say that I am surprised the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place to listen to the problems we are having with this bill. Many important suggestions have been made by members tonight, so I hope he reads the debate very carefully. Also, I hope he will understand our concern for the depleting livestock in western Canada. When we called for a stabilization price, we were very concerned that it took a number of months to get the statistics in place to allow a stabilization payment. It amounted to very little; it will not assist hog farmers. Alberta provincial government assistance has been required, but it has only been in place for a year. Hopefully the Minister of Agriculture will give the necessary leadership in a country as great as ours to ensure some justice in the subsidy programs which a number of provinces are putting into place.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in considering Bill C-15 I intend to take a few minutes to place in front of the government some of the views of my area of Canada regarding
June 17, 1980

the Livestock Feed Assistance Act amendments before us today.
There have been two dominant principles in Canadian life in terms of federalism. One is sharing, and the other is regional advantage. Every area of the country accepts the concept of sharing with other parts of Canada. But when it comes to the concept of regional advantage, and when we take a look at the manner in which the country is constituted, it is obvious there are regional advantages in western Canada relating to the growing of feed grains and the livestock industry. To some degree that regional advantage has been eroded through legislation passed some time ago, namely, the Livestock Feed Assistance Act. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger) made the point very well when he showed clearly that the concept of eroding regional advantage should be seriously examined and that possibly this is not the time nor the bill to do it with, even though he supported the amendments.
I have been concerned for some time about what has been happening. Through the national marketing boards, and legislation such as the Livestock Feed Assistance Act, to some degree we are balkanizing one region against another. Through the top loading of provincial programs on top of federal programs, a number of provinces have now made a decision to become self-sufficient in the production of hogs, turkeys or broilers. They are doing this to a great extent because of the advantages they now have from the National Marketing Board through national allocations for their provinces and the feed freight assistance they receive. So that comparative advantage is lost in those areas where the feed has been grown. Additionally it has repercussions for industries related to agriculture.
For years and years in western Canada we have been saying that we should process to a greater degree the agricultural products we produce. Also for a long time we have said that freight arrangements, which allow for the movement of unprocessed or semi-processed food stuffs from west to east, are much lower than when we buy back the finished product. Every western Canadian province has experienced the closing down of plants that have large killing floors and killing operations. This happened in Winnipeg with the closing of Swifts and the loss of 600 jobs. Because of comparative advantage and the fact that costs are the lowest in western Canada, we think that is where production should take place so that western Canada will have the benefit of the related jobs in the agricultural community.
At this period of time when we are facing severe drought in many parts of western Canada, we find it somewhat surprising that the federal government is concerned about this type of legislation. Yet we saw the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) coming forward just a few days ago with a program for $7 million of assistance to alleviate the consequences of the drought. The $7 million is to take care of the situations in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. If one looks at the consequences and the large effect of drought, $7 million does not seem to be a lot of money. I did not think I would ever
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
stand in my place saying that $7 million was not a lot of money, but the fact remains it is just another example to western Canadians that this government does not have any appreciation of their ability to produce foodstuffs and that they should have that comparative advantage; but when they run into difficulties they are not given the same consideration as other regions of the country.
I indicated that I would be brief, but lastly I should like to refer to the agricultural potential of the north. The government in its previous incarnation put a freeze on agricultural development in northern Canada. Previous to our government taking over last year, there were a number of representations from farmers in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories that agricultural land should be opened up. The government through its actions continually demonstrates to those of us who have a special interest in Canadian development north of the sixtieth parallel that it simply does not understand the desire of the residents of the Yukon or the Northwest Territories to develop the natural advantages in those areas. The government just does not seem to understand. In fact I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) developed his vision of the north back in 1954 when he paddled up the Teslin River and thought that area of Canada should remain pristine, pure and beautiful for those who wanted to escape the concrete jungles of the cities in the south. Fie developed the vision that that is the way the north should remain.
I cannot impress enough upon the government that it must change its view of the north. The government keeps on saying that it is not ready to do it because native people are not ready for the development. My experience is just the opposite. The native people wanted to take advantage and be partners in that kind of development. Some of their leaders did not want to because they saw a personal advantage as long as these things were strung out. But the average people living in hamlets have quite another story. They wanted to take advantage of their natural resources, whether it be in agriculture, mineral or oil development. There is no way one can run from those facts because that is how it is.
When we came into government we met with a number of farmers who were trying to struggle along with lease arrangements. It is almost a beg, borrow and steal operation; they are trying to keep going. These people are very independent. I know farmers by nature are independent, but these fellows kept on working under tremendous adversity, the greatest of which were the regulations of this government and its federal bureaucracy in those areas. They keep on struggling and they hope lightning will some day strike this government and they will be able to get land, which the rest of us take for granted. That is all they are asking, for the same opportunity. In fact 100 years ago immigrants were able to come to this country to homestead, and there are people in the two territories who do not even have those opportunities in 1980. It was our plan for the summer of 1980 to start opening land with a comprehensive program that would get the land into agricultural production.

June 17, 1980
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
In fact we had more agricultural production at one time in the north than we have today. All one has to do is look at some of these communities and their truck farming, or gardening, and it will be obvious that the long days obviously lend themselves to the production of fresh vegetables in the area. All one has to do is go into the stores and look at the prices. Obviously there are advantages, yet I do not believe as I stand that this government here has caught that vision at all. Members in the government see the north rather as an area where, through regulations, they control its development and the people who live there.
1 share the views of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin in supporting this legislation which will include farmers in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but I do not think it addresses a fundamental principle which this House should address. It does not address the regional advantage that should and does exist, for instance, in the production of livestock and feed grain. This should not be eroded, and there should be no reciprocal action with other industries being placed in those areas which have lost their regional advantage through federal legislation.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the feed grain assistance proposal before us, not because 1 think it will make any great change in the life of the people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, nor because I think it is an important breakthrough, but simply because it puts people in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in a similar position to farmers in the rest of Canada. For reasons of equality we support this bill, though we are very much aware that the proposal will not make any great change in the agricultural output of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
This is not because there is not potential there, because there is. As has been mentioned, the area has in the past produced its own food for a population of somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. The main impediment to the development of agriculture in the Yukon and Northwest Territories now is not so much the lack of feed grain assistance, the provision of which I contend will make virtually no difference to the development effort there. In fact this may be of some detriment to those producers who are attempting to produce oats and barley now. However, it will provide some back-up for them in the event that frost wipes out their crops. They will know that assistance from the rest of Canada is available and they can bring in feed if they have been developing their livestock industry, making use of locally grown feeds.
Probably the main impediment to the development of agriculture in the territories is the lack of speed that has been evident in the settlement of land claims in that part of the country. The original peoples and the Government of Canada have been taking part in long drawn out negotiations. If agriculture is to become important enough to provide food, making the area more or less self-sufficient, that is the first thing that has to be solved. I am not suggesting that the
settlements should be other than fair, but there should perhaps be a little more effort made in negotiating these land claims in order to settle them so everyone knows who will be holding the agricultural land, or the land that has agricultural potential.
We know that land which once grew crops is growing up with trees. We know the climate is adequate for the growth of a large variety of vegetables, many varieties of oats and barley, and a number of forage crops, including several types of hay and alfalfa. These things can be grown in that part of the north and could be used to assist in the development of the local economy.
There are a lot of problems in establishing agriculture in any new area. I myself am only two or three generations away from the development of what was once a heavily timbered part of Saskatchewan. I know the problems the farmers of the Yukon and Northwest Territories will be facing are not the kinds of problems faced by farmers in those areas where agriculture has been developed.


Erik Nielsen: Have you ever been there?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, but I know from looking at the geological soil maps and the climatic conditions that it is not much different from where I am located, where there is about a ten-day greater frost-free period, with the rest of the conditions, including soil and climate, being very similar. There is a little more sunlight, but otherwise the possibilities are there, given some changes in the question of who owns the land and who has the right to develop it.


Erik Nielsen: Be my guest and come up this summer.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Okay, will do. I think one of the things we perhaps pay too much attention to in agriculture is the development of what we try to call viable farms as opposed to subsistence farms. Perhaps we have been spending too much of our efforts in agricultural policy in this country in the past 40 or 50 years dealing with the farms and the areas, and not enough in dealing with the farmer. We have seen areas developed after a couple of generations that were supposed to be areas of subsistence farming. We find that rather than an area being suitable for subsistence production, a class of farmer has learned to use the land and the resources to very good advantage. Perhaps what we should be considering, instead of classing certain areas, writing them off as areas where only subsistence farming can take place, is the development of all the resources, thinking particularly of the farmer.
Farmers have a number of special requirements when they go into new areas. Many of these things they take with them. Most people who move into that type of agriculture take with them a great amount of initiative and an ability to adapt. They know how to make things grow out of nothing. They spend a lot of their time clearing and developing the land, putting up buildings and adapting equipment. Very often the general equipment available for farming does not work well in new areas where you have to tear down the trees, tear up the land and make it suitable for crop production.
June 17, 1980

221!
These farmers do not have the back-up of an established agricultural community such as those that exist in established agricultural areas. They do not have the parts available, they do not have the equipment manufacturers, and they do not have the technical back-up which is available in the rest of Canada. These people are pretty well out on their own, not only fighting the weather and the geography, but also having difficulty with markets.
These farmers in the north have to develop their own markets, and some of the markets appear to be there. People are consuming goods and paying very high prices for food. The potential is there, but there has to be back-up from the rest of the country. These people have to know that if their crops fail feed can be brought in. This change in the legislation will allow that. The farmers also have to know that there are programs such as crop insurance to offset the violent disruption a total loss can have to a beginning or even an established farm. Producers must know that there are stabilization programs available to protect them from the vagaries of the market. Even though one might farm in an isolated area, the ups and downs of the market in the rest of the country or in the rest of the world filter into those isolated areas and affect that farm operation just as much as if it were out in the mainstream of the marketplace.
As well as these forms of assistance provided by government, the producer must have available to him some form of intervention on the part of government. Sometimes it may be on the producer's behalf, as, for example, in the form of passing certain powers on to the farmers as groups to offset the monopoly or near monopoly situation which all farm producers face when they deal in the marketplace, either as buyers or as sellers. It could be in the areas of purchasing equipment, fertilizers or farm input or, on the other hand, the producer could be trying to sell some of his products. In either case the people he faces in the market place are usually very large enterprises and concerns that operate in a near monopoly situation. As a small competitive producer, the farmer is virtually at the mercy of these enterprises unless government allows farmers to stand together either in the form of co-ops or as marketing boards.
To sum up, we agree that the proposal before us tonight should go through. We recognize, as I am sure do all hon. members, that this bill will not change the agricultural situation in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and that it is merely cosmetic. We say again that the land entitlement question must be settled soon. We say again that the technology and the expertise of the farmers in the area must be improved upon and developed. We say again that market structures for farmers which are operated by farmers must also be provided if they are to be viable operators in that part of the country or in any part of the country.
We would also like to reiterate that back-up support from the government is necessary in situations which exist not only in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon but also in the rest
Livestock Feed Assistance Act
of the country, because farmers need assistance in the form of crop insurance and in the form of stabilization programs when the market goes up or down drastically, which it very often does in agricultural production. In this case we need the movement of feed grains when required in this region of the country as in the other regions of Canada.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-15 with regard to its direction and its importance as it relates to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I have noticed something which I think is most important while in the agricultural committee, and that is the understanding and direction given by farmers from all parts of Canada, whether they are from the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec or Ontario. Canada could learn a lesson from agriculture.
I am very pleased to speak on the passage of this bill because I realize how important it is to the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in terms of production. There has been a lack of vision with regard to the north since the years of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who had a very bright vision of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. We have not taken the time to visualize the potential of this great area of Canada.
It is most important at this time that we give speedy passage to this bill to ensure that there is an opportunity for production in this area. It is something which is very important, not only to agriculture but to every facet of Canadian society today. While the movement of feed grains is important to the North, I would like to relate it to some problems which we have experienced and are experiencing in Saskatchewan now with the drought situation there.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is experiencing a drought, particularly in eastern and central Saskatchewan and in the greater part of Manitoba. It is most important that we learn something from the experience of the movement of feed grains. I am somewhat sorry to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not in the House to hear this debate tonight. I think we will face some very serious problems in the area, not only with regard to the movement of feed grains but with regard to subsidizing to maintain the breeding stock on the livestock farms. This is most important to livestock farmers.
Just this past week I had a chat with an older farmer in my riding. He indicated that livestock farmers over the last six years have been through a tremendously serious situation. He said, "If we are forced to sell our livestock again, we will not be back in business". It is very important that the government and the Minister of Agriculture take a look at this point not only with regard to the transportation of feed, but with regard to the tremendous cost of feed today. I understand that the cost of feed ranges from $2.50 a bale to $5 a bale. If one calculates the cost of maintaining a herd at those prices, obviously it is much cheaper to sell the herd.
It is important that the government develop policies in terms of maintaining the breeding stock on the prairies, in light of

June 17, 1980
Adjournment Debate
this extreme drought they are presently facing there. In concluding my remarks, I look particularly to the Northwest Territoires and the Yukon for production which is so necessary to the agricultural community and for all of Canada. We must take heed of the lesson that we look to methods and direction of incentive being given to people to produce, in whatever facet of society it may be, particularly as we relate to the agricultural community this evening. Therefore I recommend that we pass this bill because, as I understand it, it will certainly help our farmers and producers in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1980, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) reaffirmed that the reason for the government moving the Eldorado Nuclear Plant from Port Hope to Blind River was to permit raw resources to be processed near their source. He has earlier indicated that the government was prepared to spend millions of public tax dollars to achieve this policy.
On June 9, 1980, I asked the minister when, under this enlightened policy, the government would be moving the huge Sarnia petroleum complex with its thousands of jobs and its millions of barrels of oil that it receives from Alberta, to the province of Alberta. The minister's reply was to laugh and to state that the policy applied only to a "planned or projected installation, not one that existed at the time". That smart alecky reply from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning Alberta's resources is typical of the total insensitivity of this government to the legitimate concerns of Albertans.
Because of the seven-minute time limit on my remarks I will attempt to convey my deep concern about growing western support for separation. Leading citizens in droves are joining the western separatist party.
First, Eldorado was moved for nothing more than patronage, to a constituency held by a cabinet minister. That is an immoral act, because the policy does not apply across the whole country.
Second, the government is prepared to pay $35 per barrel for Mexican oil but only $14.75 to the people of Alberta for their oil. That is 39 per cent of its value. The money being exported to Mexico increases our national deficit and gives Mexico the jobs. Just think of the thousands of jobs there would be for Canada had the government adopted the Progressive Conservative policy of self-sufficiency and funnelled the money through Alberta.
Money paid to Alberta is immediately recirculated through the entire economy. The benefit to central Canada is immediate due to the purchase of technology, pipe, engines, turbines, cars and trucks. Money going to Mexico is lost forever. Surely supply is much more important than price. Under the Clark-Lougheed agreement the whole range of such price, supply and recirculation of money was covered. For instance, the price was staged over several years. This would add billions to the $17 billion that Albertans have already forgone. The price would never exceed 85 per cent of the U.S. price.
Another way of saying this is that central Canada's industry would always have a 15 per cent competitive edge over its U.S. and the world competitors. Natural gas would be priced at 85 per cent of the price of oil, and for a period of five years at a rate of 65 per cent, in order to encourage conversion. This means that Albertans would pay for that conversion. Alberta would pay the cost of transportation to Quebec City. Alberta would fund the development of at least five alternate energy plants in other provinces. Just think of the jobs that would mean in those provinces.
Alberta would fund the immediate development of more tar sands plants in that province which again would mean thousands and thousands of jobs. As well, Alberta would bear the entire cost of the roads, schools, hospitals and the other amenities following the development of those tar sands plants. Alberta would also bear the cost of the social dislocation involved in building these plants.
The fact is clear that Canada is not self-sufficient in oil. We now import about 450,000 barrels per day at the world price. By 1985 this will amount to over 600,000 barrels per day. It is also a fact that the conventional Alberta oil fields are beginning to lose their production capacity at a frightening rate. Only a few short months ago the rate of production was two million barrels per day, but today it is only 1.4 million barrels per day. Many wells have now been inundated by salt water.
The solution is to co-operate with Alberta, not attack it. My most bitter disappointment as a new member of this House is the total cynicism of the government-the attitude of holding power and retaining power at any price-lies, deceit, misrepresentations-anything to hold power.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was barely settled in his office when he invoked a force majeure clause to renege on a signed agreement setting the price for syncrude oil. This act of betrayal throws real uncertainty into the industry about the worth of the government's word.

June 17, 1980
The Minister of Energy, being from Quebec, should understand that Alberta's attachment to its resources is equally as real as the attachment of Quebec for its language and its culture. It is ironic that on almost the same day that the Minister of Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) was doling out $4 billion to Ontario and Quebec, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was reneging on a signed agreement concerning Prince Rupert, an act that almost blocked the proposed terminal at Prince Rupert and therefore prevented Albertans from exporting their grain.
No doubt hon. members will recall the time in 1974 when the then minister of energy reneged on another written agreement concerning natural gas. He stood in this House a mere 24 days after signing that agreement and reneged upon it.
Another example is the unilateral reneging by this government of an electrical utility rebate statute, which therefore increases the price which Albertans, and only Albertans, pay for their electricity.
Our whole system of agreements, contracts and justice work only if you can trust another person's word. Clearly, the Canadian people cannot trust the word of the present Liberal government and this reality, more than any other, will force Alberta out of confederation.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, on June 9, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) asked when the government would be announcing the movement of the entire Sarnia complex to Alberta. Apparently he was making an assumption that the government's policy to locate processing plants near resources, when feasible, would apply to existing facilities.
I would like to reiterate the response made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that the specific case of the decision to locate the new Eldorado refinery at Blind River rather than at Port Hope related to a new facility and not to one that existed at the time the decision was taken. The principle that a plant should be located in proximity to the resource that it serves will be a prime factor in making a location decision. Another factor, of course, is the location of the plant in relation to the market it serves.
In the case of a uranium refinery, the product can be shipped economically over fairly long distances, whereas the large volumes of petroleum products produced in petroleum refineries, or from associated petrochemical plants, are generally more strongly market-oriented. The products produced from the refineries and petrochemical plants in Sarnia are marketed close by in southwestern Ontario. It is more economic and efficient to move the crude oil by pipeline from western Canada for processing at that site rather than to move a variety of petroleum products over long-distance pipelines or railway routes.
This is not to say that all large-volume products should be produced in the immediate vicinity of major markets. In Atlantic Canada, offshore oil and gas developments will, under
Adjournment Debate
the government's policies, stimulate new industries and jobs in that region. The government will also encourage diversified development in western Canada where resource wealth is already a strong magnet for investment.
The determination to support industrialization of the west is a continuation of a national policy that has been supported for many years. The activities of the Wheat Board, the grain equalization fund, the prairie farm rehabilitation programs, the programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the federal investment in Syncrude, federal manpower training programs, federal incentives for oil exploration and mining, are all examples of activities that have played a significant part in the resurgence of the west. One of the latest examples is the decision by Petro-Canada to plan for the construction of plants in the oil sands area of northern Alberta in a joint venture with the Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company.
The government's policy of encouraging the location of new processing plants in the vicinity of resources is a further step in the direction of regional diversification, and in particular, of helping those regions that need new developments most. In this respect, the location of the Eldorado refinery at Blind River is one example of how this policy can be beneficially implemented.


EMPLOYMENT-REINSTATEMENT OF OUTREACH PROGRAM-RESTORATION OF FUNDS FOR 12 PROJECTS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I raise tonight very serious concern about the future of Women's Outreach projects and hence the very future of many Canadian women entering or re-entering the labour force.
The minister responsible for employment and immigration stated in the House on June 3, in response to a question of mine, that funds to Outreach have been restored and that projects cut by the previous Liberal government are being reinstated. I am concerned that this reinstatement is not actually taking place and that women's Outreach projects are again being subjected to unnecessary bureaucratic wrangles, as well as being expected to meet unfair, unrealistic, and irrelevant criteria.
Let me cite one example as reason for these doubts. On May 26, just days before the minister announced the restoration of Outreach funds, the Director of Employment and Immigration for the Manitoba region, Bob Morin, told one of the ten remaining women's Outreach projects in all of Canada that it need not apply to renew its funding. This project, Affirmative Action Outreach of Winnipeg, was told that there was no point in resubmitting an application because "no regional affirmative action program has yet been defined." Curiously enough, this was admitted even though the Affirmative Action program sponsored by the Department of Employment and Immigration is three years old with a national budget of roughly $360,000, and 12 to 18 regional officers. Although this budget is clearly not enough, it is strange that an Affirmative Action

June 17, 1980
Adjournment Debate
strategy for the entire province of Manitoba has not even been defined.
However, my primary concern tonight is that this Outreach project is, at worst, facing a total cutback or, at a minimum, months of red tape, cataloguing, evaluations, reviews, reports, and countless battles with departmental officials who do not understand the need for women's employment services let alone the need for affirmative action.
This Manitoba project is a microcosm of the entire Outreach program established in 1974 which has had a very difficult and rocky history-and for that only the Liberal governments, past and present, can take responsibility. Let me mention just a few of the problems:
1.	In 1978, it was declared that "women" and "youth" were no longer a priority or special needs target of CEC or Outreach. This began the cutbacks which reduced the 22 projects to 10. This occurred despite the fact that of all the special programs established by CEC which could particularly benefit women, Outreach had the greatest potential.
2.	Opposing cutbacks and pleading for additional funds has been a tremendous waste of time for Outreach workers. Since 1978, the New Democratic Party has defended the right to exist of many Outreach projects and raised questions in this House about cutbacks to AWARE in B.C., Women in Society Today, in Saskatchewan; Womanpower, in London; Times Change, in Toronto; Womens Career Counselling Service, in Ottawa, and now. Affirmative Action Outreach in Winnipeg.
3.	Outreach projects are mistakenly considered to be placement offices and are therefore evaluated on a purely statistical basis. While many Outreach projects have higher job placement rates than Canada Employment Centres, their purpose is much broader. They specialize in providing in-depth supporting counselling and assertiveness training; they work to change attitudes and hiring practices of employers, and they help women to help themselves by providing support services as well as information on educational and vocational opportunities.
4.	Reviews of Outreach projects are carried out, often in secrecy, by CEC officials who have negligible contact with the projects, are unfamiliar with the special needs of women, evaluate projects primarily on a cost-benefit basis and wrongfully compare Outreach services to those of CEC.
I hope that my doubts about the new minister's renewed commitment to Outreach are unfounded. I would therefore appreciate receiving answers to the following questions. First, of the 12 women's Outreach projects cut back by the Liberal government, how many have resubmitted applications and how many are being reinstated? Second, what portion of the $9.7 million which the minister says has been allocated to Outreach will go toward women's projects? Third, will the funding for Affirmative Action Outreach in Winnipeg be continued? Fourth, what criteria are being applied in the evaluation of both new and existing programs? Fifth, are all of the minister's officials aware of his intentions to restore Outreach funding and of his apparent commitment to special employment services for women?
I urge the government not only to make good on its promises but also to work toward an expansion of this necessary service. At a minimum there should be one women's Outreach project in every Canada employment district. Such a program is
central to the development of any employment strategy for women and the key to removing the economic and sociological barriers faced by women in their search for decent and rewarding employment.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, in 1977-78, there were 22 Outreach projects categorized as women-oriented projects. Of that number, only 17 in fact provided services exclusively for women. So, to meet the situation, five projects were restructured to orient them toward more appropriate target groups, in this case people nearly always unemployed, inmates and former inmates, isolated communities. I point out that out of the five projects, four are continuing.
There are now 14 Outreach projects offering manpower services exclusively or principally to women and thus falling in the category of women-oriented projects.
Furthermore, we are now considering another project for women in Truro, Nova Scotia, which would bring the total of projects in this category to 15. The hon. member asks if those projects will continue. The answer is yes, until the Canada Employment Centres in each of the communities where a women-oriented Outreach project is ongoing can efficiently provide the necessary services. This is one of the basic objectives of the Outreach program: the integration of experience and acquired skills and, one day, the takeover by the local CEC of the services being provided. In this way, we get the most out of even the most modest amounts.
To extend the Outreach projects, there must therefore still be a need for the services provided, the objectives and the contract commitments must continue to be met, and Parliament must continue to authorize the funds required. I mentioned earlier the basic relationship between the Outreach program and the CECs. I should add that women's Outreach projects are not the only means available to the commission to provide employment services to women. Indeed, since 38 per cent of manpower counsellors in the CECs are women, there is no reason to believe that-


Pauline Jewett: It is not the same!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -there is no reason to believe that women who prefer to deal with a woman counsellor cannot do so. Moreover, more that 42 per cent of the users of the Outreach program are women, because those women who cannot make effective use of the CECs can benefit from the services of an Outreach project as much as men.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 18, 1980