1980-07-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency concerning the very worthy campaign for funds being conducted by the University of Ottawa, headed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), but concerning collection activities within the public service that are serious breaches of the law and regulations. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the H ouse requests three ministers of the Crown to give full explanations in regard to coercing public servants and the breaking of laws and regulations, namely, the President of the Treasury Board authorizing, on request of the Minister of Transport, the soliciting of 60,000 public servants at work, inclusion of propaganda pamphlets with June pay cheques, contrary to chapter 328 of Treasury Board charitable campaigns manual, the Minister of National Revenue for allowing charitable donation tax receipts involving gifts to donors, contrary to the Income Tax Act and, finally, the Minister of Supply and Services for permitting the coercive letter dated May 21, signed by his deputy minister, G. R. D'Avignon, and addressed to all employees of supply administration.
Copies of both documents I have with me.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The super minister of social development has not yet had an opportunity to draft guidelines for junior ministers and, as a result, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in a publicity-seeking public statement-presumably
made without clearance-said that the Ontario government intends to pocket the increase in the guaranteed annual income supplement effective July 1, 1980. Since the minister failed to produce any tangible proof of her allegations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare table written proof of her allegations or resign.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday last that women who are victims of alleged rapes must be subjected during a voir dire to the trauma and the humiliation of cross-examination about their previous sexual history, and in view of the fact that rape is a crime of violence and evidence of previous sexual conduct, either with the accused or others, is totally irrelevant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House call upon the Minister of Justice to take immediate steps to enact promised and long overdue amendments to Canada's archaic and sexist rape laws, including amendments to deny absolutely any right to cross-examine the rape complainant on previous sexual activities either with the accused or with other persons.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 2, 1980
5.0.	43


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
Whereas Canada has one million people unemployed, whereas the federal government is still overspending, and whereas we are paying millions of dollars for imported oil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House urge Prime Minister to give these problems more attention and spend less time playing with his yo-yo.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering the plight of many home owners in Scarborough who stand to lose their homes because of severe erosion problems to the Scarborough bluffs, caused in part by the St. Lawrence Seaway Power Authority adjusting Lake Ontario water levels, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Public Works, a resident of the area, be requested to immediately commence discussion with the metro Toronto regional conservation authority as to a course of action and suitable funding to secure the base of the bluffs before more homes are lost over the 115 metres drop into Lake Ontario.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in connection with the urgent need to prevent Canadian jobs being given away through the issuance of foreign work visas.
Foreign crews have been given visas for jobs which should have gone to unemployed Canadians to work on ships in the Arctic; unemployed Canadian union workers have been disregarded while non-union American workers were hired for work on the Whistler Mountain development in British Columbia, also, foreign iron workers have been brought in to Kelowna to build a fruit plant. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration launch an immediate inquiry to determine who made these decisions and inform this House what steps he has taken to stop such union-busting tactics, and ensure that in future no work visas will be issued to foreign workers while Canadian workers remain unemployed.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion would require unanimous consent before it could be put to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion which I wish could have been seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan); it will be seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).
Given the almost tenfold increase in ship traffic under the MacKay and MacDonald bridges spanning Halifax harbour expected with the completion with the second container pier, and noting that the two bridges accommodated a traffic volume in excess of two million vehicles in the first four or five months of this year alone, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West:
That the federal government take immediate action to set up measures to instal bridge pier protection in order to reduce the possibility of a major catastrophe resulting in extensive loss of life should such action not be taken in the near future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 2, 1980


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House agrees not to adjourn for a summer recess until the promised legislation respecting veterans and their survivors has been introduced, passed by both Houses, and given royal assent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In light of this government's stated commitment to put people first and to expand its employment program for young people, and because at least five summer youth employment programs in the Peterborough riding have not received their promised federal funding six weeks after their programs began-a delay that is causing great financial difficulty for many young people and has greatly diminished the effectiveness of these programs-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this government be condemned for its tardiness in meeting payroll commitments, and that the minister responsible for employment and immigration immediately implement a system that will guarantee the issuance of cheques for future student employment projects within a reasonable length of time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DAY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. A number of companies and businesses disregarded our national holiday yesterday and showed disrespect for Canada and Dominion
Oral Questions
Day by giving their employees Monday, June 30, as a holiday and expecting them to work on July 1. No other nation in the world would permit such disrespect for its heritage.
While it may be convenient for some just to have another long weekend, surely Canada is more important than a Monday off. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House express its total dissatisfaction with those companies and businesses which elected to operate and carry on as usual on July 1, and that this House direct the government to alter the provisions of Bill C-37 to make employment of persons other than those in absolutely essential businesses illegal on Canada Day as expressed in that bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It relates to the Venice Summit discussions. I presume that the Prime Minister will be making a statement on motions some time later, but pending that I wish to put a question to him relating to the Venice meetings.
During the Summit the Prime Minister had the opportunity to meet with President Carter, at which time he undoubtedly discussed some of the important problems of a bilateral nature between our two countries. One of these of considerable concern is the Buy America program. The problems in this particular area have been compounded recently by the announcement by New York state authorities imposing controls on imports of steel.
In view of the substantial trade deficit between Canada and the United States, did the Prime Minister seek and receive any assurance from the president that Canadian exporters might receive some relief from the provisions of the Buy America regulations? I ask this question particularly because of the substantial increase in the trade deficit between our two countries in the first four months of this year.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in the meeting I had with President Carter I discussed several subjects of bilateral concern, but I did not raise this one.

July 2, 1980
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That really does surprise me, Madam Speaker, in view of the number of times the Prime Minister's party raised questions in the House last year, with me in particular, as to the importance that his party placed on the effect that Buy America has on particular industries, and more particularly the surface transportation industry.
Pursuant to that, did the Prime Minister ask for assurances from President Carter that new initiatives would be taken by the administration to press for early ratification by the Senate of the Canada-U.S. east coast fisheries treaty and, in particular, initiatives to counter the proposed amendments of senators Pell and Kennedy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, that was one of the subjects I discussed with President Carter, and that took some time.


Mr. Nowlan:: What assurances did you get?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hope that in his statement on motions the Prime Minister will be somewhat more forthcoming in the event that he did not forget these important discussions on his trip to the northern part of that continent.
Did the Prime Minister discuss with the president the possibility of any joint initiatives, including import restrictions, by the U.S. and Canada designed to lessen the impact of the import of foreign cars on the severe unemployment problems being experienced by workers in the automobile industry? If so, could he today elaborate on these discussions for the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, perhaps I should save the hon. member some time by indicating that I did not raise all the outstanding bilateral questions between the United States and Canada. I did discuss the fisheries problem; I did discuss the territorial sea boundaries; I did discuss the Garrison subject; and I also discussed the pre-build problem.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given that the United States Senate has passed a bill to convert some 80 power plants from oil to acid rain-producing coal, when the Prime Minister met with President Carter last week in Europe, among the urgent bilateral matters he discussed with the president did he urge the United States government not to proceed with the power plant conversions; or did he at least express to the president Canada's hope that these conversions would include technological provisions to guarantee that pollution will not be increased in either Canada or the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the communique he will see that this matter was included in the multilateral agreements between the seven members of the Summit. Therefore, President Carter is perfectly aware of the requirements of Canada and other states with regard to environmental pollution crossing boundaries.
I might add, for the hon. member's information, that I did discuss this question again in the northern countries because they, too, are faced with a similar type of problem with acid rain and problems from parts of Europe south of them. We agreed to exchange further information on this subject in the hope that we might establish some international regime dealing with this kind of matter.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has referred to the Venice Summit communique. As he knows, that particular communique commits Canada and the other six countries to doubling coal production and use by early 1990. How does the Prime Minister reconcile that particular goal, since he mentioned it, with Canada's goal to reduce acid rain pollution caused by that very source?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member refers to the communique he will see that this provision on increasing the use of coal was stated along with an indication that environmental questions should be taken into account in proceeding in that direction.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. About ten days ago the senator who is in charge of the northern pipeline headed a delegation to Washington on behalf of Canada to obtain, as I understand it, agreement on two important points to Canadians. The first was to obtain assurances from the United States government that they would fulfil their obligations under the agreement to build the pipeline and, second, to obtain from private sources in the Unites States their assurances that they would provide the necessary financing.
Would the minister, in light of the motion which was passed in the United States Senate just before the weekend, and in light of the failure to obtain guarantees for financing from private sources, confirm to the House that Senator Olson's trip was a complete disaster in terms of Canadians interests?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, not only did Senator Olson go to the United States ten days ago but he also went last Friday,
uly 2, 1980

ccompanied by officials, for meetings with spokesmen from th minority and majority parties in Congress.
The purpose of Senator Olson's trip was not to get assur-nces of financing from the private consortium involved; it was o get assurances from the U.S. authorities, both the adminis-ration and the legislative branch, that they were fully behind he Alaska gas pipeline, and they were committed to see its onstruction and completion by 1985. In that respect, the trips y Senator Olson proved to be outstanding successes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the resolution-I ave a copy of it before me-makes no reference at all to U.S. ongress providing the guarantees that are necessary to complete the project by 1985, guarantees which are absolutely rucial for the resolution to have any meaning in terms of law, I would repeat my assertion at the outset, that what the senator went for was not successfully completed. A pious xpression of wishes is one thing; signing on the dotted line, as the minister knows, is quite another.
I should like to ask the minister, since in the bill which was passed by Parliament two years ago it specifically asserted that-I quote from section 12-the pipeline would not be proceeded with unless "financing has been obtained for the pipeline", and since the minister himself said last December that, to use his phrase, ironclad guarantees had to be obtained before any part of the pipeline would be proceeded with, does the Government of Canada today stand by these commitments?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is thanks to the very firm stand taken by this government that we have succeeded in obtaining very strong additional guarantees from the U.S. authorities. In addition, now there is a firm contract signed between the producers and distributors in the United States by which those companies will spend $500 million for the engineering and design of the pipeline. That was signed last week, or a couple of weeks ago.
Last Friday, the Senate passed the resolution to which the hon. member referred, and 1 believe yesterday the House of Representatives passed a similar resolution. The fact that we have those large commitments from the private sector and also that we have such clear and strong assurances-stronger than we ever had in the past-from the American authorities, both on the administrative and the legislative side, I think, is a pretty good achievement on the part of this government.
As to the specific question raised by the hon. member, the National Energy Board also is considering reviewing the four conditions which it has put forward before considering approval of the pre-build. We will hear the conclusions of the National Energy Board and the government, the cabinet, will consider the whole issue once we have reports to that effect.
Oral Questions
Also, I might mention to the hon. member that the government has requested the American authorities to give quick approval to four gas export licences which are still in suspense.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a final supplementary question on this very important matter which the minister recognizes. Last week, before the committee of the House looking into the pipeline, Mr. Edge said-and I do not know if it was a slip of the tongue or not-that what was now being discussed in terms of the southern portion under discussion for pre-building was really a "different project", not the same pipeline.
1 should like to ask the minister the following question: does he disagree that what is now being discussed is a different project? Does he think it is the same, or different? If he thinks it is the same, will he stand by the original guarantees in the act to which he committed himself last December? If he is now agreeing that it should be defined as a different project, will he assure the House that before pre-building starts, that measure will be brought before Parliament for agreement?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member that we share his concern about this whole project, and that this government has given a great deal of time and attention to this issue since we took office. Our purpose is to see to it that the whole Alaska gas pipeline is built. The pre-build aspect must be looked at only in the context of the completion of the whole line. This is the policy of this government, and this is the policy we will stand by.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of recent announcements by Petro-Canada concerning the supply of gas from the High Arctic to Quebec and eastern Canada, and the favourable results being obtained from Beaufort Sea oil and gas exploration which would do much to improve Canada's energy self-sufficiency, could the minister please advise the House what response the government will make with respect to the resolution passed last weekend at the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Greenland which called for a moratorium on economic development in the Canadian north until Inuit land claims are settled?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to read the text of those resolutions. I heard about them on the radio. I must assure the hon. member that the cabinet will thoroughly consider the representations made by the spokesmen for the Inuit. It is clear, however, that we must take into consideration the general interests of all Canadians as pointed out by the hon. member, especially the importance for Canada to attain energy self-sufficiency as soon as possible, especially as far as oil supplies are concerned.

July 2, 1980
Oral Questions


Dave Nickerson: I must say, Madam Speaker, I find that an eminently sensible reply, considering where it came from. I would like to address my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
At that Circumpolar Conference, the spokesman for the inuit Tapirisat of Canada said that in his opinion the outstanding land claims could be settled in about a year. I should like to know whether the minister is of the same opinion, whether he supports the position of the ITC spokesman that there should be a moratorium, and if this matter is not able to be reconciled within a year will he allow the hopes of Petro-Canada-that great hope of the Liberal party-to be jeopardized on that account?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, 1 would advise the hon. member that the Inuit leader was quite correct in that we are going to have a negotiator appointed, probably in midAugust. That is the time the Inuit indicated they would be ready to start negotiations. This depends entirely on how well negotiations go. I sense that both parties want a settlement quickly, so that augurs well for settlement within a year.
As I responded to the hon. member before, there has been- this deals with the latter part of the hon. member's question- absolutely no decision on creating a moratorium in the north at this time. I informed the hon. member of that earlier.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and 1 have given him notice. Will he confirm that New Brunswick will receive $10 million to $15 million less than anticipated from DREE for development programs, and that he has so informed the Premier of New Brunswick?
Is it possible that these funds be reallocated so that the thrust of the good work DREE does in New Brunswick is not diminished?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I have read Mr. Hatfield's statement and I think that essentially he is asking that the budget of my department be substantially increased. I concur of course with Mr. Hatfield's appeal. On the other hand, the budget of my department earmarked for New Brunswick this year will indeed be lower than last year, i think it will be about $50 million. It will be lower, it is true, but I would remind the hon. member that I am operating under a budget set up by the previous government which deemed it advisable to reduce it.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister that his department is badly underfunded, and I hope he instituted remedial measures on taking office several months ago. Can the minister assure me, where DREE is obviously underfunded, that DREE funds will not be used for projects other departments should be undertaking, like the Toronto waterfront development, railway relocations and extensions of transportation facilities?
May I repeat my question? I am sorry I went too fast. Can the minister assure me that where, as he has indicated, DREE is obviously underfunded, DREE funds will not be used for projects which are really the obligation of other departments, like transport facility extensions, the Toronto waterfront development, railway relocations and things of that nature?
[ Translation]


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, naturally, as a matter of principle, 1 do not finance projects that can be undertaken by other departments. However, it often happens that with the help of DREE some projects can be completed much more quickly than if they had been left entirely to the sole resources of other departments. So, in that sense, we sometimes finance operations jointly with other departments. Still, as the Prime Minister pointed out during the throne speech debate, the policy of our department is to make sure that all Canadians have bread before some of them have cake.


VENICE SUMMIT-REQUEST PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT ON MOTIONS-ENERGY NEGOTIATIONS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have some questions regarding the Prime Minister's timetable. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us when he expects to make a statement on motions in this House on the results of the bilateral and multilateral discussions he had in Venice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had not
intended making a statement, Madam Speaker, and I thought the Leader of the Opposition's office had been advised to that effect. My willingness to answer questions on the subject, of course, is as great as it ever was.


Charles Joseph Clark: That, Madam Speaker, is precisely what troubles us. I find it unacceptable that the Prime Minister should come back to a Parliament which is sitting, after being involved in discussions of great import to the country, and refuse to come before us with a statement on motions. I hope he will reconsider.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
July 2, 1980
Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask him another question regarding his timetable. Now that the Prime Minister has had to take over the energy negotiations because of the failure of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, can he tell us what dates have been established-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is some shouting from the Liberal backbenchers. Can the Prime Minister tell us what date or dates have been established for the meeting between the Prime Minister, the Premier of Alberta, and no doubt subsequently with other premiers, so we can have a permanent agreement after the temporary extension expires at the end of this month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, regarding statements on motions, 1 am sure various views can be entertained as to their usefulness, but my recollection is that when a statement on motions is made, it is generally said it does not answer the questions the opposition had in mind. For that reason opposition leaders find reason and justification to make long statements of their own, all of which takes the time of Parliament at a time when urgent legislation is necessary.
To avoid all this I thought it equally useful to indicate my willingness to answer questions. 1 have already answered several questions today on the subject of the Summit and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be able to ask a few questions.
There was a second part of the question, Madam Speaker, concerning energy negotiations. I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I have not, to use his words, taken over the energy negotiations. I have just returned from the Venice Summit and other meetings and I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the future timetable of these discussions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been so long out of practice in making statements on motions in this House that I gather he has forgotten their utility to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 would remind him that we now have 29 days before the expiry of the second agreement on energy pricing. The country cannot wait forever for the Prime Minister to arrange his itinerary in order to fit in this little matter.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could simply indicate that he understands the severity of the failure to agree, and can he confirm that unless there is agreement on a comprehensive energy program by the first of August, the development of a new oil sands plant, the Alsands plant, will be delayed by at least a year, at a cost of some 55,000 jobs right across this country.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest it is not quite fair to say that it is a matter of practice. Just a couple of weeks ago, after the first ministers' conference here in Ottawa I made a statement on motions, which was followed by statements on motions by the leaders of the opposition parties. I answered questions for over an hour! 1 believe that the whole process took close to two hours.
Therefore, it is possible to take this time in Parliament; but I hoped that, as some of the hon. member's colleagues did today,
I would be asked to answer specific areas of concern to the opposition parties. I indicated that I was prepared to answer such questions.
With regard to the second part of the question, 1 would appreciate it if it were addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is handling this matter.


TRADE IMBALANCE WITH UNITED STATES-EFFECT ON STEEL AND AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRIES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister no doubt heard the Prime Minister indicate that in discussions with the President of the Elnited States, the matter of the recent action by New York state as it affects the steel industry was not raised.
Is the minister aware that 16 states now have Buy American policies which detrimentally affect Canada; that 35 states have policies, legislative or otherwise, which detrimentally affect the purchase of Canadian products; that the Steel Company of Canada now suffers a deficit with regard to the purchase of raw materials as against the sale of finished products to the United States, and that we suffer from a $1.3 billion deficit?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ian Deans: Are you finished?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Ian Deans: Is it the intention of the minister to make representation to the U.S. governments, both state and federal, in an effort to correct the imbalances which presently exist and which cost Canadians jobs?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, as usual, my hon. friend is rather late in raising this important subject: we have already been making such representations, and we will continue to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rae:: It has not had a lot of effect.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the minister has indicated that we are late. Can I assume that he will have the same degree of success in raising this matter as the minister had with the auto industry, mining industry, natural gas industry and pipeline
2496

July 2, 1980
Oral Questions
industry in attempting to guarantee Canadians that their economy will be put first?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am optimistic that our efforts will have the same results as the efforts of the Liberal party did in northern Ontario when the New Democratic Party was wiped out because they were not able to serve the interests of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It deals with the sale of Nordair. Can the Minister of Transport first tell the House what factors are now delaying a decision with regard to that file and, secondly, when does he intend to reach a final decision with regard to the effective sale of Nordair?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we are now putting the final touch to the terms and conditions of sale; in a few days, these will be made known to one of the possible buyers and if the latter meets those conditions, he can then buy Nordair.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It involves a serious problem regarding the importation of sheep into Canada. Documented cases indicated that sheep imported from Great Britain have been infected with highly infectious diseases, one being enzootic abortion and the other being pulmonary adenomatosis. During the three-year quarantine period the sheep were not checked for these diseases.
Can the minister assure this House that further importations will be checked more closely for these and other diseases that may be common only in their place of origin? For example, sheep are soon to be imported from France: will these sheep be checked more closely while in quarantine, or will some other infectious disease be confirmed after the sheep are dispersed to the public?


An hon. Member:: He has pulled the wool over our eyes.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, that such a thing as the hon. member has described could happen is of great concern to my department. We regard
the Canadian quarantine system as the best in the world. However, that does not mean that it does not have some problems, or that it will not make mistakes. This problem which seems to exist in some of the flocks which have been imported has been double-checked. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the only way to check the sheep for disease is by slaughtering them.


Miss MacDonald:: That is pretty final.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has also mentioned sheep which will be imported from France. Every precautionary measure known will be taken when these sheep are put into quarantine at the Grosse Isle quarantine station.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, contrary to what is said, there is a way of checking for enzootic abortion, and it is not by slaughtering the ewe. It can be done by checking the foetus after it has been aborted. This method was not practiced during the three years of quarantine in Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton.
Is the minister considering compensating farmers who have purchased these diseased sheep from government-run importation groups for the purpose of improving their flocks? If so, what form will the compensation take?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if proof can be shown that the problem was due to some neglect on the part of the officers in charge of the quarantine, then proper compensation will be made to the people who purchased these sheep. We value very highly the record which we have because, as I have said, it is one of the best records in the world. Because of our ability to provide disease-free sheep, we have a great export business.
What the hon. member has said about enzootic abortion is true, but I understand that it was not brought to the attention of our veterinarians, otherwise tests could have been carried out much sooner than they were.
* *
*


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Solicitor General. According to a report in The Globe and Mail last week, the attorney general of Ontario has alleged that the RCMP is withholding documentation requested by the Ontario Provincial Police in their investigation into Operation Checkmate. Will the minister advise the House if any documentation or information is being withheld and, if so, whether or not it will be released?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I read the report in The Globe and Mail to which the hon. member has referred. I can assure the House that there is no foundation to the statements attributed to the attorney general of Ontario. Shortly after becoming Solicitor General, I offered to provide him and other attorneys general with all the infor-
July 2, 1980

mation which I had on Operation Checkmate. 1 have provided that information to the attorney general of the province of Ontario.
I think that he has a tough decision to make as to how to proceed with the information he has, but I think he should stop passing the buck to me and make his own decision on the matter.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise me of any changes affecting workers on the Northern Alberta Railway as a result of the CN takeover of the NAR in Alberta?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 do not have the details on the matter, but 1 am told that this is not the first time a railway has been taken over by another railway, and that there are procedures to be followed. The decision as to the acceptability or otherwise of the takeover is presently in the hands of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, can the minister assure me, in light of this change, that the 65 people in Roma Junction, northern Alberta, who are employed by this railway will not lose their jobs because of the change of office, which is being moved to the city of Edmonton some 300 miles away?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 am told that workers in such instances are protected by their terms of employment. However, I will pay particular attention to the case raised by the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The conclusion of the American delegation on the auto pact negotiations is reported in the press as follows:
Gray was more interested in playing out a political charade for his Canadian audience, than in specific negotiations.


Ian Deans: As usual.


Mr. Paproski:: Same old Gray.


Bob Rae: Can the minister tell us with regard to the auto pact the specific proposal he made to the Americans?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think I have to respond to unattributed comments in press reports. But I do want to place before the House of Commons-I would be happy to table it- the joint press release made by myself and Governor Askew which concludes that "both sides felt the meeting was useful and constructive, and agreed to hold further discussions."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If there is any charade involved here, it is with my hon. friend's attempt to show concern about this matter beyond other people who have equal and greater concern.


Charles Joseph Clark: Equal and greater?


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, we have not had an answer to the specific question.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is tough to be arrogant and a clown.


Bob Rae: The reports that say that an American bureaucrat who was at the meeting said that absolutely nothing happened. Someone else said that he was still waiting for the Canadian proposals, and that no specific Canadian proposals were made. My question to the minister is this: did he make any specific proposals with regard to a fair share of investment in engineering, design, research and development, small cars and afterparts? Did the minister specifically raise any of these issues in the discussion on the auto pact last week?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Madam Speaker, I raised each and every one of them. I put our case very forcefully. We are going to continue the discussions until we get the results that we are seeking in the interests of Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am surprised that my hon. friend puts the weight he does on the unattributed statements of unidentified American officials; he is quite a nationalist!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. In defence of the principles of freedom, the Conservative party has since January last stood for the boycott of the Moscow Olympics. Are the government and the Olympic committee finally going to announce that we are not officially competing, and will the government tell this to Moscow? Will it renounce Canadian officials in attendance at Canadian Olympic expense?
Will the government reconsider the presenting of the Olympic flag, which is a political contradiction, mentioned on

July 2, 1980
Oral Questions
Friday, June 27, by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands? Will the government immediately reinstate Bruce Simpson on the Canadian Olympic team who was sacked for his support of the boycott, and will it call for the resignation of Dick Pound, COA president, for his open support of the games and the firing of a great Canadian, Bruce Simpson?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are at least ten questions in that question. Under the rules of the House, I will take them one at a time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: As a supplementary, perhaps one of the questions could be raised.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: May I put it very simply, Madam Speaker? Is the Olympic committee finally going to announce that it is not officially competing, and tell Moscow that it is not?


An hon. Member:: That is one question.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question asked by the hon. member, may I say that the question of action by the Canadian Olympic Committee is one for it to determine. The Government of Canada has requested the Canadian Olympic Association to refuse the invitation to participate in the games in Moscow. At a subsequent meeting, the Canadian Olympic Association voted that it would accept that request of the government and that it would not participate.
The question as to whether it has formally or in any particular manner communicated its decision to Moscow is one that could be directed to the Canadian Olympic Association. It is not an affair of the government, since the association is a private sector organization.


OIL DEVELOPMENT OFF NEWFOUNDLAND-AGREEMENT BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that recent results from extensive testing of the Hibernia well off Newfoundland show that potential for massive oil development is becoming more certain every day, and in view of the fact that industry and market analysts are concerned that a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial governments could delay such potential development, could the minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that if necessary an interim agreement can be worked out with the province of Newfoundland, so as not to delay the potential development off the shores of Newfoundland?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously there is considerable speculation about development in the Hibernia fields. I am afraid those speculations will continue for some time until the developers have scientifically assessed the value of those fields.
I might assure the hon. member that I have already had a meeting with my colleague from Newfoundland. At that time I indicated to him that we were eager to discuss with the government of Newfoundland any administrative arrangement that would be satisfactory to both parties and to the private sector involved in order to ensure the orderly and speedy development of those resources which I am sure will be of great benefit to all Canadians.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. My concern is with problems that have arisen recently at gates 78-80 at the Toronto international airport.
Is the minister aware that several employees at the Air Canada-Rapidair station have been taken to hospital for treatment of unidentified ailments rumoured to be caused by fumes in this one area of the airport? Will the minister investigate this matter immediately and make his findings public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will, Madam Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, when the minister conducts his investigation, will he inform the Air Canada employees who work in this area, so as to alleviate their fears; and will he also assure the employees who were affected by this mysterious ailment that all workmen's benefits will be available to them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot promise something before making a proper inquiry. If the ailment is so mysterious, maybe it will be mysterious to me also.


Charles Joseph Clark: Most things are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: But I will do my utmost to find out the causes and advise my hon. friend accordingly.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister of energy. Since the govern-
July 2, 1980

ment has shown some flexibility lately with respect to regional air policy, 1 want to ask the minister if in his field he will review most seriously the application of Q and M Pipe Lines for a gas pipeline to Nova Scotia which was rejected by the National Energy Board recently.
It is a very important matter, and I would like the minister's assurance that he is not going to let the matter lie dormant when it can do so much good for the region.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already had two meetings with the promoters of the Q and M project and I have indicated to them that the government is still interested in seeing this project through. I have also asked them to continue their study on the environmental aspects brought up by the National Energy Board. I want to say to the hon. member that I hope he will take the same action not only with the Nova Scotia government but also, and especially, with the New Brunswick government, which has indicated some reservations as regards the rapid completion of this project. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss this again in the near future with my provincial colleagues.
[Engl is h\


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I think I can assure the minister that the government of Nova Scotia fully supports this. 1 cannot speak for the government of New Brunswick. But 1 would remind him that there are great economic benefits as well as increased security of supply inherent in this application. Will the minister at least encourage the NEB to reopen the application?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot force the NEB to reopen the application. The application can be looked at again only on the initiative of the sponsors of the project: this is where the next step or action could come from.
Again I would like to point out to the hon. member that I hope he is not suggesting we should ignore the reservations expressed by the government of New Brunswick. We should get the co-operation of all governments concerned in the maritimes before we can proceed with this particular project.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In his discussions with Prime Minister Thatcher of Britain, as well as with the leaders of the other political parties in Britain, and in view of those discussions with the three leaders in Britain, did he receive assurances from all of them that there would be quick
Oral Questions
passage of patriation of the Canadian Constitution once all steps were completed in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What were the last three words-once what?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Once all steps were completed in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I received general assurances along those lines.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Those are general assurances. I am really asking the Prime Minister whether in those discussions there were any specifics raised as to the timetable. There have been some press stories. Were timetables discussed with the three leaders? Were any timetables agreed to between the Prime Minister and those three leaders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. The only way in which the problem of timing arose was when 1 indicated to Prime Minister Thatcher, and perhaps one or two of the other leaders, that we had a commitment in Canada to ensure renewal of the federation in all due haste. When I say we, I mean the Parliament of Canada and every provincial premier.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General. The Postmaster General reported to this House some time ago that if the Soviet Union is not out of Afghanistan by July 4, 1980, Canada will not issue an Olympic stamp.
Would the minister consider printing the stamp as originally planned, but having the word "Boycotted" imprinted across each stamp? Would this not act as a more effective symbolic reminder to people in Canada and throughout the world that Canada is still boycotting the Moscow Olympic Games?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, that is indeed a very interesting suggestion. Unfortunately, at this stage in the production of the stamps anything superimposed could damage the original stamp. Rather than that, I will announce tomorrow, in a press release, that this issue has been destroyed.

July 2, 1980
2500______________________________________
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to bring this up. 1 would have given longer notice had it been possible.
About an hour ago I received an envelope bearing the heading "Health and Welfare Canada", originating in the office of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), addressed to Tom Cossitt, MP, House of Commons, Ottawa. I feel it is absolutely pertinent to my question of privilege that I read the two short paragraphs that are contained in this letter or document along with the heading above. It reads as follows:
To: All Liberal Members of Parliament:
From: Sheila Zimmerman, Special Assistant Date: July 1, 1980 Subject: New Horizons
You will find enclosed description of New Horizons projects submitted by groups in your riding which have been recommended in the most recent series.
The names of these projects will be announced to the press on July 9, 1980, by the Minister of Health and Welfare. If you have any objections to make about projects selected from your riding, please let us know before that date.
I feel it leads to this question which is a matter of privilege: do Liberal members have the right to veto New Horizons applications by groups of senior citizens in this country? After all, that is what it says right here. If it is true, it is a shocking breach of the privileges of this House and another travesty of justice respecting hundreds of senior citizens and groups of senior citizens from one end of Canada to the other.
This letter also indicates that the government does not consider all members of this House equal. In other words, although we are all members of Parliament duly elected by the people, over there there are privileges that we do not have. In this particular case I feel sure there is no one on this side who would want the privileges they have over there, namely, the right to rebuke and veto the legitimate applications of senior citizens.
The letter also contains more than just a mild and nasty implication that the government is using New Horizons grants for political purposes on behalf of the Liberal members of this House, which I contend is a breach of parliamentary privilege. According to this letter, they are given eight days to say, "Yes", or "No"; "We will permit this grant," or "We will not permit this grant," as the case may be. One can also wonder whether this same system that they have now applied to the New Horizons grants applies to all other grants this government is involved in when it comes to dealing with other types of things and other groups across this country.
In conclusion, I believe this shameful matter is definitely a matter of privilege. It should be investigated by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would like to reserve
my right to move that it be referred to that committee if such appears to be appropriate in due course.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the most serious mistake which this question of privilege has brought to light is to have considered the hon. member as a Liberal. Besides that, I should think that it would be elementary for the House to permit me to have a look at the letter or memorandum and to check its content. I saw this memorandum at the beginning of my tenure. As far as I can remember, it does not deal with a veto of any sort. This is an ordinary sort of memorandum which is sent to government members just like those which were sent by the previous government when they wanted to get an input from their own people about many community programs. It is clear and it is the basis for this whole argument, that if the hon. member prepared a list of all the New Horizon projects which have been approved in Canada, he would realize that all ridings get their fair share under this program, no matter their political affiliation, the political party of their elected members or their geographical situation in Canada. That is what matters. This is clear, and I have always encouraged hon. members to do this. I take this opportunity again to tell the hon. member directly who took offence and who raised this question of privilege, to contact the local office of the New Horizons program if he has representations to make. Sometimes, a number of hon. members may indicate to the minister's staff or the official in charge of the decentralized administration of this program, that such or such a group of senior citizens does not seem to submit a legitimate project. We would discuss the issue with hon. members and clear the air. There have been times even when projects were consolidated, that boards of directors were replaced by a more structured one, and other similar things. Therefore, I do not quite see the point of the hon. member's question of privilege, but I ask to reserve the elementary right to examine again the memorandum.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is asking for the right to reserve this matter so he can bring a question of privilege later, after the minister has had a chance to review this very selective letter inviting a secret veto on various government programs, extending that right exclusively to members of Parliament on one side of the House, Liberal members of Parliament, and not to others. What is important to underline here is that in the initial remarks made by the minister, remarks based upon what she admits was a lack of information, the minister suggested that there was-


Monique Bégin: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: -the minister tells me she did not say that, but she has not seen the memorandum.


Monique Bégin: I do not have it in my hand.
July 2, 1980


Charles Joseph Clark: It is among the things that she does not have in her hand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Two points arise here. One has to do with the fact that there appears to be an established practice within this government of consulting not with all members of the House of Commons but simply with Liberal members of the House of Commons regarding policies and practices which affect the citizens represented in this chamber not simply by Liberals but by members from all political parties. That is one aspect, and that practice is clearly wrong on the face of it; it is a matter which, in my judgment, deserves serious consideration as a question of privilege by a committee of the House.
The other matter, almost as dangerous, as was indicated by my hon. friend when he raised this point, is that we appear to have here, over the authority of the signature of a minister of the Crown, a secret veto system which allows Liberal members, presumably for Liberal party purposes, since it was sent only to Liberal members, to veto, to cancel, and to undermine New Horizons programs, grants which might have been made on the basis of merit, because they might not accord with the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is a totally unacceptable procedure and we should not allow the Minister of National Health and Welfare to suggest that this is a practice which could somehow be condoned because there have been other instances in which there has been open consultation with members on both sides of the House. This is a case which is clearly distinct from those other instances. It is distinct because the opportunity for consultation was confined to members of the Liberal party, and it is distinct because there is a clear request, a clear invitation from the minister's officials to Liberal members of Parliament, to have decisions which might have been made for reasons of merit undercut and undermined for reasons of Liberal partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I should like to add one point to this discussion and suggest it would be even more a question of privilege if this veto is to be applied by the Liberal twin members of members who are elected by the people to the Progressive Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party. The Liberal party has taken upon itself the totalitarian concept of appointing a member to represent a constituency in western Canada, and if that member is now going to be able to veto applications from senior citizens in the twin ridings it would, indeed, be a catastrophe.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the critical question, it seems to me, is not that members of Parliament have been advised that New Horizons projects were taking place in their ridings or that projects would be approved on a certain date; the critical question is that members on the government side are given an advantage, or appear
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
to be given an advantage, or may have been given an advantage which other members have not.
May I refer you, Madam Speaker, to a precedent in the last Parliament? My hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) raised the question of partisan political committees formed by the party which was then in power to study particular questions, committees to which a budget was allocated by the government of that day and to which members of opposition parties had no access.
As I say, the critical question seems to be whether advantages are being given to Liberal members of Parliament which are not open to other members. If so, precisely what are they? If they are being given an advantage, I would suggest that on the precedent of a ruling given in that case by Mr. Speaker Jerome, it appears to me the privileges or rights of members on this side are being prejudiced in their ability to represent their constituents in the same way as Liberal members are able to do so.
Quite apart from partisan bickering back and forth, if there is an advantage being given to Liberal members which is not given to others, there is unfairness involved and it is a practice which should stop-not by cutting off information from members of Parliament but by saying to all members, "If you have a reasoned objection to a particular proposal, the minister would like to discuss it with you in a reasoned way". It would not be a case of a member having an absolute veto over something which does, or does not go on, in his or her riding. I should like to hear from the minister on this question because it seems to me we all need to be enlightened as to exactly what is the government's practice.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, when ruling on this question of privilege I should like you to take into consideration a matter which has been brought to my attention in the riding of Peterborough recently. It has long been the practice among all members of Parliament to send out congratulatory letters to new Canadian citizens as they receive their citizenship certificates. I should like to bring it to the attention of the House that a directive went out two weeks ago-and I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that Peterborough is no longer represented by a Liberal-to the citizenship office opened by the former Liberal member and minister in Peterborough advising the office of citizenship that it was no longer to send a list of new Canadians who received their citizenship in Peterborough to the present Conservative member of Parliament in the city of Peterborough.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the opposition is criticizing the minister for consulting members of her own party without, of course, shirking in any way the responsibility for making all her own decisions. Criticizing the minister for consulting her colleagues seems to me not only unacceptable, but most amazing if we consider how the Con-

July 2, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
servatives administered the Local Initiatives Program during their brief stay in power.
Madam Speaker, you will recall how the program has been administered for about ten years, when the member concerned, whatever his party, made his recommendations to the minister. However, during the few months that the Conservatives were in power-and I am thinking about the region that I represented, the Gaspe peninsula, where no Conservative member was elected-the then minister, Mr. Atkey, ignored the recommendations of elected members and consulted defeated candidates of the Progressive Conservative Party. And I still recall hearing Mr. Atkey explain in the House why, contrary to the previous Liberal government, he would consult defeated Conservative candidates.
Therefore, criticizing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for consulting certain members of Parliament without evading her own responsibilities seems to me completely unjustified, especially coming from a party which, during its brief stay in power, ignored this basic rule of consulting the elected members of Parliament.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I would only like to add a comment about the question of privilege. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated a moment ago that she was not aware of this letter which is said to have been sent-


Monique Bégin: No, I never said that.


Roch La Salle: 1 believe the minister has asked to read the letter mentioned by the hon. member. It seems clear to me, after hearing the question of privilege, that a letter allegedly has been sent to Liberal members so that they may object to a New Horizons project. I suggest that is what my colleague has said.
I know from past experience, and 1 appreciate very much the services of this department, that we are advised of the fact that a project will eventually be announced, and we are asked not to announce it because it is still at the development stage, so in the end we are advised a few days in advance about a given project. That is established practice. However, if it is true that Liberal members of Parliament are invited, on a particular matter, to object to a project, this is obviously inadmissible. In the circumstances, it seems that the minister wishes to have a closer look at the document mentioned today. And, with this in mind, I do hope she will correct this additional privilege which is obviously unacceptable.
As for the remarks made by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) concerning our approach to the distribution of local initiative projects, Madam Speaker, a serious evaluation of the existing system since the inception of the program woud reveal there was need for corrective measures and that still holds true.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedaie):: Madam Speaker, it was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but there were some queries raised by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) which I think took the matter away from the appropriate matter before you.
The question raised is the privileges which affect members of this House in relation to their work and in relation to their constituents regarding the New Horizons program, and I think we should confine our concerns to that. The program which this question can affect, the New Horizons program, is probably one of the most enlightened programs this federal government offers.
As the minister knows, there is an incredible number of applications which come in, and the criteria for selection have to be so fair, open, and above board that people will trust the selection system. This is absolutely crucial, particularly in this program-almost above any other-and it seems to me that it is incumbent upon the Chair, and certainly upon the minister, by statement or by whatever appropriate procedure that you, Madam Speaker, have at your disposal, to make sure that the credibility of the selection process is restored. It is therefore absolutely essential that the minister make that statement or, it seems to me, that you should allow for a procedure which would make sure that every senior citizen organization in this country can again trust the system of selection, now that the matter has been raised.


Madam Speaker:: At the outset, I would say that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was probably misled by the interpretation. My understanding of what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said is that she was replying with reservation as she had not recently read the memorandum in question. I think the right hon. Leader of the Opposition understood something entirely differ-rent, to the effect that she had never seen this memorandum. But, if my understanding is correct, she was expressing herself with reservation because the memorandum had been written, it seems, some time ago.
On the question of privilege, I must advise the hon. member that 1 was somewhat lenient with him since this question did not arise out of today's proceedings. But, as he sent me a little note during question period, I decided to hear him. Be that as it may, though I did not receive as much of an advance notice as 1 would have wished, I will nevertheless decide on the question of privilege. I do not think there is substance here for a question of privilege. As hon. members know, the question of privilege is very restricted. A member's privilege is usually an action of some nature which prevents him from fulfilling his duties as a member. Now, I am under the impression that all hon. members who took part in the debate today were able to fulfil their duties as members for they were able to protest
July 2, 1980

against a matter which they deemed not well taken care of by the government.
As for the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I think it is important that he distinguish between rights and privileges given to members and rights and privileges which political parties may extend to them. There is a very important distinction to be made, for the existence of parties is one thing and the existence and procedures of the Elouse of Commons is quite another. 1 am referring to all the definitions given for a question of privilege. The hon. member will realize that it is extremely restricted, extremely limited and that today, in any case, there was not a question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt).
Quite obviously the explanation given by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare was not satisfactory to those who took part in the discussion. But that is no concern of the Chair. I only have to decide whether there is a question of privilege or not and, in my opinion, there is not.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, 1 may have misunderstood what you said or perhaps I was wrongly interpreted, but I want to be sure about the decision you have just rendered. There are two matters and to avoid any mistakes in French, my second language-

I will put the questions to you in English, if 1 might, Madam Speaker. Am I correct in my interpretation that you have now indicated that even though the hon. member had asked for the right to reserve a question, you are deciding on the question now?
Second-


Mr. Pinard:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am told by the government House leader, who is in the habit of coaching on these questions, that we are right on. But simply for the purpose of clarification I would also like to know whether it is the ruling of Your Honour that the privileges of the House are not affected when a right is given to members of the House who are here as Liberal members of Parliament but that that right is denied members of the House who are here as Progressive Conservative and New Democratic members of Parliament.


Mr. Andre:: That is the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Simply for certitude, in case 1 may have misinterpreted the statement made in a language which is my second, I would like to know if my rendition of my interpretation of those two decisions by Your Honour is the correct one.


Yvon Pinard: Ask you advisers. You are wasting our time. [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: I shall repeat in French to make sure I make no mistakes. I said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
that it was quite clear to me that the minister had not asked for the matter to stand. She simply said she was responding with reservations. She was giving an explanation with reservations considering it has been a while since she has seen the memo. She did not ask the Chair to reserve the matter.

Concerning the second part of the right hon. member's intervention, I have ruled on this question that there is no privilege. 1 have given the grounds on which my ruling is based, and therefore I have to maintain my ruling. There is no privilege in this question, and 1 regret to say that I cannot entertain further discussions on that ruling.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: 1 have just one short point of order, Madam Speaker. Without questioning your ruling, of course, may I ask that you clarify for the House whether it is now a declared necessity that a senior citizen or a senior citizen group must cosy up to a Liberal member who, in turn, must cosy up to the minister in order to get a grant from this government?


An hon. Member:: That is not what she said.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If that is not a question of privilege, I do not know what is.


Harvie Andre: That is the implication of that decision.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can clarify that quite rapidly. It is not for the Chair to make any kind of commentary or any evaluation or appreciation on whether the actions performed by this government or by this minister are adequate or not. That was the essence of the hon. member's question of privilege. It is the hon. member's privilege to discuss the actions of the government if he wishes to do so, as long as he follows the rules of this House.


Harvie Andre: Liberals can do anything?


Madam Speaker:: My ruling is based solely on the fact that the actions referred to did not prevent the member from performing his functions as a member of Parliament.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is exactly what happened.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, following your ruling, may I say that you did not deal with one point-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I cannot entertain any further discussion on that ruling.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, will Liberal members who have been appointed twins of other party members now have the right to veto Horizon projects in a riding? I think that is vital to this whole thing.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member must understand that I have made no judgment on the question he is now putting. If the hon. member has questions concerning that precise point, he can put them to ministers at question period, or he can

July 2, 1980
Introduction of Bill
debate them at other times in the course of deliberations in the House. I have not ruled on the substance of that question.


POINT OF ORDER
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, a few moments ago I asked of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a composite question dealing with the Olympic Games and the boycott. The right hon. gentleman asked that 1 put the questions one after the other. I was not given that opportunity, so I should like to request that I be given a chance to put them in the late show, with the right hon. Prime Minister or his appointee to answer them.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member can have that opportunity if he sends me a written note. His question will be put down for the late debate whenever his turn comes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question from the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) on June 5, my department has conducted a preliminary assessment of technically and economically feasible emission reductions for Inco's Sudbury operations. I should like to table, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of the assessment report and the executive summary of the nickel industry report.


BANK ACT AND QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT
Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


[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. 82, 134, 180, 198, 261, 543, 599, 793, 825, 827, 934, 973, 974, 1052 and 1053.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government aware that the District G Convention of the Royal Canadian Legion held in Pembroke, Ontario, discussed the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island and that the branches present were not in favour of the plan?
2.	Are estimates of moving costs between forty and eighty million dollars accurate and, if so, how can this expense be justified considering all of the circumstances?
3.	(a) What is the total number of persons employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (b) what was the total number (i) one (ii) two (iii) three (iv) four (v) five years ago?
4.	To date, what is the number or estimated number of DVA personnel who have indicated that they are not prepared to move, do not intend to move or who have not yet given a definite answer?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. The subjects discussed at the district G convention of the Royal Canadian Legion held in Pembroke have not been brought to the attention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, the government is aware that the Royal Canadian Legion opposes the relocation of the Canadian Pension Commission to Prince Edward Island.
2.	The total approved funding for the relocation of Veterans Affairs is $23.6 million. This does not include costs for building and land which are under negotiation and may not be borne by the federal government.
3.	(a) 1979/80 Head Office Staff-936;
(b) (i) 967, (ii) 887, (iii) 853, (iv) 841, (v) 794 (Head Office Staff).
4.	Figures unknown in light of revised relocation phasing which now extends into 1983. Employees are required to make a binding decision whether or not to relocate nine months before the new date of relocation.


Mr. Cossitt: 4.	What is the safety record of such transportation including the number of accidents that have happened since transportation commenced and how many of the accidents could be classified as being in any way potentially dangerous whatsoever?
5.	What tests, if any, have been taken by any branch of government or Crown corporation to determine the dangers involved and what precautionary measures should be taken as a result?
6.	Is it the government's intention to continue the transportation of such material and, if so, for what reason?
7.	What is the purpose of the transportation of such material from Canada and what is it used for at its destination?
8.	Is the government remunerated for such nuclear waste material by recipients and, if so, to what extent?


Marc Lalonde: July 2, 1980
Order Paper Questions KENT INSTITUTION- RIOT


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) How many cells were damaged as a result of the riot at Kent institution, on October 28-29, 1979, (b) how many cell blocks were involved (c) what was the extent of the damage in dollars (d) how many inmates were involved in the riot (e) how many security personnel officers were involved to subdue the riot?
2.	(a) How many trips did the regional director of the Pacific Centre Regional Headquarters, office of the Solicitor General, take to Ottawa, as well as to other destinations in (i) 1977 (ii) 1978 (iii) 1979 and what were the locations (b) what was the total cost of the trips (c) what was the total amount paid to the regional director for mileage expenses he incurred in (i) 1977 (ii) 1978 (iii) 1979?
3.	(a) What was the total amount paid to personnel, under the authority of the Pacific Centre Regional Headquarters, to cover moving expenses which they incurred as a result of being transferred to another location (b) how many times has the government paid for the brokerage fees of an individual who was obliged to sell his home as a result of being transferred to another location, in the Pacific regional district?
4.	(a) How many individuals, now employed as security personnel at the Kent Institution, have had previous experience in a (i) maximum (ii) medium security institution (b) how many are retired armed forces personnel?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) Fifty-two cells;
(b)	Four blocks;
(c)	$I7,000;
(d)	Forty-two inmates;
(e)	None. All inmates were already locked in their cells, and once having damaged the contents of his cells, each individual stopped. In light of this, the incident was not regarded as a riot but rather a disturbance.
(b)	Total cost of trips to Ottawa Total cost of trips to other
destinations
Total
(c)	Mileage expenses: $1,168.63
2.	(iii) 1979
(a)	Locations
13 trips to Ottawa. Ontario 1 trip to Kingston, Ontario 6 trips to Victoria, B.C.
1 trip to Campbell River, B.C.
I trip to Kamloops-Tcrrace, B.C. I trip to Whitehorse, N.W.T.
I trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia I trip to Lexington, Kentucky 1 trip to Nashville, Tennessee I trip to El Paso. Texas I trip to Anchorage, Alaska I trip to Little Rock, Arkansas
(b)	Total cost of trips to Ottawa Total cost of trips to other
destinations
Total
(c)	Mileage expenses: $212.04
3.	(a) $31,489.84 (b) 7
4.	As of March 31, 1980


[Stage Direction]
2.	(i) 1977
(a)	Locations
13 trips to Ottawa, Ontario 1 trip to Kingston, Ontario 6 trips to Victoria, B.C.
I trip to Calgary, Alberta
1	trip to Winnipeg, Manitoba
2	trips to Montreal, Quebec
I trip to Milwaukee, Wisconsin I trip to London, England
(b)	Total cost of trips to Ottawa	$	9,497.33
Total cost of trips to other
destinations	$	4,627.77
Total	$14,125.10
(c)	Mileage expenses: $282.92
(a)	(i) 64 (ii) 38
(b)	12
Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
2. (ii) 1978 (a) Locations
11 trips to Ottawa. Ontario 1 trip to Kingston, Ontario
1 trip to Kelowna and Vernon, B.C.	I.
1	trip to Prince George and Kamloops, B.C.
2	trips to Victoria, B.C.	7
2 trips to Montreal. Quebec
1 trip to Quebec, Quebec I trip to Portland, Oregon I trip to Lisbon, Portugal
Fiscal year results expressed in thousands of dollars
Total revenue	$	1978 804,069	S	1977 750,838Net earnings	$	6,402	$	10,767(a) Total direct subsidies conferred by the	government on the corporation	$	46,759	$	40,879(b) Loans extended by the government	to the corporation	$	1,223.500	s	912,500
July 2, 1980

Fiscal year results expressed in thousands of dollars
1978	1977
(c)	Investment by the government in the
corporation at fiscal year end.	$ 9,844,912	$ 9,659,700
(No write-offs were effected by special vote to delete debts appearing in the Public Accounts)


Mr. Herbert: Did the government sign an agreement with the government of the province of Quebec on community services similar to the two year agreement signed on March 15, 1979, by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Ontario housing minister and (a) if so, what are the terms and conditions of the agreement (b) if not, have any discussions been held with a view to concluding an agreement and, if so, on what date did the discussions take place?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
The Government of Canada signed an agreement on the Community Services Contribution Program with the government of Quebec on May 18, 1979. This agreement was signed by the Minister of Public Works and is similar to the agreement on the Community Services Contribution Program signed with the other provinces. The ministers of municipal affairs and intergovernmental affairs signed on behalf of the government of Quebec. In February, 1980, amendments to the agreement were negotiated to simplify operating procedures.
Under the two year agreements, the Government of Canada will provide up to $47.1 million for the 1979 program year and $78.45 million for the 1980 program year to assist Quebec municipalities in the provision of needed community services. Canada will transfer these funds to the province in the fiscal year following each program year, upon receipt of certified statements of account. The first payment to Quebec respecting claims in the first program year will be made shortly. The province, in turn, will reimburse the municipalities for eligible expenditures incurred as per the certified statements of account.
The province is responsible for the administration of the program to municipalities, and, within broad limits, has full flexibility in determining the use and allocation of funds within the province. However, the agreement ensures that the Government of Canada receives full recognition and publicity for its efforts in providing funding assistance.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programs or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Post Office Department?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
Order Paper Questions


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1.	(a)	(i) Study of absenteeism encompassing policies
and system, development and implementation of an absentee control system
(ii)	Absenteeism in Post Office facilities study
(iii)	Feasibility study new service concepts
(iv)	Standing offer agreement for the provision ol comprehensive consulting services in the field of marketing research.
(b)	(i) Feasibility study of maintenance training
facilities
(ii)	Engineering and property management study
(iii)	Marketing courier services by the private sector
(iv)	To provide professional communication resources, to produce audio-visual presentations, illustrating major elements in the Post Office's thrust to improve organizational effectiveness, increase job satisfaction and enhance the working environment
(v)	To provide special expertise to the public affairs branch in preparing information for communication within the postal headquarters executive community
2.	(a)	(i) Industrial Health Assistance Ltd.
(ii)	Industrial Health Assistance Ltd.
(iii)	Ducros, Mcilicur, Roy & Associates Ltd.
(iv)	Mr. Paul R. Croker & Associates
(b)	(i) ARA Consultants Ltd.
(ii)	Hickling-Johnston Ltd.
(iii)	Mr. William V. Baker
(iv)	Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby
(v)	Eric Miller Consulting Group Ltd.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with dairy production?


Eugene Whelan: A total of $7,192,641 in subsidies was paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission to dairy farmers in New Brunswick.


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Did the Department of the Environment take any action with regard to the discharge of plant effluent from the Uniroyal plant in Edmonton into the Saskatchewan River and, if so, what action was taken?
2.	What were the readings of the chemical contents of such effluent?
3.	Docs the government feel it has jurisdiction to act on such environmental matters where interprovincial movement of pollutants is concerned?
4.	Were any charges laid and, if not, are charges to be laid?
5.	What are the long term ramifications of such carelessness?
6.	What steps have been taken to ensure that this will not occur again?

Order Paper Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Uniroyal is licensed under the Clean Water Act of the province of Alberta, licence No. 78-WL-037, which allows non-process wastewater to be discharged to the North Saskatchewan River at a rate not exceeding 68.2 cubic metres per day. The effluent consists of steam condensate, cooling jacket wastewater and overflow from the septic tank. The licence was prepared by Environment Alberta in consultation with Environment Canada.
2.	Analysis of the effluent sampled October 15, 1979, yielded the following results.
Parameter	Mg/I	Parameter	Mg/1pH	7.7	Conductivity	492. ms/cmIron	0.88	TDS	254.Calcium	47.	Magnesium	18.Hardness T	192.	Sodium	14.Potassium	1.0	Silica	3.5N02 + N03	3.26	Nitrate	0.05*Fluoride	0.22	Chloride	53.Sulfate	50.	Bicarbonate	1 14.Alkalinity T	94.	Oil and grease	2.6COD	43.0	TOC	16.Carbon T	38.	TIC	22.TR (CALC)	369.	FR	350.NFR	19.	Turbidity	17.Ammonia	0.48	Phosphorous T	1.38Nitrogen TK	1.39	Phenols	0.148Surfactants	0.70	Mercury	0.0005Cobalt	0.003	Copper	0.227Nickel	0.023	Cadmium	0.001*Lead	0.015	Zinc	0.417Manganese	0.182	Chromium	0.0302,4,D	14.9	
Indicates concentration less than conductivity reported in microsiemens cm. pH in pH units. Alkalinity and hardness expressed as calcium carbonate. Nitrate + Nitrate expressed as N.
3.	The federal government has constitutional jurisdiction to control the interprovincial movement of pollutants. Although specific federal legislation dealing with the interprovincial movement of waterborne pollutants does not now exist, the water pollution provisions of sections 33 to 33.4 of the Canada Fisheries Act could be applied when such pollutants are deleterious to fish. The government is developing proposals for new legislation that would include authority to control certain interprovincial movement of pollutants as part of an over-all federal environmental protection policy. (The development of the policy requires further consultation with the provinces).
4.	No charges have been laid. No charges are contemplated at this time.
5.	The excursion of concentrations of 2,4,D and total carbon beyond the licensed limits is considered to be only temporary. Because of the small discharge to the river, the impacts of these constituents are not considered to be significant.
6.	Alberta Environment, water quality control branch, are currently working with the company to determine the reason for the excursion and correct it.
July 2, 1980


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979, for how many rental units was CMHC mortgage financing provided in (a) Fredericton (b) Toronto (c) Vancouver (d) New Brunswick (e) Quebec (f) Ontario?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am

advised by Canada	Mortgage and	Housing Corporation as			
follows:				"tPl''Vj'T-'.	
Rental Units Approved by CMHC		in the fiscal year		:C-'-	
ending March 31, 1979 for Selected Cities/Prcvinces					
City/Provincc	Units	Hostel Beds	$000	*Fredericton	-.	-	.	Toronto	1,156	34	34.877	Vancouver	96	231	7,821	New Brunswick	64	100	3,831	Quebec	3,905	1,543	109,934	Ontario	3,906	413	108,1 16


Mr. Howie: 1.	Are any permanent civilian positions at CFB Gagetown being deleted from the plan or organization within the next year and, if so, how many?
2.	What is the total annual payment in salaries for such positions?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. Twenty-four existing established positions are expected to be deleted.
2. Due to the uncertainty in timing of positions which may be deleted, the total salary situation cannot be estimated accurately at this time.


Mr. McKinnon: Did DND let a contract for $6,002,887 worth of ammunition from Canadian Arsenals Ltd. and, if so, for what type and for how many rounds?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes. This contract is for 16,100 rounds of 105mm squash head practice tank training ammunition.


[Stage Direction]
-KITCHENER, ONTARIO-CONTRACT-ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence let a contract with Diemaco of Kitchener, Ontario, for technical services for small arms analysis and evaluation for $93,477 and, if so, is this in connection with the future family of small arms for the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	On what date will a future family of small arms be purchased for the Forces?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. Yes.
July 2, 1980

2. It is the intention to introduce new small arms weapons in the mid-eighties.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence buying $15,402 worth of mice and, if so (a) how many mice (b) is this as a result of a request by NDMC and, if not, how was this need established?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes. (a) Forty to sixty male mice three times a month for a period of 12 months for a total of approximately 1,800 mice.
(b) No. A supply of a special strain of mice is required in support of a research project in operational medicine at a Defence Research Establishment.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence let a contract with Diemaco Inc. of Kitchener, Ontario, concerning spare parts for small arms for $154,653 and, if so, for which types of small arms?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes. The contract is for spares in support of 9mm pistols and 7.62mm rifles.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence let a contract with Carleton University for the development of a method for predicting the off-road performance of tracked vehicles for $363,408 and, if so (a) which off-road tracked vehicles are being studied (b) does the Department have a DRB or DRE section which is capable of performing this work (c) does the university have a department or research unit experienced in this field and, if so, what is its name?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes. (a) No specific vehicle. The method studied is for generic tracked vehicles, (b) No. (c) Yes. Transport Technology Research Laboratory.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Notices of motions for the production of papers.
Unemployment Insurance Act Mr. Collenette: I would ask that all stand, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Stand. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971. The concerns I have regarding this bill are twofold; first, that it places the full onus for recovery of the benefits on the premium payers, those who suffer the effects of unemployment; and second, that it extends to 1982 the variable qualifications, and whether or not you qualify for unemployment depends on where you live in Canada.
The real concern I have is with regard to the placement of the total onus upon the premium payers, the people who are suffering the effects of unemployment, when it is actually the responsibility of the government. Locked into the legislation which was brought in in 1971 was a clause stating that once unemployment grows over 4 per cent it would be the full responsibility of the government to absorb the costs borne by people who suffer from unemployment. I think that that clause should still remain the same today. Unemployment of up to 4 per cent is reasonable, but responsibility for anything over that should be accepted by the government.
I do not know whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) should be blamed for his ineffectiveness in dealing with the Canadian public and his inability to bring in an industrial strategy or some kind of an economic policy to keep people working, or the cabinet should be blamed for not allowing him to proceed with measures which would create work for the Canadian people or, at least, if not to create work, to allow people to hold on to jobs which they have right now. We are looking at higher and higher rates of unemployment each day as the auto industry is sliding into the greatest depression it has ever experienced. We see the ineffective measures of the government and the inability of the government to take action in western Canada where not only jobs are not created but jobs are taken away.
I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to put the country back to work. We should not be looking to the lonely ministers in the west, such as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
Axworthy), to bring in band-aid measures to help overcome some of the small problems, such as the four programs which he recently announced.
In the throne speech we were told that two main principles would guide us into the 1980s. One of them would be that Canadians would have to live within their means. I submit to you that we can accept that principle if Canadians have the means within which to live. If you look at people in Oshawa and Windsor, however, you find that they no longer have those means. They typify people in many other areas in Canada employed in other than the auto industry. I think that as Canadians we should try to live within our means, but only if we have those means. We do not need band-aid measures such as those brought in by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is incapable of bringing in effective programs to help keep Canadians working so that rates of unemployment can be kept below 4 per cent. In areas of the country where unemployment is below 4 per cent, both workers and employers should be responsible for keeping that figure low, but in areas where unemployment reaches up to 30 per cent, there are other ways to provide employment.
What we were also told in the throne speech as being the main core of the Liberal government's program was that Canadians would have to accept the sacrifice of meeting the challenges of the 1980s. I think it is terrible that we in a country such as Canada have to make sacrifices. We have very much in terms of intelligent people who have a high degree of education. Also we can produce the necessary technology in order to have secondary industries owned by Canadians, and to process our resources. We are rich in resources as well. For those reasons, why should Canadians have to accept sacrifices? There is the sacrifice in terms of this bill which relates to high unemployment in Canada. High unemployment causes a lot of stress among families and the single unemployed person. The lack of income generated affects people with fixed incomes such as those on unemployment insurance and pensions. We should not have to accept sacrifices during the 1980s. We should have a high standard of living second to none anywhere in the world.
I think we will have to accept sacrifices because of people like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is totally ineffective in answering questions sincerely directed to him in the House. Perhaps this forces the Liberal cabinet member from the west to cover the tracks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commmerce by bringing in temporary, short-term measures to give Canadians some sort of means within which to live.
We will have to make sacrifices because of foreign ownership in the country which takes away from Canadians, which has been condoned by Liberals and Conservatives in the House for many, many years.


Mr. Young:: And the huge deficit.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Foreign ownership amounts to over $75 billion. There is the huge deficit to which the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) referred. Last year there was a spending deficit of $16,185 million. Going back to foreign ownership, it results in profits of over $4 billion leaving this country every year. If that $4 billion was kept in Canada by Canadian ownership, it could produce a lot of jobs so that maybe our unemployment rate would be held to 4 per cent or less, and then likely the employees and employers would be happy to contribute that amount in UIC premiums. I do not think the working public should have to contribute enough to make up for the incompetence of this government and its inability to meet the needs of Canadian people. Indeed, the sacrifices in the eighties which Canadians will have to face are very vast.
I should like to compare the plight of the Canadian worker to that of the Canadian farmer. The government has driven people from their jobs because the jobs cease to exist as a result of the poor economic planning of the government. The same thing is happening in western Canada, and perhaps in many parts of eastern Canada, but I am more familiar with the west. Farmers and people in the agricultural industry are being driven off the land. We talk about removing the Crows-nest rate. It is very crucial to Canadian farmers so that they can move their products from their farms to the markets at a reasonable and statutory cost that was locked in many, many years ago. It was to provide farmers and people in agriculture with a break.
The Crow rate has been paid to the railroads many, many times. The railroads have received concessions in terms of rolling stock and actual lines being paid for in subsidies from the government. As well, they received large holdings of lands, and now at least Canadian Pacific is a company which does not really care about moving the products of farmers to the markets. It cares more about the lands it received in concessions to keep the Crow rate. It has built huge real estate firms and travel agencies at a cost to the Canadian taxpayer and Canadian farmer. It no longer wants to accept its responsibility, in terms of the Crow rate, to move products to the markets.
Some say that if the Crow rate were removed it would help farmers because the rail companies would be more in tune with moving the product and would be paid a fair consideration for it. We in the New Democratic Party say that the rail companies have been already paid a fair price for moving the products of farmers. In fact currently they are paid subsidies from the Canadian government to move that product.
If the Crow rate were removed, there is no assurance at all that the product would be moved any more effectively than in the past and than in fact it is being moved today. For example, in the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, to move a hundredweight of wheat to the ports would cost a farmer about 26 cents. For a comparable distance in the United States it would be six times that amount. It would cost farmers in the United States six times that amount to move it from their farms to the ports, and they do not have any better movement of grain or products to the coast. As we are driving workers from their jobs in many parts of Canada, also we are driving
July 2, 1980

farmers and people in agriculture off the land. The government will not give them the concessions and the fair breaks they should receive.
I should like to draw some parallels between the unemployed wage earners in Canada and the rapidly increasing unemployed from the farms. If we go back to the Speech from the Throne, it does not say anything about helping Canadian farmers or the transportation problem other than the fact that transportation is a vital part of the industrial strategy. There is one line about transportation in the Speech from the Throne. It is irrelevant because no one can really say what is the industrial strategy of this government. Although transportation might be a vital part of it, we would like to know the industrial strategy and how it ties to keeping people employed, so that the employment rate which is affected by this bill does not rise over 4 per cent as it is doing now. It should remain under 4 per cent because of the resources we have in the country.
In the throne speech, as well, there is reference to an agricultural export commission to expand Canadian markets, but we are not dealing with this now to keep farmers on the land, to generate income, and to have the spin-off of employing people across the country. Also it referred to a meat import act. Where is that meat import act now? What is it doing to protect the markets which are being flooded by beef? Those markets were threatened by the drought in western Canada not so long ago. It is already too late in some areas because the markets are being flooded by livestock, thereby driving the prices down low.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. With great respect, I have listened to the hon. member for some moments and I have heard him talk about freight rates, the Crowsnest rate, and livestock. I realize one of the most difficult rules of the House of Commons is the rule of relevancy, but even though the current bill is an amendment to an existing act, and even though the subject of unemployment insurance is a very broad one-and I recognize the fact that occasionally the hon. member refers to unemployed- I still think it is in order for the Chair to ask him to direct his attention to Bill C-3.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I disagree with you. I am trying to draw a parallel between what this government is doing, what the Conservative party advocates and agrees with, and the farm population that I am familiar with as a member of Parliament who represents an agricultural constituency. The parallel is being drawn as to how this government and the Conservatives treat wage earners in this country, and I disagree with you, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that what I am saying is irrelevant to this bill. It is relevant to this bill in the parallel I am trying to draw, and at the conclusion of my speech I think the relevance of what I say
Unemployment Insurance Act
will be obvious to you. I would ask you to let me proceed with the line I have been going on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. There is no problem in respect of the hon. member proceeding. The Chair is simply making the request that the hon. member give some consideration to the rule of relevance.


Douglas Keith Anguish: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I plan on making it very relevant at the conclusion of the parallel between the farming population, the things that affect them, and the working population. I will proceed with that and try to tie my remarks as closely as possible to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
As I mentioned at the beginning, the two things I disagree with are that the bill places the onus for recovery of benefits on the premium payers and, secondly, it extends the variable qualifications across Canada as to how many weeks one has to work to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, depending upon the area in which you live, within Canada.
Before I was interrupted, when you called me to order, I was trying to respond by drawing a parallel between agriculture, how farmers are being driven off the land by the policies of this government, as advocated by the Conservative opposition, and how in fact people are being driven out of jobs by these people moving in off the farm, so that even fewer are able to earn an income to provide a living with some dignity. I used examples of the auto industry and how that industry was failing, as is this government, to support people in agriculture. There are quite a bunch of failures, as the hon. member for Beaches has indicated.
There was very little in the throne speech under the first topic which was designed to respond to individual needs. In this regard we feel the government should have brought in long-term job-creation measures in order to employ Canadian people, thus reducing unemployment. There should be a policy and a program on the part of this government to reduce unemployment, working toward full employment, rather than having true unemployment figures in some areas as high as 30 per cent. We think it is realistic to hold the unemployment rate at 4 per cent or less.
What has this government done in responding to individual needs? It has raised the guaranteed income supplement to old age security by $35 a month per household. Indeed, this is a noble gesture and it will put some money into the economy, but it does not respond to wage earners in the country in terms of creating jobs. All this does provide is the means within which people must live. Even at that, many old age pensioners and others receiving benefits from the guaranteed income supplement still live well below-the poverty level. I think it is disgraceful that this government cannot enact policies and programs to put these people at a decent standard of living.
Having regard to the affirmative action talked about in the throne speech, that is all good and well, but the affirmative action on the part of this government in terms of giving women their rightful place in the private and public sectors has not been accomplished. Many studies have been conducted which

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
have looked at the need for women to play a meaningful role in the work force, but no significant improvements have been made. We have had calls in this party to compile the results of all those studies directed at increasing employment for women in the work force, and we have concluded that this has not happened.
Certainly the first part of the throne speech, which refers to a response to individual needs, has not in fact responded to the individual needs in the area of unemployment, to which Bill C-3 is addressed. One area to which the government should be responding in order to provide employment for people is that area involving energy supply. That is the second subject talked about in the throne speech, specifically the achievement of security of supply at a fair price for all Canadians. If this in fact were accomplished we could employ many more Canadians, many of whom are left in the ranks of the unemployed as a result of the failing auto industry and the timber industry in many parts of the west, to say nothing of those people who are being driven off the farms.
Petroleum product costs have been raised to such a high level that farmers are now receiving in some cases less for their products than it costs to produce them. As a result we are putting them in the ranks of the unemployed as well. I think this area of energy supply must be developed.
Members of the Liberal party have talked in this House about a made-in-Canada price. What they refer to is not really a made-in-Canada price. What has been talked about in this House by members of the Liberal government is a subsidy price, a price at which we sell our products in the west with no real recognition by the federal government of fairness. We import petroleum products in the east, therefore subsidizing the cost. This is not a made-in-Canada price, it is a subsidized cost to those in the east, and a rip-off price to many of those people in the west.
For example, in Saskatchewan we could create many more jobs and virtually have an unemployment rate of zero, if only the federal government would look at a true made-in-Canada price. This could be achieved by putting in a heavy crude upgrading station somewhere in northwestern Saskatchewan. This is something I have worked on with the Northwest Economic Development Council and the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Corporation. We have attempted to produce a program whereby we could process heavy crude in northwest Saskatchewan.
Perhaps many members of this House do not realize that at the present time western Canada has to export heavy crude oil, particularly in Saskatchewan, because there is no upgrading station there. This heavy crude crosses the border into the United States where it is processed and brought up to a grade we can use. As a result, the government of Saskatchewan has to pay an export tax of $500 million per year to the federal government. If this upgrading station were put into place in northwestern Saskatchewan we would not have to export this heavy crude. It could be processed in northwestern Saskatchewan, creating many more jobs in that area, virtually eliminating unemployment, or maintaining unemployment at a rate below 4 per cent.
Unemployment is very low now in Saskatchewan because of the sound management of Premier Allan Blakeney and the NDP in that province. With unemployment remaining below 4 per cent this would help the rest of Canada. I do not think employers and employees would then mind absorbing the total cost of benefits to the unemployed becaused they would be very low.
We could create jobs in this country by doing something the NDP advocated during the recent election campaign. We said a pipeline should be built from western Canada to eastern Canada, at least to Quebec City where refining facilities already exist. There are pumping facilities in place there as a result of the importation of petroleum products. This was talked about in the throne speech, but where is the action? This would also create many jobs, not only in Saskatchewan, Alberta and western Canada, but for people throughout Canada. This could be done by building the pipeline in all those provinces it would cross, as well as in the area of the distribution in eastern Canada of the oil and gas now being produced in western Canada.
We would begin to establish a made-in-Canada price when we stop Alberta from exporting its trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to the United States, which could be used by Canadians first. Let us take an inventory of our energy supplies, whether it be nuclear power, hydro power or power produced by petroleum products, such as natural gas or heavy crude, and see what we have. We must look to our own needs first, and export what we have left over. Such a move would create jobs and help to keep the rate of unemployment down, and it would help to replace the jobs which are rapidly leaving because of the auto industry closing down.
As was outlined in the throne speech, we should be moving more homes to natural gas heating. Such a conversion in itself would create jobs. Most important, we must look at the role that Petro-Canada should play in the petroleum industry of this country. The government stated in the throne speach under the second item that it wanted to achieve energy supply at a fair cost to all Canadians and that Petro-Canada should be maintained and expanded as a Crown corporation.
The New Democratic Party agrees with the government on its approach to Petro-Canada. We, in fact, forced the Liberal government in 1972 to establish Petro-Canada. We agree with the Liberal government that Petro-Canada should be expanded and that it should be retained as a Crown corporation. However, the government is not moving totally in the right direction with regard to Petro-Canada. The government said in the throne speech that Canada should gain 50 per cent ownership of the petroleum industry by the year 1990. This is not enough now, nor was it enough in the past. It is better than it was, but it is not good enough.
For example, in 1978 we owned 1 per cent of the petroleum refining industry in Canada. When you only own 1 per cent of
July 2, 1980

something and 99 per cent is owned by industry outside our borders, it is hard for the government to plan jobs for Canadians in an industry over which it has no control. Foreign companies take advantage of our people and resources and export our jobs, because if the money leaves our country then the jobs will leave our country.
We feel that in order to have a program to increase employment and decrease unemployment, the government must look at all the areas of the petroleum industry and increase the Canadian content therein. It must look at exploration, refining, and wholesale and retail sale of petroleum products within the country. In the area of exploration of petroleum products, Canadians must be involved in the industry, because we cannot rely on the information which is presently available.
What I am about to say may deviate somewhat from the bill, but it is a very important part of the economic and industrial strategy that should be used to overcome the unemployment problem. In the past the information we received was not relevant to our planning needs to keep Canadians working. For example, I believe it was the annual report of Esso in 1973 which said, "Don't worry, Canadians; we have enough gas and oil to last us for hundreds of years". I believe that the figure used was 298 years. However, in 1975 the same company told us that we are in an energy crisis, that it must be given more money so that it can go out and look for more gas and oil. Is that the kind of information we need?
If what Imperial Oil said in 1975 was truer than what it said in 1973, then the company miscalculated by 296 years. We cannot plan jobs for Canadian people if we must rely on poor information such as Imperial Oil gave us. As I mentioned earlier, Petro-Canada should be involved in the area of refining. We should gain some control over the refining industry, which was 99 per cent foreign owned in 1978, and the ratio is not much better now. Such a move would create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians. We must get Petro-Canada involved in the refining industry.
We also feel that the wholesale sale of petroleum products is a very important part of Petro-Canada's role in providing jobs for Canadians. This can only be done by a Canadian company which has the interest of Canadians at heart and does not operate on the profit motive alone. The reason we think that wholesale sales are very important is that when the true energy crunch comes, which will in fact come some day-we do not know when because we do not have that sound information yet-the foreign owned multinationals will not sell to the little service stations at Uranium City, Beauval, Canoe Narrows, Meadow Lake or Burnaby. They will sell where they can get maximum profits, such as their own service stations in the larger centres or, even worse, to other countries which have no gas and oil left.
These oil companies will sell to these countries for the highest possible dollar which these countries will be willing to pay, because they have no remaining gas and oil, and they will distribute their petroleum products in an inequitable fashion. It is necessary for Petro-Canada to become involved in the wholesale sale of petroleum products, so that we can assure
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canadians of a supply of petroleum in the future as long as the supply lasts. With such control we could also assure Canadians in remote areas of the country or even in the metropolitan areas, that they will in fact have energy supplies to get to their jobs and to keep them under the 4 per cent unemployment rate that should be available to Canadians, not rates which run up to 30 per cent.
The final item I would like to mention with regard to Petro-Canada is involvment in the petroleum industry retail sector. The reason that Petro-Canada should be involved in this sector is because when Canadians pull up to the pumps on the way to the jobs which they should have they would have a choice to buy either Canadian and keep their money within Canada, or to buy from one of the large multinational corporations and have their money leave the country, which amounts to the exporting of jobs.
When the money is sent out of the country, instead of being kept here, it is the same as sending jobs outside Canada, jobs which we need here at home to keep us under the 4 per cent employment rate. I am sure that the employers and the employees would be happy to pay for it. The choice is very clear. Canadians should be able to buy from Petro-Canada, a Canadian owned Crown corporation established in the interests of the Canadian people, the Co-op Stations which are currently 100 per cent Canadian owned, or from a multinational, but in doing the latter they will only help to worsen the economy of this country. That should be the choice. That is the area on which I want to talk with regard to the energy supplies of this country. Unemployment in this country is a disgrace. People who have the ability to pay are not the ones who pay. The rich should pay, not the poor small business people who are the backbone of the Canadian economy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A Marxist-Leninist.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I was looking for some attention from the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, so it would give some stimulation and allow me to go on to make the full thrust of my speech meaningful.


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the bill.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The small business people are the backbone of this country. It is the working people or the wage earners who make them a viable operation. The NDP is the only sound spokesmen, spokespeople or spokespersons for the small business of this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A Marxist-Leninist.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The hon. member for the Conservative party is making remarks which I believe are unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. Will you not call to order the three members of that party who are sitting in the House and using slanderous language, and who do not know what they are talking about? They are much closer to the Communist party than the Marxist-Leninist are to the NDP. I have explained that in previous speeches I have made to this House. I am glad that the Conservative member brought the matter up. I would like

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
to say that it should be the rich who should pay for the unemployment which they create.
If hon. members would like the article that I have here-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, 1 would hope that the hon. member would attempt to be a little more relevant in his remarks. He has used a slogan which was used in the last election, that is, "Make the rich pay". That was a slogan of the Marxist-Leninist party. If he wishes to use it that is okay. However, I do not like to be called a Communist. We must draw the line there because I do not think the hon. member knows the difference between a Communist, a Marxist-Leninist, the CCF or the NDP. I think they are all the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On the latter part of the hon. member's point of order, I am sure we agree that it probably does not qualify as a point of order.
On the former part in which he expressed the hope that the hon. member be more relevant, I have already drawn that point to the attention of the hon. member. He does have a relatively short time left, and perhaps he might like to remind himself of the rule of relevance again.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was sure that I was not out of order.
I think that the people with the ability to pay should be the ones to pay. 1 have before me a copy of a list of directors of Canadian Pacific Limited. The chairman and the chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific Limited is Ian D. Sinclair who receives, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of that large corporation, in excess of $600,000 per year. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. People like that have the ability to pay. The poor small business people of this country who I mentioned are the backbone to the success of our economy, and the wage earners who work for them do not. Not only is that shameful, but Mr. Sinclair is also the chairman and chief executive officer of two other companies. He is the president of another company; he is the vice-president and director of three other large multinationals, and he is the director of 18 others. He receives remuneration for all of those positions. It is unbelievable that one person could earn so much. Most of it comes from political patronage, but that is irrelevant. Those are the people who should pay for the high cost of Canadians being unemployed.
I would like now to return to Bill C-3 and refer to the Speech from the Throne. The third item talks about Canadian ownership and control of the Canadian economy. We do not have much Canadian control or ownership of our economy because of the current policies of the Liberal government and the former policies of the Conservative government. There have been no attempts made to get control of the Canadian economy. There has been no attempt to do that, just as there has been no attempt to gain control of the spending that has gone wild under this Liberal government, together with the spending deficits which have increased for many years now.
This government will choose to talk about something called the Foreign Investment Review Act. How is this going to help Canadians gain control of the economy? Those Canadians such as members of the New Democratic Party who have a sincere interest in keeping Canadian people employed and not varying their benefits when they become unemployed in such high numbers across Canada want to know how this bill will help. These people do not know what their qualifications are from month to month to qualify for a program that an individual pays into and subsidizes totally, which is what this government advocates.
Small business has trouble dealing with this government. Many small businesses go bankrupt, just as many farmers have been driven off their land. We think that that is disgraceful. The government would rather place its priorities on a spending deficit in excess of $16 billion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have only three points to make in regard to Bill C-3. I wish to make these because I was unable to be in the House during the past debate. At that time I was conducting a housing tour in the maritime provinces where, as hon. members know, unemployment is at an all-time high.
My colleagues have said in other speeches that we reject this bill out of hand. It does nothing to help the whole problem of unemployed or the plight of the unemployed in Canada. It shifts the cost of unemployment insurance from government to employers and to employees. Indeed, it shifts the cost of unemployment insurance on to the backs of working people instead of dealing with the problem from the point of view of government, which is largely responsible for the massive unemployment that we have in Canada today.
The three points that I wish to refer to have to do particularly with the way this bill and the general unemployment insurance program affect women and young people in Canada. First is the whole question of the rights of part-time workers to unemployment insurance. Second is the question of workers, particularly women, who often work as partners in family businesses with their spouse. Third, I would like to refer to the scandalous revelation by the former minister of employment who is now the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), which 1 read about in the Vancouver Ann for June 18.
First of all, I shall deal with coverage of unemployment insurance benefits for part-time workers. Apparently from the debate on this bill we have seen a change that would reduce the coverage of unemployment insurance benefits from a requirement of 20 hours of work to 15 hours of work. If I may use the term it is a rather pointless reduction because it does not get at the main issue. If this is an insurance scheme paid into by employers and employees as well as government, surely the benefits should be available regardless of the number of hours that a worker works? What difference does it make whether a worker works ten hours, 15 hours or 20 hours a month if the worker has paid into the scheme? Surely if the
July 2, 1980

workers are unable to find further work for the full amount of time-and unfortunately this is the case in so many instances today-they are entitled to the benefits to which they have contributed?
In addition, if we are looking at this from a humanitarian point of view, it would seem to me that persons who are unable to find full-time work and who can only work part time must have a much harder economic situation than those who have full-time work.
I would like to mention also that part-time workers in Canada today are more often than not women and young people, and are usually the last hired and the first fired. Many women who have not been in the work force and who perhaps have children at home are only able to get part-time work. They need employment in order to survive. I know of many women workers in my riding who are raising children on their own and have perhaps been on welfare for a number of years because they have had no other choice at a time when their children are young. Their first step back into the labour market is to find part-time work. They are lucky if they can find it. But if they do, surely they should have the right to unemployment insurance for that work? This is an extremely important point, and I hope hon. members who represent the other sex in this House will listen, because it is very difficult for many women who have not had much work history to gain confidence and skills, and find the opportunities to get back into the work force.
While on the question of part-time work, I want to stress that wages for part-time work should be union wages. There is no way that women and young people should be exploited, receiving less than union wages, simply because they are unable to find full-time work. In my riding, the following kinds of workers can only find work part of the year: construction workers, painters working outside, many of whom I know personally, sales persons, many of whom are women and young people, only able to get jobs on a part-time basis. Some young people are lucky enough, if you can call it lucky, to get a job at McDonald's, dishwashing or doing something like that for certain periods of time.
These people pay unemployment insurance. Why should they not be able to collect? There are also the farm workers, the many seasonal workers at this time of the year. Fisher people are hit very hard this year by the lack of hours and days for fishing and the drastic problem of the reduction in fishing stocks.
In times of high unemployment, and unfortunately it is increasing year after year rather than being reduced, part-time jobs take on a special significance. It is really the only thing that many people are able to get. Surely that is better than being on welfare, the payments that many people have no other choice but to receive. However, most people on social assistance, and I know many of them, would far rather be working. They would consider part-time jobs at a decent rate of pay if they were able to get unemployment insurance
Unemployment Insurance Act
benefits when those jobs were phased out. With regard to Bill C-3, I hope the minister will take another look at the whole question of coverage of part-time and seasonal workers and ensure that they have their just right to unemployment insurance benefits.
There is a second group I want to mention, and here again this often concerns women. I refer to spouses who work with their mates or partners, be they husbands or wives, who are not eligible for unemployment insurance. I wish to cite the example of five fisherwomen who had a very painful but interesting experience when challenging their right to be covered by unemployment insurance.
These five fisherwomen, with the support of their union in British Columbia, challenged in court in 1979 their right to be covered by unemployment insurance benefits. These are women who go out with their husbands in any kind of weather. They work very hard as equal partners on fish boats. They were denied the right to unemployment insurance, and challenged this in the courts.
It is interesting to note that these women won their case the first time round. They won their right to unemployment insurance in their own name as workers who worked very hard in the fish boat industry. What happened? The very organization that should have been trying to protect their rights and ensure that they received unemployment insurance benefits, moved to challenge this legal decision. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), interestingly enough, is also the minister responsible for the status of women. It was his department that challenged this legal question and brought it back into the courts, in effect saying that these women should not have the right to unemployment insurance.
We feel very strongly about fisherwomen and others who work together in businesses. We know that tax exemptions were brought in initially by the Conservatives, and more recently by the Liberals, to allow tax exemptions for those wives who work with their husbands. Why not have adequate coverage for unemployment insurance benefits for those spouses who work as equal partners in family businesses, including the fishing business? We should ensure that definitions under the act include such workers, so that they should not be excluded under the act for unemployment insurance benefits.
Finally, I wish to refer to the very scandalous revelation made in this House on June 18 and June 19, as reported in the Vancouver Sun. The revelation was made by a former Liberal manpower minister, the hon. member for Lincoln. According to those I have heard from in my constituency, this was a shocking and scandalous revelation. It is a reflection on the hon. member when he was minister. I wish to quote three or four paragraphs from the June 20 edition of the Vancouver Sun. The article is headed "Mackasey Reveals Old Jobless Plot In UIC". I quote:
Former Liberal manpower minister Bryce Mackasey revealed in the Commons Thursday that during the 1970s the government orchestrated a campaign to

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
highlight alleged abuses of the unemployment insurance program so it could justify a crackdown on UIC benefits.
Here we have the minister admitting that the government orchestrated a deliberate campaign to scapegoat unemployment people.
The campaign was launched after federal officials badly miscalculated unemployment levels, Mackasey said, and it made scapegoats out of thousands of people who were out of work through no fault of their own.
Imagine the former minister admitting this to the House of Commons.
Mackasey, who was responsible for the unemployment insurance program at the time, said his senior civil servants predicted an unemployment rate of 4 per cent when he brought significant changes to the system in the early 1970s.
But when unemployment began to climb well beyond that point, officials scrambled to find ways of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to shift more of the financial burden of the program to employers and employees.
Referring to his own officials, employees, civil servants of Canada, he said:
"They were not honest enough to admit they had miscalculated and had not anticipated a long period of five, six, seven or eight per cent unemployment in the country," he said.
"Instead, they set out to condition the people by telling them that the changes were needed because of abuse in the system."
These were our young people, sons and daughters of the people sitting in this House. These young people were trying to get work, they were probably only able to get occasional jobs, had to go on unemployment insurance, and became the scapegoat. A national tradition was set up which established for a whole generation of young people that they were shiftless, lazy, no good, and did not want to work. This is a federal department, headed by a minister who knew about this, actually creating this condition in Canada. It is absolutely shocking.
The former minister went on to say:
"It was difficult for me to accept the fact that in preparing the groundwork for their amendments they had to stigmatize hundreds of thousands of people by suggesting they would prefer to draw unemployment insurance rather than work."
That is absolutely shocking. Every Canadian would be ashamed that their government would do this. At least it is now being admitted by the former minister. It is proof that there were cut-offs, injustices, deliberate exploitation and scapegoating of unemployed workers, many of them women and young people, during the period 1972 to 1978 in particular. These people were cut off unemployment insurance benefits wholesale. They had a right to receive these benefits. They were cut off and told that they were lazy and no good, merely to cover up the civil servants' inaccurate prediction, and because of the budget restrictions that the commission was facing.
We have heard of unemployed people who could not find enough money to buy bread for their children, and of expolicemen, employed as benefit control officers, going into their homes and conducting interviews in a way similar to Gestapo tactics. I am ashamed, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that most members of this House would be ashamed, to think we ever went through that kind of an era. I stress once again that the people who were most victimized, who could not
find full time work, were women, married women, immigrant women, single women and, as well, many young people. These were the people who were told they had no rights as Canadians to employment and that they had no right to unemployment insurance. They were told they were a bunch of lazy no-good-ers. We are not going to allow this kind of crack-down to take place in the future. I say again that the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act by this government must make very sure that this kind of thing does not happen again.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we say that the bill is not adequate. It should provide for universality. The plan should cover all workers regardless of occupation, whether they are employed by someone else or self-employed, and regardless of income. Entitlement should depend solely on meeting the requirements of a person having worked-not even having worked the number of weeks as now stated. They should have worked enough to have justified the money they put into the scheme, being currently able to work. There should be no special requirements used to discriminate against certain groups. My colleagues have spoken before on this point, but I remind the House again that women who are pregnant have every right to unemployment insurance which they have paid for through their own contribution.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-3 which is before the House today for second reading, to discuss some of the principles which lie behind this bill and to explain some of the reasons why we in the New Democratic Party are strongly opposed to those principles.
The bill itself is a deceptively small and simple one. I believe it contains some two pages, and if we look at it quickly we might think, as the minister suggested, that we should just let it go through quickly. But we believe it is important that Canadians be aware of exactly what it is this government is attempting to do with unemployment insurance, and that they be made aware of the fact that this is but one in a series of steps in an attempt to justify the bankruptcy of Liberal economic policy.
If we look at the principle of this particular bill, and if we look back at the original legislation which was passed in 1971 which established the principles upon which our present unemployment insurance system is based, we see the following. We see that in 1971 the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) was the minister of employment and immigration. He identified certain principles which he believed were important and which, presumably, the Liberal party believed were important, in setting up a fair and equitable system of unemployment insurance. What was that system, Mr. Speaker, and how far have we come since that original system of unemployment insurance was implemented back in the Liberal heyday of 1971?
The original figure was established at 4 per cent. Beyond the level of 4 per cent unemployment the government accepted that it had certain responsibilities; that it was not the responsibility of workers and employers to pay the costs of an econom-
July 2, 1980

ic system which tolerated unemployment beyond the 4 per cent level, but that the government surely had some responsibility also. The government have the tools to control the economy at its disposal and, presumably, with unemployment beyond 4 per cent, had failed to bring in measures which would deal adequately with a very serious crisis.
I would like to quote from the speech made by the then minister of employment, now the hon. member for Lincoln, in dealing with the establishment of this 4 per cent ceiling. He said this, Mr. Speaker:
Since the figure of 4 per cent has attracted a good deal of attention 1 imagine somebody is going to suggest that the government has determined 4 per cent to be an acceptable rate of unemployment in Canada. Well, it is not my criterion. Like everybody else I believe the acceptable rate of unemployment is the least possible rate. This is what we should be working toward. This should be our goal as a country.
The hon. member for Lincoln went on to say this:
Our system is really on trial if we cannot operate on the basis of lower rates of unemployment than have been traditional, particularly in the light of the fact that the working force is growing at a tremendous rate.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, our system was on trial at the implementation of this unemployment insurance scheme in 1971, and we have seen beyond doubt that our economic system which was on trial then has failed miserably to meet the needs of Canadians, to meet the needs of women and men, of young and old in this country. The great economic system which was said to be on trial in 1971 has been a dismal failure. We have seen, for example, rates of unemployment increasing in every year since those glowing words of the hon. member for Lincoln.
That was not all the hon. member for Lincoln has had to say on the subject of unemployment. From the safety, perhaps, of the government's back benches and since he apparently no longer has any aspiration for a cabinet portfolio, the hon. member has "come clean"; we have seen him attempting to atone for his guilt over the disgraceful way in which working people in this country have been made victims of an attempt to tighten up the unemployment insurance. The hon. member for Lincoln has indicated that it was the working people of this country who had no jobs who were being blamed for their own situation. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, blaming the unemployed for their own plight. We have seen the hon. member for Lincoln admitting that while he was minister this was indeed the case.
In that moment of truth, that moment of guilt which occasionally hits even members on the opposite side of the House, the hon. member said this, on June 19, referring to the Liberal party and the official opposition:
Either by coincidence or design, prior to every one of these amendments we had a well-orchestrated campaign based on the alleged abuse of the plan thus preparing and conditioning people for the amendment and supposedly aimed at reducing the abuse or tightening the regulations when in fact the main purpose of most of the amendments was to shift the financial burden from the government because of unemployment in this country to the employer and the employee.
As an example of this kind of cynical attack on the unemployed in this country we need look no further than the remarks, for example, of the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen), who has referred in the past to the unemployed people
Unemployment Insurance Act
in this country perhaps needing a "kick in the gut"-a kick in the gut-as a means of awakening them to the realities of unemployment. Then there are references to "the many people who make unemployment a way of life". Well, Mr. Speaker, even if there undoubtedly are some individuals who abuse our system, for every person who abuses the system there are ten or 20 or 50 who genuinely and desperately are seeking employment, and to single out the very small number of people who are abusing our unemployment insurance system in an attempt to make those who are genuinely in need feel guilty, is a disgraceful attack upon people who cannot possibly fight back.
Those were the principles which were established in 1971. The government accepted that it had a responsibility for the running of the economy and that any unemployment beyond the 4 per cent level would be paid for by the public purse. There would then be some incentive, Mr. Speaker, for the government to lower rates of unemployment or attempt to deal with the rates of unemployment that were created. What we have seen since 1971, culminating in this bill today, is a progressive erosion of the principles of unemployment insurance the likes of which have not been seen in any other western industrialized country in the world. Of course, we hear the party to my right, the Conservative party, saying, "Carry on with this; continue to attack those people who can least afford to fight back; continue to attack women and young people who are trying to find jobs but have no jobs to find."
Both the Liberals and Conservatives speak about some concept known as moral hazard. We often hear comments from certain members on the benches to my right about the moral hazard element of unemployment. It is suggested that beyond a certain level of unemployment insurance benefits, somehow people will come flocking, that there are jobs which are going begging and that people are gladly and voluntarily taking their places in the indignity of the unemployment insurance lines. We reject that, and we say that the economy has failed the people of Canada to the tune of some one million people who desperately want to work and cannot find jobs.
What kind of cynical shell game has been played since 1971 with the people of Canada? The original level of "acceptable" unemployment was 4 per cent of the work force. In 1976, when unemployment rates were increasing dramatically as a direct result of the failure of Liberal economic policies, there was a redefinition of this "acceptable" level. Canadians were told that working men and women would have to pay even more, from their own pockets, of the costs of the bankruptcy of Liberal economic policies, to the extent that now something in excess of 7 per cent unemployment is paid for by the people of Canada.
It is very easy to say, in the case of big business, that they can pass their costs on. Indeed, big businesses do pass their costs on. When premiums are increased, big businesses have no difficulty, in their quasi monopolistic position, in passing these on, so that once again it is the worker or the consumer who must bear the brunt of Liberal economic policies.

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
In the case of smaller businesses it is much more difficult. In many cases they are simply not able to increase their prices, and what this means is that smaller businesses are going bankrupt to a much greater degree than they have been for many years.
In 1978 the Liberal party continued this policy of shifting the costs of the burden of unemployment to the unemployed and to working people by making workers pay the second phase, the labour extended benefits. What do we have today? What do we see before us in this apparently innocuous two-page bill? We see an admission on the part of this government that it has no responsibility. We see a declaration that this government refuses to accept responsibility for levels of unemployment at any level-not 4 per cent, not 6 per cent, and not 8 per cent.
What this government is telling working people, the poor, women and young people, is that they have to pay the costs of the government's bankrupt economic policies. As the hon. member for Lincoln said, this system was on trial in 1971. Well, as we have seen, the system has failed to meet the needs of Canadians, to the point that now the government is rolling over telling working people that it has no responsibility for unemployment.
The real reason for this bill was stated by the minister in a few words, namely, that in the spirit of restraint it is to save some $378 million. While this may save $378 million from the general revenues of Canada-perhaps to enable us to buy one or two more fighter aircraft-what is happening is that working Canadians are being forced through increases in their premiums to pick up the difference.


Neil Young: Hidden taxes.


Svend Johannes Robinson: it is a hidden form of taxation, as the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) rightly points out.
The extent of unemployment is very great indeed, even in the official figures. The most recent figures are from May of this year, and they show that in Canada there were an estimated 904,000 Canadians out of work. That is the official figure.
Some 431,000 Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24, and some 145,000 Canadians over 45 years of age, want to work but cannot find jobs. Of these 904,000 workers there were some 399,000 women, including 186,000 under the age of 24 years. The unemployment rate for the whole of Canada was some 7.8 per cent by official figures, 13.9 per cent for those between 15 and 24. The rate for those between 20 and 24- and in many cases these are students who are entering the labour force for the first time and cannot find work-was 12.9 per cent and, as we know, these students are entering the labour force for the first time and in many cases are not eligible for unemployment insurance. They are caught in that vicious trap. They have been to school. They have gone out to the work force to try to find work. They have been unable to do so, and they have had to suffer the degradation of being forced to go down and get into the welfare lines.
What kind of treatment is it to say to young people, after their having gone through a number of years of training, which in many cases has involved considerable sacrifice on the part of parents or relatives in putting these students through school, "Sorry about that, boys and girls, but this economic system has no place for you"? We tell them that the appropriate place for them is on the welfare rolls, and for how long one can only speculate.
One million plus Canadians are out of work, but 1 believe it is important that we not forget that there is a very strong personal dimension in these figures. I know that all members of Parliament have seen many cases in their own constituency offices. Every time I go back to my riding of Burnaby, 1 find that people telephone my constituency office. We hear from women, young people, and heads of households. We hear from the man who has just been told that he is being laid off after 20 years of work.
We must also be aware of the personal sacrifice and the personal toll taken as a result of unemployment. We have heard the eloquent words of Gerry Yetman of the province of Nova Scotia, for example. He is the leader of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, and at a recent federation convention he read out the suicide note left by a man in his fifties who had been laid off from his job and who had searched desperately for some alternate employment. He had eight children, and one day those children came home and found a note left on the kitchen table by their father, who said he felt he was a burden, he felt humiliated and that he could no longer go on because he could not find a job.
How many other tragedies are there? How many other personal tolls are there as a result of the failure of Liberal economic policy over the years to deal with this tragedy of unemployment, which surely must rank number one in this country? Inflation is a serious problem, of course, but if we are to identify above all one symptom of the economic crisis which members of the Liberal party, followed by members of the Conservative party, have foisted upon the people of Canada, that problem must surely be the fact that over a million Canadians who want to work cannot find jobs.
We see the crippling effects of unemployment on the morale of the individual, the effects of sending out letters day after day to various employers, of attempting to answer ads in the newspaper and of the letters which come back, those anonymous letters sometimes addressed politely "To whom it may concern". Occasionally there will be a letter addressed to whomever has applied for a job, informing him that, "Thank you very much, but your services are not required". These letters come in day in and day out. What effect does this have on the morale of a man or woman who has been working for many years and who has a family to support but whose unemployment insurance has run out? What effect does this have on the morale of the family of that individual as well? Too many of these people have given up all hope of finding work, and the blame for that rests squarely on a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments, both federally and provincially.
July 2, 1980

What about the young people in this country? What about university students, students at technical institutes and vocational institutes who were promised when they finished high school, "Well, John or Jane, what you have to do is go to university and get a degree, and if you get a degree there will be a job for you"? There is a very fine university in my constituency. Simon Fraser University has some 9,000 students. The B.C. Institute of Technology is in my constituency, as is the Pacific Vocational Institute, so I have had much personal experience with some of the problems that young people who have graduated from university are encountering.
I want to say that recently I attended the convocation ceremonies at Simon Fraser University and I had the opportunity then to speak with many of the students graduating from that fine university. Too many of those students, when I asked them what their plans were for the future, shrugged their shoulders and, in many cases, with an air of despair, said they simply did not know. In many cases not only students but, as I indicated earlier, their parents have sacrificed a great deal to put their children through university or through another educational institution, and they find that there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, there is nothing to the great myth of a job at the end of the road. After those sacrifices are made and the education is completed, we tell them there is nothing for them. We tell these people who have skills to offer and who desperately want to work that we have no place for them in this society.
I tell these graduates of the Simon Fraser University, of the B.C. Institute of Technology, and of the Pacific Vocational Institute, to ask Liberal cabinet ministers and Liberal members of Parliament what their policies have done for those young people, how their policies have assisted those young people in finding jobs. Let them ask what kind of disgraceful policy it is to uncover, as we have now learned through the hon. member for Lincoln that, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Sarnia and others, people who have somehow taken advantage of the unemployment insurance program need, perhaps, a kick in the gut.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member does not honestly wish to mislead the House, but let me say to him that that statement was never made by me about youth or about anybody in Canada. I indicated in an interview that Canadians had not had a kick in the gut the way the Americans had, who had to line up for gasoline. At no time did I make that reference to the youth or to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I recall vividly the incident to which the hon. member referred. Indeed he did refer to the fact that Canadians have not had a kick in the gut, the inference being that perhaps that was what we needed. I say to Liberal members opposite that that is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn by the unemployed. When the former minister of employment and immigration said that
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canadians have not had a kick in the gut like the Americans have had, what kind of inference can be drawn in this context by the people about whom we are talking, people who are out of work? Whether or not he intended that, I can tell the former minister that it was certainly the implication which was drawn by many people who were in the unfortunate situation of being out of work. If Liberal members opposite, who are laughing in glee at this situation, can stand up and explain how Liberal economic policies have done anything whatsoever to alleviate unemployment in the country, I would be delighted to hear them at the conclusion of my speech.
As I said, the election in the future will tell a different story. Canadians see very clearly that there is no difference between the economic policies of the Liberals and the Conservatives. I have a very interesting document here-


An hon. Member:: Next time Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: There is a suggestion made by an hon. member opposite. I invite the hon. member with an open mind to run in my constituency in the next election campaign.
I have an interesting document which I would like to draw to the attention of the House since we are talking about economic Liberal and Conservative policies, and once again I would welcome comments from Liberal members in particular at the conclusion of my speech on any differences there might be between the two. This is a document which has been circulating recently among caucus members of the Liberal party which is intended to be a policy statement at the Liberal party convention which is to be held in Winnipeg. Of course we know that the Liberal party has always been somewhat short on policy, and we see that the authors of this Liberal document have expressed some concern about the fact that at this point the Liberal party has no policy. For example, at page three of the document-I say this in the context of this important bill on unemployment, Bill C-3-it is stated:
As Liberals, we have a feeling for who we are and what we stand for, but we have often been hard put to describe it.
Surprise, surprise! It goes on to state:
A statement of the Liberal philosophy in one document, together with the application of the philosophy to the central issues facing Canadians today and the years ahead, would be of great value.
We have here an admission that there is no Liberal policy in this country so far. Instead, we have what I, as well as others, called on occasions a finger-in-the-wind policy. In other words, a good Liberal sticks one finger up in the air and feels for the prevailing winds, and from whence those winds come so also come the policies of the Liberal party. So when the winds shift slightly in direction, we see the Liberals shifting in their policies. That would be fine if, as one hon. member is feebly yelling from the back, it were the will of the people. The problem is we have seen far too often that the winds which we are talking about are the winds of the establishment, the winds of the corporate elite, the winds of those people who financed the party opposite, because we have seen all too often that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and those who pay the Liberal piper are none other than that corporate establishment

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
which blows the winds which are then transmitted into Liberal policy, or lack thereof. The winds of change are coming, as my good friend, the hon. member for Beaches, has said.
Further in this great Liberal policy document to be discussed on the weekend, and in the context of Bill C-3, we find the following statement at page 33:
We frequently live up to our reformist tradition by putting forward progressive proposals only to give way, perhaps too often, as a government, to other pressures.
This is a very interesting admission on the part of the drafters of this document, an admission of failure on the part of the Liberal party, an admission that the Liberal party has given way to pressures from unstated pressure groups, very likely the corporate establishment, those people who traditionally have loud voices in the corridors of the Liberal government.
The document goes on to read:
Yet we as a party must share in the responsibility of what is accomplished and what is left undone.
I should like to state again the concern which is expressed in this document which is very likely to become the policy of the Liberal party, namely, that the Liberal party itself is giving way to pressure groups and yielding on important social programs.
The document goes on to talk about the fact that there are too many Canadians who experience unemployment, poor wages, job insecurity, unnecessarily tedious or dangerous work. In some cases this document has analysed the problems correctly. It has pointed out correctly that the Liberal party for too long has listened to the voices of the privileged, comfortable few, and one can only hope that instead of listening to this latter day attempt at conversion, Canadians will reject it for what it is and will seek to join the party which has traditionally been speaking on behalf of the concerns of the ordinary people.
As 1 indicated, we have a crisis in this country in terms of unemployment, a crisis with which this bill has not dealt, a crisis which this bill will make more severe. The problem of unemployment must be dealt with on two fronts. First, we have to deal with the effects of unemployment, and we must recognize the reality that there are some one million people who must survive, who must have a source of income and who have no work. To suggest that somehow those people are responsible for their own plight, as has been suggested in the past by members on my right and members on the opposite side of the House, is blaming the victims of the government's economic policies.
We say that all those persons in this country who want to work and cannot find work are entitled to a decent and humane standard of living for themselves and their families.
Furthermore, we say that there is work to be done in this country, both in the short-term and in the longer term. In the short term it is absolutely scandalous that there is a severe problem in the provision of housing. In my own constituency of Burnaby, for example, there are far too many people who want
to find housing and cannot find it. In many cases these are single parents. We have a desperate need for housing in communities all across the country.
We have building trade workers who want to work. We have carpenters, painters, electricians and many other tradesmen who would like to put their skills to good use and who have been trained to build housing. Yet we have a government that cannot put the two together. Although there is a crisis in housing and a surplus of people who want to build housing in this country, we have a Liberal government that has failed to put the need together with those resources. Surely it is a rather searing indictment of the failure of the government to deal with one of the most fundamental rights of all Canadians, that is, the right to decent housing.
There are many other jobs which could be done in the country that are not being done in areas such as the provision of rapid transit facilities. For example, in the lower mainland of British Columbia they are in desperate need of decent rapid transit to move people from community to community. Hundreds of people could be put to work there building rapid transit facilities, not only there but elsewhere in the country. There are many energy conservation projects which could be undertaken that would put Canadians, young and old, men and women, to work.
We should be listening to the voices of hundreds of municipalities across the land. They have called upon the federal government to listen to their concerns. They have said that there are certain programs which they believe should be implemented and for which surely the federal government should have some responsibility by assisting them perhaps on a cost-sharing basis. Let us listen for a change to the concerns of the people of the country through their municipal representatives. There is work to be done in the municipalities, and there are people who would like to do that work.
There are environmental problems in the country. There is much clean-up to be done. Again this is an area in which many people could be employed in the short term.
But it is clear that in the long term only a fundamental change in the economic system of this country will result in the kind of economy in which we as New Democrats believe, an economy in which all those Canadians who wish to work will be able to work. We believe only in an economy which is not based upon the pursuit of greed and the pursuit of corporate profit. Rather, it should be an economy based upon serving human needs, not deciding upon what the maximum profit can be or what the maximum return can be on a given investment, with all the destructive effects that kind of economy has in terms of the degradation of our environment and its pollution, and in terms of the health and safety of working people. Of course in maximizing profit we minimize the money spent on the health and safety of workers and on improving hazardous and substandard products. We spend billions on wasteful advertising promoting consumer greed. Instead of that we seek an economy which identifies our resources as a nation.
July 2, 1980

We have great wealth; we have unparalled resources. We have energy resources of which most countries are envious and would be proud to have. We have minerals; we have great oceans. Yet we have a Liberal government which does not put these resources to the service of Canadians. We have a government which has tolerated hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty at the same time as these resources are being ripped off to serve our foreign masters.
As I say, we seek an industrial strategy. Many have talked in terms of an industrial strategy, but we seek one in which the wealth of the country will serve all the people of the country. We seek an end to the domination and exploitation of Canadians by outsiders. We seek an end to the system in which we are tenants in our own land, sending dividends year after year to our foreign masters and increasing our current account deficit.
In seeking this longer term strategy in which all Canadians will have jobs, it is important to recognize that it is not good enough simply to substitute Canadian seekers after greed and Canadians who search for corporate profit for foreign searchers of profit. It is important to have an economic system based on co-operatives and the creative role of public ownership in which serving the needs of Canadians is dominant.
In conclusion I say that fundamentally we reject the principles in Bill C-3 as being an abrogation of the responsibility of the government toward all Canadians in creating a decent society and a society in which all Canadians have work. We will continue to speak out at every opportunity on behalf of those Canadians, many of whom are voiceless, young and old, men and women, who are concerned about the erosion of the principles of unemployment insurance in the country and believe it is time for a real change. In the very near future I am confident they will reject once and for all the bankrupt Liberal economic policies in favour of a strong, decent, and compassionate New Democratic Party government.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address some remarks to the principles involved in Bill C-3. But more important I want to rise to reject out of hand the remarks made by members of the New Democratic Party to my left, that they and only they have a monopoly on the concerns of the unemployed in this country. There are many of us-and particularly members from my area of the Atlantic provinces-who are well aware of the problems of the one million unemployed in Canada, particularly those unemployed in the Atlantic area. We deal with those problems on a day to day basis. I think of the speeches made in the House over the years by members such as the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and other members from the Atlantic area. They brought to the attention of the House time and time again their concerns for the unemployed people of that area and of Canada.
I was concerned that those who listened to the speeches earlier made in the House would get the impression that we, particularly the members from Atlantic Canada, are not concerned with the plight of the unemployed. I underline for all
Unemployment Insurance Act
members of the House and all interested persons that it is one of our greatest concerns.
We stand for legislation which will assist unemployed persons to gain the necessities of life. That is what we believe is the important feature of an unemployment insurance system. It is not to encourage idleness and refusal to work at whatever jobs are available. We recognize and realize that there are defects in the unemployment insurance plan which ought to be remedied for the benefit of honest workers who utilize the plan for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, to provide for the needs of life during those periods when a person is unemployed. I want to say categorically that I for one am most interested in the problems of the Canadian unemployed. I reject any suggestion on the part of any hon. member in the House that all of us do not stand together in that concern.
I want to direct my attention to the provisions of the bill, but more particularly to the remarks made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) when he introduced it. One point he made clear at that time was that the provisions of this bill were only an interim measure and that he had in mind a general review and reassessment of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Indeed, when he made his remarks on the occasion of the introduction of this bill on June 18, 1980, he said that he recognized the question of unemployment insurance was one that occupied a great deal of time in this House over the years. He said that he thought it was important we consider the relevancy and importance of unemployment insurance as it applies to the changing employment conditions in this country.
I for one welcome a general review of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. We hope such a review would bring about a balance of the legitimate needs of those people who find themselves from time to time unemployed and in need of assistance through a government-sponsored program. At the same time we hope any revision to the Unemployment Insurance Act will ensure that those who do not wish to work and participate in the economy of the nation through the effort of hard work will not benefit under this plan, and that sloth and idleness will not be encouraged. That is the point on which I take issue with my friends.
We do not want in this country an unemployment insurance program which will encourage people not to work. We want incentives to people to work, and we want to ensure that every person in this country recognizes the value and the benefits of hard work. At the same time, and I repeat this without shame, we have to protect those persons who are unable to find employment, particularly in those provinces and regions of this country where employment is not as easily found as it may be in the province of British Columbia, and other areas where, for the moment, they are enjoying the wealth of the nation.


An hon. Member:: You better learn about British Columbia.


Howard Edward Crosby: I would respond to the hon. member who suggests that I learn about British Columbia by saying I have

July 2, 1980
Unemployment Insurance Act
just listened to a member from British Columbia, and if that is the way to learn then I do not think I am any further advanced having listened to his speech than 1 was at the beginning.
Let me say this in respect of the nearly one million people across this nation who are unemployed; we want to help those in that group who cannot find employment after an honest effort, but we do not want a program which encourages those in that group who simply refuse to work and who are unwilling to take the kind of work available. We do not want to encourage them by providing benefits which are unnecessary and not in the interest of the nation as a whole, including the unemployed.
Let me say one or two additional things on the specifics of this bill and the act it proposes to amend. Over the last few years we have had several amendments to the unemployment insurance program, leading to great confusion on the part of those affected by it. I have particularly in mind the limitation of the 20-hour week proposal being the basis for eligibility, along with the secondary test of a flexible ten to 14-week requirement for benefits. This has caused a great deal of difficulty and confusion to the unemployed, and 1 know in my own constituency office the question of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits is a day to day concern. Literally hundereds of constituents inquire as to eligibility, and there is confusion not only on the part of recipients but in the minds of some who administer the unemployment insurance law.
We have to be very careful when we make these changes because of the widespread effect they have on those in communities who find themselves from time to time unemployed. I for one felt that the 20-hour per week work requirement was onerous and difficult in my area of Atlantic Canada, where people find themselves unemployed seasonally and periodically-
One of the groups which has been adversely affected by this requirement is that group of marine workers including longshoremen and stevedores working in the port of Halifax and elsewhere along the eastern seaboard and, indeed, in other parts of Canada. As part of the normal work routine of these people they are required to stand by waiting for employment. Indeed, if they did not stand by waiting for the opportunity to be employed the whole marine transportation system would break down. Indeed, if they sought employment which would allow for steady work over a time period and did not make themselves available for periodic employment on the waterfront, on the piers and wharves in the coastal parts of Canada, the marine transportation system would grind to a halt. These people are performing an essential and necessary service in the interests of all Canadians, yet this is a kind of employment where 20 hours work during a week is a substantial amount. Many of them are unable to supplement their earnings from employment as marine workers with unemployment insurance payments because of this eligibility requirement.
1 should point out that in years prior to this requirement it was the practice of many marine workers to engage in their own kind of work during periods of unemployment, particularly during the winter shipping season on the east coast, periods
when work was not available at all or available for very limited periods of time, and they could supplement their earnings with unemployment insurance benefits. When the 20-hour week requirement was introduced it had a very adverse effect on this particular group. Even though their earnings on a yearly basis were relatively high, they found themselves without income for periods of time when employment was not available.
The minister in addressing his remarks to this bill indicated he is now proposing that an individual who earns either one fifth of the maximum weekly insurable earnings or works 15 hours a week, will be eligible for coverage, and that kind of coverage will commence January 1, 1981. This measure, which I welcome, goes a long way toward remedying this problem in respect of marine workers.
I might mention that such a change is not without very considerable cost. It affects apparently 300,000 workers across Canada and will represent an additional cost approaching $100 million. As you can see, we pay very dearly for an extension of benefits of that kind. It is nonetheless one which I think is needed, and I hope the minister will carry through with his promise, ensuring that this benefit is available by reducing the requirement to 15 hours a week or one-fifth of insurable earnings. This will benefit not only marine workers but other groups who require assistance. I have in mind particularly substitute school teachers who are again required to stand by waiting for employment and who, for many weeks during the period they are employed, do not attain the required 20 hours, yet their earnings are substantial enough, even with a much lesser period of work, to qualify them for benefits. These are changes we welcome, along with the actual changes contained in Bill C-3 in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Let me add very generally that we are concerned with the plight of the unemployed across this country. We welcome any changes which will benefit those people who need them, but at the same time we do not want the unemployment insurance plan subjected to the abuses of the past. The only solution is that indicated by the previous Progressive Conservative government which embarked upon a study of the Unemployment Insurance Act with a view to correcting those abuses occurring in the past, while at the same time providing reasonable benefits which the country can afford. We welcome any continuation of that period and technique of reform which will bring about an unemployment insurance program beneficial to those who require assistance, without encouraging those who do not need assistance but who remain unemployed simply to collect benefits. I close on that note by saying we welcome changes which assist the unemployed, but we recognize there is a need for changes in the legislation to correct abuses. Thank you.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!
July 2, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the motion by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-13, respecting the relocation of government agencies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that has been of major concern to the people of Canada is the history of the performance of the Liberal government as it has proceeded to enact legislation affecting relocation of government agencies in Canada. This concern rose out of a suspicion that the relocation of government offices in Canada has been used as a means of pork-barrelling, should the opportunity arise; that is, it would serve a political advantage for the government of the time to suggest a relocation of a government agency or a regional office to a Liberal riding. The record speaks for itself on a number of occasions.
I could mention to the House the recent fiasco in the riding of Durham-Northumberland with regard to the relocation of Eldorado Nuclear. Eldorado, a Crown corporation with its head office in the area of Port Hope and with directors appointed by a Liberal government, suggested that it would be advisable to put a refinery in Hope township. I remind hon. members that this occurred during a Liberal government. No action was taken, but commitments were inferred during the election campaign.
Immediately following the election campaign, the Conservative government came into power and a decision was made to act. Eldorado acted, and they located, with intent, on property in Hope township. Another election came along and the Liberals were returned to office, and the decision was made to move Eldorado out of a Conservative riding to a Liberal riding in the north.
That is not the only case. There are a number of cases in history. We do not need to go back very far, just to 1977 at which time there were 13 proposed relocations of government offices, all but one to Liberal ridings. We can come closer to
Decentralization
today's date and discuss what was recommended first in 1973 by a Liberal government, that the regional office of Parks Canada located at that time in Cornwall, which was serving the province of Quebec, would move to a Liberal seat in Quebec. At the same time it was proposed by a Liberal government that the Ontario regional office would be moved out of Cornwall into a then Liberal riding, Peterborough.
Only one thing went wrong with those plans. The Liberal regained his seat in Quebec and the regional office was moved from Cornwall to Quebec City, a more central location for serving the needs of Quebec. This was a commendable move which was thoroughly studied. The proposal to move the Ontario regional office of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough was also thoroughly studied. The move was first studied by hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) who was then a Liberal minister of the Crown. It was recommended by the minister that the regional office should be more centrally located in order to serve Ontario best. The two locations under consideration were Guelph and Peterborough, both ridings were held by Liberals.
The only thing that went wrong with the move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to central Ontario, where it could best do the job for the most people in Ontario, was that the Liberals were unsuccessful in holding on to the seat held by a then cabinet minister in Peterborough in the 1979 election. It became politically astute to call the move off when they regained power in the current government. That is just one more case of the proposed centralized legislation which we are reviewing today, as it affects Hull and other regional offices.
Such questions should be carefully studied and reviewed with a great deal of concern as to whether these moves, in terms of history of performance, have been moves to satisfy the desires of Liberal members of government or whether the moves have been made to best serve the people of Canada. To be more specific, during the election campaign of 1980 it was claimed by the then member of Parliament for Cornwall, a Liberal, that the regional office would go to Peterborough, to use the member's exact words, "Over my dead body".
I would remind the people of Canada that to keep that same cabinet minister alive, it will cost them some $2 million or $3 million to call off the move of Parks Canada to Peterborough and to move the regional office back to Cornwall, after the premises had been rented in Peterborough. The premises are a large facility of two storeys and many thousands of square feet. It is located on the main intersection of Charlotte Street and George Street in Peterborough, and it is now vacant. The facility was leased at a cost of $160,000 a year for a period of five years. The merchants located in that building were evicted to make room for Parks Canada. The keys were turned over to the government.
However, the new Liberal government decided to bring everything back to Cornwall where it still enjoys a Liberal seat. The reason given to the employees of Parks Canada for keeping the office in Cornwall was because it would be in the best interest of the morale of the employees. I can tell hon. members how enthusiastic the employees of Parks Canada in

July 2, 1980
Decentralization
Cornwall are at the move being called off. Since the move was called off a few short weeks ago, there has been a mass grievance by the employees in Cornwall to the Civil Service Alliance complaining about the cancellation of the long awaited move to where it could serve Canada best, Peterborough.
A petition has been presented to this House containing 51 signatures, including all the management staff of Parks Canada who could sign the petition, except for three who would lose their jobs if they were to sign it. The petition stated that it would be best for Ontario and the citizens of Canada with regard to heritage research work in Ontario if the regional office were located in Peterborough. The problem is that there is not a Liberal member in the riding of Peterborough. The petition which was duly signed asked this House to reconsider the cancellation of that move.
There have been over 20 litigations brought against this government by employees objecting to the cancellation of that move. Thirty-five management staff of Parks Canada in Cornwall, who have been expecting the move since 1975, when it was announced that the move would be made to either Guelph or Peterborough, as recently as two weeks ago served notice of requests for transfers. These are not lateral transfers within the department, but transfers right out of the Ministry of the Environment. Some employees have terminated their employment because of this bad management decision made by the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) who cancelled the move.
The principal reason for cancelling the move is that it would be best for the morale of the employees. Having substantiated that it was adversely affecting the morale, as a result of these three instances over the last month, I would like to remind the citizens of Canada of what it is costing them to call off this move of Parks Canada from Cornwall to Peterborough. The cost is well documented in Hansard and in committee meetings. It would cost $900,000 to move all the employees to Peterborough and $91,000 to move the office equipment to that city where Parks Canada could serve Ontario best due to the central location on the Trent-Severn Waterways, which is part of the Parks Canada portfolio.
What is it costing to move those employees and that office facility back to Cornwall? It is costing the taxpayers of Canada $1,250,000 in payments to employees as they buy back their good will. 1 can hear people say "$1,250,000 to the employees, how will that be paid and what for?" Those employees are going to be reimbursed by having their homes in Peterborough purchased by the government. That contract was signed today in Peterborough with A.E. LePage. The Government of Canada is going to buy back all the private homes of all the employees of Parks Canada. This government is then going to go back to Cornwall and buy the same homes formerly owned by those employees. Three cases have already been settled. One particular person in Cornwall, a citizen not to be named, was paid $14,000 cash over and above the price he paid for that home in Cornwall in order that we, the government, the taxpayers of Canada could get that home back, and put the home in Peterborough on sale at a reported
commission of 6 per cent for handling to get that employee back.
I have taken the liberty of compounding the figures involved. I have taken the number of employees involved and the number of homes purchased in Peterborough, and to purchase like residences in Cornwall again we are looking at something like $1.5 million. Very quickly we are now up to almost $3 million. That is the kind of decentralization policy which this present government is enacting.
Eldorado Nuclear was cancelled in Hope township and moved to a Liberal riding in the north from a Conservative riding in the south. Next is Parks Canada in Peterborough. Parks Canada was put in place by two former Liberal cabinet ministers who lost their seats in the 1979 election. Subsequently, Parks Canada was moved back to Cornwall, now a cabinet minister's seat, because he said that if the Liberals formed the government in 1980 he would reverse that move to Peterborough and it would be over his dead body that it stayed on track. I want the citizens of Canada to know how much it is costing them to keep that cabinet minister's body warm and alive in Cornwall.
Forgetting all of the political pork-barrelling, forgetting about moving up to the trough as every dollar is sucked from the Canadian taxpayers in order to satisfy government members' own political motivations in their own ridings, let us take a look at what it has done to Ontario. Peterborough is an area 1 represent. A regional office of Parks Canada has been taken away from the Trent-Severn waterway. This government has moved it to Cornwall in the southeast corner of Ontario. It is well documented that it is costing Canadian taxpayers $260,000 a year more to operate there than it could be operated in Peterborough. That is documented by the deputy minister of the environment in this present government, and by the Minister of the Environment through cross-examination by myself in committee hearings, and by questions asked in this House. Taxpayers are going on and on paying and forgetting about inflation. They are paying $260,000 more a year to operate Parks Canada in Cornwall where it cannot operate effectively, efficiently, and with the best interests of Ontario in mind.
Second, by operating in Cornwall the government is forgetting one point. In its decentralization policy the government says that it will move offices around where they can best serve their purpose. I ask why did the government leave the Quebec regional office in Quebec? Why did the government not move that office from Quebec City to Cornwall where it was when the government announced that it would break up the regional office and put it in the centre of provinces, namely, central Ontario and central Quebec? 1 will tell you why the government did not move it back from Quebec to Cornwall-because there was a Liberal member of parliament representing the constituents in Quebec.
What is this present government proposing to do with its relocation policy? It will do nothing different from what it has done in the past. If there is a Liberal member serving the

July 2, 1980
constituents in a particular riding, that is where offices will be proposed, regardless of what is best for Canada, what is best for the office, or what is best for the citizens in that area. If this government does not soon start realizing that it has to take into consideration what is best for Canada and not what is best for government members personally, then we will have bad government. We have bad government today because of pork-barrelling and the decentralization of offices all over the Dominion.
1 cannot support this bill because this bill is incurring more expense in the area of political patronage. I hope that the people of Canada are well aware of those three points, namely the history of these relocation moves, the costs involved in picking up the tab and the ulterior motive that motivates this government into making every decision. I say that is crass politics. Until we realize that and until we respect what is best for Canada as a government, then we lose credibility in Parliament as we carry out our duties.
This government that we have today is fully responsible for the millions of dollars wasted in the cancellation of Eldorado in Hope township and in the cancellation of Parks Canada in Peterborough just so it could serve its own needs and desires as it endeavours to serve one purpose, and that is to get re-elected individually regardless of the cost to the Canadian taxpayers.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this bill that is before us today has as its basic purpose the legislation of something which was done without authority in the mid-1970s. What was done without authority was not the building of the buildings in Hull, Quebec, which someone described as Fort Fullerton, it was the movement of certain government offices out of the capital of Canada which, under the British North America Act, is Ottawa, into another part of the national capital region, that is to say the city of Hull. That is the purpose of the bill.
If members want to look at it, they will see that it deals with headquarters of the Economic Council of Canada, the land titles department, provisions with respect to the National Transportation Act, the Public Archives Act, the headquarters of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, matters with respect to the Pension Act, and so on.
This bill first saw the light of day in the Thirtieth Parliament. Despite the fact that we are now in the Thirty-second Parliament, that is not too long ago. When the government of which 1 had the honour to be a member came to office we had to take a look at this bill because the same illegal situation which had existed at the outset, existed for our government. We had to include this bill in our work program. It was included in the work program for the Thirty-first Parliament. But as everyone knows, that Parliament did not last long enough for this bill to be dealt with. Now we see it again in the Thirty-second Parliament. We are again trying to legalize something which occurred a long time ago.
This is a very symbolic bill, aside from its ramifications in law. It is very symbolic because it pinpoints something which occurred in the national capital area. It pinpoints the headlong
Decentralization
dash, without consultation with local government or even provincial government, to move departments of government from where they were and had been for some period of time within the city of Ottawa over to the city of Hull.
So that members of Parliament will have no doubt about my feelings with respect to the matter, let me say quite frankly that I do not begrudge the good fortune of the city of Hull with regard to this development. However, 1 say to the House that the government handled it in a very ham-handed, unconsultative way. As a result of how it was handled, a great deal of misunderstanding developed in the national capital area. An opportunity for consultation which should have taken place with the provincial authorities, regional government and others, did not take place until after those moves were made.
Even when there was some discussion after the fact with local government officials as to the pace of the movement of public servants to Hull into those tremendous buildings across the river, tremendous in size, and some agreement had been reached between the federal government and the local governments, that agreement was broken as well. If anyone has any doubt about that, let him speak to Dennis Coolican, then chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. He indicated the government was years ahead in terms of the movement. I do not have to tell hon. members how important that was, or about the disruption it meant to this area.
It is symbolic because it pinpoints what has been wrong for some period of time in relationships between the federal government and local governments in this area. The national capital area and the municipalities surrounding it are many things. One thing they are is a group of municipalities which gather their authority under the Ontario municipal act and related statutes. They have mandates to plan. There is land use planning to take into account, as well as demographic changes that occur, and population changes. They have the jurisdictional responsibility as to how the local municipality will develop. That is the law of the province of Ontario. I dare say it is the law of the province of Quebec as well.
The clash in this area has been that the federal government with its immense land holdings, immense financial capability, and through a combination of those things, has been able to do its own thing without consultation. This relocation occurred and we are now legalizing it. We are cleaning up the act, much as the little man who runs behind the circus parade with bucket and shovel to clean up the act after the parade has passed. This is an indication of just how wrong the government's approach has been to this whole matter.
1 do not want to leave the impression that as between the staff level of the National Capital Commission and the staff level of the federal government there is no discussion that takes place, that each works in a vacuum. Within the limits of the mandate that is imposed on the respective governments, at staff level there has always been a certain amount of give and take and understanding. Somehow that has not reached the

July 2, 1980
Decentralization
political level. Perhaps one of the reasons for that, and I am glad to see some ministers in the House-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two.


Mr. Lapointe:: And two NDP.


Walter David Baker: -is that there has not been for some period of time a representation from the local government, nominees of the regional government of Ottawa-Carle-ton on one hand and the Outaouais government on the other, as members of the National Capital Commission. There could then be some meeting of minds and understanding on what is happening at the policy level, where these snowballs are made before they are thrown. It did not happen in this case. The snowball was made and it was thrown long before there was any real consultation as to what occurred. I hope the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) will take the debate on this bill as rather important in dealing with the relationships that must occur between the two levels of government.
I am not the only one who has been quarrelling about this and worrying about the way this government has proceeded. There are members in this House of Commons, and 1 respect their view, who feel that the decentralization program which was embarked upon by the Liberal government was a good thing. I want to make the record clear again. As a principle, decentralization is a solid principle. However, what happened here was that decentralization was taking place at the same time that a massive relocation was going on within the national capital area in terms of Hull.
It was the lack of consultation on the one hand and the fact that these things were running side by side which caused a tremendous number of problems. I am not the only one who has concerned himself with that. I have here a report to the voters of Ottawa West by the present Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). It is his "Report to Voters" No. 8, January 1977. You will recall from your geographical location in the electoral map, Mr. Speaker, this was a matter of some concern, even in your own area. This is what he said, and 1 quote from his report:
The Government of Canada, as an employer, has the right to decide where work in the Public Service is to be performed. If the government decides that the Fisheries Department is to be moved to the Atlantic or Pacific coast, then 1 think few people could object. If the government decides that a number of services such as the Mint have to be moved, as part of a philosophy of making government closer to the people in this vast land of ours, then I think most of us accept it. If the government decides that this policy is an essential instrument of national unity and making the federal presence fell through all the ten provinces and in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, then I think the overwhelming number of voters in Ottawa West would accept it without question.
I think that if it were proven, they would accept it without question. The problem is that the propaganda has never been proven. That is beside the point. He goes on to say:
The problem arises, however, when the decision to decentralize is combined with a major relocation of government departments to Hull at the same time. The issue here relates to the timing of moves and measures taken to co-ordinate them in such a way that the impact on the residents of Ottawa will be the least serious possible.
What happened with respect to timing and co-ordination? There literally was not any. As a result, there was and still is a serious impact on the Ottawa side of the Ottawa River, this part of the national capital. If hon. members want visual confirmation of that, I invite them to join with the Minister of Public Works, who is in the chamber, and drive up Kent Street some morning on their way to the House of Commons. Look at the signs that are two or three storeys high about office space to lease. Talk to dentists, restaurateurs and others who occupy space in public buildings in anticipation that the relocation would not take place or, if it did, that some common sense would have been applied to it. That is a visual impact of it all.
Walk down Sparks Street, as I did today, and take a look at the number of vacant stores in what is regarded as the most prestigious shopping area in the national capital. Yet those stores, all of them providing service, some of them having been there for years, have decided to move elsewhere. There may be other reasons which combine, but I say to the Minister of Public Works-he cannot be blamed for it personally because he was not the minister of public works when these things occurred-that lack of planning and lack of foresight certainly had something to do with the vacancy of those stores, and prompts a real concern about the future of Sparks Street and the future of Bank Street.
I do not represent Sparks Street and I do not represent Bank Street, but in a commercial area, especially in that kind of small business commercial area, every pebble which is dropped into the pond of business welfare causes ripples which spread out and affect everyone else. I think bad planning has had a good deal of adverse effect in the national capital area and I intend to speak about some other aspects while the minister is in the House.
If members want further proof, let them talk to professional people-I am not thinking about members of the legal profession which draws people from all over; I am thinking of the dentists, the doctors and others who have tried to establish practices. All those people I have referred to, the restaurateurs and others, are small business people and they are the victims not of a move to Hull but of an ill-planned relocation to Hull, a relocation which took place at speeds which were unprecedented, unexpected and unheralded by anything which was said by the government which sits across the way.
That is what is happening to this area, and that is why I speak on this bill. When we became a government we took a look at the decentralization plan, particularly with respect to relocation. We considered it from the point of view of the ability to provide service, to provide a modicum of administrative efficiency to the operations of the government and service to the public generally. Generally speaking, we decided that some of these plans should go forward and that 19-I think that was the number-should be stopped. We were advised as a government that in no way could those we decided to stop- and some which we decided to allow to proceed because they were well advanced-could there be anything other than
July 2, 1980

political expendiency-the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has used the phrase "pork-barrelling"-but in terms of service to the public of Canada, which must be a consideration, particularly in a time of restraint, that that kind of service could not be given in the relocated areas. And that is a criterion which naturally has to be applied not only with respect to the areas to which the government organizations are moving but also having to do with the over-all effectiveness of delivery of service to the public. This was the dilemma we faced, and we measured our decisions against those criteria.
With regard to decentralization projects which had been physically advanced to the point at which the commitment had been made to the extent that we could not back away with honesty as a government, we did not back away from them but we were placed in a dilemma as a government: we suspected there was some reason for which these should not go forward but we could not pinpoint the reason until we came to office. When we did, we had the benefit of the advice of the public service and, as a result, we made the decisions which had to be made.
I said to the Minister of Public Works that I would be dealing with another matter. I think there is a potential for real conflict in the national capital area with respect to its planning. One has to take a look at the official plan of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton which is the duly authorized planning authority for this area, and at the proposals for the development of the national capital. One sees that those plans meet head on. In the plan for the National Capital Commission there is concentration upon development in the core of Ottawa-Hull, the Ottawa River being a bridge between the two-1 use the word "bridge" rather than the word "barrier". That is the concentration of the federal plan, whereas the municipal plan-and under the act the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has pre-eminence in planning officially for the area-under the municipal plan there is a provision for the placing of government buildings, federal installations, within the national capital area in the area municipalities.
As the minister knows, 1 live in Nepean, and in that municipality there is provision as it affects that municipality. In the city of Kanata they would be delighted to augment what it has in terms of government installations. The official plan of the township of Goulburn-perhaps I should say the plan of the region as it affects Goulburn-provision is made and space set aside for the development of federal institutions. Take a look at the official plan as it affects the township of Osgoode. The same applies in the case of Rideau township.
I realize that buildings cannot be torn down and I understand that because of the investment involved public servants cannot be brought back, but I want the minister to take a look
Business of the House
at this proposal. If there is to be relocation from time to time out of Ottawa where heretofore head offices were to be, into the national capital area as Bill C-13 contemplates, the Government of Canada should regard the national capital area not just with respect to Hull, however worthy its desire for expansion is, but regard the whole of the national capital area as worthy of consideration because it is important that there be a balanced development within the national capital region. 1 also think it is important with respect to public servants that there be consultation as to moves and that there should be consultation with local governments. Failing this, a conflict of development priorities is likely to arise which could do nothing but harm to the relationship between the federal government and local government.
May I call it six o'clock?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I might be a little off base here, but I understood that perhaps there was some disposition to seeing this bill passed. I am not sure whether my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), had finished his remarks or whether there were other speakers. I understood that there were just two speakers from the official opposition, and if we could have the indulgence of the House for a couple of minutes the minister might want to reply before this bill goes to committee, if that is the agreement of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would mind getting to his feet again and telling us the order for tomorrow.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped to have Bill C-13 disposed of today, but we plan to bring that tomorrow afternoon right after question period to finish it off, and then we will proceed with Bill C-22. Should we dispose of Bill C-22, then we will bring back Bill S-6.


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

Thursday, July 3, 1980