1980-07-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of a British Columbia logger by the name of Dan Fowler.
The judgment challenges the jurisdiction and renders the operative use of the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) useless. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That the House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to set out forthwith to examine his jurisdiction in areas where legitimate interests of his department are in conflict with competing interests, as was the case with respect to matters leading to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Fowler case, and to include in such examination discussions with provincial officials and leaders of industry as requested by the Council of Forest Industries in British Columbia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to follow up my motion of June 26 under Standing Order 43. Canada is importing approximately $4 billion of oil and SI billion of coal annually, causing a severe adverse balance of payments problem.
As the pre-build section of the Alaska highway gas pipeline will provide 150,000 man-years of employment and will permit the export of Canadian surplus natural gas, resulting in a
favourable balance of payments of approximately $2 billion per year, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the federal government immediately approve all Canadian aspects of the pre-build Alaska highway natural gas pipeline while concurrently continuing negotiations with the United States of America for acceptable guarantees in regard to construction of the northern and Alaska sections of the natural gas line.
Approval is needed now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas another British Columbian has died because of the federal government's failure to provide adequate search and rescue facilities on the west coast, and whereas this death occurred a short distance from CFB Comox and resulted, in all probability, from the fact that all four helicopters were down for maintenance, and whereas the rescue co-ordination centre failed to provide helicopter service and a competent medical team, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Prime Minister of Canada apologize to the family and to the people of British Columbia for failure to provide service and, further, that he make a statement in this House explaining how much longer the people of western Canada must put up with this inexcusable service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (MIO)


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am confident that hon. members on both sides of the House will provide the unanimous consent required.
In view of the fact that the United States has passed a bill to convert 80 power plants in the northeastern states from oil to coal, which will cause a disastrous increase in acid rain in both the United States and Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House urge the United States House of Representatives to modify the power plant conversion bill while there is still time, in order to restrict increased acid rain pollution from the conversions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that this government has not yet signed an Affirmative Action agreement with Foothills Pipe Lines Ltd., and in view of the fact that the president and chief executive officer of Foothills, Mr. R. L. Pierce, stated to the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines on June 19, 1980, that women possess 75 per cent of the brains of the population, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instructs the government to negotiate an Affirmative Action program with Foothills before pre-building is even considered, and ensure that this agreement includes a hiring quota of 75 per cent women.


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 3, 1980


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) yesterday indicated in a standing committee that all members of the House of Commons should be treated equally with respect to the administration of New Horizons grants, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That this House support the Minister of National Health and Welfare's commitment that all Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Party members of Parliament receive the same communications on and notification of New Horizons grants as Liberal members of Parliament do.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said "No"?


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There were "Noes" and that is why I did not put this motion to the House.


Mr. Clark:: Which minister said "No"?


CRITICISM OF CABINET REVERSAL OF CTC DECISION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to propose a motion of urgent and pressing importance.
In the light of last week's cabinet ruling which overturned a decision by the Canadian Transport Commission, a decision which had granted CP Air the right to provide one-stop transcontinental air service from Vancouver to Halifax via Toronto, and as this cabinet action contradicts commitment by a previous minister of transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, as reported in Hansard for November 8, 1978-


An hon. Member:: Otto who?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -that the Liberal government would not interfere with the authority of the CTC to make such decisions, based on careful consideration of all factors pertaining to the public interest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That the Liberal government be severely censured for its despicable treatment of CP Air, which is Canada's only privately-owned transcontinental airline, and
July 3, 1980

that the government be required to reimburse CP Air for up to $1 million of costs incurred by CP Air in preparing for the Toronto-Halifax service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the dramatic announcement in Fredericton several weeks ago by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Lapointe) that his government was going to implement the small business development bond which was the creation of the previous administration, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the House instruct the Minister of Finance to bring in immediately amendments to the Income Tax Act to establish the small business development bond.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada recently handed down its judgment that some 13,500 elderly people were incorrectly cut off unemployment insurance benefits in 1976, and said this was an obvious injustice which should be corrected by Parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to bring before the House such measures as would remedy this obvious injustice as quickly as possible, so that these senior citizens will finally receive the benefits to which they are justly entitled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the very laudable announcement made today by the Minister of Agriculture, in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, of $60 million in assistance to prairie grain farmers affected by the drought, in addition to the $7 million for farm-well aid plan assistance already announced, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand):
That this House urge the government of Manitoba to confirm that its $43 million in assistance to Manitoba farmers will be in addition to the federal programs.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised that his party, if elected to government, would make the tax system in Canada more equitable and would protect poor and middle-income Canadians-and I quote him-"by helping first those who need that assistance".
The Prime Minister and his government are now considering ending indexation of the personal income tax system. That program, if they follow through, would hurt most those Canadians whom the Prime Minister has promised to help. 1 wonder if the Prime Minister will take the opportunity today to give me, the House of Commons and the people of Canada a direct assurance that the Government of Canada will not stop or tinker with the indexation of the personal income tax system in the country.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: This matter has not been considered by the government as a whole, or by myself. I do know that the Minister of Finance and his

Oral Questions
officials are engaged in a long-term preparation of budgetary measures. They are considering all forms of budgetary matters, and they are doing what the Leader of the Opposition's minister did when he considered abolishing the indexing system.
What will be done with that consideration is something that the minister himself has not decided and certainly the government has not examined.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has just confirmed that the government is now actively considering ending the indexing system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: May I remind the Prime Minister of the statement made by his then minister of finance, the Hon. John Turner, at the time of introducing the indexing system: Mr. Turner said:
-this new system will be recognized everywhere as a bold and sensitive response to a fundamental tax problem.
Having regard to the excessively high rates of inflation in the country, will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons what circumstances have changed to lead his government and his Minister of Finance to consider, as the Prime Minister has just admitted they are, abandoning this, in the words of Mr. Turner, "bold and sensitive response to a fundamental tax problem"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Leader of the Opposition is quoting authorities, he might ask himself why in the face of that eminent authority his own minister of finance examined the possibility of abolishing indexing.
I repeat, it is the duty of every minister of finance to look at the whole range of instruments that are at his disposal to arrive at a fair and equitable budgetary decision-and that is what he is doing, exactly as the Tory minister of finance did.


Charles Joseph Clark: We would be very pleased if this government could do exactly what we did regarding indexing, because we considered it and we rejected the proposal absolutely. Since the Prime Minister is not prepared at this stage to follow our lead and reject a proposal-
July 3, 1980


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Prime Minister wants a serious consideration of indexing, will he refer the question of indexation to a standing committee of this House of Commons, so that members on this side of the House who believe that indexing should not be stopped and that the poor should be protected will have an opportunity to stop the Minister of Finance from ending indexing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lalonde:: The poor do not pay taxes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 will gladly undertake to follow the lead of the hon. Leader of the Opposition at least part way if he could inform us when his minister stopped considering deindexation. We do not know that. We know that he considered it, we know that in the final result he did not adopt it; but how many weeks or months before budget night did he stop considering de-indexation? If we have that information, perhaps we can follow the lead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister of finance in my government stopped consideration of the ending of indexation moments, months, days after he began that consideration.


An hon. Member:: Moments, months, days?


Charles Joseph Clark: We now have an undertaking by the Prime Minister that they will follow that lead.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister of Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to put his question.


Mr. Andre:: What? You should ask them to stop.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my problem is that I am receiving questions and considerable heckling from the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That is right.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Listen to the howls over there; they sound dreadful.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the Prime Minister is not prepared to follow our lead and reject a proposal which would impose a very heavy burden upon the poor in Canada and upon low and middle-income Canadians, will he follow our lead in another respect? He knows that a year ago, when there was concern about the question of interest rates, the government of the day referred that question to a standing committee so that all aspects could be considered.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister, knowing that our government rejected that proposal quickly, now instruct his Minister of Finance to reject immediately any consideration of the ending of indexing which would place an unpardonable
July 3, 1980

Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS
heavy tax upon the poor and upon lower and middle-income Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not given the information I asked for. How many months before budget night did his minister stop considering this fiscal instrument? How many months before?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Put it to a committee.


INDEXATION-RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINISTER FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development. It relates to his new responsibilities for social development and, indeed, the well-being of all Canadians.
The minister might want to explain to the House, particularly in light of the comments of the Prime Minister, how deindexing of income tax deductions will assist his responsibilities with respect to low and moderate-income people in this country.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not have anything to add to what the Prime Minister said.


An hon. Member:: I bet you don't.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Minister of Finance is studying all aspects of fiscal policies before preparing a budget. We will know when he has a budget. At that time, with whatever moves he makes, I am sure it will be a good Liberal budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my concern is with respect to the responsibilities of the minister. He is not responsible for the budget. In fact, it seems to me that his responsibility ought to deal with those persons who will be adversely affected by deindexing.
I should like to ask the minister whether he or anyone in his government has already made representations to the Minister of Finance with respect to how the measure to de-index will affect single parents on mother's allowance and, indeed, assist the Minister of National Health and Welfare to bring senior citizens up to the poverty line, which is her desire?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this House has already voted an increase of $35 to the benefit of people who are retired and on fixed incomes. We have acted to show our consideration for citizens of Canada in that way. When there is a real budget, I am sure it will be much more acceptable to Canadians than the budget presented last December.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SPEAKER OF AUSTRALIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of Sir Billy Snedden, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, in the House, the minister told us the government had obtained assurances that some $500 million would be spent on the northern pipeline project. I should like to ask whether the minister will confirm today that, far from being the financial guarantees which are required by an act of this Parliament, this sum merely constitutes some 2 per cent of the $22 billion required for the whole project, and thus does not meet those guarantee requirements at all.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I certainly never stated that this constituted the full guarantee to which the hon. member was referring. I can understand his referring to the $500 million as a picayune amount.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not.


Marc Lalonde: It is still a large amount committed to this very important project by private sponsors-$500 million. It is clear, when the hon. member refers to the full financial commitment by all the private sponsors as not being provided by this particular undertaking, that it is an undertaking, as I indicated yesterday in my answer. If my hon. friend refers to Hansard, he will see it clearly directed toward engineering and design, and it is not representative of the full cost of completion of the line. Some people have estimated the total cost as being as high as $20 billion.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point; it is only 2 per cent of the amount which would be required by the act passed by this Parliament. As the minister knows, the cabinet has before it a proposal which, if anything, is more serious in its implications then the paltry, in a comparative sense, sum amounting to 2 per cent being put up as a guarantee for this pipeline, and that is the submission made by the National Energy Board that the act of Parliament be changed.
I would like to ask the minister whether he will assure the House that the proposal made by the National Energy Board, that the financial guarantee requirements to the people of Canada be taken out of the act, will be categorically rejected

July 3, 1980
Oral Questions
by the cabinet so that the people of Canada will be protected in respect of this important measure.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can give the clear assurance to the hon. member that the government will respect the law and, secondly, that any step we take will be taken in the interests of the people of Canada, in order to protect the people of Canada as the hon. member has suggested.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, let us be perfectly clear about what the minister has now said. The minister has said that the government is prepared to change the Northern Pipeline Act by removing the guarantee put in at the request of Parliament.
If the government removes that guarantee, what we will have is a pipeline entirely different from the one approved by Parliament: we will have a pipeline designed to ship Canadian gas to United States markets, instead of a pipeline as approved by Canada to ship U.S. gas to U.S. markets. Is that what the minister is saying?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


SUBSTITUTION OF CANADIAN GAS FOR IMPORTED OIL-ENERGY SUBSTITUTION PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the speech entitled "Canadian Energy Efficiency" which he gave in Montreal on May 15, the minister said that it was-to use his words-a "strategic imperative" that Canada get off oil.
The minister set a goal of a 10 per cent decrease in our use of oil. He mentioned that 375,000 barrels per day would be cut out, and that this would be done through an energy substitution program which would largely substitute Canadian gas for imported oil. Did the minister's department calculate how much gas was needed to achieve that goal?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the misreading of my speech by the hon. member. If he reads the text carefully, he will see it says that our commitment is much larger than the one to which he referred. Our commitment is, not to reduce the consumption of oil by 10 per cent but to reduce the consumption of oil used for residential, commercial and industrial purposes to 10 per cent of the energy needs for those specific purposes. Indeed, the commitment was very substantial. We are convinced that it can be, and will be achieved, during this decade.
With regard to the amount of gas that is required, my department has examined the implications of such a commitment. My officials have assured me that Canada has sufficient
reserves to meet such a commitment and objective, which is very much in the interest of the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I note the commitment to change to Canadian gas from oil. Before the minister announced his May program in that speech, to substitute gas for oil and thus increase the demand for Canadian gas, the National Energy Board last December, I believe, calculated Canada's gas reserves and then allocated our entire surplus for export to the United States in order to finance the pre-building of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline. It is an either/or situation; the minister cannot have it both ways.
Will the minister approve the National Energy Board's gas exports to finance the pre-build, or will the minister keep the policy which he just outlined in the house and keep the gas in Canada to implement the policy which will allow Canadians to substitute gas for oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to make two comments in answer to the hon. member. First, if the hon. member would again refer to my speech, he would see that it does not refer exclusively to substitution of gas for oil: it refers to other forms of energy, particularly electricity. It is not the mere substitution of oil by gas. We hope that a large portion of the substitution will be gas, but the program is not based exclusively on gas. I made this quite clear in the speech, which refers to other possible sources of energy such as coal.
With regard to the second part of the hon. member's question, I can assure him that this government will do nothing to approve exports that would jeopardize the security of Canadian supply. Security of Canadian supply will always come first as far as this government is concerned.


OFFSHORE RESOURCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Council of Maritime Premiers meeting recently at Dalvay, Prince Edward Island, agreed that royalties from offshore mineral resources should go to the provinces, is the Prime Minister giving any thought to rethinking his position on this matter? If so, when can we expect a statement from him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my thinking on this matter has been made public many times, including during the last federal election. I would inform the hon. member that the subject of offshore mineral resources is one of those to be examined by the constitutional ministers in their meeting beginning next Tuesday. The federal position will be stated there and made known to the representatives of the provinces, and no doubt discussions will ensue.
July 3, 1980


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, since the 75-25 royalty split proposed on offshore resources in 1977 is obviously unacceptable to Nova Scotia, I would like to know what steps the Prime Minister intends to take to resolve this problem before he meets for constitutional talks with the maritime premiers in September.
In the meantime, will he assure the House that my province will continue to receive subsidies on the crude oil which it must buy offshore in order to generate electricity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the governments of those three provinces agreed to sign the agreement, I believe back in 1977, which seems to have settled the matter. Now they are reopening those agreements and they want a new discussion.
The Minister of Justice will be at the meeting on Tuesday to hear their points of view, because that is what the meeting is about. Much before September this matter will be discussed between the provinces and the federal government. However, I repeat: it is up to the provinces to say in what way they want the constitution changed, if at all, because they agreed a few years ago on the arrangements to which I have referred.


NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO MARITIMES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last December 6, the Minister of Energy stated in the House of Commons that the Atlantic provinces need more natural gas, and a gas pipeline to take gas to the homes and industries there.
Given the representation at that time by the minister in favour of the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the maritime region, the representations of myself, of the Liberal party of the province of New Brunswick, and of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, and given the fact the province of New Brunswick has stated that it favours the extension of the pipeline should the obstacles identified by the National Energy Board be removed, what will the minister and the government do to encourage the applicant to overcome these obstacles and to fulfil his own pledge that the pipeline extension to Atlantic Canada is a priority of his government?
Also, can the minister obtain a timetable from the applicant as soon as possible and table it in this House so that the extension of the pipeline will be shown as being a priority.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already had occasion to indicate to this House that the construction of a gas pipeline to the maritime provinces is still the first choice of this government. As the hon. member indicated, some reservations have been expressed by the National Energy Board. I have also had
Oral Questions
discussions, on two occasions, about the matter with the promoters of the project.
The hon. member tells me the New Brunswick government has expressed an opinion other than that already on file, that is that it has considerable reservations about the project. I have received no information from that government to that effect and would be very happy to hear what the minister of energy, or any other spokesman for the government of that province, has to say about it.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the minister is fond of including New Brunswick as a partner in co-operation with the present government for restricting the pipeline to Quebec. In this same area of co-operation-which is contrary to representations made by most others, including the minister's colleague but which the minister seems to be so hung-up on-will he assure the province of New Brunswick and its people that he will not tamper or tinker with the contract between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine to purchase 400 megawatts of power annually from the oil-fired generating station in Saint John?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, far from opposing the construction of the pipeline, we have in fact indicated that it is our first option. I would remind the hon. member that the National Energy Board is an independent body, a quasi-judicial organization, and brought down a decision on the matter. If the hon. member gives himself the trouble of reading the ruling of the board, he will realize the board itself points out the reservations expressed by the New Brunswick government on the matter. We did not invent those reservations; they are on file, officially on the record and registered by the National Energy Board.
As for the matter of possible exports of electric power to the United States, there again, should the New Brunswick government reach an agreement with an American state, it will have to go before the board to plead its case; the board will make recommendations and draw conclusions to determine whether or not that energy can be exported to the States, after which a decision will be made.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When the minister approved the decision of FIRA to permit a Finnish company to import and distribute tires, did he take into account the fact that the government was already
2536

July 3, 1980
Oral Questions
increasing competition in the rubber industry with a $50 million DREE grant to the Michelin tire company, and did he take into account that with the slowdown in the automotive industry, with which he is very familiar, there would be substantial lay-offs in the tire industry?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, when looking at these questions it is customary to examine all aspects connected with them. I should point out to the hon. member that the decision of the government on this matter was made in March, before a final decision was taken on the Michelin application.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister, in light of his response. Is it part of the foreign investment policy of this government to let non-North American rubber companies establish in Canada at the expense of workers employed by North American-owned subsidiaries?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the law is to provide significant benefit to Canada for transactions covered by it, and this is the way the law is applied by this government.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary.
With regard to hog producers who made representations through organizations such as the APU and the Federation of Pork Producers to the effect that they had problems due to the difference between the cost price and the real selling price, I would like him to tell us what is the situation of those people and what are the alternatives offered to them by the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Stabilization Board?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Department of Agriculture is now considering the data, that is, the number of hog producers throughout Canada, and as soon as those studies are completed, we will advise the House of its decision.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relates
to the question put by my colleague. Was the minister aware that Firestone Tire and Rubber, of Hamilton, had committed $12 million to expansion of their facility to manufacture earthmover tires and other large tires of the same type as will be imported into Canada from Finland as a result of the approval by FIRA of the request by Nokia of Finland?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am inhibited by the present terms of the Foreign Investment Review Act from going into the details sought by my hon. friend. It is customary for the agency to seek the views of other departments which have knowledge of these matters, and these procedures were followed.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has on his desk a study prepared by the rubber industry of Canada, recommending that he allow the industry to rationalize production in order that it may develop economies of scale and so reduce its costs and receive the benefits of those economies of scale. The minister has had that study on his desk for several months. When is he going to reply to the Canadian rubber industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Very soon, Madam Speaker.


ROYALTIES ON OIL FROM CROWN LANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION VIS-A-VIS ALBERTA
William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but it could just as easily be answered by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice.
The minister knows that the government of Alberta passed legislation in 1974 to take its royalty share of oil in kind. Therefore, approximately 40 per cent of all oil from Crown leases leaving the Alberta border is royalty, or Crown-owned oil. May I ask the minister if the province of Alberta can legally and unilaterally establish the Alberta border price of the royalty share of the flowing oil and be within the constitutional correctness of the nation; that is, without circumventing the federal powers over interprovincial trade and commerce?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in view of the hon. member's experience as a legislator, I am sure he knows that the rules of the House prohibit a minister giving a legal opinion on the floor of the House. There are paid lawyers who are trying to get clients to get this kind of information. But I think Beau-chesne ruled a long time ago that this is unfair competition.


William J. Yurko: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Has the minister, or has his colleague the Minister of Justice, done a major legal analysis of a province's constitutional right to establish the border price of the province's ownership share, or royalty share, or Crown share of a resource such as elec-
July 3, 1980

tricity, oil, natural gas, coal or other mineral resources? If he has done the study and analysis, would the minister table the complete analysis in this House at the earliest opportunity, and would the minister-I am not interested in the minister quoting the Cigol case because-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can only tell the hon. member that a number of legal opinions have been prepared by ministers of justice over the years concerning energy and constitutional matters. I think the hon. member also knows that all such legal opinions are privileged and, according to Beauchesne, they are not of a nature to be tabled in the House. He knows that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Last week, United States congressman Bruce Vento, referring to the F-18 was quoted as saying, "there is something drastically wrong with this plane . . . the whole business is a boondoggle and it ought to be killed."
This week we have learned that President Carter is giving active, serious consideration to cancelling the entire project because of skyrocketing costs and performance problems. What action is the minister's department now taking to ensure that the Canadian government is not left with bills for an aircraft that the United States government may no longer want?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure hon. members about the F-18. The government has a team looking into the matter and we already have a test pilot who works with the U.S. marines to see if the prototype is working correctly. I shall meet next week with Secretary of Defence Brown and I intend to ask him a few questions about it. As far as I am concerned, however, every criticism about the F-18 now is strictly allegation.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The minister has said on too many occasions that the problems plaguing the F-18 program are routine and it is not possible for Canada to pay any amount for the CF-18 over and above the contract price, yet an official in his department has said:
We have been relying on the U.S. navy for information about the progress of the F-18 and they have not informed us of any major problems. We have a fixed price incentive type of contract but there is obviously an escalator clause built into it.
In light of this and the pending decision from President Carter, is the minister prepared to turn over to the standing committee all pertinent information regarding costs, testing and performance for thorough review and investigation in
Oral Questions
order to assure the Canadian public that their government has not contracted to purchase an aircraft that may never see active duty?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I think I have already answered that question but if the hon. member wants further information in this connection, I will point out to him that there will be a meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence next Thursday and I will then be ready to answer all the relevant questions of the hon. member.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a survey which showed that two-thirds of businessmen want a review of major foreign-owned Firms in Canada. These multinationals tend to make most of their purchases in their own countries, at the same time avoiding Canadian customs duties through transfer pricing arrangements.
Can the minister assure the House that FIRA will be requested to encourage these companies to make their purchases in Canada in order to stimulate our own economy?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the support of the Canadian Federation of Small Business for the commitments of this government in the throne speech to amend the law on FIRA to, among other things, create a system of performance review for the larger multinational enterprises on such matters as the kind of activity mentioned by my hon. friend.
I can tell the House that the work on the necessary cabinet documents is quite far advanced. I hope with the support of members of this House we will have favourable approval of these proposals when the legislation is introduced, and I hope it will be possible to do so this fall.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it has been a few days since the minister tabled, released and has been questioned on a report on Indian conditions in our country-a report which demonstrates in

July 3, 1980
Oral Questions
very graphic terms the incredible and unconscionable inhuman conditions and degradation our Indian people are suffering throughout the country.
Is the minister in a position today to enlighten the House as to what new initiatives he, his department and government are undertaking to respond to this incredible and unbelievable report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am sorry-


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to direct his question to another minister.


John Carr Munro: I wonder if the hon. member would please repeat his question.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I do not want to be unkind to the minister. I hope he pays a little more attention to the report that my question makes reference to than he is to what is going on in the House.
My question is: since the minister has now had a few days since tabling the report entitled "Indian Conditions", can he tell the House today what he, his department and government are undertaking? What new initiatives are they undertaking to correct some of these incredible and unconscionable situations of human degradation under which our Indian people are living?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that last week I answered an almost identical question from the previous minister of Indian affairs on this side of the House. I said at that time that we planned to bring in legislation in the fall, hopefully, that would set out a formula for the Indians, at their own option, to opt for Indian government to take over many of the responsibilities now being performed by the bureaucracy, which has contributed to a very high degree of debilitating dependence by Indian communities on the government and which has contributed to the poverty situation. That has been the feeling as expressed in the Beaver report and other studies undertaken by the Indian communities themselves. That seems to get to the root cause, rather than dealing with symptoms.
With regard to some of the other disturbing implications in the report to which the hon. member referred, there are proposals before the government now for increased expenditures in housing, which admittedly is in a sorry state: much more housing is required. I hope there will shortly be a decision with respect to the availability or otherwise of the funds. Certainly, if we get on with these measures, particularly the legislation in the fall, with the support of all opposition parties, we will go a long way to improving a situation that admittedly is very disturbing.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is not very often that a minister stands in the House and lays all the blame for the failures of his government on the bureaucracy and the department which he administers. The buck must stop some place.
I would like to ask the minister, since he does listen to the so-called, self-styled champion of Indian affairs who was the minister and did not do anything either, would he respond to a request by that hon. member and a request by myself in the standing committee to issue a special reference and provide the Indian Affairs committee with some kind of special status to give that committee the power and jurisdiction to travel around the country, write a report and make recommendations? Having received such recommendations, would he then relieve the country of this national disgrace?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: It is very unfortunate, to the knowledge of every member of the House including opposition members, that the hon. member would choose in his comments, unless he did not listen to my answer at all, to intentionally misrepresent my answer.


Frank Oberle: You said the bureaucracy is at fault; that is what you said.


John Carr Munro: I did not say that.


Frank Oberle: You are at fault.


John Carr Munro: The blues will indicate, and Hansard tomorrow will clearly indicate what I did say, and I did not say that. What I did say was that if the Indian community took over functions that are now being performed by the bureaucracy-and, as the hon. member knows, this is an obligation on the bureaucracy under the Indian Act-and if we changed the Indian Act so that the bureaucracy would not have to perform these functions for the Indians, then the Indians would not be in a self-dependence state which is such a contributor to the problem. This point was made in the Beaver report. That certainly is not criticizing the bureaucracy, unless the hon. member totally lacks any comprehension of the problem.
With regard to the hon. member's reference to my predecessor in this portfolio, if he has any doubts all he need do is talk to any of the Indian leaders across this country: they will tell him some of the real accomplishments that minister made when he occupied this position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: If I may finish, Madam Speaker, in a more constructive vein-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
July 3, 1980


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will he tell the House whether there have been any discussions by him, or jointly with any of his colleagues, with any officials of the government of Argentina which would indicate that the Government of Canada is prepared to lessen its safeguards with regard to the sale of nuclear equipment of any kind in exchange for a write-off of further financial losses suffered by AECL on its 1974 nuclear reactor sale to Argentina?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge there was no discussion to lower the standards established by the Canadian government concerning the use of nuclear energy, be it with Argentina or any other country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My supplementary is to the same minister. Have there been any changes in the original arrangements with Argentina that would lead to a write-off of the losses suffered by AECL on the 1974 nuclear reactor sale and, as a condition of that, has the government in any way indicated that it would not be as insistent in pressing that Argentina sign the non-proliferation treaty?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, discussions were held with representatives of the government of Argentina when they came to Canada a few months ago. At that time, we were very happy to find out, on the one hand, that the government of Argentina was prepared to revise certain provisions contained in the previous contract in order to compensate Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for a number of additional expenses incurred. On the other hand, we happily found out that Argentina had reaffirmed its interest in acquiring new Candu nuclear reactors in the future. Finally, I am not aware of any discussions which would have resulted in lowering the standards established by the Canadian government in this area. I must point out in particular that we are very happy that this government has succeeded in reinstating the good relationship that had been severely damaged by the hon. lady when she was minister.
Oral Questions


G500)   PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO CORRECT UNFAIRNESS-RCMP PROVISIONS
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Paproski:: Edmonton North?


Mr. Knowles:: Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Two members fighting it out.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad I have you in my corner, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the President of Treasury Board? In view of public concern expressed recently about the unfairness of the Public Service Superannuation Act in that it pays only a 50 per cent pension to a widow of a public servant and, also, in that it pays no pension at all to a widow who married a public servant after he retired, no matter how long the marriage might have lasted, has the hon. gentleman given consideration to correcting these unfairnesses in the act?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we are currently reviewing all these superannuation provisions. In the course of this review we shall certainly address the issues which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he will consult with his colleague, the Solicitor General, who is in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and with the Minister of National Defence, who is in charge of superannuation for the forces, in the hope that improvements to be made could apply to all these plans?


Donald James Johnston: It is our practice to consult on these matters. In fact, I have already had discussions with my colleague the Solicitor General with regard to certain aspects of the RCMP pension provisions, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that there will be complete and thorough consultation with all interested cabinet colleagues.

July 3, 1980
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport as spokesman for the Wheat Board. Can the minister confirm that financial assistance announced today in the amount of $60 million to grain farmers affected by drought will be in addition to the $43 million committed by the government of Manitoba under provincial programs already announced?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: It is an
independent program. If the government of Manitoba wishes to add to it, they are quite free to do so.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Three weeks ago, a Montreal daily announced that manufacturers of the Soviet car Lada intended to assemble auto parts in Canada for 4,000 cars in 1980, and eventually for 6,000 or 7,000, I believe. Is the minister aware of the intentions of this company and if so has he been asked to co-operate in any way in the establishment of an assembly plant for this Soviet car?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my officials have contacted the Canadian Lada Corporation in order to ascertain its intentions. We obviously intend, on behalf of and in the interests of Canadian workers, to increase the production of cars and auto parts in this country.


Roch La Salle: In view of the very small role that Quebec plays in the auto industry, can the minister tell us whether he has had discussions with businessmen wishing to establish themselves in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is up to that company to consider all the good areas of the country, including Quebec. My department intends to facilitate the construction of such a plant in Canada, not only for Lada, but also for other foreign companies.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege by the hon. member for Peterborough. I assume, as might be inferred from his notice, that he is not questioning my ruling of yesterday. If he has a new question of privilege to raise, I will hear him.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is clearly not addressed to the matter on which you ruled yesterday. I should like to bring it to the attention of the House that three things are happening which are creating a difference between members of Parliament, whether they sit on the government side or on this side of the House.
Before making my main submission to you, Madam Speaker, I should like to summarize those three things. First, there appear to be very definitely two classes of members of Parliament-those in government, and others.
The second point I should like to make is that I was deliberately misled by officials of the Department of the Secretary of State and was personally supplied with false documents.
The third point I should like to make today is that it appears that the citizenship court which constitutionally should be independent of political pressure is being dragged into partisan favouritism.
It has been customary for many members of Parliament to send out congratulatory letters to persons granted certificates of Canadian citizenship on the basis of lists supplied to all hon. members regardless of where they sat in this chamber. These lists are first compiled by the clerks of the citizenship courts. In my riding of Peterborough the citizenship office is in the city of Peterborough. I might point out that the former Liberal cabinet minister who formerly represented Peterborough was the one who opened that citizenship office. Since then, that court has supplied lists of new Canadian citizens on a regular basis in order that I, as was the case with the former member of Parliament for Peterborough, might send out congratulatory letters to welcome these new Canadian citizens.
A short time ago I was advised by the citizenship office that these lists would no longer be made available according to their instructions received. On June 3, 1980, I received from the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) a reporting form, a copy of which I have here. There is clearly stamped on the face of this usual monthly reporting form "Nil Report for the Electoral District of Peterborough". I knew this was not true because a friend of mine, a member of the IODE, caters refreshments for new Canadians on these occasions and I was told that 53 persons had received citizenship certificates in that month. On June 26 I received a list of names only. Now, it must be obvious to all hon. members that names without addresses are of little use to a member of Parliament endeavouring to send out congratulatory letters.
July 3, 1980

I raised this problem in the House yesterday, July 2, since I felt my doing so would lend support to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) in his submission, on a question of privilege, that members of Parliament were not treated equally vis-a-vis members of the government party. Since I feel that the discharge of my responsibility to my constituents is severely hampered by my not receiving these lists, it is evident that the raising of a question of privilege is in order.
I should like to recapitulate in two sentences. First, notification that the lists would not be made available to me was received and, second, a nil report for my electoral district was received from the Secretary of State, though I received a list of 53 persons who had obtained citizenship certificates in May- and I obtained that list through another means.
Here comes the moment of truth, Madam Speaker. Arriving at my office early this morning in an unstamped envelope was the list of new Canadians, received 17 hours after I raised this concern in the House. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what benefit is served by sending out congratulatory letters to new citizens, as other members of Parliament in this House did in June, for those receiving their citizenship in May? What benefit is it to me, a Conservative member of Parliament in Peterborough, to congratulate my new Canadian citizens three or four months after their receipt of citizenship?
The list which I received was received from the clerk of the citizenship court, and I have it to turn in to Hansard. It is a list of citizens, minus addresses, and it is of no use to me as a member of Parliament in sending out congratulatory messages.
The law of privilege in this regard is stated in Erskine May, the nineteenth edition, on page 136, and 1 quote:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
More specifically, under the heading "Presenting Forged, Falsified or Fabricated Documents to either House or committees of either House", May goes on to say:
It is a breach of privilege to present or cause to be presented to either House or to committees of either House forged, falsified or fabricated documents with intent to deceive such House or committees or to subscribe the names of other persons or fictitious names to documents intended to be presented to either House or committees of either House, or to be privy to, or cognizant of, such forgery or fraud.
That appears in the nineteenth edition at page 141. At the same page May deals with conspiracy to deceive either House or committees or members of either House as follows:
It has already been seen that the giving of false evidence, prevarication or suppression of the truth by witnesses while under examination before either House or before committees of either House is punished as a contempt; and that persons who present false, forged or fabricated documents to either House or to committees of either House are guilty of a breach of privilege. Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Domm
A minister is expected either to assume responsibility for actions of his ministry or, alternatively, to advise the House of the appropriate disciplinary measure which has been taken.
On December 6, 1978, the former Speaker of the House, the Hon. James Jerome, as recorded at page 1856 of Hansard for that date, stated:
Does that lead us to the conclusion that, by virtue of an act or omission, the House, or a member, has directly or indirectly been impeded in the performance of its functions or his duty, or that there has been a tendency to produce such result? If I so find, then I really have no choice but to find, prima facie, that a contempt has been committed.
I can interpret that testimony in no other way than meaning that a deliberate attempt was made to obstruct the member in the performance of his duties and, consequently, to obstruct the House itself.
Speaker Jerome went on further to say, and I quote:
Even beyond the precedents and the complex law of privilege, I cannot conceive that there is any one of us who would accept the argument that this House of Commons has no recourse in the face of such an attempt to obstruct by offering admittedly misleading information.
I, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.
It must be obvious as a result of the concession in committee by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), as referred to today in a motion under Standing Order 43, that all members should be treated equally. All members should receive notices of New Horizons grants at the time one side does. Not to have that motion passed in this House unanimously by both sides indicates that there is obviously an intention on the part of hon. members opposite to mislead, misrepresent and keep the opposition ill informed and unable properly to perform the duties which they were elected to perform.
I would further like to point out that rather suspiciously this morning a letter addressed to all Liberal members of Parliament arrived at my office. In that letter it says that as a Liberal member of Parliament I could object to any of the New Horizons programs approved for my area. Attached to that letter-which I have here-are two programs approved, and I assume that if I had been a Liberal member of Parliament, I might have received it at the same time as Liberal members opposite.
In conclusion, I would like to ask for one basic consideration. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I would like to have the opportunity to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the following:
That this matter of discriminatory treatment of a member of Parliament by the Department of the Secretary of State, through the issuance of false documents by the department to the member for Peterborough and through the misuse of the citizenship courts for political purposes, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Thank you for your kind consideration, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise to comment briefly bn the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). I feel it can be said that this is a further shocking example of an arrogant government interfering with the privileges of a member of this

July 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm
House by rating members of Parliament who sit on the government side of the House as being in possession of more rights and privileges than hon. members who sit on the opposition side. It is a clear example of indulging in discrimination against hon. members on this side so that their duties are therefore interfered with and impeded when it comes to performing them.
In a ruling which you, Madam Speaker, made yesterday you declared, as recorded at page 2502 of Hansard:
A member's privilege is usually an action of some nature which prevents him from fulfilling his duties as a member.
I believe the meaning of your statement is very clear indeed and, if applied to the remarks made to us this afternoon and the case placed before us by the hon. member for Peterborough, I think it clearly reveals a case of his being prevented, to use Your Honour's words, "from fulfilling his duties as a member".
I think one of the customary and accepted duties of a member of Parliament, as mentioned by my colleague, is to welcome new Canadians who take out citizenship to his riding. That is a privilege we have all had. It is a privilege which has been extended to us by various governments over the years, and it has been withdrawn from one particular member of this House and, for that matter, perhaps others about whom we do not know.
In this case, for example, the hon. member has been told that there are no names or addresses because no one received citizenship. Then, if I understood the hon. member correctly, he managed to obtain a list of names. I naturally agree that they would be useless without addresses accompanying them. Then to recover from embarrassment over what happened in the House yesterday, some person, who must obviously have been dispatched by the office of the Secretary of State or someone acting on behalf of that office, sneakily, surreptitiously and in a somewhat slovenly way shoved under the door of the office of the hon. member for Peterborough the list of names and addresses which the government had previously declared to be non-existent. All of a sudden, after he mentioned this in the House yesterday, within a very few hours they appeared, shoved under his door.
This can scarcely be considered as anything else but a breach of the privileges of the hon. member for Peterborough and, indirectly, a breach of privilege of all members of the House who must be deeply concerned that such a thing has happened. It is another case of shockingly conclusive proof that the government, in a contemptuous fashion, is interfering with our privileges to carry out properly our duties.
I trust, Madam Speaker, that you will rule in a way to put an end to this disgusting charade that the government is carrying on. My colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough, has cited many of the background precedents to illustrate what is a clearcut breach of privilege. I hope that you will rule, as 1 said, to end the charade being committed by this government, which is definitely interfering with the rights of this particular
member and of others to perform their duties as such, and again I am paraphrasing the words which you yourself gave in the ruling of yesterday.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, it was my intention to rise on a separate question of privilege on a matter that concerns me, but I think perhaps my remarks are appropriate on the question raised now by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).
It seems to me that the question he raised, as well as the questions which have been raised in the immediate past, go to the heart, at least in my understanding, of what are the rights and privileges of members. Surely if these rights and privileges are extended to all members, they must be equal. I can put no other interpretation on the words "rights and privileges of members". That does not mean "some" members; presumably it means, or should mean, "all" members. That is why I was very happy yesterday when I heard your ruling, and indeed read it again in Hansard, in which you indicated that in future it will amount to an appropriate question of privilege when an action involves the stopping of a member from fulfilling his duties as a member. That is why, Madam Speaker, I recognize that I should not deal with the matter which was before the House in a motion under Standing Order 43, but it is in the spirit of your own ruling that I presented a motion that all members should be treated equally when it comes to the administration of New Horizons programs.
I have some difficulty with respect to where 1 stand as a member because it is now the House which has said in its majority that members are equal in the administration of that program; but Liberal members have said no to that. They said that members are not equal in the administration of that program and, presumably, that means of other programs.
I would like to know and I think all members need to know whether or not those in the minority in the House have less rights than members who are in the majority party. Clearly my rights as the member for Rosedale cannot be less than those of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), who seconded my motion, or indeed of the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Clearly that cannot be true. The hon. member for York Centre cannot have more rights than the hon. member for Rosedale or the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood; it is not possible. If that is true, then we have a difficulty. We now have the knot in the chain, if 1 recall the words of another hon. member. The difficulty we have is that, that action having been taken, I do not know what my rights are in relation to the general rights of all members. I think they should be equal.
That is why, rather than raise the question myself, I hope that the motion presented by the hon. member for Peterborough will go to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, because I do not know how else to explain to the people I represent that my rights and privileges as a member representing their interests are not equal to those of members in the Liberal party. That is unacceptable. I hope, therefore, that in moving the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections we will at least be dealing with the
July 3, 1980

principle of whether or not the privileges and rights of all members are equal; because as it stands at this point, they have been recognized by this House as not being equal.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak to the point raised by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) as well as to part of the alleged question of privilege regarding the program for senior citizens called New Horizons. As I told hon. members yesterday when the matter was raised for the first time, I had not recently seen the memo in question. Of course, I went to get a copy of it as soon as possible, and I should like to inform hon. members that memos giving a short description of each project go to every member of Parliament asking them, if they have any questions, to telephone my office. An identical memo which, instead of asking members whether they have any questions, asks them to give any comments they might have was always sent to Liberal members of Parliament-


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the minister but I think I have to interrupt her in view of your admonition at the outset of the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) that there could be no reference to your decision yesterday. Therefore, I rise to remind you that that also applies to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as it did to the hon. member for Peterborough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is absolutely right. I was so preoccupied in listening to the minister's argumentation that his point just slipped my attention. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton is absolutely right and I would ask the minister not to refer to my ruling of yesterday.


Monique Bégin: Needless to say, Madam Speaker, I am not referring to or questioning your decision of yesterday. I was speaking to what my predecessor in the portfolio has just raised and on which he was not ruled out of order by you, so far as I understand. I was also speaking to the question of privilege raised a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Peterborough, at the end of which he referred to a practice which he thinks exists in my department and in my office to which I must reply in the name of all Canadian seniors so as to do what the hon. member for Rosedale wants, namely, to restore integrity to that program. I am informing my colleagues-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday when I attempted to pursue this matter you ruled then, as you have ruled again today, that it could not be pursued. Yet despite the fact that five or ten minutes ago you ruled that it could not be pursued-and this has been drawn to your attention by our House leader-the minister keeps on pursuing it. I think she should be stopped immediately; otherwise, if she is allowed to continue to do so, I think everyone
Privilege-Mr. Domm
else should be allowed to follow her and comment on her remarks. Because I have things that are left unsaid which I would have liked to say but did not do so because I abided by your ruling. Why should the minister be allowed to pursue this matter, thereby giving a privilege to Liberal members over members on this side of the House?


Madam Speaker:: It is a matter of whether a member is debating my ruling. I do not feel the minister was debating it; she was making comments on or references to similar cases which were brought up today and to what happened yesterday in the House. I think it would be wiser if we heard at this point-if the Minister of National Health and Welfare would agree-the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), who will undoubtedly be able to address himself more directly to the point raised by the hon. member for Peterborough.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First I wish to say that although I was in the House yesterday, I was not in however when for the first time the hon. member raised this question of access to the lists of new citizens. The first time I heard anything about this matter was this afternoon when he raised it again in the House. The hon. member complains about the fact that he was not given a list of names of new citizens. With regard to this, Madam Speaker, I would like to reassure the House and inform all members that the policy of the Secretary of State is to give to all members, on one condition I shall explain later and regardless of their political affiliation, access to lists of names of new citizens who have just acquired their citizenship in the preceding months. Hon. members who have been in the house for some years know full well that their access to this list depends on a commitment they have made some years ago to the effect that they would use these lists of new citizens only to welcome them into the great Canadian family to which they belong hereafter.
Madam Speaker, at the beginning of this session the office of the Secretary of State sent the new members a new letter advising them that they could have access to the lists of new citizens on the condition, of course, that they use these names only to welcome new citizens in our country. Therefore, Madam Speaker, this is the policy and it applies to all members and all members who advised my department that they wished to receive the names have received them since that time.
The hon. member alleges in the House today that he has not received the name list, but I am not aware of these facts. I would like to ask questions and get to the bottom of this. The policy is clear and precise, it is well established and I think that if the hon. member had asked questions in the House and given me prior notice I could have given him an appropriate

July 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Domm
answer. Madam Speaker, I think we are simply and obviously dealing with a confusion on facts.
I am more than willing to look into the matter that the hon. member raises on the facts, because it is merely a question of facts, and not of principle. There is no deliberate attempt to prevent hon. members from either side of this House from doing what they wish to do for new citizens. On the contrary, we encourage this type of initiative by making the name lists available to them. The only condition attached to the publication of these lists, Madam Speaker, is that under part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, this constitutes a use of names that are in a federal data bank and these names cannot be used for any purpose other than welcoming these people in the great Canadian community.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if this matter was only a confusion of facts, then it could be disposed of quite easily by the Chair. But there is no confusion as to the facts; that is the difficulty.
The first clear and most important fact is the matter of the fabricated documents that were given to the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). The Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) did not answer this, and it goes right to the heart of the question of privilege. The hon. member of Peterborough said that for the month of May he, as a member of Parliament, was given a list by the department which indicated on its face that there were no new Canadians for that particular month. That is a fabrication; that is a falsehood.


Francis Fox: Maybe it was a mistake.


Walter David Baker: It may or may not be a
mistake.


Francis Fox: We will look into it.


An hon. Member:: You are making accusations.


Walter David Baker: My friend cannot answer it today. As long as it is unanswered, then the citation on page 141 of May's still must be answered by Madam Speaker, that is, whether or not a member of the House was served with forged, falsified or fabricated documents. The minister did not answer it because he cannot. If he had said in certainty today that that was the case-


Francis Fox: I have not seen the document.


Walter David Baker: So that question is still outstanding. Of course, the rather unusual behaviour of suddenly finding the list under his door, which goes right to the heart of the truth of the statement, indicates shabby behaviour. I do not think the issue of privilege narrowly framed is with respect to shabby behaviour, but there is an issue with respect to whether or not that document was fabricated. If it was, then its presentation to a member of the House of Commons on the face of it raises a prima facie question of privilege, which is all Your Honour would be deciding now by
agreeing to allow the hon. member to put his motion. If we are to discuss privilege in narrow terms, that is the issue of privilege.
There is another side to this that was discussed yesterday with which I cannot deal and involving the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I do not know where members of Parliament are to turn if some assurance cannot be given to the House, through the first commoner of the House, that members of Parliament will be treated equally. The Secretary of State said that in so far as his department is concerned with respect to those citizenships, that is the policy of the department. Having given that undertaking, he is to see to its execution. I think someone over there who can speak for the government ought to give assurances on behalf of the government so that Madam Speaker can look after the rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons, as we look to you as the first commoner to do your job and to look after those rights. I hope I am speaking with respect when 1 say that it would not be inappropriate, even given Your Honour's ruling yesterday, to suggest that what occurred yesterday was out of keeping with the appropriate practice in the House of Commons and at the very least is something which should be frowned upon.
I do not want to detract from the question of privilege which I believe is still before Your Honour, that is, the whole matter of the truth and genuine quality of the documents received by the hon. member for Peterborough. That question has not been answered by the Secretary of State. I think the Secretary of State said he will look into it and he may look into it. If he is to look into it, then this whole matter should be reserved to let him do so. I say with respect that there ought to be no ruling today, while that investigation is proceeding, which would in any way take away the rights of the hon. member for Peterborough to have his question of privilege considered. Indeed it is not just a question for the hon. member for Peterborough, although it is framed in those terms; it is a question for every one of us.
Those are the remarks I wanted to make. There is much more than just the narrow question of privilege at stake. I say with respect that if ever there was a case for reservation, today is one case, simply for the sake of the Secretary of State and notwithstanding the interests of other members of this House.


Francis Fox: You are all heart.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think you will allow me to speak on the question of privilege through which it has been suggested that members of Parliament are not all treated equally in their capacity to discharge their responsibility as members of Parliament. I think this is exactly the point that was made by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and I do not understand why, when I rise to speak on the point which has been raised, the opposition is preventing me from expressing my opinion.
July 3, 1980


Mr. Epp:: Madam Speaker, to those of us who have been in the House during the time this question of privilege has been debated it seems the hon. minister has already spoken to the question.


Monique Bégin: No, I have been interrupted each time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are not the Speaker. Madam Speaker, you have ruled that she has been heard. Are you now giving her a second opportunity, an opportunity that apparently does not exist for other members? Will that opportunity not be provided to others?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I had intervened in the remarks being made by the hon. minister and I thought I should let her pursue them now that we have heard from the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). In the interest of elucidating this question I would appeal to the minister to speak very briefly in whatever refutation she wishes to make in relation to a point that needs to be clarified, but to be very careful not to refer to the ruling of yesterday.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your advice. I will keep my remarks very short. The hon. member for Peterborough just questioned the possibility for every member of Parliament, of whatever political affiliation, to discharge dutifully his or her responsibility as a member of Parliament. He suggested that the practices of two departments, including mine, were going against that capacity every member must have. In that regard, I want to assure him as well as all members of the House that according to the practices in my own political office every member is considered equal and that no interference can be made in respect of a project slated for his riding. I think that-so I would like to-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has been raised before by members on this side. A question of privilege has been raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) dealing with the Department of the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in trying for the third or fourth time to bend the rules of the House, and thereby smuggle in a defence of her actions on a question decided yesterday, applies to her a special privilege that does not apply to members on this side of the House of Commons. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that is absolutely out of order.


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


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition will recognize that there was argumentation by analogy and I had to listen carefully to the conclusions of that argument. I feel the Chair is now sufficiently informed.
Let me say in respect of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough that I should like to reserve my decision because of the single argument put forward by the hon. member in which he quoted a precedent of December 6, 1968 of one of my predecessors. I would want to look at the question raised in full light of that precedent. The hon. member did quote part of the decision of my predecessor, but I want to look at it more fully in order to rule on this question of privilege. I must determine how deliberate were the actions to which the hon. member referred. Certainly the documents were not official documents, that is to say, documents which were tabled in the House, and that certainly makes a difference in the argumentation which can be brought forward to prove a question of privilege.
Quite obviously, in the view of the hon. member for Peterborough the information he received was incomplete, to say the least, but no member has given me evidence that members of other parties in this House did not receive the same kind of list or documents. I have not been informed whether all hon. members received the incomplete list, or whether only the hon. member for Peterborough received that list, in which case there is no different treatment given to different members of the House. In any event, I should like to examine that situation.
I want also to look at the question whether it is part of the essential duties of members of Parliament to congratulate new Canadians upon receiving Canadian citizenship. I am sure that is a very useful thing and I am sure that new citizens of this country appreciate congratulations from their members of Parliament. However, one has to determine whether that is really an essential duty of a member of Parliament. One must decide if pursuant to the fact that he did not receive the lists on time or that they were incomplete whether the hon. member was in effect prevented from performing his function as a member of this House.
I need not remind hon. members that the duties of members of Parliament are to attend the House of Commons, express themselves freely and to vote. If an hon. member is menaced or prevented from attending the House of Commons by anyone that, of course, would be a breach of privilege. I am sure these three essential duties must be expanded to include other ancillary duties. I must look at the many precedents to see what can be interpreted as an essential duty of a member of the House of Commons, and in that way decide whether the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peterborough has established that he or other members have been prevented from fulfilling their duties.
On that basis I reserve the matter as I feel there may be some evidence of a question of privilege.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether you have now ruled out the

July 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Taylor
possibility of any further discussion on this point, but there is one thing which has not yet been elucidated in connection with this matter.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, 1 have. I said the Chair was sufficiently informed on this question of privilege, that 1 reserve the matter, in order to examine it and make a ruling. I am afraid I cannot hear the hon. member on this same question.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I rise then on a new question of privilege. I will not even make reference to the document in respect of which you will make a ruling, the ruling that you made yesterday or the decision you have made today. My question of privilege is simply that I received through the mail today in the course of this afternoon a document addressed to my person at my office address, addressing me as a Liberal member of Parliament.


Francis Fox: That is a privilege!


William James Kempling: That is an insult.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: If you have any difficulty in deciding this-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid if 1 listened to the hon. member on that kind of question of privilege I would be listening to a number of other members.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to thank you for reserving your decision on my question of privilege. I should like to record in Hansard that I have supplied all the staff documents stating that there were no citizenship certificates granted. I have turned that information over to Hansard. They have all the documents for your perusal.


MR. TAYLOR-APPOINTMENT OF &quot;TWIN MEMBERS&quot; IN CERTAIN WESTERN CONSTITUENCIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which is based on one of the axioms of democracy, namely, that when a member is elected he has a responsibility to all the people of his constituency, not just to those of his own political party persuasion. This is a very important matter. Once a member is elected and is responsible to all the people of his constituency, he is responsible also for making sure he does his utmost to see that their tax funds are not abused or wasted.
That is the basis of my question of privilege, and I would now like to give the reasons why I feel it is a point of privilege. In the first place, the constituency which I represent has now been informed that they have a second MP.


An hon. Member:: That is a lot of rot.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I can understand why the hon. member is getting nervous. That second MP was apparently appointed from the office of a minister, the Hon. Bud Olson. The Hon. Bud Olson also has a staff member in that office who is responsible for finding and appointing twin MPs to western constituencies. If the public is paying the Hon. Bud Olson to spend his time as a minister to twin MPs, it is an abuse and a usurping of the rights of the elected member and interferes with his work in the constituency.
Secondly, the office of the minister has been making a lot of statements on how wonderful it is that we have a helper in our constituency. The people of my constituency have not asked that their MP be given a helper. During the election they considered all candidates and they voted accordingly. They expect their member to be their member, irrespective of what party he or she may represent. Consequently, I suggest that this is a very serious matter of privilege.
The next point I would like to raise for your consideration, Madam Speaker, is with regard to whether or not public funds are being used for these twin MPs. I find that when I go to my constituency it costs me a considerable amount of money. I must use my car, take rooms in hotels and advertise that I will be in such and such a place in order that I may serve my constituents. I am asking whether or not the twin MP will be paying these expenses out of his own pocket as does the elected MP, or does the twinned MP have another source of funds'?
I might say that if this was simply a matter of the Liberal Party of Canada appointing someone to help build up the Liberal cause in a constituency, 1 would have no objection. That is their proper right. But when a minister of the Crown uses public money to build up the image of a particular party, that is an abuse of the privileges. I would like to know who is paying the hotel, advertising and car transportation expenses for these twin MPs.
1 understand that these twin MPs will send out a great many letters. Will they be able to use the frank, which is the privilege of the elected MP, in order that he may serve his constituents? I have never asked anybody in my 40 years in public life how they voted. If they come to me for service I endeavour to serve them to the best of my ability, knowing sometimes that they are not of my particular political stripe. However, they are Canadians and are entitled to service from their elected member. If the twin MP will have the same privilege as the elected MP, then I suggest it is an abuse of my privileges.
Also, I have no evidence of this but if the letters of my constituents or the letters which I send to ministers of the Crown, whom I respect as representatives of Her Majesty the Queen, are not respected as confidential, I would regard it as a very serious abuse if that information were to find a pipeline into a twin MP's office. That would be a serious abuse of democracy.
I will not enlarge on this matter, but I say that the appointment of twin MPs to an area is a totalitarian concept, a travesty of democratic principles and a betrayal of the rights in which we believe. I also request that the Liberal party is
July 3, 1980

making a very serious mistake because it is driving a larger wedge into the division which they have already created in this country.
If you find, Madam Speaker, that the points which I have raised are indeed a prima facie case of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the matter of twinning and the abuse of public funds, parliamentary benefits and the confidentiality of communications between MPs and their constituents be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I do not think that one on this side of the House could remain seated and listen to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) without making a comment in rebuttal. I submit that the matter that the hon. member has raised does not constitute a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member is somewhat hypersensitive about the normal democratic process operating within his riding; that is, the right of all Canadians to belong to whatever political party they choose, to attend meetings, to elicit information and to make public statements.
1 can understand, considering that our party has not done too well in Alberta in the past, that the emerging Liberal presence and our reorganization there is somewhat of a shock to the hon. member for Bow River and some of his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rae:: Are you using a microscope?


David Michael Collenette: 1 submit that the hon. member for Bow River and his colleagues from Alberta will have to become more accustomed to a greater Liberal presence in that province.
With regard to the question of the hon. senator from Alberta, it is not for this House to interfere with the right of any minister to assign duties to his exempt staff. There is a long tradition of exempt staff taking on political activities so long as they fall within the bounds of normal propriety. 1 do not think there is anything wrong with that.


Walter David Baker: What an answer!


David Michael Collenette: I would remind the members opposite that senators and MPs are paid indemnities. Indeed, we are given extra privileges for airplane and rail travel to serve all Canadians. I, being the representative of a particular constituency, am not prohibited from communicating with anybody in this country. In fact, I would seriously submit that the hon. member has really impinged on the concept of national unity as it has come to be adopted in this House and throughout the country by not wanting and resenting Canadians from other provinces getting to know the people of his province through twinning.


William James Kempling: What a silly argument.
Privilege-Mr. Taylor


David Michael Collenette: It is not a silly argument. I would submit that the opposition is being somewhat sensitive. The Canadian Council for National Unity wrote to me recently and suggested, if I was agreeable, that I be paired with the hon. member for Peace George-Prince River-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the attitude of the opposition is shown in the derision with which they greeted my comments on national unity.


An hon. Member:: It is "Prince George-Peace River".


David Michael Collenette: Yes, it is Prince George-Peace River.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the brief point of order that I want to raise is that, quite apart from the personal qualities which invite derision from this side of the House, our response was to the hon. member's misnaming of the constituency to which he has been twinned. If the hon. member is to be twinned to that constituency, I would suggest that he get the name right.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the former prime minister of this country, would have better things to do than sit here at four o'clock in the afternoon and make facile comments about particular things I am saying. Of course, Madam Speaker, this particular penchant of the right hon. member was recognized on February 18 and perhaps accounts for the fact that he is sitting on that side of the House today. 1 am sorry that I misnamed the hon. member's constituency, however.
I want to bring to the attention of the House that the Council for National Unity is trying to develop understanding across the country. They wrote to me as the member respre-senting York East in Metropolitan Toronto and asked if I wanted to co-operate and be twinned with a constituency in British Columbia, the constituency of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). I mentioned it to him in passing and I hope that the council will be in touch with him. Certainly I and my constituents would be most glad to share an understanding with the hon. member.
I would remind hon. members that there are cities throughout the country which are officially paired or twinned. It is a municipal practice. I understand that Hull is twinned with the city of Edmonton. Surely the hon. member for Bow River is not arguing against this laudable practice. What we have here, 1 think, is some hypersensitivity on the part of the hon. member for Bow River and a disregard, if you will, for national unity. I submit that no privileges of the House have been infringed.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I should like to state that the former Conservative candidate in my constituency who was nominated some two years prior to the 1979 election opened a constituency office in my constituency, had the nerve

July 3, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Taylor
to call it the York East constituency office and purported to be the member of Parliament for that district. That gentleman subsequently sat in this House for a brief period. 1 did not complain about his conduct. I would say it is a democratic right of parties and individuals in this country to associate with whomever they please.
The hon. member spoke about press releases being issued but I submit that he is really talking about some censorship of the press and is denying the people of his constituency an alternative viewpoint from Ottawa than the one it receives from its current member of Parliament.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to deal with the quite important question of privilege raised by my colleague from Bow River (Mr. Taylor). In commencing my short remarks 1 want to say how much I regret that the spokesman for the government, the parliamentary secretary, treated so lightly a question which you may well find goes to the root of the privileges of members of this House of Commons.
I should say in passing that I find it alarming, although not strange in the mouth of a Liberal, that he should find it unusual that the leader of a party in a parliamentary system should be found sitting in the House of Commons of Canada at four o'clock in the afternoon. It is our judgment, as it was in government, that leaders of the opposition and prime ministers, have an obligation to sit in this House of Commons, to take part in the debates of this institution and to show a respect for this institution, rather than treating it as a place where no one congregates.
Let me come to some points at issue here. One important matter at issue is that the parliamentary secretary, speaking on behalf of the government, said that there is a long tradition of ministers of the Crown using their exempt staff for partisan political purposes. He obviously knows whereof he speaks. He is obviously much more aware of the details of that tradition than we on this side of the House. I think, particularly in the interst of ensuring that public funds are spent for public purposes and not simply for the purposes of the Liberal party, it would be useful for us to have laid upon the table of the House of Commons an elaboration of that tradition which the hon. member claims is so well known. If exempt staff are being used as a matter of practice, funded by the Crown of Canada, to advance the partisan interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, as the parlimentary secretary has just said, then it is important that this House of Commons and the public of Canada know the details of that practice and the extent of the subsidy by the Canadian taxpayer of the political operations of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Let me come to another question of cost raised by the hon. member for Bow River. It is a matter of some real substance and has to do with who pays the extra costs incurred by a so-called twin when that twin visits another constituency in the country. As the hon. member for Bow River said, if the individual member carries that cost himself, that is fine; if the Liberal Party of Canada carries that cost, that is fine. But if those costs are borne by the public purse, if the public purse is
expected to subsidize the personal expenditures of a twinned constituency of a Liberal member of Parliament, then that is an extension of the practice of subsidy for partisan Liberal purposes by the public purse of Canada. That extension of that principle should be on the record. The fact of that subsidy and the extent of that subsidy should be well known and should be on the record of this House of Commons.
It is not something that is authorized by this Parliament in the way that the budgets of research offices of all parties are authorized. It is not something that is authorized in the way certain expenditures of leaders of various parties are authorized. It is a new expenditure and a new practice; it is a subsidy for clearly partisan purposes. If that is occurring, then the House of Commons and the public of Canada, the people who pay the bills, have a right to know that it is occurring. They have a right to know the costs involved. Since it is an unauthorized expenditure it may very well, as the hon. member for Bow river suggests, breach the privileges of members of this House.
The far more important question, however, that we have to deal with here, Madam Speaker, has to do with the treatment accorded documents conveyed in confidence to an elected member of Parliament by his constituents. The hon. member for Bow River represents, among others, a national parks community which has extensive and confidential relations with the Department of the Environment and a branch of Parks Canada. He represents various farmers and very many other individuals who, by the nature and extent of government involvement in our society, now have their private affairs very much intertwined with the activities and policies of the Government of Canada. Those citizens have a right to know that communications they have with their elected member of Parliament which he passes on to ministers of the Crown will be treated confidentially and will not be passed on to someone designated by a minister as a twin. They have a right to know that confidences passed to a member by his constituents and from that member to the Government of Canada will not be violated.
We have no guarantee that this is presently the case. Indeed, there is some suspicion that the very purpose of this twinning operation may be an attempt to have people not elected by the electors of the west, and by the electors of Bow River in this case, intruding and placing themselves between the electors of Bow River and the member of Parliament for Bow River and, consequently, being an instrument by which that intrusion might be realized. It could very well be that passage by a minister of the Crown of confidential information conveyed by a constituent or by the member of Parliament for Bow River to another member of Parliament could occur. That would be a very serious breach of the privileges of this House and it is one that is properly raised by the hon. member for Bow River. It is a matter that troubles all of us very deeply, Madam Speaker.
Twinning is a new practice; it has not been done before. Perhaps we have not had a situation before where there has been a Government of Canada without representation in three of the provinces and two territories of the country. This is a
July 3, 1980

new situation and one which is bound to give rise to certain very real complexities. It is a situation which deserves to be treated more seriously than it has by the parliamentary secretary.
I hope that as a result of recognizing the importance of this matter, that it is a new development in the life and history of Parliament and that you have fundamental obligations to protect the privileges of members of Parliament, Madam Speaker, you will reserve judgment today in order to study all the implications of this new practice. It is a practice which may involve an extension beyond the accepted terms of the subsidy by the government of the Liberal party, and may very well involve an intrusion upon the confidentiality which Canadian citizens have a right to expect in communications passed by them to their member of Parliament and, consequently, to the Government of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to make a statement on this particular question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I do not like to accumulate questions of privilege and I feel that, if possible, I should rule upon them immediately so that the House can pursue its business.
In the beginning, I was quite sure that this whole matter was completely outside the competence of the Chair. I have heard representations from both sides, but the more recent arguments by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will cause me to reserve on this question of privilege. I must say that many arguments have been offered and not too many facts. In any event, I wish to look into the matter a little more deeply and make a judgment on another day as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.


DISBURSING OF FUNDS FROM LOTTERIES
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very important point of order. With due deference to the Chair, I am not a member of the New Democratic Party. I am still in the Conservative party, just in case Madam Speaker does not realize that.
Another Loto Canada cheque has been presented to the minister of sport, which means a total amount of $12,700,000 in money for culture and art. In view of the new face on federalism the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to portray to Canada, surely the Prime Minister would like his ministers to recognize that such jurisdictional questions as resource taxation, offshore mineral rights, federal spending power, lotteries, federal trade and commerce, power and communications are as important and valid as patriation of the constitution. How can the Prime Minister allow a minister, an ex-premier, to procrastinate, to break an agreement with the provinces which was duly signed by the federal and provincial
Business of the House
ministers under the guidance of the PCO and the Department of Justice, and deny the culture, arts and sports community the money that they need? They are bankrupt.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) told me personally he needs money for symphonies and cultural arts, and this minister is not cashing the cheques. This is important because they need the money.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is really engaging in debate. This is not a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order to ask for clarification from the Chair. If I understand correctly, Madam Speaker, you have reserved decisions on two matters of privilege raised today. If I heard correctly, you said there were many precedents to study, and I think rightly so. Therefore, I would ask this question for purposes of clarification. In view of these many precedents that need to be studied, would you undertake to reconsider the decision of yesterday against the same precedents to see whether it should be reversed?


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I could not do that. The precedent I wanted to look at was cited by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on a different question of privilege. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot accommodate the hon. member on that point.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today being Thursday, I wonder if I could ask the government House leader what he intends for us for the rest of the day and next week. We understand there are two days he wishes to allot to the opposition as allotted days under the rules.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, we will consider Bill C-39 and then Bill C-22.

As for next week's program, I can confirm that next Tuesday and Wednesday will be set aside for the opposition, more specifically for the Progressive Conservative Party. I hope that Monday we shall be able to complete third reading of Bill C-30 which is now in committee. I hope that it will be reported to the House so that we can complete consideration of this bill on Monday or as soon as possible next week. This is the bill to authorize additional government borrowing.

July 3, 1980
Committee Report
Moreover, Bills C-22, C-26 and C-7, as well as Bill C-34, could be dealt with next week. I believe that if we can deal with these bills before next Friday, we could provide another interesting list for the following week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, because there are comments around about the possibility of a summer recess, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council has anything more he can say today with respect to the question that 1 believe I have asked him every Thursday for the last two or three months. Surely he would agree with me that it would be unthinkable for this House to recess without dealing with the promised legislation respecting veterans and widows of veterans. Can he today give me firm assurance that this matter will be dealt with before there is a summer recess?	.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 take it for granted that the request made by the hon. member concerns the bill on veterans' pensions and that he is much more interested in this than in the summer recess. If this is the case, I can confirm that his patience and confidence will be rewarded.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
CRITICAL SKILLS FOR THE 80s

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Critical Skills for the '80s.
I have consulted with the House leaders of all parties and they are ready to grant immediate concurrence in this report without debate and formal vote.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, that is agreeable to us. It is exactly in keeping with the original announcement of the select parliamentary committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, we too join in this agreement.


CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
William Warren Allmand: that the first report of the Special Committee on Critical Skills for the '80s be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
(1620)

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will answered today: Nos. 48, 230, 366, 619, 778, 871, 1,040 and 1,220.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Mr. Viktor Mitrofanovich Myaznikov ever an accredited Soviet Diplomat to Canada and, if so, between what dates was he in Canada?
2.	To the knowledge of the government and/or the RCMP, did Soviet Agent Sabotka, in September 1965, drive in a rented car to Brockville, Ontario in the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville and meet with Diplomat Viktor Mitrofanovich Myaznikov at the entrance of the Grenadier Inn just east of Brockville on Highway No. 2?
3.	Did Mr. Myaznikov apply for permission to travel beyond the limit permitted without application to Soviet Diplomats and, if so, what destination did he state?
4.	To the knowledge of the government and/or the RCMP, did Mr. Myaznikov actually hitchhike to Brockville and what was the purpose of his visit?
5.	To the knowledge of the government and/or the RCMP, did agent Sabotka have a hotel room in Brockville and, if so, what was the name of the Hotel?
6.	To the knowledge of the government and/or the RCMP, was Mr. Sabotka told by Mr. Myaznikov to pick up $4,000 buried beneath a tree at Belanger, Ontario?
7.	Was Diplomat Myaznikov, according to security records, identified as a member of the KGB?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	Mr. V. K. Myaznikov was an accredited diplomat in Canada from September 7, 1964, until August 15, 1968.
2.	The policy of the RCMP is to preserve the confidentiality of all information it holds on individuals and organizations.
3.	The Department of External Affairs does not maintain records of travel notices for more than one year.
4.	5, 6 and 7. See answer to part 2.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs' payroll on March 31, 1979?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised as follows by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: MSUA had (a) Seventy-six permanent and (b) Five term employees on the payroll on March 31, 1979.
July 3, 1980


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


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. (a)	67;
(b)	i) 12;
2. (a)	1
*;
(b)	i) 14; \\\ 1
3. No.	11/ * [DOT]
*Two individuals are on Interchange Canada assignments.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NUMBER OF LAWYERS EMPLOYED
Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of External Affairs?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Twenty-one legally-trained foreign service officers are currently serving in the department's legal bureau. In addition, two non-rotational lawyers who are not members of the foreign service are also serving in the bureau.


MINISTER OFTHE ENVIRONMENT-USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Kristiansen: 1.	Since March 3, 1980, did the Minister of the Environment use government aircraft and, if so (a) on how many occasions (b) to what destinations (c) what would be the cost if commercial aircraft had been used?
2.	For what reason was commercial aircraft not used?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes;
(a)	On six occasions;
(b)	March 25, 1980-Ottawa to Montreal and return April 18, 1980-Ottawa to Washington and return
May 7, 1980-Ottawa to Halifax May 9, 1980-Halifax to Ottawa
May 23, 1980-Ottawa to Thunder Bay and return
May 29, 1980-Ottawa to Vancouver
(c)	$1,360.
Order Paper Questions
2. Minister's agenda prior to departure or arrival times did not allow for use of commercial aircraft on each of the above trips.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS-NEW REGION IN THE ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Gass: Will there be a new region created in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the Atlantic provinces and, if so (a) what area will the region cover (b) where will the offices be located?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: No. There is no intention at this time to create a new region in the Atlantic provinces.


CANADIAN AMBASSADORS-UNITED STATES
Miss MacDonald: 1.	Who and what were the years of tenure of all Canadian ambassadors to the United States?
2.	How many years of service in the (a) Department of External Affairs (b) Public Service, did each incumbent have prior to his/her appointment?


Mark R. MacGuigan: (l)
Name of Ambassador (or Minister)*	(2a) Service (2b) Public
	in DEA	Service
Vincent Massey (1927-1930) Minister	none	noneWilliam D. Herridge (1931-1935) Minister	none	noneHerbert M. Marler (1936-1939) Minister	7	7Loring C. Christie (1939-1941) Minister Leighton G. McCarthy (1941-1944) Minister,	14	14*later Ambassador.	none	noneLester B. Pearson (1945-1946) Ambassador	16	16H. Hume Wrong (1946-1953) Ambassador	19	19Arnold D. P. Heeney (1953-1957) Ambassador Norman A. Robertson (1957-1958)	4	15Ambassador Arnold D. P. Heeney (1959-1962) Ambassador	24	27(reappointed)	8	21Charles S. A. Ritchie (1962-1966) Ambassador	28	28A. Edgar Ritchie (1966-1970) Ambassador	20	20Marcel Cadieux (1970-1975) Ambassador	29	29Jack H. Warren (1975-1977) Ambassador	14	30Peter M. Towe (1977- ) Ambassador	30	30
Legislation was elevated to Embassy in November. 1943, so head of post of course became an Ambassador.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES-ALLOTMENT OF CONTRACTS
Mr. Cossitt: Docs the Department of Supply and Services, when allotting contracts, consider whether or not the successful bidder employs union help or not?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: No.

July 3, 1980
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 557 and 687 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 557 and 687 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CMHC-RURAL AND NATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM-OFFICERS OF THE CHIDAMO HOUSING PROJECT
Mr. Lewis: For the years 1975 to 1980, what are the names, addresses and positions held, of the officers of the Chidamo Housing Project undertaken by CMHC under the Rural and Native Housing Program?
2.	(a) For the same years, what are the job descriptions and annual salaries paid to the officers of the project (b) were the salaries paid to the officers for a 12-month period and, if not, for what months of the year were they paid?
3.	What are the names, addresses and legal descriptions of the properties of every participant in the project?
4.	What was the original sale price and the final sale price of each unit in the project?
5.	What are the names and addresses of the suppliers of materials for the prepackaged house designs for each unit in the project?
Return tabled.


COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN REGIONAL-LOAN THROUGH Cl DA
Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the loan made to the Commonwealth Caribbean Regional through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, Volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada (a) under what authority was the loan made (b) on what date is it to be repaid (c) what interest does it bear (d) what percentage is forgivable?
2.	What form of association does the Commonwealth Caribbean Regional take?
3.	What is the current value of the paid-up shares in the association?
4.	By percentage, who are the major shareholders in the association?
5.	In which countries does the association operate?
6.	In the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, which (i) governments (ii) non-governmental organizations received loans from the association?
7.	What is the special objective of the association?
8.	Of the total of all paid-up shares, what percentage are held by Canada?
9.	Is Canada committed to the purchase of any further shares?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that Hansard of yesterday, Wednesday, makes no mention at page 2509 of the usual notices of motions for the production of papers. As one who was at a meeting of a parliamentary committee at the time 1 do not know whether this was an error on the part of Hansard in failing to include the item as usual on a Wednesday or whether it was an error on the part of the government in not introducing the usual notices of motions for the production of papers, or asking that they stand, as the case might be. I rise simply for clarification and to ask that, if there is an error in Hansard, it be corrected. Could the parliamentary secretary, or the Chair, enlighten those of us who were attending parliamentary committees yesterday as to what happened?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, as sometimes happens I had nothing to report under this particular part of Routine Proceedings. I did ask that other notices of motions for the production of papers stand.
While I am on my feet, might I say that the delay in responding to some of these notices of motions for the production of papers has been of concern to me. I have been looking into the matter and I hope to have a little more to report in subsequent weeks.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (for Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved:: That Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in my comments. Every member of the House is very much aware of the purpose of this bill which seeks to amend section 6 of the Bank Act and of the Quebec Savings Banks Act to allow Canadian chartered banks to extend their operations by virtue of these two acts until November 30, 1980. Without this bill, banks would not have the legal power to continue their operations beyond next July 14.
It now seems obvious that Parliament will not adopt the government proposals contained in this bill before July 14,
July 3, 1980

proposals which would provide a ten-year revision of the Bank Act and related legislation. It is therefore necessary to extend once again the application of the current banking legislation. The section by section study of the Bank Act by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is taking a bit more time than was planned even if the government has made known its intention to follow up on some very important proposals on matters of policy. Parliamentary committees have put in considerable time, effort and energy to study this important and complex legislation and it would seem that more time is needed for a more detailed study of some of the bill's clauses. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that the House has not had the opportunity to study this bill earlier this afternoon either at the report stage or at the third reading stage; however, this bill will allow banks to operate at least for some time and allow us to continue the study of some of its clauses.
I believe that members of this House agree that we should proceed with dispatch this afternoon and I would be very happy if all members would co-operate so that we could go through all stages of the bill.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I offer no apology to anybody in the House that this bill should have been brought in. It is regrettable, I know, and I have some sympathy for the banking industry and others who feel that a new bank act, the Canadian payments association legislation, etc., should be in place by now. However, it is only because of a series of events in the past that time was unfortunately lost. I will not castigate anyone or try to say where the responsibility for the delay should lie, but during the Twenty-ninth or Thirtieth Parliament, when the committee had the contents of the banking bill before it, members had to spend a great deal of time wrestling with problems about which they had insufficient information. This has been clearly demonstrated with the presentation of Bill C-6 and with the composition of the House having so radically changed in terms of numbers, and, I may say, with some complexion.
In March of 1979 the former committee on finance, trade and economic affairs tabled its report with recommendations on the Bank Act legislation before it at that time. We have had to contend with a number of new problems, as well as with ongoing problems, and, frankly, the 80-minute sessions we normally have in practice for the committees are barely sufficient to allow a member to get started on the subject and for the minister to reply, as well as the Inspector General and other officials who may be required to do so. Incidentally, there is also the time taken up by hearing witnesses on often difficult questions. A great deal of time has been consumed. We have had a great number of meetings, so any delay is not by reason of the fact that the committee has dodged its job.
The finance committee is unfortunately beleaguered by all sorts of other legislation and some of it is required very promptly. So we are victims of a bad system of committees, as I have suggested many times in the past, and therefore this bill
Bank Act
now faces a few matters of deep principle which, as the result of discussions, are being honed and 1 trust the legislation will be much better by the time the bill is passed by the committee. Once it has been concluded by the committee I think there still may be a few outstanding points but remarkably few.
I think also the ministry is learning something which is valuable in connection with legislation of this kind, namely, that the bureaucracy does not produce divine inspiration. Bills that are produced by the administration and which are fronted for by ministers are not necessarily the most appropriate. Opposition parties and outsiders might have some worth-while contributions to make. If we put forward amendments, they are not put forward cast in stone; they are put forward as a basis for discussion. I think the government has now learned that if it had been forthcoming with its version of amendments on certain points at an early date with the view that they were negotiable-in other words, that they were a basis for discussion-I think we would be clear now on a number of points. No, I will not say that the bill would have been through, I am not going to point the finger of blame for this particular situation; but I would say that this is a matter which should be learned by many ministers in this administration. It would have helped a great deal in the past.
It is one of the unfortunate characteristics of the Canadian parliamentary system that ministers come to committees, shall we say, to see to the passage of their bills, with closed minds. All too often they are closed because the bureaucracy behind them will not be flexible. This is a long story which I do not want to tell. I hope that we will now move on to Committee of the Whole, that this bill will pass and that we will get down to continued serious work on the bill in question. Bill C-6, which is really a complex bill, and have it in good position in time. It is easy to clear and burn a lot of the underbrush, and I hope we can do that. We have a responsibility to the banking industry and to the other financial interests in the country without which no one can function. Bank bashing is a useless and frantic procedure, and to me it has no place in the consideration of serious legislation of this kind, no more than mere bashing has in the consideration of other legislation.
Let us contribute to a good act, because much depends on it. We could have a better act, but at the present time we have to work. Let me reiterate again what I will say at another time: The sooner we get a royal commission on banking and financial institutions in this country to examine this matter in depth, the better. Hon. members of this House do not have the time-nor, frankly, if I may say so, the ability-to get to the bottom of things. Other examinations we have seen are far too incestuous; they are in-house affairs. We have the Federal Business Development Bank and many other aspects which should be dealt with, but we want to look at the whole picture so that the government may soon undertake to start proper commission hearings and arrive at recommended legislation in time for the next anniversary without any delays.

July 3, 1980
Bank Act


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think the public and, indeed, hon. members who have not been in the committee should be aware of the fact that there have been lengthy discussions with respect to many of the provisions of this bill and that there are several matters which remain outstanding. There are proposals which have been made to the government by my party, as there have been by members of the Conservative party, including the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), concerning the Bank Act, and I think there are some remaining philosophical problems and very practical problems which I would like the minister to continue to consider as we approach the summer recess and before we return in September or October for the next stage of consideration of the Bank Act.
I remind the minister that my party has raised a number of questions, many of which have been dealt with by the minister, and I think the public should be aware of just how far we have come and, in our view, how far we have yet to go in order to have the kind of banking legislation which reflects the public interest.
There are a number of points I would like to raise. The first is the question of interest monitoring and the regulation of interest rates. The experience we have had over the last weeks and months indicates that there is a need for greater public presence. We have an extremely uncompetitive banking system and an extremely concentrated banking system in Canada. The banks have managed to accumulate tremendous marketing powers, even since the passage of the Bank Act in 1967. There is clearly a need for a greater public presence and a greater degree of monitoring and regulation by the government of the charges levied and services rendered by the banks to consumers, small businessmen and, indeed, not so small businessmen in the Canadian scene.
When a year ago one of the chartered banks decided it would go to 21 per cent, the other banks joined together and said, "No, we are not going to let the Toronto-Dominion Bank get away with that; we are going to hold the rate down to 18 per cent". The Toronto-Dominion Bank had to step back. Then all the banks took the decision that they would together go to 21 per cent on their credit card charges.
The question which has to be dealt with by the government-and there is yet to be a convincing answer from the minister-is why it is that we have such a lock-step development in all the interest rate charges which are levied on the consumer, on the small businessman and on all those people who use the services of the banks. What manipulation of differentials and spreads has there been, and is it not in the public interest, at a time when interest rates are going up and down at a tremendous pace and there is a great deal of residual manipulative power in the hands of financial institutions such as banks, to see that these rates are carefully monitored by the government? For example, today we noticed that there has been a marginal change in the bank rate charged by the Bank of Canada on its own treasury bill notes. Should we not also be monitoring and looking very carefully at what rates are being charged to the Canadian consumer for a
car loan, a house improvement loan or in the area of consumer credit and small business credit? That is an issue which remains one of a difference of opinion between my party and the minister.
During question period the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is always prepared to say that the government is going to be vigilant in this area and is deeply concerned. Then when he is actually faced with amendments from our party, there is a totally negative response, and I find that ironic. I could understand if the minister said that a certain proposal is not exactly the way he would proceed and that we would want to proceed in another way, but that is not the response. The response has been just a blanket refusal to deal with the power of banks to set rates in a non-competitive way. Evidence is very hard to garner because one has to look from quarter to quarter, but there is very little doubt that the banks have survived the period of high interest rates with healthier profit ratings than anybody expected, and they appear to be surviving, if 1 may put it that way, the lowering of interest rates very well indeed. There certainly have been no bank losses over this time.
The hon. member for Edmonton West speaks of bank bashing. It is not a question of bashing any particular institution. It is a question of developing an understanding as to how our economic system in fact works rather than how it is supposed to work in theory. If the hon. member for Edmonton West and members of his party have a different view, that is fine, but I do not think he can charge that we have not done our homework or that we have failed to give detailed advice, offer amendments or express concerns to the minister, with as much precision as we have been capable of in a difficult area.
The second area is the area of foreign banks, and I think there is still a difference between us. We are not happy about it but we recognize the reality that there is a large majority of members in this House who are in favour of admitting foreign banks to Canada. We have suggested to the minister that there should be a mandatory hearing process which would require that the Inspector General of Banks carry out an investigation of the intention of foreign banks, and indeed of any new chartered bank, to guarantee that their being given letters patent is in the public interest.
I am sorry to say that the minister has thus far refused to grant more than a purely discretionary power to the Inspector General. I think the minister should really look at what has happened in all our jurisdictions in the provinces. For example, it is difficult to get many forms of licence without going through a hearing process. Our administrative law has developed right through the provincial jurisdictions, which gives a great deal of power to parties who previously would not have been regarded to have standing, and it has become far more sophisticated and far more, if I may use the word, liberal in its granting of the right of standing and the right to a hearing. For example, you cannot get a liquor licence in the province of Ontario unless there is a hearing, unless a notice is granted.
July 3, 1980

and unless a process has been gone through. It is more difficult to get a liquor licence in Ontario than it is to become a bank under the current proposals of the government. Frankly, I think this is absurd. 1 think it is something that the minister should consider again in light of developments in other jurisdictions and in light of the concern that consumers have, legitimately 1 think, with respect to how it is that the Inspector General and the government intend to "divvy up" the $12 billion worth of assets amongst all the foreign banks that are coming into Canada.
I must also tell the minister that we are still not satisfied with the information we have as to the current activities of foreign banks in Canada. It is interesting, for example, that when the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and 1 were asking questions concerning the activities of foreign banks in Canada, we were told that this information was confidential. We have yet to receive information on the three largest foreign banks in Canada. We know from the Inspector General that the three foreign banks have subsidiaries in Canada with assets of over $500 million, but we do not know which those subsidiaries are. We do not know the relative size of the others, and it is interesting to note that the largest banks have yet to respond to the letter which the committee has sent out. The committee has yet to receive that kind of information. I can tell the minister that if we do not have that information in October, he will have a hard time convincing me that we should be passing legislation calling for the incorporation of new institutions when we do not know what their activities are at present. It is absurd to ask a parliamentary committee to allow that kind of legislation to go through when we do not have that information.
On consumer protection, I am glad that the government has accepted our suggestions with respect to lack of penalties for prepayment, the amendments that were prepared by my colleagues and I. We regret that there is not as yet full protection for borrowers and depositors in a section in our banking legislation. We think it should be there. We proposed amendments that would have put it there and we think they were appropriate. We regret the fact that we are having to wait for further advances by a federal-provincial committee. We do not think that is necessary. We think the federal government could take the lead in this area. However, we recognize that the government has taken a small step in the right direction and we think it is an important step, both in respect of the lack of prepayment penalties and with respect to the abolition of the rule of 78.
I would point out to those people who think we should just have rubber stamped this Bank Act because it is a piece of technical legislation that no one can readily understand that we are dealing with an act which regulates activities which last year amounted to over $4.9 billion taken out in consumer loans in this country. It is an industry which affects virtually every consumer, and unless there is legislation protecting that consumer and guaranteeing that windfall profits are not made at the expense of the consumer, I do not think that legislation
Bank Act
should be passed. Indeed that is a commitment which we will continue to make to the people of Canada.
With respect to directors, 1 think it is important that we notice that the government has changed its mind. It started with the principle in 1976 that those people who were bank employees should not be directors of other companies, they have reneged on that under pressures from the corporate elite, if I may use that word, and have decided that there will be no such protection.
I think the government has made a mistake. I have yet to hear a convincing response from the minister as to why the government has changed its mind in the area of intercorporate directorships. We feel it is extremely important that the Canadian consumer and the Canadian small businessman feel that they have as much access to the decision-making processes of our banks as do the directors of our largest and most powerful corporations.
In the area of leasing, I say to the minister that we think he has come part of the way in that the government has decided not to allow the banks to get into the area of car leasing. But we think that the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and indeed members of our party, have raised issues with respect to leasing that have still not been satisfied and still not been dealt with by the government. I hope again that the government will take the opportunity of the summer break to consider the leasing question. The leasing question concerns small business, it concerns capital cost allowance, and it concerns the very real question of who is going to take advantage of growth in a growing business-and there are many areas where we know the leasing business is going to grow. Will it be the subsidiaries of the banks or will it be smaller Canadian corporations which have, in many fields, particulary in the car leasing field, provided a service to the consumer? I think it is a very real philosophical question.
I know the views of the banks, of Mr. Macintosh of the Canadian Bankers' Association and others, who have stated that for them leasing is just another form of financing and that therefore it is something to which the banks should have access. On the other hand, there are those who say this is a very important source of tax write-off revenue for the banking subsidiaries at which we should look very carefully. We should have information, it seems to me, or the rate of taxation that has been paid by the current bank subsidiaries, RoyLease for example, and see how much tax they are paying in comparison with other small businesses that are engaged in the same business. It seems to me to be a legitimate question to ask whether we are in fact establishing subsidiaries which will not be paying very much tax.
In the field of data processing, we still have concerns. Again the minister knows what they are with respect to the ability of the banks to engage in businesses which compete directly with services provided by existing corporations. The leverage of the banks is very great and the ability of the banks to compete with those industries to which they in turn are acting as bankers is a very serious question, one with which the commit-

July 3, 1980
Bank Act
tee is still wrestling and with which we still have to deal. It is a difficult problem and I am still not satisfied that we have sufficient information in that area.
In the field of financial disclosure, our party made a number of amendments, some of which were accepted by the government. We said to the government that we are incorporating banks into Canada under this legislation, yet we are allowing them to disclose less information than they are required to disclose in their own jurisdictions. There is a patent absurdity in passing that kind of legislation. I am glad to say that the government moved part way toward accepting the need for a little sunlight in understanding the affairs of our own chartered banks and newly incorporated institutions.
I should like to refer to one area where the minister did not move. We have had discussions about it but I remain unconvinced that there is any reason why the government should not require the banks to tell us, in terms of their foreign activities, how much money they are lending to particular countries and the agencies of those countries. Loans to foreign countries and their agencies is a vital question of interest to the Canadian public. It should be of interest to the Inspector General of Banks.
One area where the government is in danger of failing us and where our legislation may be very inadequate is the area of the power and ability of the Inspector General to acquire information and oversee the foreign activities of Canadian chartered banks. I have many concerns about the office of the Inspector General which I have expressed in committee. For example, I am concerned that most of the representations made by the Inspector General, in my view, were made on behalf of the banks. Also, for example, I am concerned that the budget of the office of the Inspector General is paid entirely by chartered banks in the form of a levy which is part and parcel of the Bank Act.
Just as much as I am concerned about those two matters, I think my party is deeply concerned about the fact that, if we look at the asset growth of the banks from 1967, the asset growth of the banks in Canada has been great, but the asset growth of the banks in foreign countries has been more than great. It has been quite extraordinary, to the extent that now the Bank of Nova Scotia has nearly 50 per cent of its assets overseas, the Royal Bank has 35 per cent and other banks are in the same vicinity. It is in that area that I think we are in danger of passing legislation which does not give us adequate information and adequate protection.
Why should we not know whether or not Canadian chartered banks have made extensive loans to a foreign country when the international relations between Canada and that country are of great concern? Why should we not know whether Canadian banks are exposed in Iran and to what extent they are exposed in Iran? If they are extensively exposed, should we not know that as Canadian consumers? Should 1 as a Canadian consumer not know that the bank to which 1 am lending money in the form of savings deposits has
extensive interests in Chile, South Africa, Iran or any part of the world? For the life of me I cannot see why the old chestnut of the banks being required to disclose this information would be destroying the confidentiality of the client-banker relationship. How can we move from the comparison of an individual person and his bank, where the principle of confidentiality is admittedly important, to the relationship between a chartered bank and the government of a foreign country? It seems to me that extends the notion of confidentiality from one particular case to a very general, wide, political application. It seems to me at some point the principle of confidentiality is superseded by the principle of disclosure. I hope very much that the minister will reconsider that question, because I think it is an extremely important point.
I think we have made some progress in the area of section 178 where we discussed the priority which should be given to producers of agricultural products, including cattlemen. We put forward a proposal to the government which was accepted. Many members of the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic parties spoke and participated. It seems to me that it was a very healthy discussion.
Finally, I should like to take advantage of the presence in the House today of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan). I have written twice to his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres), indicating that our attitude toward the passage of the Bank Act must be affected by what is happening to labour relations in the banks and the activities of our chartered banks. The Minister of Labour will know that since the decision of the Canada labour relations board in the Bank of Nova Scotia's case, where it was decided that a single bank could be organized and was a satisfactory unit for the purpose of bargaining, there has been a drive conducted by different unions under different auspices in an attempt to organize various branches of different chartered banks.
Also the minister will be aware that in case after case, but particularly in cases involving the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Canada labour relations board has taken not simply a dim view of the activities of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, but has specifically gone through the activities of the chairman of the board, the president and the chief executive officer of that bank and indicated that there was a systematic attempt, on the part of the directing officials of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, to subvert the rights of employees as expressed in the Canada Labour Code.
I raise the same point which I raised at second reading. How can we in this House be expected to give what are essentially charters to these institutions which give them a licence to print money? I do not know of a chartered bank in Canada which has taken a loss recently. I do not know of one which expects its assets to grow less than phenomenally. I ask the minister to review not only the reports of the Canada labour relations board but also the recent report of the advisory committee on the status of women. I ask him to consider whether it would be advisable to establish a small specialized task force in his department to examine the question of labour relations in banks and whether he would deem it advisable to call in the
[July 3, 1980



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-National Energy Board-Application for gas pipeline to Nova Scotia; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Human Rights Act-Call for amendments to provide protection against discrimination of disabled citizens; the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-Industry- Terms of loan to Valleyfield Chemical Products Corporation-Investigation of Space Research Corporation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for Mr. MacEachen) that Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I say that the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has indicated there is a motion before the House to refer Bill C-39 to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, but he has suggested the House might agree to referring the bill to Committee of the Whole. In essence he seeks the unanimous consent of the House in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that we are agreeable that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Gamble:: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the government House leader whether he intends that we deal with any other matter between quarter to six and six o'clock?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we finish with the bill on banks.

As soon as we finish with that, and I am told that will be done very quickly, we will move to private members' business, which will take less than 45 minutes today.

July 3, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the suggestion by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), is it agreed that the bill now be read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the Elouse went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Pierre Bussières: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to express thanks to both opposition parties for their co-operation in respect of this bill. I wish to inform hon. members that tonight we will be studying Bill C-22 as the first item of business, followed by Bill C-13 which was discussed yesterday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the motion made earlier by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions for papers, private bills, public bills.
Item no. 19 in the name of the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House will now proceed to notices of motions for papers, item no. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications between the government and senior officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited during the months of June, July, August and September 1979, that pertain to the negotiation of the sales of Candu reactors either by AECL or by any private company acting with the authority or knowledge of AECL.
William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, it will not take me too long to conclude my remarks. I should just like to
review very briefly the position of the Thirty-first Parliament on this issue, and the member's position in connection with this motion.
As I indicated before, the Thirty-first Parliament, under the guidance of the government of the day headed by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), indicated the need for a very broad inquiry in this whole area of nuclear energy. At the same time that government indicated the need for some real reform in respect of freedom of information. It was intended through that broad inquiry to bring to the surface and expose to the people of Canada the ramifications, difficulties and implications, as well as the advantages, of the use of nuclear energy in Canada and in the world. That was the right approach to this terribly important issue; freedom of information, on the one hand, and an inquiry, on the other, to expose all the ramifications of nuclear energy to the people of Canada.
What we now have is an internal examination and review. The government seems to fear this issue, so it wants to hide it again. What do we have before us? We have a very narrow request for information, which is obviously a partisan political request for information covering a very short period of time. Instead of a broad inquiry to expose to the people of Canada all aspects of this industry, we have a very narrow and specific request for information as follows:
-His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications between the government and senior officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited during the months of June, July, August and September, 1979, that pertain to the negotiation of the sales of Candu reactors either by AECL or by any private company acting with the authority or knowledge of AECL.
That period of time is a very narrow period of time, and it is confined almost entirely to the period when the Progressive Conservatives were the government. It is a narrow and despicable approach to this massive problem. Surely the hon. member could have asked for information over a period of ten years, five years or even two years, but he has limited himself to a narrow period which is associated primarily with the tenure of the Progressive Conservative Party in government. This is a despicable action and a despicable motion on behalf of the governing side of this House. As a result it should be treated in that manner.
If members opposite want information gathered for a period of ten years, or five years, then let them ask for it. Let them ask for the information so that they may table it and all hon. members may have access to it. The hon. member has not taken a magnanimous position in this matter. He has taken a very narrow, partisan position, and it is on that note that I wish to end my remarks.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as the seconder of the motion to speak on this important topic. I hope to highlight how Canada can achieve a secure energy future through the use of nuclear systems.
July 3, 1980

The development of our electrical resources in the latter part of this century will shape the future of Ontario as surely as did the efforts of Sir Adam Beck and his colleagues at its outset. In the early part of the century, it was hydroeiectricity which gave Ontario its industrial strength. That water power, which gave the province abundant electricity, was an indigenous resource. By 1990 Ontario Hydro will be generating more than half of its electricity by nuclear energy, a source which will give us stable, economic energy from another indigenous source, uranium.
Canada, with 10 per cent of the world's uranium, is in a uniquely favourable position to exploit the potential of that resource. Substitution is the key to our way out of the oil dilemma and it will be our ingenuity and perseverance in finding methods of substitution which will determine our energy future. The use of uranium in electrical generating stations is an obvious form of substitution, and the economics of nuclear generation have already been established.
In Ontario, where the competition is imported coal, electricity is being produced by nuclear plants at half the cost of that produced by burning imported coal. 1 agree with the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who said, as reported at page 2055 of Hansard for June 12:
Canadians can be very proud that they have contributed to the development of nuclear energy.
He went on to say:
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, as are many experts in this field, that mankind not only needs nuclear energy desperately in the evolving civilization, but knows how and has available at its fingertips the ability to cope with the problems resulting from this industry.
It is a very wise man who said those words. He should be sitting on this side of the House.
In France, a country entirely dependent on imports for its oil supply, a realistic, aggressive campaign is under way by the state electric utility, EDF, to seek ways in which industry can electrify its operations. A team of 100 specially trained young EDF engineers are working out in industry to promote the concept and educate industrial engineers. Fifty per cent of the new homes being built in France are equipped with electric heat. This, it should be appreciated, is taking place in a country where electricity is far more expensive than it is in Ontario where the combination of hydraulic and nuclear generation has kept costs down.
The key to France's bid for both self-sufficiency and a high energy society is the pursuit of a strong and highly advanced nuclear power program which will supply 50 per cent of that country's energy by the end of this century. The nuclear decision in France has meant that a secure and increasing supply of electricity can be made available, an attraction for many major industries. One result has been that the European aluminum industry will concentrate its plants in France, giving that country a new industry with an export market throughout Europe, while we sit and quibble over whether or not to sell our Candu reactors to this country or that one, or whether we are going to be in this market or not, or whether we should
Candu Reactor Sales
have these double standards which the mover of this motion talked about at the beginning of his remarks.
It is not only as an electricity producer that nuclear reactors can provide answers to our energy problems. The in situ extraction of oil from the tar sands calls for huge quantities of steam. A 125,000 barrel per day plant requires something like the entire steam output of one of the Pickering reactors. Cheap steam from nuclear reactors is nothing new. At the Bruce nuclear power development near Kincardine, the reactors supply steam to the chemical plant which makes heavy water as well as supplying electricity to the Ontario Hydro network. Last year the amount of heat supplied in this way was equivalent to the heating requirements of about half a million homes, and studies are in progress to see how other industries can be attracted to the area by such economical energy supplies.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) asked a question with regard to solving the problem of nuclear waste. I think we do have the technology to solve the problem of nuclear waste, but I will leave that topic to other speakers later on in the debate.
Another kind of waste is also very important, and that is the waste of heat escaping into the atmosphere from these nuclear reactors. In the future surplus heat from the Bruce reactors could be used in greenhouses, which is an idea suggested by one of my constituents, Mr. Czubak. The surplus heat could also be used in a fish farming project built near the plant. The Ontario Energy Corporation and a group of private investors already have a one acre experimental greenhouse in production to demonstrate the feasibility of such a project. This year they will add 14.4 hectares-for the hon. members of the Conservative party, that is 35 acres-of greenhouses in anticipation of the building of a hot water pipeline from Bruce. Eventual plans are for 60.6 hectares or 150 acres of greenhouses, all heated by surplus nuclear heat.
At the other end of the scale is the development of minireactors which could replace oil furnaces in factories, shopping complexes and large buildings. The University of Toronto, like a number of other large universities in Canada, operates a small research reactor on campus, a fact perhaps which is not known by hon. members opposite. It operates unattended, is self-regulating and produces only a few kilowatts of heat. It is this type of reactor which we believe can be developed into a replacement for the oil furnace.
This government is showing decisive leadership by encouraging such imaginative projects which are pointing the way to a future in which this country can secure real self-sufficiency in energy without incurring the drastic alterations of a lifestyle which hon. members of the NDP would have us believe are inevitable. The growing evidence around the world is that the economic structure of the advanced nations can survive the ratcheting of oil prices by OPEC and the far more severe disruptions which lie not too far down the road as oil supplies dwindle.
2560

July 3, 1980
Candu Reactor Sales
We are all too well aware of the disruptive effect which the uneven distribution of our natural energy resources has on provincial relations. The transportation of coal, gas or oil from our western provinces to the industries of the east represents a formidable challenge when compared with a nuclear economy in which a single truckload of fuel will keep a plant in operation for a whole year. Uranium not only is found in most parts of Canada but its ready transportability can assist us in moving towards equality of energy pricing across the country. The cost of a nuclear kilowatt differs very little whether it is generated in the maritimes or the heartland of Ontario. I hope hon. members on the Conservative side noticed the term "kilowatt"-it has always been the measurement in this industry.
The Candu nuclear power stations built by Ontario Hydro have already saved more than $1 billion in foreign exchange and by 1990 that figure will have grown to $16 billion.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway last week complained in this debate that Atomic Energy of Canada refuses to give out information. At page 2054 of Hansard for June 12, he is reported as follows:
Atomic Energy of Canada seems to feel that it is above participation, that it is above inquiry. If anyone wants to ask a question of Atomic Energy of Canada, any interested groups of citizens, we hear the reply that Atomic Energy of Canada will not participate, nor will it give us information.
I would ask the hon. member where he was when AECL had a display in room 200 in the West Block. He could have got all the information he wanted there. I would also refer him to the annual report of AECL where he would have found the financial statement he asks for, as well as all the information on waste management, etc.
As an existing and proven alternate energy, nuclear power can make a significant contribution to the over-all energy supply which is a prerequisite for economic growth in Ontario and in Canada as a whole.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate for the production of papers from AECL with some degree of interest. I have read the motion, of course, and I want to say that not only do I agree with the call that all documents-notes, minutes, correspondence and other communications from AECL during the months of June, July, August, and September, 1979-be made available to the House of Commons, but I would call for all documents from AECL going back for a period of years and right up to the present time.
I should like to see the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) broaden his outlook a little and realize that this company, a Crown corporation, in the final analysis has to be answerable to this House of Commons through a minister of the Crown. It should be only too happy to make the documents available and the hon. member should be very forthright in encouraging it to do so.
I had the feeling, however, that in putting forward his motion the hon. member for Vaudreuil was doing more than
just asking for the documents for a certain period of time. In reality I think he was indulging in that game that so many members of the government benches seem to be playing these days-that is, kite flying for the government. In his case it is a game of kite flying on behalf of the government to forward a policy-to endorse and push a policy of lowering the safeguards policy on sales abroad of nuclear equipment by AECL on behalf of Canada. That seems to be the goal that he and other members have in mind.
One has only to look at the current negotiations with Argentina for a good example of this. The hon. member for Vaudreuil raised that question when he spoke. He advocated, of course, further sales of Candu reactors to Argentina even though that country is not a member of the non-proliferation treaty nations, has not signed the non-proliferation treaty nor has it agreed to Canada's full scope safeguards. It is a country which is in no way prepared to meet the kinds of standards Canada has set for itself in trying to be an example to other countries of how to contain the proliferation of nuclear explosions around the world.
1 imagine that if we were to get the papers from AECL down to the present day-and I hope the hon. member will endorse that suggestion-we might find that in the present deliberations between AECL, ministers of the Crown and government officials from Argentina somehow or other there will be a write-off of the mounting debt of AECL on its construction of the Embalso plant in Cordoba province. We have already absorbed a $130 million loss on that and now there is the potential of another $30 or $40 million loss. In order to get a write-off and relieve the Canadian government of that kind of additional debt, we have somehow or other fiddled around with the safeguards that the previous Liberal government had established and that the Conservative party had endorsed.
It was not always that way with the Liberal government. There were those previously who took a very strong and courageous stand-ministers who had the courage to introduce, defend and enlarge the number of countries who would abide by the standards of safeguards that we put into effect. When the Hon. Don Jamieson was secretary of state for external affairs, he introduced safeguards on December 27, 1976. At page 2256 of Hansard for that date, he said:
While the Canadian government recognizes the legitimate energy requirements of its trading partners, it is determined to do everything within its power to avoid contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. It is for this reason that the Government of Canada has unilaterally decided to strengthen further Canada's safeguards requirements.
Perhaps the hon. member for Vaudreuil would pay particular attention to the next passage. Mr. Jamieson said:
As in the past we are prepared to accept the commercial consequences of being clearly ahead of other suppliers. This is the price we are prepared to pay to curb the threat to mankind of nuclear proliferation.
That was the kind of courageous stand that was taken by a former Liberal secretary of state for external affairs. I wonder how many on that side of the House take that stand today. Certainly when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was in opposition he had some questions about such a stand, and now
July 3, 1980

the hon. member for Vaudreuil questions it. He does not have the courage to stand up and defend the safeguards that are in place. These could be changed or downgraded.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, he did not have the courage either to stand in his place and make the charges against me personally that he made outside the House. That seems to indicate what he is all about. 1 found it rather interesting that he knew he could not make those kinds of allegations in the House and defend them under the rules. No. What happened was that in the CP story of June 13 this year it said:
Herbert, MP for the Montreal riding of Vaudreuil, told the Commons yesterday afternoon that a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister apparently interfered with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Crown agency that sells nuclear technology, and effectively ensured a breakdown in communications with Argentina.
Herbert did not name MacDonald in the House but confirmed later she was the cabinet minister to whom he was referring.
He said the charge was based on a complaint made by one of his constituents interested in the sale of reactors.
I find that to be one of the most invidious ways of going outside the House. The hon. member would not name the minister in the House of Commons, would not name the constituent, and would not name what the charges were that the constituent was upset about. None of this would he do in the House of Commons. Of course he would make all sorts of allegations outside. That is exactly what I expected from the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
It is rather interesting that we see more and more of this deterioration of Liberal concern for the maintenance of nuclear safeguards in this country and as we apply them to other countries. When you look at what the hon. member for Vaudreuil is doing, obviously he seemed to want to make sales of Candu reactors to Argentina under any conditions whatsoever, just accept anything. I say to him that this is not the same as going out and selling other commodities. The sale of a nuclear reactor or nuclear technology has within it the potential for destruction of people around the world in a way that no other commodity has. The hon. member for Vaudreuil should be prepared to face up to that, and face up to the responsibility that goes with being a member of the House, certainly the responsibility that being a member of the government carries with it on matters such as this.
This afternoon when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) was questioned about further sales to Argentina and under what conditions, he evaded giving direct answers. Of course he did. Even the hon. member for Vaudreuil must know that now we are getting into a series of discussions that are shrouded in secrecy between cabinet ministers, AECL, and officials from Argentina. They certainly could allow for our safeguard standards to be lowered. I hope that every concerned member in the House of Commons would fight against that, including even the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
It would be interesting if he would expand his motion to cover what was going on in April of this year when Admiral
Candu Reactor Sales
Madeira paid his visit to Ottawa to meet with ministers of the Crown and members of AECL, to conduct negotiations with regard to sales of Candu reactors. In that way he could find out exactly what was the quid pro quo for writing off the additional losses that AECL has had because of the bad business practices and maladministration of their work in Cordoba in the building of the Embalso plant. It would be interesting to know what the quid pro quo is. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. member for Vaudreuil is aware that his government is prepared to write off $30 million or more as a result of the way the whole enterprise has been mishandled from beginning to end, since the time it went into effect.
We had a situation where a reactor was sold by AECL to Argentina. That sale, through several renegotiations, cost the Canadian people $130 million. Already we have had to pay that amount for selling them this reactor. The cost has gone even higher, and discussions are now under way between our government and Argentina as to how to cover that loss. That is something that perhaps the hon. member for Vaudreuil will include in his motion so that we have all the material out on the table and under public scrutiny when we are looking at the question of AECL.
As a number of my colleagues have said, had we been able to pursue the public nuclear inquiry that the Clark government had set up, all of this would be common knowledge now. It would all be in the public domain. However, what happened to the government of which the hon. member is a part? Immediately it wraps a mantle of secrecy around everything it is doing.
Of course it is not what the government is doing that the hon. member really wants to know. It is not the current situation with regard to Argentina that he wants to know anything about. No, indeed. It is not the write off of $30 million, further losses, or anything of that nature. He really wants to duck the whole issue. That is what I find rather interesting in that he simply does not understand the situation. He does not want to know the facts, and certainly does not seem to care one little bit about Canada's maintenance of the safeguard policy.
It would be interesting if he would look at what went on last summer when some of us who felt strongly about safeguards argued that there should be no lessening of safeguards on the sale of nuclear equipment and nuclear technology, regardless of whether it is to Argentina, Pakistan, India, Brazil, South Africa, Israel or any other country that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. We have already seen the kinds of damage, problems, and situations the world is placed in when those safeguards are not in place.
I would hope the hon. member for Vaudreuil would enlarge upon the motion he has put forward to include all of the documentation from AECL going back to 1974 when the Embalse plant first saw the light of day. If we have all of the documentation on the table, he can take a clear look at the difficulties caused by the procrastination and ill-founded documentation put forward by AECL.


Candu Reactor Sales
AECL had to go back and renegotiate the agreement twice because it was not carried out properly. It was not written properly in the first place. Now they are trying a third renegotiation. I hope the hon. member will be honourable enough at least to ask for the whole story.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the motion before the House and give my approval to what it asks for and bring a particular aspect to the whole question of information about the nuclear industry and what is taking place in that part of our present day world.
I bring to this debate a specific piece of information provided only recently in the course of the hearings on the subject of uranium refineries which were held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. A large number of people appeared at these hearings and spoke with deep personal concern about the fact that they had in the past been, in a sense, whitewashed by the uranium industry-that they had not been told the truth about what had taken place. 1 have here a little booklet called "Why People say No". In it, Saskatchewan people, as well as people from all over Canada, express their concern about the fact that they have not been given up to date information about what is happening in the nuclear industry, and I should like to put a couple of short passages on record to indicate the broad spectrum of information which the people wanted but which did not appear to be found acceptable by the commission at that time. For instance, a student I know personally spoke of the inquiry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but, according to Standing Order 48(2), after one hour and 30 minutes of debate, we have to end the debate and put the question. However, under the same order the mover of the motion is entitled to an additional five minutes if he wishes.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we had an interesting discussion on the last occasion when this subject was under consideration, and again this afternoon. The debate has brought out the role nuclear energy can play in meeting the energy needs of Canada in the years ahead. We have heard reference, also, to the role it can play in providing developing countries with a cheap and dependable source of energy. There has been some discussion of waste disposal, an area of concern, an area of interest to many both in Canada and abroad, but one in which significant progress has been made in meeting the challenges which that particular aspect of energy involves. The role which nuclear energy can play in assisting the developing countries in particular, the question of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technology and ensuring it is not abused has also been discussed, most recently here this afternoon.
Canada's desire to share her peaceful nuclear technology with other countries which can put it to good use must be balanced by a perception of its potential danger. The Canadian
July 3, 1980
people would not countenance the diversion of our nuclear exports for destructive purposes.
Proliferation is essentially a political problem among nations, rather than technical. Safeguards on civilian nuclear technology are only one aspect of the political problem. Countries wishing to obtain nuclear weapons can do so without recourse to civilian nuclear power technology. In any case, most would prefer to avoid complicating a weapons program by linking it to facilities intended for energy supply.
Policies which emphasize restriction of technology, without taking into account the legitimate energy needs of other countries, may push them toward self-sufficiency using unsafeguarded national facilities. The denial of technology can exacerbate the problem of achieving international consensus on a non-proliferation regime. At the same time importing countries must respect international concern about the risks of proliferation. The non-proliferation regime must devise ways of maintaining the technical and institutional barriers between civilian and military applications of nuclear energy.
The recent international nuclear fuel cycle evaluation (INFCE) in which Canada participated fully, has been useful in developing a common understanding of the technical base for future nuclear developments. INFCE concluded that there was no technical "fix" to the problem of proliferation. Basically, it requires political solutions. INFCE indicated that a number of countries will be proceeding with plans to reprocess their irradiated fuel and to recycle plutonium. From this arises the need for better institutional and technical arrangements to deal with the safeguards aspects of enrichment, reprocessing plants, and with advanced fuel cycles generally.
The basic policy issue in the post INFCE period is how to reconcile the needs of countries with nuclear programs for assurances of supply of technology and fuel with the need for a stable, effective non-proliferation regime. What is needed now are acceptable international agreements, which may help to do away with the need for extensive case by case bilateral negotiations. In particular, one difficult question which Canada must address is how it will exercise its right of prior consent over reprocessing. In international discussions which Canada hopes will take place in the near future, the government expects that its concerns over the proliferation risks associated with reprocessing can be reconciled with its nuclear partners regarding assured supply and use of uranium of Canadian origin.
The international nuclear market will continue to present difficulties in both the economic and political domains, but we are working to overcome them. The government is reviewing its policies with a view to deciding how the national interest can best be served in a way consistent with our responsibilities to the international community. We must now again work with others in directing our energies to the evolution of a sensible international non-proliferation regime. The most effective contribution we can make to that effort will be one which gives equal weight to the two sides of the nuclear dilemma-the quest for energy security and the quest for control over the spread of nuclear weapons.
July 3, 1980


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, in my opening remarks 1 must express my pleasure that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) spoke this afternoon because it gives me the opportunity to underline the reason for the motion. I will begin by reading the relevant remark as it appears at page 2050 of Hansard. I said it appeared to me that a minister of the Crown at that time was interfering with the operation of a Crown corporation which should have been independent of government interference.
It is quite apparent from the remarks that were made on June 12 by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that he thought I was trying to promote the sale of Candu reactors. I tried to make it clear that I was not expressing an opinion either for or against; I was simply saying that the expressed intent of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was to make export sales and I was objecting to an apparent interference by an important minister of the Crown in the operation of a Crown corporation which was intended to be independent of government interference.
I raise this issue because it will come up later and in the future. If I could put my personal opinion on the record, though, 1 think there should be a lot more government interference in Crown corporations. Nevertheless, if they were set up to be independent they should remain independent.
There are two means of interference. One of them is, of course, by stopping communications between interested parties, which effectively puts an end to negotiations for a sale. If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands feels any better about it, I may say I have good reason to believe that action of this kind was going on prior to the change of government by which the hon. lady became a member of the cabinet.
I have objected to the double standard. I want to see our standards clearly established and put on the record. I want to see us abide by our own standards, and I want those clearly established.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order just so I have clarification from the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He mentioned stopping. I think the words he used were "stopping of communications". I stand to be corrected, but it seemed to me that he was implying that I had stopped communications. It that is so, I would like him to spell out the exact details of what I was supposed to have done, because he is making a charge of which I know nothing.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the stopping of communications between AECL and the representatives of another country who were interested in purchasing a Candu reactor. 1 make that very clear.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: By whom? Who stopped them?


Harold Thomas Herbert: If it is the policy and the intention of this government, the past government or any other government, to sell Candu reactors or not to sell Candu reactors, I accept that decision. I was objecting strongly to any personal intervention
Candu Reactor Sales
which imposes the ideas of an individual on a supposedly independent Crown corporation.


Mr. Wilson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the House on this question of the interruption of communications. I was the minister who went down to Argentina on this particular point, and I want to make it absolutely clear that the then secretary of state for external affairs did not in any way try to stop communications. In fact the point at issue was that there was no communication between the previous government and Argentina.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the work which was done by the hon. member who has just spoken. In fact that was the only bright light on the whole picture at that time.
We have sold a reactor to Argentina. That is a fact. I do not want to get into whether that was a good deal or not. That is another issue entirely. We could have concluded another sale to that country. However, as with any export business, aggressive salesmanship is necessary.
I am well aware that when I placed this motion on the order paper I was asking for the production of some documents which would not be made available to me, and it should be apparent that I do not have sufficient information to be able to ask for the specific communications to which I referred in my remarks in this House on June 12. Without going any further, then, I request that the motion be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In accordance with Standing Order 50 the motion can be withdrawn only with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give its unanimous consent for the withdrawal of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to serve notice that I want to reserve, for the period of time following question period next week, the right to raise a question of privilege regarding the charge laid against me in the House this afternoon by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that I personally interfered by stopping communications between AECL and government officials of Argentina, and to demand that the hon. member produce evidence to that effect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The remarks of the hon. member will be brought to the attention of Madam Speaker.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.54 p.m. the House took recess.

July 3, 1980
2564___________________________________
Adjustment of Accounts Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Donald James Johnston: that Bill C-22, an act to adjust the Accounts of Canada and to make related amendments to certain acts be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill is designed to implement many recommendations concerning technical improvements to be made to the Government of Canada's financial statements and to write off certain loans.
In 1973, the then secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Osbaldeston, undertook a study on the accounts of Canada with a view to resolving many accounting problems which, in the preceding years, had been studied by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or raised by successive auditors general.
This task force was made up of representatives from the Department of Finance, the Department of Supply and Services and the Treasury Board Secretariat. Mr. Glenn Ross, a chartered accountant from Coopers and Lybrand, an accounting firm established here in Ottawa presided over the group and he acted as special accounting consultant to the secretary of the Treasury Board. The study was completed in October 1975. Its 41 recommendations were accepted by the Treasury Board and by cabinet, and in March of 1976 they were submitted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which approved them.
Recommendations 10, 11 and 12 contained in the report summarize the main purpose of this legislation and they explain the concepts of assets and liabilities from the point of view of the Canadian government. To meet these new definitions, we will have to delete certain items which were previously registered as assets and recognize that in the future, these disbursements will be considered as expenses, not as assets.
In order to make these necessary changes, we have used a method which consisted of three steps. First, to indicate the changes brought to the financial statements of the government as of March 31, 1979, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) exercised the authority conferred to him by section 54(2) of the Financial Administration Act to provide, for the
assets and liabilities, such reserves as he deems necessary in order to have an exact picture of Canada's Financial situation. The second step consists of the application of part of the legislation which rescinds all legal powers with respect to various accounts, funds and loans to be deleted. The third step will consist of the application of part of this same legislation which provides for the deletion of outstanding amounts which are registered in the accounts of Canada as of March 31, 1980. Most of the deletions concern the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Airport Revolving Fund.
[ English J
The exact amount to be deleted will not be known until the actual balances at March 31, 1981, are established. The $3.8 billion estimate of the balance to be deleted that was quoted in our press release of April 28, 1980, was based on figures published in the public accounts for 1978-79. Since the press release, preliminary figures for the year 1979-80 have become available from the end year accounting records, and the estimate of the amount to be deleted can now be revised down to $3 billion. This change occurred because the government's cost of paying benefits to the unemployment insurance fund was reduced by about $1 billion in the fiscal year 1979-80 from what it was in 1978-79. This reduction in the government's cost of paying benefits was due to a new formula that increased the share of costs to employees and employers, reduced benefits paid because of some new rules, and a slight improvement of the rate of unemployment.
The objectives of this act could have been met through special supplementary estimates followed by a special appropriations act, but because they are accounting adjustments rather than spending initiatives, and because they represent a significant change in accounting policy, it was felt that they would be better explained through a separate act. In keeping with this philosophy, it was decided to include in this act only those items which has been previously agreed to and publicly acknowledged in the financial statements of Canada. Note three of the 1979 Public Accounts relates to recommendations 10, 11 and 12 of the study of the accounts, and to the write-off of certain loans which are also included in this bill. A more detailed explanation of the major items is provided in the following comments.
I should like to deal with unemployment insurance. The largest amount involved relates to the unemployment insurance account. At March 31, 1980, advances by the government and other current obligations to this fund were in the order of $1.6 billion. The following details will explain how that amount is determined. The unemployment insurance account is intended to be self-sufficient as long as unemployment remains below a specific rate. Until January, 1976, that rate was Fixed at 4 per cent, but now it is calculated using an eight-year moving average of the unemployment rate. For example, the moving average rate used for 1979 was 6.6 per cent. The government is required to pay the fund for the cost of benefits attributable to unemployment higher than this rate.
July 3, 1980

The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission pays out benefits based on claims, but it has not been receiving the government's share of the cost until the calendar year has ended and the annual rate of unemployment becomes known. However, the commission requires funds to meet its interim needs. These needs have been met from the contributions of employers and employees and advances provided by the government against its eventual share of the cost of unemployment. These advances have been treated as an asset of the Government of Canada, and at the end of each fiscal year their total value has been reported in the Public Accounts and in the government's statement of assets and liabilities. The advances to the unemployment insurance account made by the government to meet the expected cash requirements of the account at March 31, 1980, totalled $1,025 billion.
A calculation was made of the government's cost of paying benefits for calendar year 1979 plus January to March, 1980. This total cost exceeded the advances by $574 million and is an obligation of the government to the unemployment insurance account. Therefore, the total amount of the required adjustment is $1,025 billion plus $574 million, for a total of $1,599 billion. This adjustment has the effect of recognizing the total government's cost of paying benefits to the unemployment insurance account up to March 31, 1980, and better disclosing the government's expenditures. Bill C-22 will obviate the need to make this kind of adjustment in the future, since the act to adjust the accounts of Canada will require that the government recognize as budgetary expenditures its cost of paying benefits to the unemployment insurance account on a monthly basis.
The next item of significance with which this bill deals is the subject of revolving funds. It is the next largest amount dealt with. It relates to revolving funds and working capital advances. In a separate decision in response to other recommendations of the study of the accounts of Canada to which I earlier made reference, the Treasury Board approved a change to the method used to control revolving funds and working capital advances to become effective April 1, 1980. Under the previous accounting method the additional moneys provided by appropriations over revenues collected were treated as loans or advances rather than expenditures of the government. Recommendations 28 through 39 of the study of the accounts dealt with improvements to the methods of accounting for and disclosing the activities of these funds.
The approved change will recognize advances as budgetary expenditures at the time at which they occur. This is instead of treating them as non-budgetary loans. If a fund generates an excess of revenue over the money advanced, this amount in turn will be treated as a reduction of expenditure. In conjunction with the implementation of this change, it will be necessary to delete the outstanding balances of all such accounts effective March 31, 1981, and that is one of the purposes of the bill. The total of these balances as at March 31, 1980, was $859 million and involved some 56 separate accounts belonging to 17 different departments. About $650 million of this sum is the result of loans made to the airports revolving fund,
Adjustment of Accounts Act
much of which was required to finance the construction of Mirabel airport and the Pickering land assembly.
The only significant addition to Bill C-22 from its predecessor Bill C-13 is the last part called "Authorizations for Certain Revolving Funds". These are set forth in clauses 22 to 33 of Bill C-22. Generally parliamentary authority for revolving funds not originally authorized in specific legislation would be approved or rescinded through supplementary estimates. However, because of difficulties associated with co-ordination and timing between supplementary estimates in fiscal year 19801981 and Bill C-22, it was considered appropriate to include the rescinding of all previous revolving fund authorities and establishing new revolving funds in this bill. It is intended that future amendments to the revolving fund authorities set up by this bill will receive parliamentary authority through supplementary estimates. Consequently a special clause is included in this bill to facilitate amendment by an appropriation act.
There are some miscellaneous changes as well. For example, another amount to be adjusted relates to unamortized bond flotation costs. Prior to 1977 the flotation or administrative costs of issuing government bonds were recorded as assets and then charged off to expenditures over the life of the related bond issue. However, since 1977 the government has recognized flotation costs on new issues as expenditures at the time the issues were made. The balance of unamortized flotation costs of $140 million for issues prior to 1977 needs to be deleted from the accounts of Canada.
A fourth major item to be adjusted arises from loans totalling $387 million made to finance certain types of capital expenditures for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Capital Commission, the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. Payments of principal and interest on these loans have not been made since March 31, 1975, because commencing on that date any new capital expenditures have been treated as normal budgetary expenditures of the government. These old loan balances have continued to be carried as assets in the accounts of Canada, pending the granting of parliamentary authority to delete and recognize them as expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to these assets, certain liabilities of the government have to be terminated to rectify the accounting and improve accountability to Parliament. These special accounts, until now designated as liabilities by the public accounts, basically constitute accounts which allow the agency involved to hide allocation of funds and revenue produced by sales so that these funds cannot be cancelled at the end of the fiscal year.
These accounts are as follows: the National Museums purchase account, the National Museums special account, the National Defence special liability account, the National Library purchase account, the Railway Relocation and Grade Crossing fund and the National Capital fund. I repeat that this bill proposes no new cash expenditure. It aims at implementing the recommendations included in the study of the

July 3, 1980
Adjustment of Accounts Act
accounts of Canada which were authorized by the Treasury Board and the cabinet of the former government and supported by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Speaker, we are now working on a policy concerning the evaluation of the posted assets of the government. We expect this policy, which aims at developing procedure and methods for calculating and registering asset values, to be ready for the preparation of the public accounts of 1980. Mr. Speaker, basically, this policy will enable us to show more accurately the value of the posted assets of the government, that is, the sums that are expected to be collected or recovered through financial claims.
I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there will be several, very few in number, technical amendments which will be brought forward during the committee stage of this bill.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak first for our side on this long awaited Bill C-22, to adjust the accounts of Canada. As the minister knows, it has been a long time coming, and I think the House may well ask itself why the bill has come to us at this time and why the government all of a sudden felt moved to proceed with Bill C-22. The reason, I think, can be stated fairly easily.
The government has realized that the jig is up, or it has been caught with its hands in the till, if I can put it another way. It has been a long time that the House has been attuned to the fact that this bill was necessary. 1, as a member of this House, and as a chartered accountant, have long been lamenting that the accounts of Canada were not presenting the facts in accounting language as they should for an enterprise of the size of the Government of Canada. I have not been alone in that kind of concern. Over the years the Auditor General, and more recently the Comptroller General, have expressed the concern that things are not described adequately or properly in the public accounts of Canada.
A result of the practice which has been followed by the government is that the expenditures of the government have been understated and the assets of the government have been overstated. We on this side agree with the proposals in Bill C-22, and that should be no surprise to the House since it is essentially the same bill as that proposed, Bill C-13, during the Thirty-first Parliament, introduced on October 19, 1979, barely one week into the administration of the Progressive Conservative government.
It is worthy of note that the press release put out by this new minister in April, 1980 is very similar to the press release put out by the former president of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). Only the names have been changed, and I do not know whether that is to protect the innocent, but the one release with the name which I will leave out, begins:
-President of the Treasury Board, today announced major changes to the Accounts of Canada designed to improve financial control and accountability.
Our present President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in his release has said:
-President of the Treasury Board, today announced introduction of legislation to make major changes to the Accounts of Canada designed to improve financial control and accountability.
Is it not strange that the wording is exactly the same, just nine months later?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It sounds like a carbon copy.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It is all but a carbon copy. I could go on, but I think I have made my point. The releases are practically word for word the same.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I can hear some voices to the left suggesting it is because there is no difference in parties. If that were the case we would have had this bill years ago. Perhaps the present President of the Treasury Board would care to indicate whether he would like to have had the bill in shortly after he arrived in Parliament or a few years before he arrived in Parliament. In any event the record stands.
The Progressive Conservative government of the Thirty-first Parliament presented this bill barely a week after it met Parliament. Now we have the other side presenting almost verbatim the same bill, with almost verbatim the same press release. Perhaps I could just say that is a bit of a coincidence, but I think it is significant that the present government felt compelled, because of pressure undoubtedly brought by this side, to bring this bill along.
The House should be interested in looking at the history of events leading up to what made the Conservative government feel this bill was necessary. I do not have to go back too far, just to 1975. I think the minister alluded to the 1975 Report on the Study of the Accounts of Canada.
It is significant to observe that this study was the first of its kind since 1920. In other words, in this country where budgets have soared goodness knows how many times from 1920 to 1975, 55 years, there had not been any kind of study made of the accounts of Canada.
It is worth while, I think, to read three of the recommendations contained in that Study of the Accounts of Canada, released in 1975. Recommendation No. 10 found at page 5, says:
Assets and liabilities of the Government of Canada should be defined as follows:
assets are the financial claims acquired by the Government of Canada on
outside organizations and individuals as a result of events and transactions
prior to the accounting date; and
liabilities are its financial obligations to outside organizations and individuals
as a result of events and transactions prior to the accounting date.
That is a fairly basic accounting definition to anyone with a modicum of accounting ability or business experience, but that is something which was not being followed by the Government of Canada in its accounts up until this point.
July 3, 1980

Recommendation No. 11 on page 6 of the report says this:
The Unemployment Insurance Commission should be reimbursed by the government on a monthly basis for all expenditures to be borne by the government. Such reimbursements should be recorded as budgetary expenditures of the period to which they pertain thus deleting non interest-bearing advances from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.
Again that is a fairly simple observation, but what the government found it convenient to do over all these years was record the amount to be paid out on the excess expenditures on unemployment insurance as assets, and then after the fiscal year end they would be paid over to the fund and recorded as an expenditure. In other words, it was an understatement of the expenditures of the fiscal year just ended and an overstatement of the assets in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of Canada as at the end of that fiscal period.
Recommendation No. 12 says this:
Consistent with the definition of assets and liabilities previously recommended, the following should be deleted from the Statement of Assets and Liabilities: -working capital advances and revolving funds except for those primarily used to record financial claims on organizations and individuals outside the Government of Canada;
-undisturbed balances of appropriations to special accounts; and -deferred loan amortization costs and premiums.
The minister has made reference to that very matter in his remarks. I am glad to see that the Government of Canada is finally facing up to the accounting and business actualities and will now record things as they really are. The lament is that it took five years after the report was made for the present government to get around to doing anything. As 1 say, I doubt very much that this government would have been acting on it this soon if it had not been for the pressure brought by the introduction of Bill C-13 by the previous government.
The recommendations of the study were not the only source of ideas telling the government that it should now act and correct things. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts as long ago as 1976, after having reviewed the study, told the House of Commons in its report:
After careful examination of the study and having been assured by the Auditor General that the measures being proposed are sound and in accordance with current accounting standards and principles, your committee hereby endorses the 41 recommendations contained in the Study of the Accounts of Canada.
Your committee therefore recommends that the Treasury Board should implement these recommendations as soon as it is technically possible to do so.
1 do not think that it would take four years before it would be technically possible to put these recommendations into effect. 1 have read three of the recommendations from the study, and I think that it is significant that there are actually 41 such recommendations. The fact that nothing happened as a result of those 41 recommendations as far as this bill is concerned, is also significant.
We had in the meantime other recommendations in connection with the form and content of estimates, because members of the House, particularly those with some business experience or accounting knowledge-knowledge which we badly need in this House-would try to compare the estimates as they were
Adjustment of Accounts Act
prepared with the Public Accounts produced at the end of the fiscal year. As is still largely the case, there was no comparison possible between the projected expenditures and the actual presentation of the expenditures which is made after the fact. The debate went on, and in 1978 the public accounts committee was again moved to observe, after reviewing the reservations of the Auditor General on the 1978 Public Accounts:
Your committee again recommends that legislative action be taken as soon as possible to delete from the Accounts of Canada the assets and liabilities identified in Notes 5 and 7 to the audited financial statements and to prevent similar balances from recurring in future years.
Notes 5 and 7 in the Public Accounts in 1978 should also be quoted for the benefit of the House. Note 5 to the audited financial statements of the Government of Canada on page 21 of the Public Accounts reads:
The loans described below are likely to require parliamentary appropriations for write-off in subsequent years; until such appropriations are obtained, the assets are overstated by the following amounts:
I do not think I need to go into the details, but the total of the amounts in that note of the financial statements is $384 million. I think all of them have been dealt with by the President of the Treasury Board tonight, but again 1 would make the point that this is 1980, not 1976, 1977 or 1978.
Note 7 in the 1978 financial statement had this to say:
Certain accounts reported as assets and liabilities do not meet the definitions stated in-
-the notes, the definition of which I read earlier. Note 7 goes on:
However these accounts will continue to be reported on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities until such time as parliamentary authority is obtained to delete them.
Accounts internal to the government reported as assets, represented deferred expenditures chargeable to subsequent years, in accordance with legislation, regulations or established practice. Those reported as liabilities represent spending authority carried forward to future years.
The balance of these accounts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as at March 31 -
That is March 31, 1978. Note 7 goes on:
-have the effect of overstating the assets and liabilities by the following amounts:
Again, to avoid the detail, the total overstatement of assets is $3,097 million, over $3 billion, whereas the overstatement of liabilities is a mere $52 million. Those are notes to the financial statements contained in the Public Accounts of Canada. The House would probably be interested to know what the Auditor General had to say on the financial statements of the Government of Canada. In giving his opinion on the financial statements of the Government of Canada for the fiscal year 1977-78, the Auditor General stated:
I have the following reservations concerning certain of the stated accounting policies of the Government of Canada which, in my opinion, affect the fairness of the information presented in the financial statements. I have commented on the matters described in these reservations in previous Reports to the House of Commons.
The Auditor General was saying back in 1978 that this was not the first time he had mentioned these reservations. He went on to say:

Adjustment of Accounts Act
As a result of the inclusion of certain balances identified in Notes 5 and 7 to the financial statements and designated for deletion from the accounts, assets and liabilities are overstated by $3,481 million and $52 million respectively.
There is an allowance for losses on the realization of assets of $546 million. Elowever, this is a general allowance against all classes of assets. I do not think that we need to go into detail on these reservations.
The Auditor General's second reservation was with regard to Crown corporations and how they are excluded from the accounting entity of the Government of Canada. His third reservation was also with regard to Crown corporations which have a history of deficits and lack sufficient revenues to repay their indebtedness to Canada. I will be dealing with those matters in a few minutes, so I will leave them for the moment.
I should now like to refer to the Auditor General's statement of 1979 because things had changed a little bit by then. The Auditor General in giving his opinion in 1979 said in part:
-The recorded value of special assistance loans to developing countries and subscriptions to international development associations, amounting to $2,977 million, is questionable since, by their terms these loans and subscriptions have characteristics of grants or contributions. These loans and subscriptions are recorded at cost in accordance with Note 1 ... ; whereas grants and contributions are recorded as budgetary expenditure.
There were sufficient warnings all the way along for the government of the day to bring in a bill of this sort, but for whatever reasons governments use to pad their own way, these arguments or warning signs were not heeded. I would like to make reference at this point to the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, which is commonly known as the Lambert commission. This commission supported the recommendations of the study of the accounts of Canada when that report was tabled in March, 1979, and in addition to the support of the recommendations of the study, it contained some 165 recommendations. Surely that number was large enough and serious enough that the government could have felt it should act.
After all these statements, the House may be asking what the problems really are, why it is important to have this bill, why all these alarms were sounded and why they were not heeded. I should like to use two examples to illustrate the problem, Mr. Speaker. The first is the $650 million that was paid into the airport revolving fund some time ago. Apparently the Auditor General believes that that amount will never be repaid. In this instance we had the government regarding an expenditure on the books as an asset. That money was gone from the treasury. It was used in the airport revolving fund where it was needed in order to operate the airports, but the government showed it as an asset, all the while knowing it was not going to get it back.
The other example concerns the roughly $2,600 million advances to the unemployment insurance fund and recorded as accounts receivable or assets, and not recorded as expenses until later years. The government may claim that it did not think it was necessary to act so quickly, but there is a precedent. I would refer hon. members to the St. Lawrence
Seaway Authority. In the publication "Public Accounts of Canada 1978", volume III, page 148, paragraph 4, referring to the year ended March 31, 1978, there appears the following statement:
On April 1, 1977, loans from Canada of $624,950,000 were converted to equity by parliamentary appropriation.
With a flick of a pen the government can change a $625 million liability into an equity or into an expenditure! Later in the same paragraph appears the following:
Effective April 1, 1977, further accrual of interest on the deferred interest was cancelled by the governor in council.
In addition the Authority has also offset $120,986,136 of contributed capital against deficits incurred prior to March 31, 1978. It is also the intention of the Authority to seek approval from Parliament to have the remaining deferred interest payable cancelled and reversed.
To my knowledge, that step has not been taken, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the House wants to put its hands in its pockets in order to protect itself. Perhaps the President of the Treasury Board will seek that change before too many months pass.
The remaining part of the problem, as I see it, and something which the government still has to correct, is the nearly $3 billion of special assistance loans to developing countries and subscriptions to international development associations. In his 1979 report the Auditor General said that these loans were of questionable value since, by their terms, they have the characteristics of grants or contributions. They are not dealt with by the bill we are now considering but will have to be considered before too many months go by.
Since the government has now come clean and is willing to make these adjustments and have a balance sheet that will more fairly present the affairs of Canada at the end of any fiscal year, the House must now consider if the government will have the strength to stop using the old schemes to hide government spending, or if we will have another similar adjustment in a few years time. I do not expect the present President of the Treasury Board will be around at the time when this might happen. I think the House and the people of Canada can take solace from the fact that we have an effective watchdog, however, in the person of the Auditor General, and that we have a new watchdog before the fact, we hope, in the person of the Comptroller General of Canada, and of course there is always the long-term watchdog, the Public Accounts Committee which I am very happy to chair. That body will be watching out for the President of the Treasury Board if he wants to make any of these other adjustments.
There is another aspect of the accounts of Canada which I would urge the President of the Treasury Board to look at, Mr. Speaker, and I consider this aspect to be a serious problem. I refer to contingent liabilities which are not dealt with in Bill C-22. To be fair, they were not dealt with in Bill C-13 either, but for a new government Bill C-13 was a major step. I would urge the President of the Treasury Board to get after these contingent liabilities.
To illustrate the seriousness of the problem I would refer the House to "Public Accounts of Canada 1979", volume I, page 2:13. Paragraph four states as follows:
July 3, 1980

In addition to the financial obligations set out in the statement of assets and liabilities, there are contingent liabilities ... These include borrowings by Crown corporations which are agents of the government. These borrowings are a direct charge against the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The total of these contingency liabilities is $28.5 billion, almost half the total expenditures of the government in a given fiscal year. Two and one half billion dollars is for borrowings by Crown corporations which are agents of the government; $500 million is guarantees of principal and interest of Crown corporations which are not agents of the government, and $25.5 billion is for other outstanding guarantees and contingent liabilities. No business that I know of, Mr. Speaker, could tolerate contingent liabilities of that size without making some further disclosure than is being made now by the government.
There are other Crown corporations which I have not dealt with in the foregoing comments. They are Crown corporations which borrow on their own. The corporations themselves would raise funds on capital markets. But funds so raised do not require a parliamentary appropriation. Funds so raised are not classified as government spending, and do not affect the federal cash requirement. These corporations have moved off the books of the federal government, and some of their borrowing no longer appears on federal accounts. I think that Petro-Canada would be one such corporation and the Export Development Corporation would probably be another. In any event, these corporations can borrow on their own in the capital markets.
Independent borrowings by these Crown corporations create considerable confusion in federal accounts. First, if they raise some funds through a parliamentary appropriation and some independently, then some appears on the federal accounts and some does not. This is hardly a coherent approach to accounting as both amounts were borrowed by a government-owned entity. Second, as the government guarantees the independent borrowing of the corporation, the government is liable to repay the full sum in the event of a default. Independent borrowings of Crown corporations are contingent liabilities of the federal government. The amounts are off the main books, but the ultimate responsibility for repayment rests with the government nonetheless. That is probably as much as I want to say on this subject at the moment.
There is one other area of contingent liability which has not been brought up in anything that has come before us today, or in anything that I have said up till now. In the "Public Accounts of Canada 1979" there is reference to unfunded pension liabilities. In volume I, at page 7.7, under the heading "Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account", there appears the following:
This account was established by the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act to provide for the payment of increased pension benefits resulting from indexation. No actuarial valuations are required to be made of the account. The chief actuary of the Department of Insurance has estimated that, if principles of actuarial funding were to be applied to the extent of determining the future cost of the benefits being paid to annuitants of the Public Service, Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation accounts as at March 31, 1979, an additional $2.6 billion would have to be credited to the account to reflect the present value of those benefits as at that date.
Adjustment of Accounts Act
We are hearing a lot more about unfunded liabilities, especially in connection with pension funds. I say to the President of the Treasury Board, and his colleagues in government, that there are a good many more problems that he has not yet faced. Bill C-22 is a good step forward on the way we have to go, but as the President of the Treasury Board very well knows, as a past chairman of the public accounts committee, to borrow an expression that his leader used, he has a long way to travel before he rests and before the public accounts of Canada are in the state we think they should be.
We are looking forward to a short debate on this bill because we have been waiting for it for some time. I believe there will only be one more speaker from my party. We on this side have accepted with pleasure the suggestion of the government House leader that this bill be referred to Committee of the Whole. All members of the public accounts committee and the President of the Treasury Board well know that we have enough to do to keep ourselves occupied in the public accounts committee studying the report of the Auditor General, which is under permanent reference of the House to us, and the public accounts themselves. We do not need to have this bill referred to that committee for a lengthy study.
The minister has supplied me with some amendments that he is going to propose during the committee stage. I will take the intervening moments before we get to Committee of the Whole stage to look at these motions. We look forward to getting on with the job, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening as the Treasury Board critic for the New Democratic Party to comment on Bill C-22, an act to amend the accounts of Canada and make related amendments to certain acts. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who is chairman of the public accounts committee of which I am a member, say that the bill which we are being asked to give second reading and hopefully third reading to this evening, is the same bill the Conservatives brought in a few short months ago. It exemplifies again that there is absolutely no difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: We brought the bill forward.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They brought the bill forward. However, the people of Canada chose not to accept many of the other falsehoods presented by the Conservative party which led to their defeat at the polls on February 19.


An hon. Member:: February 18.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Although the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) can take a great deal of credit for this bill being introduced, and I commend him and his parliamentary secretary on that, the credit should not go to the Liberal party, because they have had years and years to bring in this bill to amend the public accounts of Canada to reflect fairly the spending position of the government. Certainly the credit goes

July 3, 1980
Adjustment of Accounts Act
somewhat to the Conservatives. Unfortunately, there were not too many other things they did that were acceptable to the people of Canada. I could go on with this, but it would not be addressing the bill. We will deal with that on another occasion.
I would like to describe a certain situation that this bill will overcome. 1 am not quite as eloquent in terms of generally accepted accounting principles as the previous speaker, but I think I have a fair grasp of the situation as to what this bill will do. As I mentioned, certain expenditures that are made by the federal government are not reflected as expenditures or spending. They are actually reflected as assets of the government.
Something 1 have talked about before in this House is that the federal spending deficit of the government for fiscal year 1978-79 was $16,185 billion. When I asked the President of the Treasury Board about this in the public accounts committee he said that is what it says but it is not really a true picture of what is happening within government. He said our deficit is not really $16,185 billion, it is actually less than that because we have an extraordinary spending item in there. That was an amount in excess of $4 billion that was a write-off of what the government had considered as loans to different government agencies and departments over previous years. Therefore, from years dating back possibly as far as a decade, maybe back to 1969, the public accounts did not fairly reflect the question of this government's spending. The actual liabilities were understated. Now, in the 1978-79 accounts, this had to catch up. It finally had to be reported.
This could not be hidden under the table any longer by the Liberal administration and the very short tenure of the Conservative government, which actually wanted to do something about it. Finally, an extraordinary item appeared on spending in excess of $4 billion. Although that $16,185 billion did not fairly reflect the spending of the government in the fiscal year 1978-79, it certainly reflected the spending of the government in other areas. It was not reported as spending, but as assets of the government.
I wish to go into some of the background as to the reasons why the Liberal party cannot be given credit for introduction of this bill at this time, although as I mentioned, we do respect the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has taken the initiative, along with his parliamentary secretary, to bring this bill before us.
It goes back, according to the admission of the President of the Treasury Board, as far as 1973, when there was a study of the accounts of Canada. At that time they were starting to look at ways of making government spending more accountable to Parliament and, through Parliament, more accountable to the people of Canada. After that study, nothing seemed to happen. There seemed to be a void for a few years until a report came down on October 7, 1975, on the study of the accounts of Canada, some two years later.
In 1976, or maybe even earlier than that, the public accounts committee reaffirmed that the government had to be more accountable to Parliament and parliamentarians in terms of the money they spend, and that the public accounts should
fairly and justly reflect the financial position of the government. Still nothing happened until 1976.
Then there was the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. Their findings were reinforced by the Auditor General, or maybe I should say affirmed the findings of the Auditor General. After they substantiated the claims of the Auditor General, the Auditor General reaffirmed his position in the fact that the spending of the government was totally out of control, that the spending of the Government of Canada was not accountable to Parliament and, therefore, the Canadian people were not being given a fair picture as to what was the financial situation of the government. As I mentioned, we do not feel that the Liberals should be given credit for this bill, although we, as the New Democratic Party, very much agree with the position and intent of this bill.
The bill, as I mentioned, will do two main things as we understand it. Certain expenditures will now be regarded as spending rather than as assets of the government. Second, and most important, the bill will help make government spending more accountable to Parliament. Although we support this measure and hope to see it pass this evening, we think the process of making the government more accountable for expenditure should not stop with Bill C-22. We think it should go on into other areas.
First, we should like to see some changes in the form of the estimates which come before the House so that the information in there is more usable by members of Parliament, enabling them to translate to their constituents and to the press a fair assessment of where the government stands. Second, we would like to see a freedom of information bill passed as set out in the Speech from the Throne, and, in that connection, to have open scrutiny of departments of government by members of Parliament so that again they can reflect to their constituents the true position of the government not only as to spending patterns but as to the effectiveness and efficiency of management in running programs for the Canadian people. Third, it is important the government take prompt action on the many recommendations of the Lambert commission and the D'Avignon report which it also talked about in the Speech from the Throne. We in the New Democratic Party will ensure that they follow this through and introduce many of the important recommendations made in those two reports.
Before ceasing what I have to say on Bill C-22 I should like to commend the government for taking action on setting up the office of the Comptroller General headed by Mr. Rogers, especially in the area of the impact program where they take specific departments of government and carry out an analysis or critique of those departments and actually study what the problems are. The second stage of those impact studies is to develop an action plan between responsible people in the Comptroller General's office and people in the department being studied. Then they come up with their action plan and implement whatever is arrived at, through a consensus of the Comptroller General's office and the department being stud-
July 3, 1980

ied. This does a great service to members of Parliament. Critics in certain areas for which they are responsible can obtain concrete direction as to the problems identified in the study. They can look at the action plan which has been set out and determine whether or not the procedure is having the desired effect, so members can do a good analysis of departments which have partaken in the impact study.
The second thing on which 1 should like to commend the government concerns the office of the Auditor General. 1 should like to rephrase that. 1 do not want to commend the government but to commend the Auditor General and his office in the area of the comprehensive audit which has taken place over the last two fiscal years where they carry out an analysis of a certain number of departments. They certainly do not have the manpower to do all the departments of government in one year but I believe they have examined six departments each year for the past two years, for a total of 12 departments. This comprehensive audit provides members of Parliament with information on the basis of which they can look at these departments to see whether they are efficient, accountable to the public, and serving the wishes of the Canadian people.
1 will conclude by asking the government to cease blaming the public employees as they have so often done-the public employees who are bashed by members of the Tory party for much of the incompetence which occurs within government. It is quite easy to bash public employees, but really the blame does not rest with public employees in many of the areas where the government has fallen down in accountability and the effectiveness of delivery of programs. The real problem arises from incompetent politicians and poor management. I think this has been reconfirmed by the Auditor General in his last report.
The 1978-79 Report of the Auditor General was quite hard-hitting, asserting that management had lost control of government spending. These other things 1 mentioned, such as accountability, tie into that issue of poor management although the press did not report it as such-the press seemed to pick up the fact that it was the public employees who were inefficient, and for a while the Conservatives jumped on the band wagon trying to protect the public employees they bash on other occasions when it is more convenient to do so. Mr. Macdonell definitely points out there, and he has admitted in the public accounts committee, that it is not the public employees who are to blame, it is the government and poor management which guides them.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to express my concern that the Conservatives allow this bill to go on to Committee of the Whole this evening so that we can proceed with these long needed changes to the Public Accounts of Canada. I hope the next speaker from the Conservative party will not be carried away with the exuberance of his own verbosity and that we can get on with passing this needed legislation.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I promise the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Adjustment of Accounts Act
Anguish) that I shall not be carried away by my own verbosity.
1 do not know that it is significant to determine who should take credit for what is presented in this House as long as the end product is in the best interests of the public. Accordingly, the hon. member will not find me discussing who should take credit for bringing the bill forward. I hope this same attitude might prevail among members to my extreme left so that in the future, when bills are presented in the House, some regard might be paid to the merits rather than to verbose political rhetoric.
I do not intend to review the detailed analysis which has been so ably made of the consequences of this proposed legislation by my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra. I will merely point out that as a consequence of the passage of this legislation, through the deletion of assets which were fictitious in nature, the net debt of the Government of Canada will increase, and increase substantially. As a matter of fact, it will increase by the amount of $4,478 billion.
It is my intention to deal with just one of the single items contained in the bill, that is, the item covered in clause 7 which relates to the aggregate amount of principal and interest oustanding as of March 31, 1981, in respect of loans made to the CBC. These loans were made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by Her Majesty pursuant to authority set out in schedule V. They are written off and deleted from the accounts of Canada and, in the words of the clause, any obligation of the Corporation to repay the principal and pay the interest is terminated. Clause 5 contains a rather lengthy list of loans made to the corporation, commencing with the first advance in June of 1964 and ending with the advance of March 19, 1974.
I was initially somewhat concerned about the prospect of writing off loans for a period which had not as yet expired. I think we are only saved by the filing of the schedules which, without an examination of the specific orders in council giving rise to those loans, I would presume were not open-ended, so that many hundreds of millions of dollars might yet be advanced and written off before the money actually reaches the treasury of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But it is interesting from an examination of the Public Accounts of Canada, 1979, at page 2.13, to examine the exact amount of the CBC write-off. It is in the amount of $198 million, which is not an insignificant amount by any means.
In determining whether write-offs of loans and obligations of Crown corporations and others as assets of the Government of Canada should be eliminated as assets, this House should ask itself whether it is appropriate to do so. 1 am not going to deal with the other specific issues and amounts which are covered in Bill C-22 but, rather, with this one only.
I think it is appropriate, accordingly, to ask the question: is it being written off-and 1 refer to the amount of $198 million-because the CBC is unable to pay the loan? The answer to that, unfortunately, I do not know, and 1 hope with a

July 3, 1980
Adjustment of Accounts Act
proper opportunity in the committees upon which I serve that we may determine exactly how the CBC manages to have accumulated a debt which, it hopes, will not be paid and at the same time run up an annual debt paid for by the taxpayers of Canada in the neighbourhood, certainly in 1979, of $450 million, an amount almost equivalent to half a billion dollars, at a time when a private enterprise competitor, without the advantage of having all CBC's equipment and its capital assets paid for and acquired at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, is able not only to operate but also to operate without having that outstretched hand which is constantly being filled on an annual basis by the taxpayers of this country through the generosity of the Government of Canada.
I am inclined to question whether it might not be appropriate if we deferred a determination as to whether or not this amount should be written off and perhaps applied it either in whole or in part against the annual funds which are deposited to the credit of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Why would we take a position of that kind in this House with respect to this creature of the Government of Canada? Aside from the general observations which I made earlier to the effect that a competitor of this Crown corporation not only functions, but also functions profitably without requesting funds from this or former or future Governments of Canada and, not as a consequence of the fact that we are asking the privately-owned television network in Canada in fact to subscribe through its taxes to the well-being of its competitor, but because of the way in which that Crown corporation may well have failed to meet its obligations to the people of Canada, one might ask in the course of this examination how well the CBC has performed. The answer, in a word, might be badly, and 1 am charitable in using that word.
In 1979 the CRTC, in its endeavour to analyse the functioning of that jewel of Crown corporations, concluded that it had really failed dismally to meet its obligations to the public, and as a consequence of that CRTC analysis, an article appeared in one of the Toronto newspapers of March 15, 1979, making the following observations:
The CRTC has discovered what every person who owns a TV set has known for years-that CBC-TV is doing a rotten job in appealing to Canadians.
Given a choice, most Canadians prefer to watch American or private broadcasting. A CRTC report notes that in ten years between 1967 and 1976 the CBC and its affiliates lost 33 per cent of their audience while the private stations rose by almost 20 per cent. Can there be a greater indictment of CBC quality than the reality that it cannot stand competition and that citizens prefer foreign programming to domestic?
In over-all percentages CBC-TV has 22.5 per cent of the viewing market against 52.3 per cent for private stations. The rest watch foreign stations. CBC is last in its own country!
Yet the CBC, even now, refuses to acknowledge that it is horrendously costly, hugely wasteful, impossibly bureaucratic and, most damning, hopelessly dull, dull, dull!
Has it improved since then? I submit that it has not. In 1979 it cost every Canadian man, woman and child $22 to float the CBC. That was in 1979. However, because only 22.5 per cent actually use the service-and I am talking about the television service as opposed to the radio service-the cost was more in the neighbourhood of $90 per man, woman and child
using that service, as opposed to nothing for those who watch the private broadcasting network in Canada.


Pauline Jewett: What a laugh.


John Albert Gamble: As to performance, we are led to believe that this great public institution is the protector of the growth and development of the artistic community in Canada, and yet it was not but two years ago that CBC had a strike on its hands when staff and performers at the CBC rebelled at the fact that the CBC was hiring outside, foreign actors to perform.
In 1978 the CBC was accused by a former news broadcaster who said that the news was manipulated and that the CBC management was intimidated by the Prime Minister's office both in terms of covering events that management originally had decided to avoid and in terms of special coverage that the Prime Minister of the day desired to have filmed and broadcast.
However, one of the most heinous acts that the public broadcasting system has committed is with respect to the programming of a series referred to as "Connections". That series depicted the rather strange link between Canadians of Italian ancestry and organized crime in Canada. There was no doubt left in the minds of viewers, as they watched program after program in that series, that an Italian name should be linked somewhat with organized crime, to the effect that as a consequence of the uproar which occurred in the Italian-Canadian community and a specific protest which was lodged by Senator Peter Bosa, the office of the secretary of state commissioned a poll to determine whether watching that series had in fact influenced the decision-making process of the viewer in terms of the association between organized crime and Canadians of Italian heritage.
The conclusion of the poll, commissioned by the then secretary of state and performed by the Gallup organization, was to the effect that a full 40 per cent of those people who had seen the series believed that it was more likely that Italian-Canadi-ans would be associated with organized crime than other groups in Canada, whereas of the group which had not watched the series the percentage was markedly lower, in the range of 25 per cent.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Tories.


John Albert Gamble: Is it not strange that a serious matter of this nature, affecting the well-being of Canadians of a particular ethnic background, should be dealt with in this fashion by members of the NDP? I would have sincerely thought that serious matters dealing with the rights of all Canadians would be regarded by them in the same fashion that they are by other members in the House. But it appears I am not correct.
In the concluding paragraph of a press release, Senator Peter Bosa, on July 13, 1979, made the following plea:
It is my belief that the media has an obligation to correct this false sterotype of the Italian-Canadian community that it has portrayed. Similarly, Italian-Canadians have a major undertaking ahead to bring to the attention of other
July 3, 1980

Canadians the many significant contributions they have made throughout history from the discovery of this country by Giovanni Caboto to the present day.
He took that plea to the president of the CBC, A1 Johnson, and of course received nothing in the way of the kind of programming that was required to rectify the horrible impression that had been fixed in the minds of some as a consequence of irresponsible programming by the network owned by the Government of Canada.
I communicated with Senator Peter Bosa upon receiving that press release of his, and I suggested to him that it would be most appropriate for the CBC to stage a series of programs dealing with the substantial contribution that had been made to Canadian life by Canadians of Italian heritage.
Perhaps the greatest injustice that has been perpetrated on the whole nation, however, arose recently in connection with the position taken by the CBC as it dealt with the referendum debate in the province of Quebec, and this matter of course has occupied the attention of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) who recognized fully that in the course of balanced broadcasting it is not appropriate to balance one's judgment of the well-being of Canada against a desire to help a force which has, as its prime motive, the destruction of the entire nation, and yet that is exactly what occurred.
On April 13, 1980, A1 Johnson, the president of the CBC, had occasion to make a speech to the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association. He was questioned about the odd situation that seemed to prevail in connection with the delivery of certain material within the province of Quebec disclosing some of the merits of separation from this nation as advocated by a government in that province dedicated to that separation. He said:
It is not for us in the CBC to use our position as the nation's broadcaster to seek to tilt the balance in the solemn decision Quebeckers are being called upon to make ... so as ourselves to influence the results of the referendum, or so as ourselves to permit an undue influence to be brought to hear through the use of the airwaves entrusted to us.
What the short-minded president of the CBC has failed to do is to recognize that under the Broadcasting Act of 1968 the CBC has an obligation to provide a continuing expression of Canadian identity and to contribute to the development of national unity. How one does that by, at the same time, promoting separatism, is something that is completely beyond me.
I believe that further grants to this Crown corporation should be given the closest scrutiny in the House and that unless the CBC can in fact adhere to its mandate and speak as the national body for the benefit of all Canadians, it should cease to enjoy its privileged place in Canadian society.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Prior to your putting the question, I wonder if I might advise you, sir, and seek the consent of the House, that once the question is put the House then go to Committee of the Whole. It is my understanding that there has been some understanding among all members of the House to this effect.
Adjustment of Accounts Act
So 1 would ask that you seek that consent and that, following the question, the House go into Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Francis in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 31 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 32-
Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 32, which reads as follows:
That clause 32 be amended by adding thereto, immediately following line 44 on page 15, the following clause:
"All expenditures made under sections 22 to 31 and all revenues spent under those sections shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Board may specify."
This motion to add a new clause 32 is required to provide greater certainty that all authorizations for the revolving fund are subject to any terms and conditions which may be approved by Treasury Board. Most legal advisers and other financial experts consider that the Treasury Board may already have this authority under section 5 of the Financial Administration Act. However, in past years some appropriation acts contained the specific phrase "subject to the terms and conditions as prescribed by the Treasury Board", while others did not contain that wording. It is in order to add clarity and to eliminate the possibility of uncertainty that we are making this particular amendment.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the parliamentary secretary and his explanation of the need for this amendment, but I wanted to ask the minister if he could explain. I understand the expenditures made, but how can revenues be spent under the same amendment when we are having expenditures made and revenues spent? I mean, it sounds like a fiddle, and I want to know if the President of the Treasury Board could explain that.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the explanation is that under a revolving fund, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra knows, revenues can be earned within the fund. That accounts for the two terms being used-expenditures made under the fund and revenues spent, which are revenues earned within the fund and then spent.


Denis Éthier: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall clause 32, as amended, carry?

July 3, 1980
Adjustment of Accounts Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 32 as amended agreed to.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Following on that amendment, I move:
That Bill C-22 be amended by renumbering clauses 32 and 33 as clauses 33 and 34 respectively.


Denis Éthier: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
On clause 34-
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, again I should like to call on the President of the Treasury Board to explain the need for the various dates of coming into force of the act.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the write-offs which we have discussed will be effective as of March 31, 1981, but the revolving funds which are provided for come into effect as of April 1, 1980. That accounts for the difference in dates with respect to the coming into force of the various provisions of the bill.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 34 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
On schedule II-


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-22 be amended in item 3 of schedule II in column II thereof on page 24 by adding, immediately after "L26a Energy, Mines and Resources No. 3, 1978-79 Schedule", the following:
"L42a Energy, Mines and Resources No. 1, 1980-81 D".
Also I have a second amendment to schedule II that I would like to put. 1 move:
That Bill C-22 be amended in item 9 of schedule II in column II therof on page 25 by adding, immediately after "L31b Transport No. 4, 1974 Schedule", the following:
"L66a Transport No. I, 1980-81 D."
These two amendments are required in order that votes which were included in supplementary estimates but were not approved until May 16 could be included inasmuch as this bill was introduced at a later date.
Amendments (Mr. Daudlin) agreed to.


Denis Éthier: Shall schedule II as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Schedule II as amended agreed to.
Schedules III to VI inclusive agreed to.


Denis Éthier: Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise for only a minute before we conclude committee consideration of this bill. I noticed with interest that the hon. member for York North at second reading stage took the occasion of this bill to indulge in a bit of CBC bashing, which is something that happens around here from time to time. I do not intend to take his attack so seriously that I would launch into a full dress speech, but I should like to give one example to make the point that the CBC is not always bad.
A few weeks ago the House gave unanimous endorsation to a motion that I sought to move under Standing Order 43 which asked the CBC to make a certain change in its nightly news broadcast over television. I suggested that we from the west found it a bit awkward that the section "Across Canada" always started from the east and worked across to the west, and I suggested that the House ask the CBC to vary that, once in awhile, by starting from the west, sometimes from the prairies and sometimes from the north. I rise to remind hon. members, and I am sure they have all seen it, that one of the things we enjoy every night now is wondering where the "Across Canada" segment will start. In other words, at least on this occasion the CBC did pay attention to a constructive and respectful suggestion which was made by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Shall I rise and report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave now.


Donald James Johnston: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-13, respecting the
July 3, 1980
[Stage Direction]
relocation of government agencies, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill but I would not want to disappoint those who want to call it ten o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 do not know whether my colleague really wants to call it ten o'clock. He does not have to speak on the bill. We can call for the question. If he prefers we can call it ten o'clock, but we still have 15 minutes to go. He does not have to speak on the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I was holding the fort for a moment until the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) arrived, since he was speaking on this bill the last time it was before us. Perhaps he would like to continue.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as well as the officers of the House who were kind enough to warn me that this matter would be coming on. I am exceedingly grateful to them.
As we all know, this bill deals with the relocation which has taken place. Yesterday I spoke in the House indicating to the government the problems which had arisen as a result of the relocation handled rather hastily and without consultation at the same time that decentralization was taking place. As a result a great deal of distress occurred in the national capital area. The present member who occupies the chair, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), was involved in that and I quoted extensively from a booklet he sent to his constituents in 1977. I think it summed up the chagrin, anger and frustration as a result of this lack of consultation.
I did what I had to do in respect of the bill the last time I spoke. I want to speak now in respect of certain other matters which are important for us in this area as we consider what ought to be the appropriate relationship between the federal and local governments.
The situation in the national capital is this. Whether a Liberal or a Conservative government is in power there will be a tendency on the part of both, not to regard the public service as a place of ever-increasing opportunity for employment for the people who live in the national capital. I can tell you now, as a result of what has been said to me by people who have come to my office, that this is being felt. It is felt that the commitment of both the government and the official opposition has been and will be that the growth in the public service cannot be an untrammelled growth such as we enjoyed in the early 1970s. That is the position.
What that indicates to me is that if that is the attitude being expressed in this area by the single largest employer of people in the national capital area, then that single largest employer
Decentralization
has a joint and mutual responsibility with other governments in the area to decide how we will, if we can, create a new kind of opportunity here. If the opportunity is not to be in government then it has to be in the private sector. If it is to be in the private sector then I think there is potential for growth in this area worthy of the best possible attitude of co-operation between the national government and local governments.
One of these areas, Mr. Speaker, is in the high technology field. I do not know whether the tremendous growth that has taken place in the high technology industry in this area has come to the attention of hon. members who do not have the privilege of living here, except temporarily. That growth is almost unbelievable and it has taken place at a time when the whole electronic field is perhaps pointing the way to a whole new era of opportunity for prosperity in the country. It is fortunate we have here in this area a high technology industry which can serve not just the country but the world. I believe there is potential here for co-operation between governments, federal, municipal and provincial, for the development of that technology and that industry. This industry has grown tremendously by itself without any of the nurturing which could take place.
One of the things that has marked the growth of the national capital area is the foresight many years ago of the planners who looked at the area and decided that if it was to develop into something distinctly and uniquely Canadian there had to be a long-range plan developed. That long-range plan for us in terms of land development and the development of communities was the Greber plan.
The development of Ottawa, the national capital area and the Gatineau park, that kind of thing which has occurred on both sides of the Ottawa River, occurred as a result of foresight of the government of W. L. Mackenzie King which retained the services of Greber and laid out a plan which has been followed, more or less. As a result, we have a uniquely beautiful capital.
If we in the national capital area intend to realize the kinds of benefits from high technology which we have realized in terms of land, that kind of long-range planning must take place. We must move in the direction of a Greber type of plan to develop the high technology industry. The potential is there for this area and for the country. Certainly in terms of this area, in terms of an alternate source of employment, an alternate source of tax revenue and an alternate source of wealth for this area and for the country, the potential is here.
I would like to see this government or another government some time soon take this matter in hand and decide that it is worth while to commence that long-range planning with respect to the development of high technology. We must begin to plan ahead in terms of the kinds of education we will give our young people. I hope that the select committee on the employment problems we face in the 1980s will have something to say on that matter. I am sure that hon. members can imagine the work which could be generated here for bricklay-

July 3, 1980
Decentralization
ers, plumbers and other tradesmen, work which is badly needed in the development of the plant and the installing of the equipment, aside from the long-range markets.
This kind of planning is necessary to this area, and I do not believe that it would take very much effort. The electronic industry has said that for a small amount of money, $250,000, we could begin in the national capital area, on the basis of co-operation between all levels of government, that kind of long-range planning which would be good for this country in terms of its industry, good for the relationship of Canada to the world, because it is in this high technology field that we have been able to compete successfully with the Japanese and other industrial giants whom we regard as formidable adversaries in the world of trade. That opportunity is there for us.
Coupled with new kinds of development, we must consider whether it is appropriate now that the national capital of this country be connected directly to only one city in the United States, our largest trading partner. We are connected by an American airline, not a Canadian airline, with the city of Washington. When one speaks to people in the Commercial and Industrial Development Corporation and municipal Councillors in this area with respect to the kinds of air connections that are required, they say that if we intend to attract new industry, development and business to the national capital area, we must develop direct connections with Chicago, New York and Boston, to start with. Those are the kinds of air connections which are important.
The federal government has within its power and within the scope of its jurisdiction the authority to consider the creation of such air connections. There are businesses which are looking for places in Canada to set up, and they are looking at the area of the national capital. The key to these businesses coming here is quick and easy access to the United States. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) and the Minister of State (Mr. Lumley) are all here tonight, and 1 ask them to speak to their colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and ask him to consider this proposal.
It is important that we have this development. I have not asked very many questions in the House of Commons on this matter because 1 am hopeful that the development will take place. It is important to the people of this area that sometime soon there will be an announcement made by the government with respect to the development of the convention centre here in Ottawa. It is extremely important that Ottawa have the ability to attract national and international groups, not only of the non-industrial type, but groups in the business sector. Such a development would give the ability to create in this capital of ours a window on the world in terms of international trade.
Naturally, such a development is important in terms of the jobs which it would create because of what occurred by relocation to Hull. There was a massive infusion of tradesmen and material into that area. Business was pumped up, but when the development was finished, it all fell down. As a result, the construction industry in Ottawa is in bad shape, despite the reputation which the area has generally of a
relatively prosperous area. It is a prosperous area, but with respect to tradesmen and others who are not employed in government and some forms of business, there has been some difficulty. A convention centre which will put one crane in the air, or possibly two or three cranes, would also incite businessmen to carry out plans to reconstruct and develop and to put their own cranes in the air, all of which will be signals of prosperity.
Finally, I want to speak about the government's direct development in this area. The government is the biggest land owner we have. That is why the municipal grants act which is now in committee is an important statute for the national capital area and for other parts of Canada. As the largest developer and the largest employer, the government has the potential for development in this area. What I have in mind, as I close my speech, concerns the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), who was in the House when I began to speak on this bill yesterday.
I am referring to a proposal which I know is before the Department of National Revenue, of which I had the honour to be minister, and it is for the development of a taxation data centre in this area. It is important to the department. If the colleagues of the Minister of National Revenue would speak to him, he will tell you that the taxation data centre at Confederation Heights is overcrowded. People there are working under conditions which are not conducive to good work. There are limitations in size in terms of the equipment used.
I know that the minister has in hand, at least for the purposes of studying it, a proposal for the development of a taxation centre. The Government of Canada owns a prime piece of real estate in the national capital area, and I refer to the 400-acre parcel at the corner of Baseline Road and Woo-droffe Avenue. It is a parcel of land which was to be part of a community program. It was an experimental program which was begun when the hon. Mr. Basford was the minister of state for urban affairs.
The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton recently approved the concept of a transportation corridor to serve that area. It is an ideal spot for the government to make the commitment which is necessary to keep that piece of property within the public domain. It is a vital piece of property in terms of the westward and southward development and relocation of government installations within this area. I ask the colleagues of the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Public Works to look very carefully at that particular piece of land. As a potential development, that land is a jewel. It ought not to be frittered away and go out of the public domain. It ought to be used for some public purpose. I suggest that public purpose to the government because it would be important in giving some commitment to the relocation of government services out of the central core and not just to Hull, but to elsewhere in the national capital area.
It is not my intention to hold this bill up any longer. I appreciate the indulgence of the House.
July 3, 1980

I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for reserving this place for me in order that I might finish my speech in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now may I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I am here this evening hoping to receive a further assurance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) or the government that it is truly committed to the construction of a natural gas pipeline to eastern Canada. The minister indicated yesterday that he was interested in this matter, and today, in response to a question by my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), he said that it was a preferred option.
I want to remind the government of the specific commitment that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in Halifax on January 25, when he spoke to the Board of Trade. Showing his great concern for the maritimes on that occasion, and talking about the necessity of security of supply of energy, the Prime Minister made certain commitments. I will quote from his speech on that occasion-which is a difficult thing for me to do, but under these circumstances I shall even read from his speech, Mr. Speaker. He said:
But in order to switch, people must have access to gas. Nowhere is access needed more than in eastern Canada. I am announcing today, as part of our program, that a Liberal government will take immediate action to ensure the full co-operation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec city and the maritimes. The pipeline will have reversible capacity so that maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use western natural gas now and to send offshore gas to central Canada later. Like the railroad in the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
That was six months ago, Mr. Speaker.
The author, Elridge Cleaver, once said that when you "talk the talk you have to walk the walk". Much as I should like to see the Prime Minister take a walk, I will settle for him laying some pipe to the maritimes as he promised he would.
There are any number of reasons why the maritimes need a pipeline. We need the security of supply that the Prime Minister mentioned in his commitment; it would provide an additional energy source at lower cost to consumers; employment and general economic benefits which include benefits to an area of Quebec downstream of Quebec City; enable the
Adjournment Debate
development or production of the gas that might be found off Prince Edward Island and, most important, it would allow the Arctic liquid natural gas to land at Canso which is technically by far the best port for Arctic LNG.
The maritime provinces are heavily dependent on foreign imported oil, not only for home heating and use by industry, but also for thermal power generation. Large quantities of this oil are supplied from the Middle East, where current political tensions could quite easily erupt, resulting in major disruptions in the imported oil supply.
A gas pipeline would go a long way toward improving the security of the energy supply of the maritimes. Within five years it could be supplying 20 per cent or more of the current oil markets for heating, for industries, and for thermal power generation. Major disruptions in oil supply could be alleviated further by facility additions on the pipeline if there is a pipeline in existence.
The consumers in the Atlantic region will benefit from an additional supply of energy which will be priced to be competitive with foreign oil. For example, in Nova Scotia, in the residential market under the marketing strategy of ICG Scotia Gas Limited, gas would be priced 10 per cent lower than oil prices and 75 per cent to 100 per cent of the costs of converting from oil to natural gas would be paid on behalf of the consumer. The competition and lower prices would result in lower energy costs for the consumers in the maritime provinces.
The National Energy Board, in the "Reasons for Decision" in April, 1980, notes that in New Brunswick the population that the pipeline and laterals would reach would be in excess of 310,000 and in Nova Scotia in excess of 385,000. The following is quoted from page 8-51 of the "Reasons for Decision":
The Board notes Q & M's policies on local employment and local purchasing and believes that these would afford local residents and businesses ample opportunity to benefit from the project. This could represent a significant positive impact for areas such as the maritimes where unemployment poses a serious economic problem. Of particular interest should be the ongoing jobs created in both the transmission and distribution systems.
It is natural for the province of New Brunswick, for example, to have some concern about the environmental impact of this, but the hon. member for Fundy-Royal pointed out today that the province basically supports this pipeline. In my opinion it would be folly for the province of New Brunswick not to support it.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal also pointed out that the minister of energy, mines and resources stated in this House on December 6 last year that the Atlantic provinces need more natural gas and that the gas pipeline would take gas to homes and industries there. It is very clear that the sponsors will take the initiative, obviously, to ask the NEB to reopen this application. But surely the minister will use his good offices to make this a simple procedure, and not cost millions of dollars, for example, which would be the case if a full-scale hearing had to take place.

July 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate
Let me conclude by quoting a little poetry, as the Prime Minister did on the night of the election. He quoted Robert Frost. He said that the woods were "lovely, dark and deep," and he had "promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep." 1 could quote another poet whose name is Robert, Robert Service. In one of his poems about Canada's north, he said that "a promise made is a debt unpaid, and the law has its own stern code."
I remind the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister that when you talk about having promises to keep and miles to go before you sleep, you better not fall asleep at the switch on this promise. It is not only in the interests of eastern Canada, but in the interests of the whole country that we have a secure and cheaper source of supply for a vitally needed commodity like natural gas. We are paying out far too much money now to eastern potentates and OPEC nations for oil. The cost is not only escalating, but it is a severe drain on this country's treasury, moneys that could be used for far more pressing needs at home and abroad than to import expensive oil when we could have natural gas of our own.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the statement by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) on July 2, and on other occasions in this House, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) assured the House that the government considers as a matter of highest priority the completion at an early date of the Q and M Pipe Lines proposal to the martime provinces. In this connection, he noted that he has had two meetings with the promoters of that project, and emphasized that the government is very much interested in seeing the pipeline completed through to the Atlantic coast.
Members will recall the fact that on May 15 of this year, the minister announced the National Energy Board's recommendation that a certificate be issued to TransCanada PipeLines to extend its natural gas transmission system to Quebec City. Steps are now being taken to settle right of way matters so that that project could be commenced early next year providing for an extension of natural gas service as far east as Quebec City. The NEB, however, was not satisfied that the Q and M Pipelines could be constructed and operated in an environmentally acceptable manner until further assessments of an environmental nature were completed by the sponsors.
The Board also was not convinced that full consideration had been given to the impact of east coast offshore oil and gas discoveries on the planning and design of the proposed maritime pipeline extension. Consequently the minister has urged the promoters of the project to complete their environmental studies and other assessments to provide information which would satisfy the NEB so that this project could be got under way as soon as possible. While the government would like to see the Q and M complete the environmental work identified by the Board as soon as possible, to date there has been no
decision by the company involved to complete the necessary steps or to file a new application with the NEB.
The hon. member for Central Nova made reference during his statement of July 2 to the possible interest of the province of New Brunswick in this project. That province made known its views on energy supply before the National Energy Board in a hearing on the Q and M project. While it was certainly not opposed to the Q and M project, it was concerned that various energy options for the Atlantic region be considered before a final decision was taken on individual projects. It emphasized the importance of assessing the effects on area employment and economic development in reaching project decisions.
The federal government, of course, must have regard to the views of all governments directly affected in meeting the energy needs of the Atlantic region and this was well expressed by the minister when he addressed the Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada in Montreal on May 15 of this year. At that time he emphasized that it was critical to choose the most efficient alternative energy sources for Atlantic Canada and that the federal government should proceed with the agreement of the provinces involved.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the reduction of oil dependence in the Atlantic region, and it believes that a gas pipeline affords one of the best approaches to this objective. The government will continue to press for a completion of the pipeline project but, of course, it cannot force the National Energy Board to reopen its application. We can be assured that the NEB will be prepared to deal expeditiously with a new application and, in the meantime, the federal government is continuing with other plans for meeting future energy needs of all areas of the Atlantic region.


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT-CALL FOR AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION OF DISABLED CITIZENS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the city of Winnipeg a great event took place, the Rehabilitation International Congress, where 4,000 people gathered from around the world, indeed more than 100 countries, to consider the problems that are endured by disabled people, not only in Canada but throughout the world. It was a great success, I would say, in terms of input from the people in the non-governmental sector, because it was mostly made up of voluntary associations.
One discouraging and disappointing note is that in Canada governments are lagging behind in their attitudes, their programs and in their services to disabled citizens. This, of course, includes the federal government.
We had hoped that in preparation for the great event, the congress, the new social services legislation would have been in place. It had been talked about for many years-I was on the committee which travelled all the way to Tel Aviv in 1976 to make an appeal to bring the congress to Canada, and one of
July 3, 1980

our strong appeals was that Canada was on the verge of making a breakthrough at the government level in programs and legislation for the handicapped. Of course this was not so; the social services legislation has gone down the drain and has been dropped completely.
We had also hoped to have a report from the Special Committee on the Handicapped which was set up last November. That, unfortunately, was delayed by the election, with which we are all quite familiar. As well, we had hoped that the organization committee for the handicapped which will be responsible for organizing the Canadian program for the Year of the Disabled in 1981 would be in place. Indeed, it is now in place-I think the announcement was made today-but this is after the fact.
Perhaps to pinpoint our delinquency in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the House of Commons, Parliament Hill, is still not accessible to the handicapped even though we unanimously supported a certain motion a few months ago. If I may make the reference directly to Your Honour, we have, for example, been fighting for the designation of one single lone parking space on Parliament Hill allowing a severely handicapped person to park a car and have immediate access to the House of Commons. This is why 1 say governments are lagging behind.
But the attitudinal barriers are even greater than the problems of architectural accessibility. Someone has said that a change in law will never be able to rectify the shattering degradation that far too many physically disabled persons suffer. This is why I have been advocating since this new Parliament met that we should proceed immediately to introduce amendments to the Human Rights Act which would provide total protection against discrimination toward our disabled and handicapped citizens. I asked the minister on May 21 if she would proceed immediately to introduce this legislation as an act of good faith. Unfortunately, she replied, as reported in Hansard for that day:
I am aware, as I said, that the hon. member is particularly eager to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect all handicapped from discrimination. That is a matter which we have looked into ourselves in all the departments concerned and which, in turn, the committee will surely want to look into.
The point I wish to make is that we have looked into it. It is not necessary to look into it again, and the committee should not really have it as one of its points of reference because Canada's human rights commissioner himself, in a letter to me on October 29, said in reference to this matter, and I quote from the last paragraph of that letter:
We have evidence of very strong public support for ameliorating discriminatory practices against those who have a physical disability.
Then he added this significant phrase:
1 think the time has come.
The former minister of justice, Senator Jacques Flynn, handed on the responsibility to the law officers of the Crown to prepare the drafting of legislation. I understand that this legislation is all ready to be presented to the House of Com-
Adjournment Debate
mons. 1 hope that in the government's response tonight it will tell us that it is going to bring in the legislation. Everyone wants the legislation. It is drafted, and we certainly want it to be in position before The Year of the Disabled, 1981. If we wait for the report of the committee-the committee now is not going to be able to report until the end of December-it will not be in place for the commencement for The Year of the Disabled.
There are two House leaders here tonight, the House leader for the official opposition and for the New Democratic Party. I am sure I could get their nods if I put the proposal that if the legislation were introduced it would get speedy passage. Let us proceed immediately.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to my good friend, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). In his question he requested the assurance of the Government of Canada that it will proceed with amendments to the Human Rights Act in order to provide full protection for the disabled against discrimination. However, with respect, I point out that this is probably a question of a legal nature, and as such perhaps it should have been directed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).
1 am certain that the hon. member is well aware that it was impossible to complete legislative changes of such importance by the time of the Fourteenth World Congress of Rehabilitation International, which he mentioned a little earlier and which was held in Winnipeg during the last week in June.
This is not to suggest that the Government of Canada is not active at the present time in ensuring the rights of disabled people in this country. As 1 previously informed the House, the government has established, as the hon. member said, an organizing committee for the International Year of the Disabled, which will be in 1981, as well as a parliamentary task force on the disabled and handicapped.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You are way behind.


Gilbert Parent: Unfortunately, discrimination against disabled persons is still too common in the workplace because of environmental barriers, administrative technicalities or, quite frankly and unfortunately, attitudes toward the disabled.
I believe the hon. member said that this chamber and the buildings here on the Hill are not accessible to disabled persons. I point out with respect that I know for a fact that at the Confederation Building there are facilities for the disabled. There is a ramp at the back in order to get in. There are ramps at the South Block and the West Block, and I was told a little earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) that there also is access through the doors at the rear of this building so that the disabled can get in.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The freight entrance.


Gilbert Parent: If the hon. member refers to the galleries here, yes, we do not have facilities there.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is no place to park.

July 3, 1980
Adjournment Debate


Gilbert Parent: Parking space is another thing we probably should be looking at.
Admittedly, the Human Rights Act is not perfect, but it is still an effective weapon in the battle against discrimination, and it is through the frank assertion of its enforcement powers that we shall work toward greater equality for all Canadians.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It was in the Speech from the Throne.


Gilbert Parent: Yes, it was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to conclude by saying that one challenge for the 1980s for both the federal and provincial governments will be to bring into line all existing human rights legislation so as to ensure there is more uniform protection from discrimination in all areas of interest to disabled Canadians.


INDUSTRY-TERMS OF LOAN TO VALLEYFIELD CHEMICAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION-INVESTIGATION OF SPACE RESEARCH CORPORATION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I asked a number of questions on June 17, 20 and 26 concerning the government's hosting or, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) wrote in a letter to me the other day, co-hosting a secret armaments conference, providing the Government Conference Centre for this meeting and, as I have discovered also, providing some money to help support it.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), as reported in the Toronto Star of June 28, said that the government kicked in about $5,000, all of this being done basically to aid a corporation called the Space Research Corporation about which members of the House of Commons have been inquiring for over two years. Several members of the Conservative party asked questions in 1977-78, and the government has consistently been stonewalling. Obviously someone at the Space Research Corporation has a lot of friends in high places in the Liberal party and in the government. This is the same corporation that has long been under investigation. Indeed the investigation was completed by the RCMP. The same corporation was recently convicted in the United States of illegally shipping arms to South Africa.
All the questions that I have asked on these days have, with only one exception, not been answered. I realize that I cannot expect them all to be answered tonight in three minutes, so I will focus on the questions mentioned in the proceedings on the adjournment motion. The reference is to the specific questions put on June 26, 1980, and I hope the government is now prepared to answer them.
The first question, to remind whoever is speaking for the government, was whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was aware of the RCMP investigation of the Space Research Corporation when it authorized both a loan
and a grant to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Space Research, namely, Valleyfield Chemicals. The minister replied:
Madam Speaker, I will get the information for the hon. lady and inform her as soon as possible.
So I am expecting this to take place tonight.
The second question I asked of the minister was whether he could tell us whether the loan to Valleyfield Chemicals is still outstanding and whether the grant has been terminated. He said again that I would be receiving answers to those questions.
In a supplementary question on June 26, which is apparently what we are focusing on tonight, I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if he would give us some assurance that until the RCMP report is made public or at least until the investigation of the Space Research Corporation that is now going on in Quebec is completed, there would be no further grants or loans to SRC or its fully-owned subsidiary. I am looking forward to a clarification of the minister's reply. He said:
-until the matter is resolved by the courts one cannot presume that the parties will be ineligible for further assistance based on economic development aspects.
Particularly I should like to know what that means and how it ties in with the statement which appeared in the June 27, 1980 edition of The Globe and Mail the day after I asked my question. According to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the article indicated:
Space research will be ineligible for further aid until a decision had been made on whether charges will be laid, he added.
Those are the specific questions to which I was promised answers, and I look forward to hearing them now.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, Valleyfield Chemical Products Corporation was formed in 1977 by Canadian Technical Industries to purchase, rehabilitate and operate a military explosives and propellant manufacturing facility in Valleyfield, Quebec. It was and still is the only facility of this type in Canada. It was built originally by the Crown during World War II, and in the mid 1960s it was sold to CIL Inc. In 1976 a permanent shutdown of the facilities was announced by CIL.
Because Canadian Technical Industries is in the large calibre munitions business, it was a major customer of the CIL facility and therefore wanted the operation to be continued. As a result, the company approached the federal government for assistance to take over the operations and to carry out the required extensive rehabilitation of the facilities. At that time officials had no knowledge of the RCMP investigation of the sister company, Space Research Corporation (Quebec). For strategic and economic reasons, the government decided in the fall of 1977 to assist the company.
A non-repayable contribution of $3 million was provided under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce defence industry productivity program. In addition, a repayable contribution of $5.35 million was provided. The non-
July 3, 1980

repayable contribution is being vested in the company at the rate of 10 per cent per year providing its agreement with the Crown remains in place. The repayable contribution is to be repaid by 1985. These funds were expended during 1977 and 1978. The department holds the assets of VCPC as security for the continued operation of the company under the 1977 agreement. In addition, a loan of $3.75 million through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was provided for the Valleyfield rehabilitation project.
The facility employed 250 people in 1977. Currently over 600 are working there. Export business amounts to nearly $20 million, of which almost the entire amount is to the United States. Sales in Canada are about $6 million. Since completing
Adjournment Debate
the rehabilitation program in 1978, the company has been profitable and is expected to continue to be profitable.
The question as to whether Valleyfield will be part of a purchase of SRCQ by the government is only one option under investigation. We still have to reach a decision and proceed to put our intentions in place. The intention is to maintain the munition capability in Canada and the many jobs that are involved if at all possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Monday, July 7, 1980