1980-05-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the privilege of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Inasmuch as the motor car manufacturing industry is in a financial crisis as a result of the rapidly changing market and competition from overseas, and whereas the jobs and livelihood of thousands of Canadians are threatened by the mismanagement and incompetence of the Liberal government and, in particular, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House condemn the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for his failure to negotiate an equitable agreement with Chrysler to safeguard Canadian jobs and for misleading this House and the Canadian people by publicly indicating on three occasions that he had reached an agreement with Chrysler.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on what is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, not only to the residents of the Parry Sound-Muskoka region but also to the residents of all regions of the country which depend heavily upon revenue generated from tourist activity.
For the year 1978, the total revenue generated from tourist activity involving both Canadian citizens and residents of foreign countries amounted to $11.1 billion, or 5 per cent of the country's GNP. In light of the fact that the revenue
produced from activity directly or indirectly associated with the tourist industry in this country represents such a substantial proportion of the country's GNP, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That an independent department of tourism be established by the current administration to be headed by a minister solely responsible for tourist activity in this country and to be staffed by individuals presently affiliated with the branch of tourism under the existing Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Section 109 of the BNA Act and Supreme Court of Canada decisions on that section clearly state that mines and minerals, including oil and gas, belong to the provinces in which they are situated. The Government of Canada has honoured that section with respect to Quebec and Ontario resources such as asbestos, lead, zinc, nickel, electricity, etc. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to recognize his personal and public duty to honour and uphold the constitution and that he instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to honour section 109 in the present energy negotiations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.

May 9, 1980
In light of recent statements by the Minister of Transport that the future of Hamilton airport has as yet not been determined, and in light of repeated announcements over the last two years which have indicated a willingness, both on the part of previous Liberal governments and of the immediate past government of the Conservative party, that expansion plans with a price tag of not less than S40 million had been approved, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this government set forth, in a concise statement, plans which it has for the development of a regional airport in the Hamilton area and that, in addition, this statement clearly sets out the parameters in terms of size, dollars and aircraft usage within which a regional airport is intended to fall.


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] (mo)


REPORTED DAMAGING STATEMENT CONCERNING STAFF-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
A recent statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in the May 7, 1980, edition of the Ottawa Citizen reads as follows: "-that he knew of cases where females had to go to bed with supervisors to get promotions."
Owing to the fact that this now casts a cloud of suspicion over the House of Commons staff, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the hon. member for Ottawa West be called immediately to appear before the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to explain these very upsetting and damaging statements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ABORTIONS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and heartrending necessity.
In view of the fact that the lives of over 60,000 innocent Canadian children were terminated by the decision of therapeutic abortion committees during the past year, and recognizing that unborn infants are not nondescript appendages attached to their mother's womb but, in fact, are living human beings to whom society has an undeniable moral responsibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government be directed to convene a full parliamentary debate on this important subject at the earliest possible hour, with a view to amending the Criminal Code so as to recognize the full legal and human rights of unborn children and that, further, the three political parties represented here do consent to a free-conscience vote on the consequent amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that previous Liberal governments have made promises with respect to the funding of light rapid transit and have broken them, and in view of the fact that the benefits of light rapid transit, including energy conservation, efficient movement of people and preservation of residential neighbourhoods from cars and bridges, are well established, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House calls upon the federal government to provide major financial assistance for the capital and operating costs of the proposed light rapid transit system for the lower mainland of 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.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the urgent and pressing necessity to protect the primary producers of this country, and in the afterglow of the unanimity of the House this week when it passed Bill S-5,
May 9, 1980

defining Canadian champagne, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the Minister of Agriculture use the weight of his office to finally enact long-delayed regulations to preserve the purity and protect the market for sweet apple cider, so that those Canadians who have neither the taste nor the pocketbook for champagne can enjoy the quiet quality and sobering strength of natural sweet apple cider.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill J. Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas some provinces have repeatedly refused to endorse the patriation of the Constitution of Canada from Britain, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Parliament of Canada submit an address to Her Majesty the Queen, that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). Does the House agree to such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
[DOT] (U15)


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the House will remember that the previous government of which 1 was the prime minister had submitted to Parliament a white paper and a bill the effect of which would have been that suggested by the motion of the hon. member opposite.
Naturally, we are still anxious that this happen, and that Canadians can really see themselves as having a Canadian Constitution rather than a constitution made more than a century ago in another country and still ultimately amendable there. This has been our aim for many years.
I think the House has heard me say that many prime ministers of different political stripes have attempted this patriation operation, with the first attempts going back to the middle 1920s. Each time we failed to achieve the purpose because, as the motion tells us, one or the other, and sometimes several, provinces refused to agree on an amending formula.
We are determined that in the months ahead the House will have an occasion to express itself on this matter. Perhaps the House leaders of the other parties, our own House leader and myself could discuss the appropriate time to proceed with that. For my part, I think it would be appropriate if we consulted the provinces before acting unilaterally on that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, if I may just respond for a few moments to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said, I think it is the desire of most Canadians that there be that right within our own country to amend our own constitution. I think that goes without saying, really, but I think I should say it because of the spirit in which the Prime Minister has put forward the motion today. I was very happy to hear him say that we might consult with respect to an opportunity in this House of Commons to debate this matter. I think that is a very appropriate reference, and I commend him for it.
I also commend him for indicating the necessity and, indeed, if not the necessity certainly the propriety in our system, of consulting the provinces in respect of that matter before we act unilaterally.
Speaking for my own party, I would be more than happy to consult with my friend, the government House leader, as to an appropriate time when that debate might take place. I undertake, on behalf of my party, to participate in that kind of discussion in the event that it is initiated.
Therefore, I commend the hon. member for bringing forward this motion today and 1 think, given those parameters which have been laid out, I think quite appropriately, by the Prime Minister, it is a motion worthy of the support of this House.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, not only do we commend the hon. member for bringing forward the motion, but we commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for giving it the consideration that he has in the remarks he has just made.
I certainly want to say, on behalf of our party, that we are prepared at any time to have discussions among the House leaders as to the appropriate time when we could have a debate on this issue, and one hopes that we might come to a satisfactory conclusion.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, in speaking to this motion may I indicate how pleased I am to have heard the comments by the Prime Minister and the House leaders of the two opposition parties. However, I would

May 9, 1980
House of Commons
like to inform the House that during private members' motions	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
this afternoon from four o'clock to five o'clock, motion No.
13-which deals very specifically with this matter-will be up	[English]
for discussion.	INDUSTRY
In that light, this motion this afternoon, as far as I understand it, deals not only with the patriation of the constitution but, indeed, deals with a possible amending formula which goes back some time in its evolution. Indeed, I hope it will be a time when, in fact, a number of members of this House can rise in their places and speak on this motion.
I trust, again, Madam Speaker, that a similar motion, either to the motion under Standing Order 43 this morning or the private members' motion this afternoon from four to five will be brought before this House at the earliest opportunity for an additional debate, as this matter should be debated by Parliament at the earliest opportunity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CHRYSLER CANADA-REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT'S DECISION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the right hon. Leader of the Opposition tried, without success, to find out the reasons for the reversal on the Chrysler decision which apparently was dealt with by cabinet.
My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not it was because of actions taken, or statements made by Chrysler Canada, the province of Ontario, or the decision of the federal cabinet, that the position which apparently had been taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was reversed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to point out that there was no reversal of a decision. The subject, which had been discussed at previous times in cabinet, was discussed again today. A decision was not reached in time to make the announcement yesterday afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Madam Speaker:: Before we begin the oral question period, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of our Canadian diplomats in Iran who helped in the escape of the American diplomats.

It is always satisfying when one is called upon to render service to others. I am sure that is sufficient reward to our diplomats from Iran, but I know this House would want to pay homage to the intelligence and courage of Ambassador Ken Taylor and his colleagues for having done something which makes Canada extremely proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have just received a joint resolution from the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the state of Tennessee, expressing appreciation to the government and the people of Canada for the action of their diplomats in Iran. I am sure that hon. members will want me to reply on their behalf.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, there was clearly a reversal. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated his intention to make an announcement at three o'clock, and a short while later he came out of the cabinet meeting and said that he was sorry, that no decision had been taken and there would be no announcement.
My question relates more to the position of the United States government. Today, the U.S. loan board will be making a decision on their aid package to Chrysler. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated quite clearly that there is a very close relationship between the position the Government of Canada would take and the position of the U.S. loan board.
Because of the importance of this decision, I am sure the Prime Minister is very current on these negotiations. Could he advise whether there was something that the U.S. loan board were requesting from Canada, in their proposal, that caused this reversal to take place? Was there something that was unacceptable on the part of the U.S. loan board that caused this action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. The fact that the loan board was meeting today was the reason the minister had hoped to make his announcement yesterday. I repeat, discussions in cabinet indicated that we were not ready to make that decision, in spite of the meeting of the loan board today.
The minister had been attempting to reach his counterpart-I believe it is Secretary Miller-who sits on the loan board, but he was away in Yugoslavia to attend President Tito's funeral. This made it difficult for us to obtain certain
May 9, 1980

additional facts, on the one hand; on the other hand, we were informed that the government of Ontario was hoping to improve upon the package that had been discussed between Chrysler and Canadian officials and ministers.
I personally spoke to the Premier of Ontario who, indeed, confirmed to me that he hoped to improve on the package and that he was hoping to have a meeting early next week with Chrysler officials, which presumably would also be attended by the federal minister. At that time they will attempt to improve the package for Canadians. But the general desire of the federal government is still, of course, to help this industry and the workers whose jobs depend on its survival; but, of course, we bend to the superior wisdom of the Ontario government, who feel that a better deal can be reached, and we are willing to go along with that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My supplementary question is also to the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. In committee this morning, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce lashed out at committee members for asking whether there was any contingency plan in place, and whether this government was considering any alternatives to the support proposals that are under consideration now, in view of the precarious position of the company, having lost $400 million in the first quarter. It was unclear to us why he was taking this rather defensive position. It occurred to me that possibly there is no contingency plan in place.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether there is a contingency plan in place in the event that agreement is not reached with Chrysler Canada, and in view of the very difficult position that the workers and the company and the suppliers have been put in. If there is no contingency plan in place, would he commit to the House that steps will be taken immediately to commence work on such a plan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe that under the rules of the House it would not be proper for me to comment on the proceedings in front of a committee. I must confess that even if it were proper, I was not able to follow that committee. I can only indicate that it seems out of character to me that the minister would have, as the hon. member put it, "lashed out" at anybody. He is a very patient and constructive man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Probably the reason that he did not want to talk of any contingency plan is that we do not believe the Chrysler deal has fallen through. I just indicated to the hon. member that, on the contrary, we were hoping that the government of Ontario would be successful in this meeting, which it is convening for next week, in obtaining an even better deal for Canadians. I think the hon. member would have blamed us if we had decided to go ahead on a deal that even the government of Ontario think can be improved upon.
Oral Questions


CHRYSLER CANADA-ASSISTANCE BY WAY OF LOAN GUARANTEES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, stated on March 7 that the government was committed to loan guarantees to the Chrysler Corporation. He said:
Oh, certainly. We committed ourselves during the election campaign to that.
In view of that statement, is it the position that the government will provide assistance by way of loan guarantee to Chrysler, whether or not the government of Ontario involves itself in the assistance and support program? Is that the position, in view of this commitment, or is the Prime Minister now trying to blame the Ontario government for some delay?
Supposing the Ontario government does not go forward at all and has no share at all in this program, will the Government of Canada carry out this commitment that was made during the election campaign, of loan guarantees?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is hypothetical-"Supposing the Ontario government does not", and so on. I would have to see at that point. If the Ontario government does not think that an industry in its own province should be in some way assisted, then I think the undertaking that we made to assist Chrysler would have to be re-examined.
I do not say that we would not carry forward with it, but surely the hon. member would be ill-advised to suggest that the government of the very province in which we are trying to save the jobs of the workers is uninformed on the situation and that its judgment should be disregarded.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has left his minister patiently twisting in the air, but there are thousands of auto workers also waiting with some impatience. It was the Prime Minister's government who made a commitment during the election to give loan guarantees to Chrysler, and the Prime Minister's government did not ask the Ontario government at that time-they did not make it a condition that the Ontario government participate. The Prime Minister's party made that commitment.
Will the Prime Minister affirm that his government will go forward with loan guarantees, with or without Ontario, that he is not going to make that a condition now; and would he tell the House, in view of the fact that President Carter has contacted him recently by telephone, whether the American government has said that it is a condition of their proceeding with their whole package for Chrysler in the United States that Canada participate? Is that a condition that the United States has informed the Canadian government that they have made? There are two parts to this question. I hope the Prime Minister can realize that, and answer both parts.

May 9, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the second part, my answer is no, Madam Speaker. On the first part, I want to express my astonishment that the hon. member would suggest that we should go ahead with a deal that the government of Ontario thinks is not a good deal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We made a commitment to assist Chrysler, Madam Speaker. It was not a commitment which was made on the condition that we would assist them if Chrysler was not prepared to come forth with certain conditions. As a matter of fact, when I made that commitment in Windsor, I indicated that we would assist Chrysler, provided Chrysler were prepared to do certain things.
It is now the judgment of the government of Ontario that not enough of those things have been done, and it would be preposterous for me to suggest that our government should override the judgment of the government of Ontario on a matter such as this, without giving the government of Ontario a chance to make its case. Perhaps we would proceed without Ontario; perhaps we would not. But I certainly think the government of Ontario should be given a chance to make its case.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government of Canada has responsibility for economic development and economic conditions generally in the country and that, with or without the assistance of provinces, the Government of Canada should meet those obligations, particularly when the Government of Canada has made specific commitments during an election campaign to do so?
When answering that, would he advise the House, is the problem job commitments; is the problem that is now delaying this matter a question of commitments from Chrysler to preserve or expand the number of job opportunities? Is that the problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think I can assist the hon. member any further. I have made it quite clear that we have been bargaining with Chrysler for quite a while. Our minister had arrived at a package which seemed rather good, but the government of Ontario is convinced that it can be improved. I cannot say anything more than that.
The hon. member might pick up the phone and talk to somebody in the government of Ontario and see if they are just trying to waste time in order not to provide jobs for workers in Ontario. I am surprised that the government of Ontario would say that.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not the question.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PETROLEUM PRICING AND AUDITING AGENCY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, my question is for the Prime Minister. During the election campaign the Liberal party promised to establish a petroleum pricing and auditing agency, one of whose functions would be to advise the government about an appropriate price for oil. I just want to remind the Prime Minister that this is one of the seven major commitments that the Liberal party set out during the campaign.
Yesterday, not in this House but after the debate in this House, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that it was not the government's intention to establish the agency before the price rises which are going to be coming in June or July. Second, he said, and I quote: "The new energy watchdog will not even be asked for advice in this period, and in the period after July." Can I ask the Prime Minister which one of the seven commitments will be the next to go?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this commitment still stands. We want to set up that petroleum price auditing agency. We will do so, and it will be very important in the government's pursuit of its energy policy.
It is unlikely, the way negotiations are going, that we will have the input of that agency before July 1. The minister does not want to say that we will arrive at July 1 without having any price determined for petroleum. That, I presume, is why he said that he would have to proceed even if the agency has not completed its work.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, yesterday the minister said that the government's information indicates that it costs about $8 a barrel to exploit conventional reserves. I ask the Prime Minister, where does he think the minister gets that figure, and can he explain why it now costs over four times as much to produce a conventional barrel of oil in 1980 as it did before the tremendous price increases starting in 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may have heard that since 1973 there has been inflation, which has increased the cost of work in producing oil.


Bob Rae: An additional factor, Madam Speaker, may be the oil profits picture in the oil industry. The Prime Minister said that the multinationals operating in Canada are using their profits, not to provide greater energy to security but to buy up unrelated businesses. The figures which have been revealed after the first quarter of 1980 show that the oil companies' profits have gone up 102 per cent, on the basis of prices today.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he can justify the kinds of increases that are being discussed, when we know that the oil companies are making windfall profits even at the present time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, 1 am not attempting to justify any particular price increase. The minister is out west
May 9, 1980

now-I believe he is in Regina today-discussing this very problem. So I am not prepared to say in advance that the results will be acceptable either to the hon. member or to myself.
As far as profits of oil companies are concerned, 1 agree with the hon. member that they have seemed very, very excessive. That is the intent of the answer I gave the other day. As a matter of fact, I think that on energy policy, probably the hon. member's party and mine are very close to each other-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -on a lot of questions, and that is why we were discussing an alliance between the two parties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF OIL AND GAS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Would he advise the House whether it is in his thinking that this price review, or monitoring agency is the first step that the government has in contemplation of establishing a system whereby the production and distribution of oil and gas in this country shall become a public utility under federal jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, it is an auditing agency; it is not a takeover agency.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recognizing Canada's substantial international role in the distribution of both nuclear technology and nuclear fuel, and in view of the pessimistic report of the international fuel cycle evaluation conference regarding the potential nuclear proliferation throughout the world, did the Prime Minister discuss with the Prime Minister of Japan any new initiatives for more effective and stringent international safeguards, including possible control of the fuel cycle in the purchasing state, atomic energy regional disposal centres, or return of spent fuel to supplier nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, that was discussed in my presence by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He obtained from the Prime Minister of Japan a rather satisfactory answer on the safeguards' problem.
Oral Questions


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, in the House last week, the Prime Minister stated that the schedule for keeping the nuclear energy industry viable in Canada is very, very short. My question for the Prime Minister is this: Does the government, given the narrow time-frame referred to, intend to lower Canada's nuclear export safeguards standards, retain them at the present level, or enhance them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there is no question of lowering the standards. We want to retain them. I missed the preamble to the question. I do not know if there is any particular area where the hon. member is suggesting they be strengthened, but I can point out to him that Canada has been in the vanguard of increasing safeguards. As a matter of fact, many other countries involved in production of nuclear energy machines have not yet gone as far as Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister announced recently that stabilization payments would be made to Canadian hog producers this year. Could the minister explain how the figure of 5,000 hogs was arrived at in calculating the maximum payment that a producer could claim?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, after due consultations with the Canadian Pork Producers Council, which recommended that figure, and considering the total hog production in Canada, taking all those things into proper perspective we decided that that was a fair figure.


William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, is the minister aware that under the terms of the program some producers could claim up to 15,000 hogs, provided they give proof that they have three legitimate partners in the operation? In light of this fact, would the minister not agree that the maximum 5,000 hog ceiling discriminates against individual producers who have spent large amounts of money to make their operations cost efficient?
If he does agree, would he consider raising the ceiling so that the 12 producers in Ontario who each raise more than 5,000 hogs can be given the same advantage as their competitors who have partners in their businesses?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member will check, he will find that we have done the same in the past with apple producers and producers of other commodities where there is a father and son, father and two sons, or three different partners. We did the same with beef production, where we allowed payments for a single producer of 2,500, but a maximum of 7,500 head when we paid beef stabilization.
Therefore, there is nothing new in this principle that we have announced for hog stabilization. We believe it will cover

May 9, 1980
Oral Questions
approximately 90 per cent of the production, but these people must prove they are in the production entity the same as producers of the other commodities I outlined. So there is nothing new in it at all. It still protects the basic family farm and the producer who is actually involved in hog production.

[ Translation]


HUMAN RIGHTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week, the Minister of Justice tabled the annual report of the Human Rights Commission. The commission made several recommendations, including adding as grounds for discrimination the addition of political convictions, retardation, mental illness and sexual orientation. In view of the validity of these recommendations, can the Prime Minister tell the House when he will take action to protect the victims of these types of discrimination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not had myself the opportunity to read the report mentioned by the hon. member, but I can assure him that the Minister of Justice will consider this matter as soon as possible and that he may be able to provide an answer next week.


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In 1978, the Prime Minister stated in a letter that he was waiting for the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission before adding sexual orientation to the grounds for discrimination. Can the Prime Minister now tell the House whether he will follow the example of the province of Quebec and the recommendations of the commission by adding sexual orientation to the grounds for discrimination?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have just told the hon. member that 1 have not read the report. I have therefore not read its recommendations and 1 cannot make any comment on this matter. All I know is that the hon. member received a reply yesterday from the leader of the government to the effect that we were considering asking a special committee of the House to study this matter. If the hon. member wants to express his views before this committee, he may have the opportunity to do so.


COMPUTERS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the President of the Treasury Board has been briefed by his officials on the investigation currently under way in the United States into an attempt from a New York private school to enter 21 Canadian databanks.
Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to the House that of these 21 Canadian databanks on which attempts were made, at least two of these were federal government banks? Will the minister table in the House immediately a list of all federal government databanks connected to the Infodat or Datapac systems, as well as a description of the contents of the information contained in those databanks?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the question of computer theft is, of course, a very serious one. The government does have the two systems to which the hon. member has made reference, but my understanding is that no sensitive material is contained in any government computer which has dial-in access.
I am also advised that there have apparently been attempts to break into the government computer bank system in this fashion. However, I am advised that none of those attempts has been successful. The security and evaluation team of the RCMP is responsible for the security of these databanks. So far, we are very satisfied that no information has been obtained by any such attempts.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board did not indicate a willingness to table in this House a list of those databanks which are connected to Infodat or Datapac and indicate the substance of the information contained in those databanks. I wonder whether he might do that.
Also, can the minister confirm that in the opinion of the law officers of the Department of Justice it is not a crime in Canada today to obtain confidential information from databanks, although it may be a crime to steal computer time, telecommunications' time. Can the minister indicate to the House whether he has communicated with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to try to close that very gaping loophole in the law at the present time?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, with respect to the request that certain information be tabled regarding government databanks, I will take that request under advisement. With respect to the second part of the question, namely, the offence of theft of information from computers, I understand that an appeal under section 287 of the Criminal Code will be going to the Supreme Court this autumn.
There is some question whether the section in question covers an offence of the kind we are discussing. I intend to recommend to the Minister of Justice that amendments to the Criminal Code be considered for the purpose of making it
May 9, 1980

clear that any such theft would be a crime under the Criminal Code.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, which states that 95 per cent of the income tax paid by corporations shall be paid to the provinces. This has been cut to 50 per cent by order in council No. 1980-816. Since when, and under what authority, can the cabinet change a statute by order in council?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the cabinet does not have the authority to change a statute by order in council, and such a course was not followed in this particular case.


Gordon Edward Taylor: In what way does the order in council not change the statute, and by what authority was this done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the statute empowers the Minister of Finance to determine the timing of payments to the provinces, and it is under that power that a regulation was made to establish ihe timing of payments.
The hon. member will realize that the expenditure plan which has been in operation, and adopted by the former government, included these particular savings, so that I am confirmed in my decision that I am behaving properly by the action taken, not only by the former Liberal government but also by the former Conservative government, under the authority that is given to the Minister of Finance in the statute.


John Carnell Crosbie: Stop hiding behind somebody else.
*
* *


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Since 1980 demand for non-profit housing units is over 11,000 and over 5,000 co-op units are ready to go with no funding, will the minister assure the Co-op Housing Foundation, which is meeting here today, that at least another 2,000 units of co-op housing will be allocated immediately?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated privately to my hon. friend opposite co-ops have the potential to meet the target of renters seeking accommodation in tight rental situations. It is possible that within the provisions of my budget and the corporation's
Oral Questions
budget there could be some reallocation. It is a matter that the corporation officials and I, together with provincial ministers, are considering.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the question was with regard to additional units, not a transfer of units. This week, municipal non-profit housing corporations also held a conference in Ottawa. They prepared five recommendations which I hope the minister will act upon.
Since poor people particularly are desperately in need of affordable housing, will the minister agree to introduce a land assembly program to assist municipalities to build much needed social housing?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if it was not clear, what I intended to convey to the hon. member opposite was that I hope within the over-all budget of the corporation some transfer could be made into that area of co-ops, so that I was talking about new units in the co-op area.
However, that problem really identifies my general problem, and my response to my hon. friend's second question is that I have to try to act within the budget. There are no funds to assist in the second program which she mentions. I realize there is an urgent need, but we are pressed from the other side regarding a number of urgent needs, and as a new minister in this ministry I am trying to priorize them.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, who recently announced a stabilization payment for hog producers. I wonder whether the minister has considered the fact that farrowing operations, which are very capital-intensive and which are very seriously affected by the current slump in the pork industry, are excluded from any benefits of this stabilization payment.
Does the minister have any plans to help farrowing operations survive the current situation and, if so, could he tell the House what they are?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows as well as I do that there are some operations which are farrow-to-finish operations. The problems of duplication, double payments, etc., exist here. I wish there was some way we could devise a program that would be beneficial to those people who are in the piglet operation, or producing weaner pigs or whatever you want to call that operation and which would make it possible for other people to finish them.
I realize the terrible economic position some of these producers find themselves in, but the present legislation that I use is statutory and I would have to submit a whole new program

May 9, 1980
Oral Questions
for that kind of production to be able to make a payment to them.


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, does the minister's often spoken policy of encouraging supply management boards in the pork producing industry mean that he would like to squeeze some present farrowing operations out of business, and does he consider that some of these heavily capitalized farrowing operations should be allowed to go under in order to reduce supply?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, knowing the hon. member's background and his association with marketing boards, I am surprised he would even insinuate that I would be so cruel and mean as to try to do that to anybody. In no way do I want to see them suffer economically. But the hon. member is also well aware that they can do things themselves, and could have done so in the past, to better their economic position and supply the market in a much more orderly fashion than they have, so they would not be in the position they are in.
I am sure the hon. member is aware that they have told me from time to time not to interfere in their hog production operations. They have said, "Don't you dare touch them," and I warned them two or three times. If they produce hogs until they are coming out of their ears, where are they going to put them? Where are they going to market them or sell them? I warned them that the whole economic stability of the hog production industry would be destroyed, and that is what happened. A blind man on a galloping horse could see that it was going to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SURVEILLANCE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the practice which existed in his former government, whereby through an agency in the Solicitor General's office lists were compiled and surveillance of Canadians who were in extra-parliamentary opposition to the former Liberal government and who posed a danger to the security of our country was conducted. Can the Prime Minister say today whether this practice has been reintroduced or is still going on today?
Second, and with regard to the first part of the question, could he say whether the government is now undertaking, in light of the finding of the McDonald royal commission that there were numerous lists and that the information on those lists was shared with other countries, some effort to assist Canadians who were affected by these lists to vindicate themselves and clear their names?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question seems to be somewhat confused. If the
hon. member is referring to the fact that the Solicitor General and the RCMP inform various arms of the government about people who they might have cause to feel should not be employed-if this is what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about lists-then I have no reason to say that this will not continue.
On the contrary, I think it is the duty of the RCMP and of the Solicitor General to inform the ministers, and particularly the Prime Minister, about people who might not be fit to serve in such and such a position. Before appointing ministers or parliamentary secretaries, I always make sure I give a list to the RCMP and make sure that this list is okayed by the RCMP in terms of security clearances.
So I cannot give the assurance the hon. member asks for. On the contrary, I feel this is my duty, and I am quite sure the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was prime minister, must have done the same thing.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister well knows, my question relates more to lists which were compiled in the Solicitor General's office itself, which listed innocent Canadians who may have been in opposition to the Liberal party and the Liberal government, rather than subversive to the country. I want to know whether that list still exists. I refer to the so-called EPO list.
In connection with the whole matter of security clearance, can the Prime Minister also tell me whether it is the intention to change the guidelines in connection with security clearance, and particularly that portion of the guidelines which made it impossible for Canadian citizens who had relatives in other countries of the world who were not friendly to Canada to achieve higher positions in the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that the kind of lists he described never existed, in our government at any rate. The Solicitor General did not compile lists of innocent persons, as the hon. member indicates, in order to harm them. The Solicitor General never was the inventor or author of lists. If he got names which were reported to him by the RCMP as names of people who should not be employed in certain positions, he merely transmitted that information.
An. hon. Member: Oh, come on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear an hon. member from the NDP say "Oh, come on". That is precisely what I am doing. The RCMP transmits its information to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General does not invent that information and does not fabricate these lists.
May 9, 1980


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I had hoped to ask my question of the Minister of Labour, but I understand he is not in the House for personal reasons. Therefore, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Agriculture who has expressed some concern in these matters.
In light of the breakdown in negotiations between the National Harbours Board and the grain handlers at Churchill, has the government received telexes from the minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan and the minister of labour for Manitoba asking that a conciliator be appointed to facilitate the movement of grain at Churchill?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. 1 am happy to report that both parties signed a memorandum of agreement yesterday. The union will recommend acceptance to its membership and the wage settlement is all but concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Since the important date of the referendum is barely ten days ahead, and since the Prime Minister had two wonderful opportunities when going to Quebec to shed some light on his renewed federalism project, but did not deem fit to do so, would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to announce before May 20 some of the proposals he apparently wishes to put forward to the provinces in that respect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should know the referendum question is not on renewed federalism but sovereignty and association. The position taken by this government has been very firmly based on that question, and I would hope the hon. member would do the same.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the question, but the Prime Minister should also be aware that Quebeckers would like to know what they are offered in return. In view of the fact that one of his former colleagues, Mr. Pelletier, our ambassador in Paris, officially recognized Wednesday last that a large number of Quebeckers will vote Yes because they are hoping for some thaw, without necessari-
Oral Questions
ly being separatists, and since 15 per cent of the people are undecided, could the Prime Minister explain why he sheds no light on what I call that slogan of renewed federalism.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it must first be ascertained whether Quebeckers want to leave Canada or not. If they want to leave Canada, clearly a renewed federalism is not within the mandate of the Premier of Quebec.
We know that the PQ premier came to Ottawa a few times to attend federal-provincial conferences. He rejected all proposals we made for amending and improving the constitution. He referred to them as a mere pittance and so forth. Clearly that is his policy, because he believes in a separated Quebec. Therefore he is not going to co-operate with us to improve federalism. This should be obvious even to the hon. member for Joliette.

[English)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. This week, processor buying practices have forced western hog prices down $12 to $13 per hundredweight below the eastern price, making the stabilization program announcement this week virtually meaningless to most prairie producers. The western producers have reduced their share of the market by almost 25 per cent in the last four years in an attempt to tailor production to demand. My question is: what will the minister do to implement an orderly marketing system about which he keeps talking, in light of the obvious packer moves into more vertical integration in the hog industry in Quebec where no marketing agency exists, since these moves are at the expense of producers in provinces which do have marketing boards?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well, 1 suppose, and 1 take it for granted, what his provincial minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan has suggested-1 believe about 20 per cent of the hog producers belong to the support program that they have there-that we enforce a national hog marketing plan on hog production in Canada.
When the hon. member refers to Saskatchewan hog producing going out of business and to orderly marketing, he is stretching the point even more than a little, I think. Because when they went out of hog production to the tune of over 50 per cent, it was mainly because grain prices, and especially barley prices, were very good and gave them a better return with less work than producing pork. So they went out of the pork business and the pork business was done through the free market system which was operating with no control over production, so that anyone from any part of Canada could enter hog production. For instance, in Ontario in the last two

May 9, 1980
Oral Questions
years 1,800 new hog producers entered into the production area and borrowed money, in most instances from private lending institutions. If you check with the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there are fewer problems than there were a year ago at this time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, since the minister referred also to grain marketing, 1 should like to ask him the following supplementary question. Since Otto Lang's feed grain policy was a large contributor to more processor control of the hog industry and its subsequent shift to an unorganized province, will there be a reassessment of the open market feed grain policy and will feed producers in the west get a vote on the feed grain policy?


Eugene Whelan: We will honour the agreement we made about reviewing the feed grain policy and I hope that 1 can report something in the very near future concerning that program. But again the hon. member has misinterpreted what has taken place, because even when the feed grains brought in a fair return, there was not that much difference in the total return, whether you were a hog producer or whether you were selling your grain as a commercial grain grower. The returns were fairly equal, and if producers had stayed in production at that time, they would probably be in a better position and maybe there would not have been that increase in production in other parts of Canada. No one can really say. Many people were entering into pork production because it looked as if it would bring a proper return. If one were to check the records, one would find that I had warned them over two years ago to get their house in order.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. With all the difficulties of trying to guarantee jobs, the high price of oil and everything else, I would hope that the Minister of Public Works could give us a guarantee in terms of Cartier Square. I know that he had a press conference which attracted a lot of interest last week, in which he stated that the historic Ontario Teachers College will be maintained as a heritage property and, what is perhaps equally important, that the open space in Cartier Square will be left to a certain extent so that a public park would be guaranteed as well as a school playing field, in view of the fact that Lisgar Collegiate, which is an historic school in the city, does not have adequate school playing field space.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, my friend asks whether 1 can guarantee that there will be certain amounts of open space. That is an easy guarantee for me. As the minister reporting for the National Capital Commission, I can report that Mr. Drury has indicated that
the school will continue as a heritage building, but its eventual use in terms of user is something to be determined. There are large open spaces that we will retain in view of the move of the embassy from that site to another. The plans for a courthouse, I believe, should be re-examined in terms of their appropriateness for the site, location, etc. But indeed there will be a large open space remaining and I hope that all parties, the city, the region, the commission, and indeed myself as the minister responsible for the commission to Parliament, will have some say in the site analysis.


PRIVILEGE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege on the answer given by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) today. Just to recap the matter, my question was: Since when and under what authority can the cabinet change a statute by order in council? The answer given by the hon. minister was that the cabinet cannot change a statute by order in council.
Now I should like to look at the facts. First I should like to outline three very important axioms which are very relevant to this particular question. One is that the cabinet has no power except that given to it by the House of Commons. The second one is that the regulations must be based on laws passed by Parliament; they may be extensions but they may not change the law. The third one is that the House of Commons holds the ultimate power.
1 want to review the circumstances. After an agreement reached by the Government of Canada with the provinces, a bill was presented to the House of Commons which was passed. I should like to refer to chapter 37 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970. Section 3.(2) reads as follows:
The amount that may be paid to a province under subsection (1) in respect of a taxation year of a designated corporation is 95 per cent of that part of the income tax paid under part 1 of the Income Tax Act by the corporation for the year that is attributable to its gross revenue for the year-
There is a continuation but it does not change that particular point. So the statute definitely points out that 95 per cent of those moneys collected from the generation and sale in a province for distribution to the public of electrical energy or steam must be repaid to the province. That has been going on since the statute was passed right up until the order in council in question here.
I might say that in the 1978 budget of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) it was suggested that this would be changed. At that time I believe a bill received first reading. It was not proceeded with, so the law was not changed. But on March 27, 1980, the present cabinet passed the following order in council known as SOR/80-214 under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. It reads in part as follows:
May 9, 1980

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to section 5 of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, is pleased hereby to amend the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Regulations, CRC, c. 1361, in accordance with the schedule hereto.
It continues:
Paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Regulations is revoked and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) cause the product obtained by multiplying the estimated amount by the
fraction 50/95 to be paid to the province out of the Consolidated Revenue
Fund."
This is not an extension of the present act; this is a change of the amount entirely. This regulation was based on the act. The new regulation is not based on the act. I submit that one cannot change a regulation. As it is predicated upon the act- and the act indicates 95 per cent- the order in council certainly cannot change it, yet that is exactly what the order in council did.
As further reference that this is what the order in council did, the minister introduced a bill which received first reading on May 2. I should like to refer to clause 3 of that bill. The other clauses are not relevant to this particular point. Clause 3 reads as follows:
All that portion of subsection 3(2) of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act-
Those are the ones I read to the House. It continues:
-preceding paragraph (a) thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
So we are taking out of the act the section that the former regulation was based upon. It continues:
"(2) The amount that may be paid to a province under subsection (I) in respect of the 1966 to 1978 taxation years of a designated corporation is 95 per cent, and in respect of the 1979 and each subsequent taxation year of a designated corporation is 50 per cent, of that part of the income tax paid under part I of the Income Tax Act-
This will definitely change the legislation. It has not yet been changed, but it has received first reading in this House. 1 should like to point out that if the cabinet can change a law in this way, members of the House of Commons might just as well go home. To approve of changes in the law before the changes are made means that the House of Commons is being treated as a rubber stamp. We are violating one of the primary principles of representative government. The cabinet cannot spend money or use taxation without the consent of the House of Commons, yet that is exactly what has been done.
The bill goes a little further. Actually it places emphasis upon public ownership. It is a back door way of forcing the provinces into public ownership rather than private ownership. If that is the ultimate objective, the House will have to consider it. The law has not yet been changed, but the 95 per cent approved by the previous Liberal government, passed and approved by the House of Commons, has been violated by the present government. The minister said that we do not have the authority. In effect he has said, "Amen", that this is a question of privilege.
I want to suggest since this is a question of privilege that Madam Speaker approve it as such. I emphasize again that the
Privilege-Mr. Taylor
order in council changed the regulations based on the law which was in effect. It had no authority to change that amount. The House of Commons said 95 per cent; at that time the regulations indicated that it could be 95 per cent, but the minister in his order in council said, "No, we will change that basis and make it 50 per cent", which is completely different from the original act.
If the hon. Speaker finds this a valid question of privilege- and I think the minister has agreed already that it is-then I suggest that this question should be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to consider this whole matter, including the payment to the provinces of the moneys withheld under the authority of this order in council. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to consider this whole matter, including the payment to the provinces of the moneys withheld under the authority of that order in council.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would permit a question. In view of the nature of this matter, I wonder whether it would not be better to ask for it to be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That is the committee which deals with this kind of thing. It is more versed in this area than the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
Motion amended.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on a matter of privilege and also as the seconder of the motion that has just been made.
Speaking on the matter of privilege which is before this House, I suggest it affects the responsibilities and the privileges of each and every member of this House. I would also like to point out some facts to add to those that have been put on the record by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Let me point out that on May 6, at page 738 of Hansard, I brought forth this matter under Standing Order 43 as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The corporation affected by the order, or by a request from this government, was forced to reduce its rebates, which the government was rebating to the people of Alberta so affected, from 95 per cent to 50 per cent. This request to the company, or this order, if you wish, to the company, was made by the government before, in my estimation and understanding, the government had legislative authority to do so.
I again wish to refer to the Public Utilities Income Tax, Transfer Act of 1966-67, specifically to sections 3(1) and 3(2), and make a case in connection with the possible actions of the
894

May 9, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Taylor
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) under these two sections.
Section 3(1) reads:
The Minister of Finance may cause to be paid to a province out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, at such time or times as he may determine, an amount determined by the minister in accordance with subsection (2) in respect of the 1966 and each subsequent taxation year of a designated corporation carrying on business in the province.
Subsection (2) reads, and I want to emphasize the specific wording:
The amount that may be paid to a province under subsection (1) in respect of a taxation year of a designated corporation is 95 per cent of that part of the income tax paid under part I of the Income Tax Act by the corporation for the year that is attributable to its gross revenue for the year from
(a)	the distribution and sale to the public in the province, or the generation
and sale in the province for distribution to the public, of electrical energy or
steam; or
(b)	the distribution and sale of gas to the public in the province.
What it does say, as I read this legislation, is that if the minister, who has the ability and the capacity within the act to make payments on his schedule, does so, the minister when he makes these payments has to make them at 95 per cent, not 50 per cent, 40 per cent or 30 per cent. They must be 95 per cent as specifically stated under subsection (2) of section 3 of the act. The regulations, as 1 read them in this legislation, do not give the minister any ability to reduce that rebate when it is made, if it is made at all, from 95 per cent to 50 per cent.
The intent of the minister's actions in connection with the action he has taken in respect of Calgary Power is very clear. I submit the minister acted beyond the law, or beyond the intent of the law, in issuing instructions that the rebate he has given to some of the companies involved, namely, Calgary Power, be reduced.
I submit this matter is a very serious matter involving a breach of the privileges of this House. It is a matter involving the use of powers the minister does not possess. As a result, I fully agree with the hon. member for Bow River and suggest that the matter be referred to the committee, as suggested in the motion he has placed before this House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with this point which has been described as a question of privilege. It is obviously not a question of privilege. Whatever it is, it is not a question of privilege. It may be a matter of debate that can be dealt with when the bill is called for second reading.
The fact of the matter is that the bill-and of course, nobody questions that the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act provides that payments will be made at the 95 per cent level; there is no dispute about that-provides the minister with the power under the act to make payments at such time or times as he may determine, and the timing of the payments is provided for under regulations of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
The regulations provide that payments can be made once each fiscal year in March. Each payment is composed of a
final adjustment in respect of a prior taxation year and an interim payment pending Revenue Canada's assessment of the tax return in respect of the current year. For example, the payment made in the 1979-80 fiscal year was made in March, 1980, and comprised a final adjustment in respect of the 1977 taxation year and an interim payment in respect of 1979.
Parliament was notified some time ago by the present Minister of Justice and (Mr. Chretien) that the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act would be amended and the decision was taken in the context of a $2.5 billion expenditure restraint program undertaken in the summer and fall of 1978. It was felt that in the light of this substantial expenditure restraint program, payments to the provinces, which constituted 20 per cent of total outlays, should bear part of the burden, and for that reason it was decided in fact to abolish the 95 per cent rebate by legislation and to make changes in the equalization program.
In fact, those two changes constitute, over the next two fiscal years, an expenditure amount of $1.5 billion. In other words, if this bill affecting the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act and equalization were not proceeded with the treasury would be attacked to the amount of $ 1.5 billion.
We are talking about the regularity of this procedure. These particular savings have been worked into the estimates that were prepared by the former government, and the former minister of finance has behaved in precisely the same way on the basis of the power that was given to him under the act; otherwise he would not be able to work these savings into his expenditure program.
The order in council was passed or the regulations were made under the authority and power given to Parliament, and by Parliament to the Minister of Finance, to make payments at such time or times as he may determine. I have stated that it is the practice each March to make a payment with respect to a past taxation year and an interim payment with respect to the current taxation year. We made an interim payment with respect to 1979, and that interim payment was 50 per cent.
If this bill is not passed when it comes to making the final payment for 1979-and the final payment is not due until 1982 under the practice-then, of course, it would have to be made at the 95 per cent level. The Minister of Finance is empowered to establish the timing, and the practice has been to make an interim payment. We are making an interim payment of 50 per cent for 1979. When the final payment comes due in 1982, under the practice which has been followed up to the present time, and if this bill is not passed, then of course the will of Parliament will be observed by the government in office and the full payment of 95 per cent will be made.
So the hon. member may raise a question of privilege in 1982 if the bill is not passed and if the government fails to make the payment in the amount of 95 per cent. I suggest that we defer the question of privilege until March, 1982, and it may be relevant at that time.
May 9, 1980


Madam Speaker:: From the outset I have to rule that this is not a question of privilege. Obviously, it seems to be a difference of opinion between two members of the Elouse. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is questioning the regularity-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 am rising on a point or order, with respect.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot speak twice on this question. That is why I am not recognizing him. I will continue my remarks which I had begun with regard to the hon. member's question of privilege.
I have said that I do not think that it is a question of privilege. I would add that since the hon. member is questioning the regularity of the procedure used by the government in order to fulfil its responsibilities, the precise matter raised by the hon. member is under constant review in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Therefore, the question which the hon. member is raising can be referred to that committee. In fact, it is automatically referred to that committee under Standing Order 65(3) which I could read to the hon. member, but I suppose that he can do that for himself.
I invite the hon. member, if he is not satisfied with the explanation just given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen), to go to this committee and make his point another time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am definitely not satisfied. This is a violation of the rights of every member of this Elouse.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, because there have been some discussions about private members' hour today, arising from the fact that certain bills are not ready, 1 wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council would indicate to the House what the agreement is for four o'clock today.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm that all parties have agreed to take up motion No. 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). 1 would point out at this time that there is substantial difference between the motion under Standing Order 43 which the hon. member for Edmonton East raised and which was adopted by the House, and motion No. 13. Hopefully all members will participate in that debate at four o'clock.
Order Paper Questions




Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour) moved: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the Department of Labour Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the questions to be answered today are Nos. 193, 280 and 377.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Royal Canadian Mint?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.	(a) Revenue-$61,243,000
Earnings-$3,994,000 (b) Revenue-$83,856,000 Earnings-$4,572,000
2.	(a) 1977-nil
1978-nil
(b)	1977-$4,277,000 1978-$4,602,000
(c)	1977-(before $21,601,000) (after-$15,601,000) 1978-(before $22,315,000) (after-$15,013,000)


Mr. Herbert: As at March 31 in each of the past five years, what amount was outstanding in the accounts of Canada in respect of the fisheries prices support account?

May 9, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: At March 31 in each of the past five years the amount outstanding in the accounts of Canada, under advances from the fisheries prices support account were as follows:
1978-79	23,051
1977-78	2,039,639
1976-77	1,501,154
1975-76	2,613,914
1974-75	1,269,224
The above amounts include inventories of fisheries products held by the fisheries prices support board at year end.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many (a) permanent (b) term (c) casual employees are presently working at the Colonel Belcher Hospital in Calgary?
2.	Have these numbers changed since March 31, 1979?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	(a) and (c) nil
as Colonel Belcher Hospital was transferred to the province of Alberta on April 1, 1980.
(b) Seven working on transfer of employment documentation.
2.	Yes.
(a)	541
(b)	0
(c)	8
On call-10.


David Michael Collenette: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lapointe (Charlevoix) that Bill C-17, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak briefly on Bill C-17, a bill which gives some urgently needed recognition to one of our most vital sectors of our economy, that of small business.
There are over one million small businesses in Canada. Most of them have annual sales of less than $2 million and yet these small businesses were responsible last year for almost one-third of our GNP. Small business is highly labour intensive, employing 2.5 million or about 42 per cent of all business employment in Canada.
Small business means big business for Canada's banks. At the moment there are 430,000 loans made to small business enterprises which total $9 billion or 25 per cent of the total lending by banks. So to say that small business is an important part of the Canadian institution is simply an understatement. It is the backbone and financial base of every community, large or small, in this country, and it forms a very important segment of our national economy.
Yet, for some reason, in many political circles business is the least understood and the most maligned segment of our society. Some would have us believe that it is the businessman who is reaping rewards at the expense of the ordinary man who is struggling to make ends meet. The truth of the matter is that the goals and the aspirations of millions of Canadians in our work force depend on the success and the initiative of those engaged in small business.
In these difficult economic times, it is the small businessman who stands to lose everything that he has worked for. That is one of the reasons I and many of my colleagues entered politics. We saw those who had the most initiative, who took the most risks and who certainly worked the longest hours being pushed to the wall.
Our Liberal colleagues over the years have, because of increased spending on both domestic and foreign aid programs, loaded heavy taxes and endless regulations on to business, small and large. During the election campaign I spoke to many small businessmen in my community and we discussed their situation-the cost of filling in and filing forms, collecting and remitting taxes, applying for and paying licence fees, dealing with inspectors of all kinds, defending actions, and so on. It has been estimated that the cost of the "paperburden", as the present government so aptly termed it several years ago, comes to something like an average of $5,000 per year.
In addition, this past year business has had to cope with high interest rates, rates designed to fight inflation and uphold the value of the dollar but which add enormously to the cost of running a business.
Those with a cash flow problem-and let us be realistic, this includes practically every business-are caught. They must still stock their shelves or keep production going or they risk losing everything they have worked for. They cannot just go into hibernation while interest rates and costs are high and come out again when the situation brightens. Bills must still be
May 9, 1980

settled, payrolls must be met and taxes must be paid. And they usually are paid; the community benefits and people benefit and governments and banks benefit. Meanwhile, however, the debts of the small businessman are increasing as he strives to survive another month.
Small business is facing today a genuine economic crunch and we believe that the government has a special obligation to deregulate, unburden and generally help the small business community. Unlike large business, the small businessman does not always have the time to do the fancy, analytical work so necessary today, to examine economic trends, file briefs, make submissions to government to keep abreast with tax laws, exemptions and new regulations that continually come forth. A small firm can lose track of its real costs quickly in the maze of inflation and fast changing interest rates.
The individualistic small businessman, who has traditionally been the last to depend on others, is now looking to government to help solve a problem which is beyond his control and is not of his making. And why not? The government caused much of the problem by overspending, by artificially stimulating the economy, by buying and paying more than our markets could justify, and by borrowing so much in money markets to pay its debts that it crowded out legitimate business needs and enterprises.
I might also mention that, in addition, governments have failed to exercise control where control might well have been exercised. After all, if government is going to control and regulate business inside and out, it should at least be consistent and apply controls on the elements of cost created by itself, as well as costs relating to productivity. Fair wages, yes, but for fair production as well. We have a long way to go in this country in improving our labour cost versus productivity output. We have a long way to go towards balancing our position with other industrialized nations such as Japan and West Germany, which have nothing to compare with Canada's potential in national resources.
Our failure to date can hardly be laid at the door of the small businessman who is struggling against high wage costs, high taxes, and the high cost of operation, mostly brought about by government intrusion. Is it any wonder that almost 6,000 businesses went bankrupt in 1979, and that Ontario bankruptcies in the first two months of this year went up 25 per cent over the same period of last year?
Instead of making life difficult for small business, government should be injecting policies into the system to restore the basic incentive aspects to the business world. It is the responsibility of this House to enact legislation which will aid small business and we are supporting this bill because we believe it will help. We are glad the individual loan ceiling has been raised but we would have been happier with measures which would have lowered the interest rates on that increased loan amount.
The government has an obligation to fight, on behalf of the small businessman, the high interest rate problem, as the previous Conservative government did when it proposed the introduction of the small business debenture. This would have
Small Businesses Loans Act
allowed the small businessman to borrow up to half a million dollars at half the nominal rate of interest. This measure would have effectively lowered the after tax interest rate on such debts by about three percentage points, and this would have allowed many small and medium-sized companies to at least consider expansion programs which could result in further employment.
It was a great disappointment to me, when speaking to small business owners during the election campaign, to discover that they did not know about this excellent cost reduction measure which would have greatly aided their profit picture. Not only would it have made their businesses more profitable but it would have given small business an 8 per cent or 9 per cent competitive advantage over big business.
Hardly anyone was aware of this important measure, designed to keep small businesses healthy and vital and to maintain local employment in areas not protected by collective bargaining procedures. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that in offering assistance to small business, the government must not only uncomplicate the procedures but must also improve the method of disseminating information all across this country so that business people are aware of the funds, loans, assistance programs and tax measures available to them.
I would like to stress the need for the speedy passage of Bill C-17. The Conservative party recognized the importance of small business in our economic community in its defeated budget of last December and was delighted to see so many of the measures proposed crop up again in the mini budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). It was our government which underlined the urgent need to alleviate the cash flow problems of the small business sector resulting from abnormally high interest rates, and we would certainly do nothing at this point to impede the passage of a bill which offers some relief to this country's small business people.
We strongly back the measures included in Bill C-17 but we must underline the need for the continuing support of this vital, mostly Canadian-owned segment of our economy. Bill C-17 is a start but the government must not stop here.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address myself to this bill and to the House for the first time in the Thirty-second Parliament. I am also pleased to see that the new government is again implementing initiatives first voiced by the last government. I, of course, refer to our stated intention of aiding small business, by recognizing the importance of small business to the national economy.
For the benefit of those who are unaware of some of the facts concerning small business in Canada, I should like to point out that there are approximately 600,000 small firms in business in Canada. In combination with other small entrepreneurs such as professionals and commissioned sales personnel, there are a total of over 800,000 enterprises which could be described as comprising the small business community in our great country of Canada.
In terms of total national employment and production, the small business community plays a substantial role in the

May 9, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
working of the economy. The production of goods and services by small business enterprises accounts for 20 per cent of the value of all goods and services produced in Canada.
Clearly, a sector of the economy which produces such a substantial component of the gross national product must be counted as a vital component of the total commercial and industrial mosaic in Canada. In terms of achieving national goals such as increased employment, increased real earnings and dimished regional disparities, the potential contribution from small enterprise is indeed immense. It is difficult, in fact, to see how such goals could be achieved without enhanced small business participation.
A major interest of mine, in contemplating the benefits of small business to our economy and national life, is the contribution made by the tourist industry. This industry leads to an increased understanding and awareness of each other's unique contribution to Canada, and, as such, is a strong bond in our confederation. Moreover, of the 800,000 small businesses in Canada, fully 80,000 or 10 per cent are involved in some way in the tourist trade.
In 1978, the Canadian tourism industry was worth $11 billion to Canada, or about 5 per cent of our gross national product. Of this amount, nearly $9 billion came from the spending of Canadians travelling right here in Canada, while more than $2 billion came from the spending of visitors to Canada from foreign countries.
This industry accounts for over one million jobs in Canada, or one in every 11 working Canadians. The majority of foreign visitors come from the United States, our great neighbour to the south. Two-thirds of our international travel revenue comes from this source, while overseas visitors account for roughly one-third of our foreign exchange revenue from travel. Tourism is Canada's sixth largest earner of foreign exchange, and it is the world's fastest growing industry.
As I mentioned. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian tourism industry involves seme 80,000 businesses which are widely dispersed across our nation. There are about 20,000 hotels, lodges, cabins, motels and campgrounds, an estimated 43,000 restaurants, a myriad of events and attractions, as well as facilities such as parks, historic sites and marinas.
Furthermore, it has been forecast that tourism will be one of the world's largest industries, if not the largest, by the year 2000. If current growth rates of approximately 10 per cent per annum continue, very nearly two billion people will be travelling by the year 2000. That means for every two people travelling today, there will be three in the year 2000. Total worldwide tourist revenues will rise to nearly $2,000 billion by the year 2000.
In terms of the total numbers of travellers, the future looks like a marketer's paradise. Canada will undoubtedly share in the growth of worldwide tourism, and it is well placed to benefit from these faster growth rates.
However, in order for the tourist industry in Canada to benefit fully from this expected increase in travel, certain programs and opportunities must be in place to support and promote the travel industry in Canada. That is why, with certain reservations, I am happy that this bill has been introduced and that it will make financing of loans of up to $100,000 available. For in order to exploit the growth in tourism, Canadian facilities must grow and improve, and as we know that will require money.
If I may, I would like to refer to a report of the Tourism Sector Consultative Task Force on the Canadian tourism industry. The publication is dated July 12, 1978. At page 33 under the title of C-9 in connection with the Small Businesses Loans Act, it says:
-in connection with the Small Businesses Loans Act, the limits should be raised to $250,000 (amount of loans outstanding) and $2,000,000.00 (gross revenue). There may be a problem of chartered banks requiring mortgages for a small business loan. They should accept a second mortgage as the loan is government guaranteed.
So we see that $100,000 is not too much money, and it is probably insufficient for many businesses to carry on.
However, I do have some misgivings about the Small Businesses Loans Act. The fact is that this program has not been fully promoted and advertised. The majority of small business persons are unaware of the Small Businesses Loans Act and, indeed, are confused by the multitude of programs available, either provincially or federally.
These programs, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, offer many financial alternatives to small businesses. In point of fact, however, without adequate dissemination of information on particular programs, such as the Small Businesses Loans Act, the small business person is confused and perplexed in an already complex financial marketplace.
Therefore, my recommendation would be to make the small business person more aware of the programs available by advertising in trade magazines or by information supplied to the accounting profession, who are often the first turned to when a question of financing is raised.
The purpose of this proposed advertising would be two-fold. Not only would the business person be apprised of the funding available, but this knowledge would arm him in his dealings with the banks and other lending institutions. For it is well known in the business community that the banks are reluctant to inform loan applicants of this funding option.
This is not because of any inherent risk in lending funds with the federal government acting as guarantor although, if the federal deficit continues to increase as forecast by the infamous mini-budget, that could become a real consideration. It is because, as in so many other situations, businesses both large and small do not have the time, and many times do not have the patience or the resources, to indulge in the vast amount of paperwork which dealing with the government entails.
I have had constituents who have told me that banks just cannot be bothered to go through all the nuisance of filling out forms with all the detail that government demands. I ask you,
May 9, 1980

Mr. Speaker, what is the use of having this program if the banks, who are to administer it, would rather not inform their clients of its availability because the benefit to the bank is outweighed by the cost, in terms of time needed to comply with the government demand for information? If the bank is willing to lend the money, using the criteria that prudent lending practices dictate, why is it necessary that this government form be so complex and so demanding?
This is a problem that is not restricted to those who live in my riding of Erie. It is a problem that is seen across Canada and recognized as a hindrance to business by many, chief among them the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which has made strong representations in the past to the federal government on this problem.
The situation is so bad that the professional trade magazine for accountants counsels its members to do an end run around the banks and other lending institutions by applying for a loan, having it approved, and then requesting that the loan be considered under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
This government, who in the past started the "office of paperburden", should be aware of the difficulties encountered by small business in availing themselves of funding, strictly because of the complexity of the application for that funding. If this government indeed means what it says about helping small business, this is an obvious first step to take. Eliminate the paper burden, advertise the Small Businesses Loans Act extensively, and this recommended legislation will be a good start to encouraging and promoting the cause of small business in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have to give the House the usual warning that if the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) takes the floor, that will terminate this debate. I presume he does wish to take the floor.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, was under debate. The Minister of State for Small Businesses had risen to take the floor. As I indicated to hon. members, if the minister speaks that will end debate on second reading of this bill.
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed with the debate that has gone on in the House during the few hours we
Small Businesses Loans Act
have had to study Bill C-17 on second reading. That debate has allowed us to see that on both sides of the House, that is on the part of hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party as well as those of the government party, there is a common determination to attend very specifically to the well-being of small business in Canada.
I agree with my colleagues when they say that that sector of our economy is one of the most important, if not the most important of the whole economic structure of our country. I am sure we all agree in the House, Mr. Speaker, that, in view of the large number of small businesses in Canada, their importance in terms of gross national product as well as the remarkable personality of our Canadian entrepreneurs, this sector of our economy constitutes the spearhead of any industrial strategy or economic approach to the development of Canada.
As I said earlier, I am very happy with the favourable remarks made in the House about that vital sector of our economy.

At the beginning of my remarks I wish to commend the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who, as the former minister of state for small businesses, trade and industry, led off the response from the official opposition. In his remarks he displayed a keen sense of the issues that face small businesses today. His remarks were constructive and helpful to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Lapointe: He termed the Small Businesses Loans Act, and I quote "a very successful program of financial aid to the small business community", and he spoke of the very low loss percentage of the program. Further, he welcomed the announcement that the government will be conducting a comprehensive review of its financial support programs for small business.

The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) then expressed the wish that we look more specifically at that question of working capital or the accessibility of small businesses to certain funding programs to increase their availability of working capital. That idea was repeated by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the NDP critic on small business, and I think that the government also shares their concerns about the availability of working capital. However, the instrument before us, Bill C-15 to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, might not be the ideal instrument to deal specifically at this point with the question of greater accessibility to working capital for Canadian entrepreneurs. But I am quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to hear the representations of my colleagues on this point. I have myself started to attach a great deal of importance to this, more particularly in

May 9, 1980
Small Businesses Loans Act
the general context of the review we are now doing of the funding problems of small business.
As I said in my remarks at the outset of this debate, we have in co-operation with the Canadian Bankers' Association as well as the Economic Council of Canada undertaken two comprehensive studies on programs relating to small businesses and the funding difficulties facing small businesses at this time. I think that, within those comprehensive programs, we will be able to find more adequate solutions to the problems relating to working capital.
Others of my colleagues opposite used this debate on Bill C-17 to deal more generally with the interest rate problems and all the difficulties facing small businesses. I think I should have expected that because in the political arena it is normal to use all opportunities to try and make a point, to say that much needs to be done, but what I remember most from the debate is the general agreement my colleagues opposite expressed with the amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act being proposed in Bill C-17.
I noticed more particularly, Mr. Speaker, the very lively and convincing speech by our colleague from Burlington (Mr. Kempling) who referred to the difficulties and annoyances small businessmen can face in Canada when they decide to apply for those programs established by any level of government. I can assure my colleague from Burlington that we will not limit our efforts to reducing administrative formalities and problems caused to Canadian businessmen by red tape. Indeed, as he requested in his speech, we have explained the Small Businesses Loans Act in a booklet and 300,000 copies have been distributed in 1979; furthermore, the banks are trying to improve and develop their information system so that businessmen can be made aware of that very useful and very important program as a development tool for small businesses.
As I said earlier, the high interest rate issue has also been raised. However, I do not think that Bill C-17 is the proper channel through which to tackle the high interest rates which Canadian businessmen have to pay. As all hon. members know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, as late as yesterday we saw that for four weeks now the interest rate has maintained a downward trend and I hope that will help Canadian businessmen.
As mentioned by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) earlier this morning, 1 think the proposal made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his economic statement a few weeks ago, that is the business development bond, will allow them in the short run to face the high interest rates which have been especially hard on small business.

1 would like to come back more precisely to one remark made by our colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). In his remarks he said that clause 4 of the SBLA bill would allow the maximum aggregate number of guarantees to increase from $600 million to $675 million up to
June, 1980. The hon. member said at that time, and 1 quote from page 448 of Hansard:
There is no way an additional $75 million is going to be guaranteed within the next 30 days or so, and therefore I strongly suspect that this is a cover-up and that loans have already been guaranteed in excess of the $600 million allowed by the law.
1 would like to correct right away this remark by saying that from July 1, 1977, to the end of March, 1980, $551 million has been guaranteed. Lending in 1980 is running at 24.8 per cent over 1979. If this increase continues for the month of April, 1980-statistics are not yet available for April-only $49 million will remain in the guarantee for the months of May and June. The $600 million guarantee has not yet been exhausted.
The following are the figures for the three-year guarantee period: July 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977, $50 million; January 1, 1978, to December 31, 1978, $176 million; January 1, 1979, to December 31, 1979, $258 million; and January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980, $67 million. The total is $551 million.
While the guarantee of $600 million has not yet been surpassed, this will happen before the current program terminates at the end of June, and this is why we have proposed to increase the ceiling by $75 million.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to come back to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Catharines and those of the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) to point out how urgent it is for the standing committee to study that legislation so that Canadian businessmen may continue to take advantage of that program as in the past, because the allowable financial ceiling will be reached within a few weeks.

As hon. members opposite have not raised objections to this bill, I am hopeful that it will be passed quickly through committee to be enacted.

To conclude, I would like to thank all my colleagues who participated in this debate for their excellent suggestions and also for the positive comments they made in their addresses. [English]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF PROGRAM PERIOD The House resumed from Wednesday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-19, to amend
May 9, 1980
[Stage Direction]
the Employment Tax Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to be able to resume debate on Bill C-19 after an adjournment of several days. I should like to take the opportunity in the course of my intervention to expand upon some of the concerns I have as a Canadian about the larger questions of the current state of our economy, and what 1 see as a lack of action on behalf of the government and of the minister who introduced this bill in coming to grips with the much needed solutions to these problems.
The bill before us, entitled "an act to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act", is merely an extension of an existing program which was introduced as a temporary program, and for that reason we will extend it for one more year. Government members opposite have made a great deal in recent months of the number of jobs that have been created through programs of employment tax credit and the like.
I think that Canadians would like to know what follow-up statistics show as to whether jobs created by this type of a temporary initiative are permanent or whether those jobs self-destruct shortly after the benefits terminate. We understand that the extension for another year will allow another 50,000 new jobs to be created, but we have to look to the next year with a great degree of discomfort in recognizing that, by the end of 1980, we may again have more than 1.2 million people unemployed in this country. I think we should really be asking the minister-and I hope we will ask him-in committee and on future occasions, what other initiatives he has been able to impose upon his cabinet colleagues to convince the government to deal with the growing and horrendous problem of unemployment which is likely to occur in this country, if the economy goes in the direction that many prognosticators predict it will.
So the first question I ask is: Will these be temporary or permanent jobs? Second, will the conditions of eligibility- that is, that the employer has to state that these positions will be surplus to the normal requirement-and the atmosphere which is likely to prevail in such circumstances, reduce inefficiency and initiative on the part of the employer and the workers, in the sense that it means essentially that we will get more bodies to do the same job?
If the government is going to give employers back some of their tax money or allow them to keep it to hire people to do tasks surplus to the normal requirement, perhaps that might be regarded as having a demoralizing effect on fellow employees and on the attitude of the company in pursuing competitive instincts. Of course, we want to know whether, and how, abuses are prevented in which the employer signs a declaration leaving the impression he is embarking on a new initiative when, in effect, he may just be filling a position which he would otherwise have had to meet from his existing cash flow. So there are a number of questions that might be asked of the minister and I trust we will have a chance to pursue these questions in committee.
Employment Tax Credit Act
However, I should like to get off that point and on to the main thrust of my intervention to indicate that this is indeed a short-term initiative. It is as if the minister were pretending he was feeding peanuts to a friendly elephant in a situation where that elephant is no longer an elephant but has become a hungry lion. If the minister is not too careful, he may lose more than his arm.
The scenario facing this country in the next few months, I think, results from an attitude on the part of the government- not only the politicians but the bureaucrats who design systems-that we can cater to every human need by throwing more money at it or by designing a new government program, establishing a new government department, and proliferating the notion that the government can take over whenever the private sector fails. It is true that we need more in the way of tax measures and less in the way of government make-work programs. As this is a tax measure I applaud it, albeit as only a temporary initiative.
I believe that the country is in a state of crisis largely because the private sector in this country has become seriously demoralized. What do we need to do to re-establish a buoyant and productive economy in Canada? I believe that the past decade of Liberal rule has broken the spirit of the private sector economy, especially the small business sector, such as manufacturing, merchandising, construction, farming, fishing and the like. A government which takes with one hand and hands back to someone else with the other sooner or later demoralizes the producers in society. Indeed, we will have a degree of equality where we may all enjoy the same comforts of life, but those comforts, in the final analysis, will be less in total than if we continued to encourage individual initiative and the instinct to rise to the height of challenge, to be entrepreneurial and to create an expanding economy.
Therefore, I really believe there are two key facets to the problem of unemployment in Canada today. First, we have the facet that has been created by more than a decade of government which pursues a Liberal socialist philosophy and which is destroying the private sector instinct to build our country.
Second, we have a government which has set a bad standard for the private sector to emulate in terms of the manner in which they have managed the economy. I would go so far as to suggest that the monetary socialist approach that has been taken to the conduct of our economic affairs in this country reflects a degree of incompetence and a lack of common sense. There is little comprehension of the tools required to encourage the growth, development and entrepreneurial instincts of those who would build their future, without having to be subject to the heavy hand of government.
I want to give a few examples to illustrate that thesis, but first I should like to return to my first point. I think there is a philosophy afoot in this country. I do not have to think that; it is obvious. It is manifest in the attitude that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has taken toward the resource-owning provinces. It is an attitude which is based on the so-called concept of sharing.
902

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
I put a lot of stock in the Judeo-Christian values which suggest that we should be our brother's keeper. I think most members in the House do so too. There is genuine hardship and genuine need in society and we all do have a collective responsibility to respond. But the concept of sharing as revealed by government members opposite and by my friends to the left has become a dogma. I would go so far as to say it could be called the Robin Hood concept of sharing. In fact, the dictionary will confirm that "sharing" means the "giving and receiving of wealth or goods for the common good, in a framework of generosity".
I believe that it takes an atmosphere of generosity and good will if this notion of sharing is to work, the notion which was so fully reflected in the throne speech and which stated that we must have justice for all. I suggest that in our quest for justice and equality we can go too far; we can go so far as to destroy the spirit of individuals and of regions to build and progress on their own account.
1 believe it is true that the resources of individual regions are given to them as the basis for building their local economies. That title to resource ownership has been granted since the time of confederation. Indeed, there was some dispute in the House earlier today about the means by which the government opposite is intervening and abrogating that right which the provinces have enjoyed for more than a century. The notion that resources can be confiscated from one sector of society or from one individual in society and assigned to another can be carried too far. As a consequence, I believe the private sector, the business sector and particularly the small business sector in this country are terribly demoralized. We will not eliminate that problem by increasing taxes, by imposing upon them more bureaucracy, more red tape and form filling, but indeed by doing the exact opposite; that is, by getting off their backs and giving them an opportunity to grow and prosper in this country.
I should like to come to the second point of my thesis. Aside from being over-zealous in the pursuit of this notion of sharing, the government, the monetary socialists, have really mishandled the economic affairs of this country. There is a lack of common sense in the manner by which they have husbanded the taxpayers' hard-earned resources. We read a lot these days about something called the Laffer curve.
I do not want to bore the House with technical descriptions, except to indicate that there is one theory in society which indicates that the higher the tax level is raised, the more revenue the government gets for the purpose of delivering the programs it would like to deliver. That is, the greater the taxation becomes as a percentage of take-home income or the gross national product of the country, the more revenue will flow to government and the more opportunity the government will have to do things; to reinvest that revenue to provide some form of incentive or initiative in some other sector of the economy. Increasingly it is becoming evident that that type of a straight line relationship just does not follow common sense,
nor does it conform with thousands of years of experience. In fact, if the percentage of the wealth of the economy or of the average take-home pay of individuals that the government takes in the form of taxation is increased without limit, there is a level of taxation where we begin to destroy the incentive for individuals who want to build collectively for the common good of society. If one continues to increase taxes above that level, the revenue flowing to government, and indeed the gross national product of a country, will begin to subside and fall very quickly to a very low value. This is the principle behind the so-called Laffer curve.
When one is beyond that point at which the level of taxation has exceeded the optimum one for producing the best delivery of services and the healthiest economy, or when people are being surtaxed to too great an extent, one will find that further increases in taxes do nothing more than further demoralize the economy. In fact, in this situation tax reductions are the only way to stimulate the economy and to put us back on an even keel. If we look at the evidence, it is clear that the percentage of taxation as a fraction of the gross national product in this country has doubled since 1970. I believe, that we have gone beyond the point where further increases in taxes can be regarded as a benefit to the economy and to the initiatives the government might take. In fact, the present tax levels are probably destructive to the economic progress of our country.
This little discourse on the mechanism of the Laffer curve tells us, I believe, that we are heading into difficult economic times and ever-increasing unemployment, simply because we do not understand the basic, common sense rules of economics.
I should like to point now to some information which came to my attention recently. This information is not widely known. It has to do with the magnitude of Canada's borrowing. We have heard a lot of debate in recent weeks about the additional deficit which will result because the Liberals opposite are reluctant to face up to the fact that we must pay for what we consume or else our children will pay it for it in the future. So they do not mind holding down oil prices artificially and accumulating an additional $2 billion of federal deficit for 1980. They feel that it is all right that our children pay for that some time further down the road.
Of course, that is just one example of the way in which this government continues to enlarge the federal deficit to the point where in 1979-80 the former Liberal government projected to spend 20 per cent more than they would receive in revenue. But when the Progressive Conservative government took office and presented its budget, we had reduced that government deficit to less than 14 per cent of government spending. Now, as a consequence of the mini non-budget presented recently in this House, we are back to a situation where the government will again incur 20 per cent more in terms of spending than it will receive by way of income during the present fiscal year.
The budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that within five years a conservative government would reduce our deficit to less than 6 per cent of programmed expenditure. It is a travesty, a condemnation of the government opposite, that they will not present five-year
May 9, 1980

projections as to where this country is going. They are reluctant, they are hesitant. They know where they are leading us but they are afraid to admit to the public at large that they are bankrupting this country.
I think it is important that we plan ahead, that we respect the resources of the people who foot the bill and display some consideration for the consequences which massive deficit financing will have on the economic strength of Canada. To highlight that point I want to refer to data taken from the annual reports of the World Bank which showed something rather alarming. These reports indicate that in the years from 1974 to 1979 Canada has borrowed more money in the form of foreign loans and international bond issues than any other country in the world. 1 do not mean on a per capita basis; 1 mean that Canada is borrowing more money than any other nation in the world. Sure, it is great to live in Canada, but how is it that we can be so foolish as to borrow at such a rate that in 1976 we borrowed 26 per cent of all the moneys borrowed by all the countries of the world? The average between 1974 and 1979, as reported in the annual reports of the World Bank, is 18 per cent of all the world's borrowing, incurred in the name of Her Majesty the Queen on behalf of those of us here, our families and our children. Since 1974 Canada has been the world leader in total borrowings.
When we listen to the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) coming into the House and telling us that because of high interest rates Canada will now incur at least $500 million more in deficits as a result of the carrying charges on that borrowing which was not anticipated two or three months ago, it shows how vulnerable this country has become to international forces and how dependent we are on the wiles and economic circumstances of countries and situations beyond our control.
It might interest members to know that in fact Canada's borrowing is larger than that of France or Japan by a considerable degree. In 1976 Canada borrowed $9.5 billion on international markets, while the next highest borrower, France, borrowed only $2.8 billion. We borrowed $9.5 billion out of a total of $34 billion borrowed by all the countries of the world. Indeed, we are borrowing almost a quarter of the world deficit!
Is it not time to take this matter under consideration and change the course of this country? On a per capita basis Canada borrowed almost 25 times as much as Japan, and in 1976 Japan was the world's third highest borrower. In 1978 Canada borrowed $4.85 billion out of a world total of $36 billion. Japan borrowed only $2.8 billion with a population five times larger.
I see that you are shedding a tear or two, Mr. Speaker, and I think we all should. I am citing this evidence to show that government members opposite have no common sense when it comes to the question of managing the wealth of this country and its tremendous potential. Here we are going off to Mexico signing contracts for oil, we go off to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to assure sources of supply, when we have the supply
Employment Tax Credit Act
right within our own country. The present government is, indeed, assuring non-security of supply by its very actions.
We also have this question of high interest rates, and I have to reflect on a personal perspective which has probably been mirrored by what has happened in the last couple of weeks with the collapse of the interest rate levels. When Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, came before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs last fall, he told us that we had to maintain high interest rates in order to keep inflation under control, and the reason for that was that we depend so much for the commodities we consume and use in our homes on "imported products".
Secondly, governor Bouey said that our Canadian plant capacity was saturated. Therefore, if we did not keep interest rates high the Canadian dollar would fall, thus encouraging more inflation because of the higher costs of imported goods which we rely upon. He said we had to discourage that and keep inflation under control.
Some very prominent people in this country associated with the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy-and all members of Parliament received this report released on April 22, 1980- recently took the following position, and let me quote:
The Bank of Canada's policy for reducing inflation- tight money and high interest rates-might have had some justification if the inflation had been caused by an overly expanded economy. But the Canadian economy has not been overheated. Therefore, the Bank's policy has been ill-advised. It has not been successful, and, if persisted in, will be no more successful in the future.
I am pleased to see, therefore, that there has been some change of heart on behalf of the governor of the Bank of Canada. I do not think that the current trend is entirely consequential upon the tumbling interest rates in the United States. I hope we are soon going to wake up to the realization that we do have the opportunity to control our own economy. It is shortsighted to say we cannot increase our own plant capacity. It is shortsighted to say we should continue to enjoy all of the comforts of these things we like to buy from offshore and to travel extensively outside the country when, indeed, a lower dollar, if that had to be the consequence of lower interest rates, would offer a tremendously healthy advantage for our economy. That point also is clearly stated in the report which I have cited.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: If hon. members opposite wish me to indicate the author, as they have requested, let me say that the author of this report was a former Liberal finance minister who says the Bank of Canada is wrong, that the Liberal government is wrong and has been wrong for many years, and that it is time we realized that the only way to an independent and healthy economy is to recognize that high interest rates in fact increase inflation, increase bankruptcies and impose a hardship on individual businesses that operate within our country.
Now, if you look at the budget brought down by the former minister of finance on December 11, Mr. Speaker, you will note that the mortgage tax credit program would, indeed, have represented a subsidy on interest rates to the tune of 25 per

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
cent. Members opposite do not want to admit that and neither do our NDP friends to our left, but a 25 per cent tax credit on mortgage payments is a 25 per cent subsidy on mortgage interest rates. That would have ensured that the forest industry would not be collapsing in western Canada and in other parts of the country. It would have assured the construction industry, the real estate industry and the home furnishing industry a much healthier position in Canada today. This would have reduced the cost of a 15 per cent mortgage on renewal to something less than 12 per cent. It is utterly irresponsible for members opposite to have taken the approach they did in condemning that initiative.
On the other side of the question, they like to make a great point of the fact that the mortgage tax credit was going to cost the government something. Actually it was a matter of leaving revenue in the pockets of the people who earned it and were entitled to it. It is the opposite of the Robin Hood philosophy.
On the other hand, the Liberals said that to pay for that cost we were going to increase the price of oil. We were in fact going to increase the price of oil-to a lesser degree than they will in fact have to increase it, inevitably-in order to encourage conservation, and also in order to encourage employment in this country in the private sector of the petroleum industry, in exploration, in the steel fabricating and steel rolling industries, and in terms of all of those supporting industries, including the shipbuilding industry, which would be part of our attempt to develop our own energy resources.
What I am saying is that higher oil prices and a mortgage tax credit program both would have created more jobs than we have in Canada today and would not have cost the Government of Canada one nickel. In fact, all of these additional jobs would have reduced the burden on the unemployment insurance fund and would have increased the flow of income tax revenue to the federal coffers. Without any net change in the existing revenue picture, the Government of Canada and the people of this country would be facing a much healthier economy as we move into the 1980s than we are as a consequence of the Liberal government's retrograde policies; its ill-conceived and nonsensical plans.
Let me deal now with some of the consequences of the government's incompetence in my own riding. I should like to cite a few circumstances that have arisen over the past two or three years. Let me read first from a letter dated April 27 1980, received from a constituent. Reading from its body, it states:
It is with regret that I have to inform you that Max Sibbeiee Aircraft Tires Ltd. is forced to close down its retreading plant as of May 1. 1980.
Due to rising costs, stiff competition from the United States companies and the complete lack of protection from the federal and provincial governments, another Canadian company has gone down.
I should like to tell hon. members a little of the history of this situation. Some three years ago the owner of this small business, the only western Canadian business engaged in the retreading of aircraft tires, was placed under some pressure from a California firm to stop retreading tires and to merely import and distribute their product. At the same time, the
Canadian federal government was financing the establishment in Ontario of a retreading plant in the name of that same California firm, and that government-supported retreading plant, of course, got all the Air Canada business. My constituent found that his area of the retreading market was reduced, but rather than accept the offer from the U.S. firm to become merely a warehouse for their tires, he came to the hon. government House leader in the other place, a well-known Liberal politician from western Canada, and asked if the Senator could help him obtain some tariff protection so that this company from California would not be able to compete unfavourably with him, allowing him to stay in the business of continuing to supply tires to the Department of National Defence, CP Air and other airlines operating in western Canada.
Unfortunately, my constituent had a very frustrating and unsatisfactory time with that particular member of the government. Subsequently he learned that if he was to stay in business he had to purchase a machine called a holographic tire testing machine, which he could buy only in the United States, in order to examine every retreaded tire he produced to ensure there were no imperfections or defects. One wonders why this new standard was suddenly imposed. Nonetheless, upon purchasing this equipment, which cost several hundred thousand dollars, he was immediately slapped with an import duty for bringing that piece of equipment in from the U.S., although it was not available in Canada.
He appealed successively to ministers of this government but received no satisfaction and no agreement to his request that the import duties assessed be refunded. So on the one hand he got no protection from imported products that competed with his product line and, on the other hand, when he was required to upgrade his own manufacturing capacity, he had to pay import duty on the equipment he had to purchase from the U.S. in order to stay in business.
As a consequence of the recent action of this government, in denying this man some rebate of the duty on this very sophisticated piece of equipment, his business has collapsed and 50 people are out of work. There is something wrong with the attitude of a government which does not pay attention to the importance of building enterprise in this country and to giving special consideration to small businesses and employers such as my constituent.
I would like now to cite another situation which has developed in my riding. It is with respect to the potato processing industry. Three years ago an entrepreneur in my riding had just put the finishing touches on an $8 million plant for processing french fried potatoes into packaged form for use in commercial and retail outlets. Around that time he discovered that the federal government had awarded a large DREE grant to a company in Manitoba to produce the same product.
I tried at that time to find out from the officials in DREE what market studies had been done to determine the impact of the competitive imbalance which would result, because of the
May 9, 1980

federal government's subsidy to this large competitive corporation, which is known as McCain's. McCain's were able to provide a product at a price which was backed by the goodheartedness of the people of Canada, so that they undercut the new industry in my riding which was attempting to get into that market. We were told that DREE had no intention of explaining the extent to which they had studied the market factors surrounding their decision to award several million dollars to this plant in Manitoba. A short time later the plant in my riding collapsed.
After several more months of discussion and appeals to the provincial government and federal government, a special ARDA grant was awarded which allowed the owner of this plant to remove all the potato processing equipment and instal a big cold storage freezer. This cold storage freezer was installed after he had laid off 100 employees. Now he employs fewer than ten people and his business is freezing fish. The equipment and the jobs in that plant went somewhere else.
The spin-off implications for my riding and for farmers in the lower Fraser Valley are quite significant because that plant in Manitoba, together with its associate plants across Canada, has a virtual monopoly on the frozen french fried potato business in this country. That company had a smaller plant in Vancouver which was very antiquated and it is now closed. This older plant was the only source of sales for the potatoes grown in the lower Fraser Valley, other than those potatoes which go direct to the consumer market.
What I am saying is that through the process of government intervention to ensure some form of regional equality-sharing or help to other regions of the country-jobs, and opportunities have been lost and dreams have been broken in my part of the country. That is wrong. The farmers who would have been planting potatoes are now trying to find something else to plant and having a very difficult time. In fact the government, as we determined in an exchange with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the other day, refuses to introduce some form of seasonal tariff to protect the farmers of the lower Fraser Valley from the large quantities of potatoes which are imported from Washington and Idaho. The situation is ludicrous and intolerable.
The government has destroyed a company in my riding which was employing 100 people and an opportunity for farmers in my area to grow produce, but allows produce in large quantities to be imported from just across the border, a few miles away, without giving Canadian potato growers one small bit of protection.
Incidentally, this large company which received all these DREE benefits, to the tune of $10.5 million, the McCain Corporation, is reported to have made an attempt some months later to purchase an interest in Canada Packers Limited. Here is a company that knocked off a few little businesses across the country with the benefit of $10.5 million of taxpayers' money, which then makes a play some months later for a share in Canada Packers. I believe that the transaction was actually completed and McCain's did acquire an interest in Canada Packers Limited. I cannot understand it.
Employment Tax Credit Act
As I said earlier, there is the situation in British Columbia where sawmills and forest industry enterprises in general are collapsing because of similar initiatives by this government. It shows a complete lack of any sense of realism in the approach which it has taken to the housing industry, and the industry is at the point where it is collapsing.
I am pleased to see that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is responsible for housing, is present because his solution to this problem was not very well received by the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies the other day when he suggested that the government may be introducing some form of deferred or graduated payment mortgage scheme to accommodate the current high interest rate. The scheme is being contemplated to accommodate the problems of foreclosures and mortgage defaults.
The minister implied that the benefits of government assistance will go first to those who need it most. This, of course, means the AHOP foreclosures. But AHOP is a program that resulted from a foolish government policy in the first place. What the government is contemplating now is an extension of the old AHOP deferred payment system where one could start with small payments and increase them as time went on. That is the solution which the government is offering to the people of Canada at the present time. Based on the expectation that real estate values will appreciate, the government, assuming that it can find some investors who will lend the money on a deferred payment basis, wants to allow people to buy houses on small payments which will increase progressively with time. But what happens if the tide of inflation reverses or the economy collapses? There may be hundreds of thousands more ghetto units across the country financed by the people of Canada. Furthermore, our children will carry the burden because of the massive deficit of this country brought on by a government that has conned people into buying something which we as a society can ill afford.
A spokesman for the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies, after the speech of the Minister of Public Works last week, said:
Putting the case for major subsidies, he said it was inconsistent that the federal government was willing to subsidize oil by up to $4 billion this year and give nothing to housing.
That is the case which I made earlier. Our government would have given 25 per cent of the mortgage interest payment back by 1982. This year we would have allowed a 12.5 per cent saving on mortgage interest which would have remained in the pockets of Canadians. Instead, the Liberals are subsidizing the high cost of imported oil. It makes no sense.
I have a few more quotes from that same page of The Ottawa Journal with respect to the mini-budget submitted in this House by the Minister of Finance last week.


An hon. Member:: Don't quote comic books.


Thomas Edward Siddon: 1 am not quoting comic books, I am quoting informed public opinion. On that page of the Journal the Canadian Chamber of Commerce spokesman is quoted as saying:

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
An increased deficit, particularly when viewed against a commitment to a major effort to control expenditures, could undermine the government's credibility regarding fiscal discipline.
The article goes on:
Not only will a larger deficit undermine the government's credibility, it will create additional downward pressure on the Canadian dollar and the financial markets.
The chamber also favours a more rapid move toward oil prices in the domestic market. It says higher oil prices would help reduce the federal deficit, encourage conservation and promote new exploration and development.
What about all the new jobs such a situation would create?


Mr. Chenier:: That's an old cliche.


Thomas Edward Siddon: We had a program which essentially assisted people with high interest rates. It was no less than a genuine subsidy of the mortgage interest rate. 1 find it hypocritical that the Minister of Finance, in his statement last week, agreed that he would introduce our small business development bond, which has the effect of benefiting small businesses in this country, but refused to accept that a similar initiative is long overdue and much needed in terms of the home building industry and to meet the aspirations of young people to own their own home and to be able to afford to keep it.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't the people buy it?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The hon. gentleman opposite asks why the people did not buy it. I think it is because they were conned into believing the mortgage tax credit was going to be financed by higher oil prices and they did not believe higher oil prices were essential to our future energy security. I think they were wrong; I think higher oil prices are essential. Time will prove the truth of the initiatives spelled out in that December budget which I think will go down in history as a most important initiative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in my first address to the Thirty-second Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I do not wish hon. members to think this is my first time here. I have been here for a while, but this is the first time that I address this Parliament.
I must commend the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) on his speech. I wanted to make some remarks about the economy, but he has put the view on the record so well he stole the words out of my mouth.
I shall limit my remarks on the bill to two aspects, Mr. Speaker. I hope to challenge the House to use its imagination in order to assist one group of Canadians which is attempting to find employment, that is, the youth of this nation. I want to discuss that aspect of the problem because I have a feeling that when we have such high unemployment in this nation, a bill of this sort does not assist the youth. I think the minister feels
that the unemployment tax credit is an important aspect of youth unemployment.
The other area I want to speak about for a few minutes is the problem of unemployment amongst the native people of this nation and how this bill does not in any way assist them. We have a serious problem of unemployment in the country, particularly among young Canadians.
In March of this year the unemployment rate was 8.6 per cent; the rate for Canadians between ages 15 and 24 was 15.1 per cent, almost double the national figure. This contrasts with the 6.3 per cent unemployment rate for Canadians over 25 years of age. These figures do not even begin to reflect the situation in the more disadvantaged regions of this nation. In Newfoundland the rate of youth unemployment is 25.7 per cent and in New Brunswick it is 21.8 per cent. Nor is the situation improving, Mr. Speaker. In March of this year the seasonally adjusted figures showed that the level of unemployment had increased for men and women aged 15 to 24 by 18,000 and 5,000 respectively. In contrast, when we look at the unemployment figures for men and women aged 25 and over, they actually declined by 17,000 for men and 5,000 for women.
We should consider these statistics in the context of the bill before the House which proposes to assist people to find employment. From these statistics it is obvious that this piece of legislation, and others that have been enacted by Parliament, do not assist young people to find jobs during the winter, nor will they in spring and summer. These figures are only numbers and they really obscure the impact of young people not being able to find employment. When they arrive in the work force just out of school, feeling the challenge to get out and earn a living, and then find there are no jobs, the psychological effect is great.
Our society places a great deal of emphasis on work. The work ethic is regarded by our citizens as a very important attribute of this western society. But what does it feel like to be pounding the pavement, not able to find a job when you feel society expects it of you? In a work oriented society you need that job. It has been said many times that the employment of men and women has something to do with their dignity and feeling of self worth.
These young people come out of college, high school or a technical institution, loaded with achievement, ambition, and enthusiasm, to find that only one in two or one in three can find a job, even though manly of them spend hours, days and weeks trying. Many young Canadians are caught in this vicious cycle right now. They graduate with a degree or diploma from university, high school or technical school and find it is not enough. When there is high unemployment, employers can be selective and ask for people with experience. Obviously young people just graduating have had no opportunity to gain experience. As we know, they have enthusiasm and eagerness. They are generally efficient and often more productive than any other age group, once they find a job.
I suppose there is no man or woman in this assembly who has been unemployed.
May 9, 1980


An hon. Member:: Don't depend on it.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Well, you are not unemployed right now-maybe soon, but not right now. The only people in this House who are of that age group are the young men and women sitting at your feet, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they can identify with the problem of getting out into that work-orientated world and being able to find a job. They can recognize the problems that result.
At a recent meeting of the Amerian Ortho-psychiatric Association, Dr. Saul Levine and Dr. Eli Ginzburg concluded that long-term youth unemployment can be both individually and socially disruptive. The alienation which such youth feels from society manifests itself in high rates of dropping out of the school system entirely, of despair and depression, and even of crime and mental illness.
I have described the problem, Mr. Speaker, and I assume the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is aware of it. I certainly hope so. The question is, what can we do about it? Is this piece of legislation going to assist, or even in some way solve the problem? The statistics I used earlier would lead me to believe that it will not. Parliament must find new and productive programs to assist youth in their search for jobs. Our schools can help in this. I remember when a member of the Conservative party travelled the country a number of years ago in the labour field. He came to the conclusion that our schools are not suited to training young people to find the jobs they want to do. They are being taught many important skills but those skills are not necessarily related to the jobs which are available when they go out looking, nor are they related to summer employment programs. Maybe part of the answer is to examine some of the other countries in the world which are having some success in this field.
I look at a couple of programs from Europe. Youth unemployment there is relatively the same as that for people in other age groups. Perhaps we can learn something from the programs that are in place in Europe. In many of these countries there are programs in place to give a young person the opportunity to move in the direction of the kind of employment he will ultimately want to pursue. He receives training by these companies at the same time he is attending school. It is a kind of apprentice program while being educated. Upon leaving school, rather than have the companies give these perspective employees long-term on the job training programs, which generally they cannot afford in a tight economy or when there is high unemployment they do not have to, people are partially experienced and partially able to make use of some of those skills. We should be looking quickly at instituting this type of on the job training while students are still attending educational institutions. I know that the federal government has a large budget for education, but by using these suggestions perhaps we could get a program like this on the road much quicker than we are doing at the present time.
A number of other suggestions have been made which I think are very valid. In particular I am speaking of the
Employment Tax Credit Act
summer employment program. We have a program called OFY. Basically-but it is not the case in all of the programs because some of them actually assist young people in acquiring the skills they need as they go on in life-many of these programs are simply menial tasks that do not really give the young people the kinds of experiences and on the job training that they need. Surely the amounts of money that we set aside for this program could require more constructive terms of reference as to the end use of that skill in which we want to get our young people involved.
Surely we could come up with some new programs, for instance, work outside of the government where we could encourage existing local governments, private non-profit and volunteer groups, educational and research organizations to assist in hiring students for special summer projects. By doing that they could be selective about the kinds of students that they hire. They could select those students who have a desire to work eventually in the specific field after leaving the educational institution.
We have experimented with summer hiring programs. Many of the federal government departments have done this. I think it is working very well and I would hope that we would expand that kind of program. Instead of hiring full-time people during the year, many of the surveys and field projects carried on by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the department of housing, and the department of urban affairs, could be done by hiring young people during the summer to assist them. These young people would then be getting the skills and on the job training which will assist them after leaving school.
I am sure many committees of the House of Commons, as well as members of this House, could devise some excellent short-term projects for the summer that could be of value to us in this institution or in some government departments. Our imagination should be used. Our party also suggested that we create a specific environmental corps for the summer to employ young Canadians in major environmental operations across Canada. In my opinion, that is an excellent suggestion.
Coming from an agricultural riding, I believe that we could assist many of our farmers during the summer by employing young people. I know that in Ontario and in parts of British Columbia farmers are constantly looking for people to harvest the crops in the summer and in the fall. Farmers have great difficulty in finding people to do these jobs. In fact they have to import labour from offshore. Surely there are a lot of young people who are unemployed who would be willing to take on this kind of work if the government would assist them in their travel and housing arrangements for brief periods during the summer. At the same time we would be assisting the farmers in getting their produce to market. And, again by using imagination, we could come up with some ways of assisting young people.
There is another area that I think is essential and it is something along the line of a youth opportunity fund. We could channel it through the Industrial Development Bank, or some other institution. By doing this we could assist profit

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
orientated community development groups initially to hire young people to assist them toward a goal where they will be making money and able to pay salaries. There are many of those kinds of community profit orientated types of groups who require people to assist them, and this is one way we could get that sort of thing off the ground. All these programs are programs that assist in a small but very important way. The biggest dilemma that faces us is getting our economy rolling again. If we can bring down the total rate of unemployment, we will then bring down the rate of youth unemployment at the same time, and as my hon. friend who preceded me mentioned, these are some of the ways we could move in order to bring our economy back to order.
Our young people must be challenged. At the present time we are not challenging enough of them. We have not given enough thought in this House of Commons, provincial assemblies or even in the municipalities to how we can better assist and challenge the young people in this nation.
As 1 look at the bill, 1 cannot help but think that it really is not giving the assistance necessary. There is one other area I would like to discuss before leaving the Employment Tax Credit Act, and that is the unemployment rate among our native people. The unemployment rate for our native people in the worst of any group in this nation. By looking at the statistics we find that the native unemployment statistics are 300 per cent higher than any other group of people in Canada. The problem is somewhat distinct from any other problem.
Most of these people live on specific reserves set aside, and others who have left those reserves and who are now living in cities often having great difficulty getting jobs. Many of them live in the poorer parts of the cities on welfare and many other social programs that go along with that. This program does nothing to assist them. Obviously, as we look at the rates of unemployment, the programs that we have put in place in this House of Commons are not doing the job. The statistics show that there is no drop in these high rates. By looking at statistics we find that the unemployment rate gets as high as 95 per cent during certain times of the year. These people are not productive nor are they producing anything toward the wealth of this nation. These people are forced to live on the various social programs that are available. I hope to be challenging the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) by asking them to tell this House what plans they have in place for the next year or two to assist this group of Canadians to find employment.
We have many suggestions. 1 hope that we will be given the opportunity to discuss them in this House and in committee, but we must deal with these problems.
I was interested in the minister's remarks about having the potential to build tar sands and heavy oil sands plants in Alberta if the proper agreements are brought forward as far as pricing is concerned. These plants create a tremendous number of jobs for Canadians. The minister said that he could not put anything into this agreement because of a bill that the provincial House has passed that does not allow preferential hiring in
Alberta because, based on the individual Human Rights Protection Act, no one group should be singled out to be given preferential treatment. That does not limit us in this federal House when negotiating contracts to put into them such things as hiring within an area. That area is in the northern part of the province and is surrounded by large numbers of native people.
We have the examples of the Syncrude and Sun Oil plants which have hired a great number of native people. They trained them and they are now working in those tar sands plants. We should be putting into effect the same kinds of opportunities for more of the native of people of that area to work in the Cold Lake plant and the new Athabasca tar sands plant.
1 make this suggestion to the minister who said it was impossible because of this piece of legislation. I do not believe it is impossible. I think it is very easy to draw hiring in a specific area into the contract. It is only common sense. I hope that suggestion can be drawn into the contract because it is important to those groups of people. Here is an example of something that is working very well. Both of these tar sands plants have a large amount of laundry that needs to be done. The band that had no employment opportunities before was able to secure that contract. It now has many of its men and women working in the new laundry service, and it is working in an excellent manner.
Surely we can put our heads together to come up with more opportunities when starting projects that have billions of dollars associated with them, in order to create employment for those groups of people in the statistically highest unemployed
areas.
We have put some challenges before the minister today. We will be asking him questions based on those challenges. I hope he has some answers with regard to the assistance this bill can give to those people, if any, and maybe some other initiatives to which he is putting his imagination.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate this afternoon on Bill C-19 to amend the Employment Tax Credit Act, which we hope will relieve some of the high unemployment in Canada. A number of speakers have described this as a band-aid bill. However, we must support it because the government has presented no major job-creation programs to this time for meaningful full-time employment.
It is most distressing to read news articles in the paper such as one that appeared recently, and I quote:
Canada's Specialty: Highest Jobless Rate
Canada has the unwelcome distinction of being alone, among the industrial rivals of the U.S., with a higher rate of unemployment.
That is an absolute disgrace. It certainly does not say much for almost 17 years of Liberal government in this country. I am going to touch on unemployment in Manitoba this afternoon and make some recommendations to the minister on how
May 9, 1980

to alleviate the high unemployment in the construction industry in that province. The latest figures put out by the Winnipeg construction association show that there are 8,423 craftsmen out of work in Manitoba, not a very happy record. Also, for the record, we have to look at the number of business bankruptcies in this country from 1968 through to 1979, which have increased year after year. This clearly indicates how difficult it is to operate a business in Canada. It is one of our major problems and the reason we have almost one million unemployed today.
We hope the government will bring forward some legislation such as that recommended in the Crosbie budget last year. One recommendation was a common stock investment plan which would have assisted Canadian corporations in expanding. There is no doubt about the job creation spin-off there. Also recommended was special incentives for the Atlantic region which has very high unemployment. This government has seen fit to drop those special incentives.
Also in the Crosbie budget were tax incentives for firms investing in depressed areas. That was an excellent piece of legislation. It would have been excellent for regions in the maritimes and other sections of Canada. Perhaps the minister will introduce something similar to that in the near future. There was also the mortgage and property tax credit plan which would have affected employment across Canada and helped many industries, but that was also dropped. It has been a tremendous setback.
I said I would speak on recommendations for alleviating the unemployment problem, particularly in Manitoba. I refer to the CP rail relocation. If we could ever get that program moving, it would create thousands of jobs in Manitoba. In a moment I will go into some detail of some of the studies which have been done with regard to rail relocation in Winnipeg and the economic benefits that would create.
For the past 14 months the minister has been trying hard to obtain funding for the CP rail relocation, but his success has been very minute. We are all behind him in this project as it is something that has been talked about in Winnipeg for 50 years. We have a very serious problem there with two bridges crossing over the CP tracks that will have to be closed down within two years. That is why I cannot understand the DREE formula presented to the House the other day whereby, over a five-year period, all we get is $25 million. I do not know how there can be a proper rail relocation program with $25 million which will be accumulating over five years.
The minister responsible for DREE gave absolutely no explanation as to allowing for inflation, which is running at about 10 per cent a year. Hon. members can see that in five years from now $25 million will just be a drop in the bucket. This is causing considerable concern, the delays and procrastination with regard to the CP rail relocation plan. There has been some suggestion that the province could have more studies and do more about it. However, rail relocation is a responsibility of the federal government under its rail relocation program on a 50-25-25 formula. There is no way a city or province can do more and more studies without a commitment
Employment Tax Credit Act
from the federal government that it will pay 50 per cent of the cost.
There have been many refusals on the funding. Just this week we found out that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) knows absolutely nothing about this program. He is not even aware of the studies that Otto Lang ordered in 1979, which were completed in January of this year. He is not aware of the studies that have been done and who has been responsible for them. He tries to blame it on some other government, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous government.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) made it perfectly clear that he is not going to be providing any funds for rail relocation in-


An hon. Member:: He didn't know what he was saying.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member points out that the President of the Treasury Board did not know what he was saying. If one looks at his answers in Hansard, they are certainly very strange. The sad part about this is that the minister seems to work in reverse with regard to his plans for obtaining funds for CP rail relocation in Winnipeg. He should have consulted with the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board and received some commitment from them first. Public meetings and press conferences are held. It is a serial in the newspapers. This business of CP rail relocation just goes on daily, and the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board have no intention of providing any moneys at all.
We received one statement from one minister. I think he was trapped. He came out with this five-year formula, this $5 million a year, which is absolutely ridiculous when we have to have a commitment right now of $80 million from the federal government before anybody can consider proceeding with the rail relocation. There still has been no explanation as to how Winnipeg traffic is to move in two years' time when the Arlington and Salter bridges are closed down.
We just simply cannot wait five years, so if the minister- considering the high unemployment we have in this country and the problems we have in Manitoba-could work on the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board to try to get a tirm commitment, that would have tremendous economic benefits for the province of Manitoba, and particularly the Winnipeg area.
The study 1 have here was commissioned by a previous Liberal government and was just completed in January of this year. It goes into the costs of rail relocation which, at today's figures, is $168 million, so we need a commitment of approximately $84 million from the federal government. 1 found it very strange that the Minister of Finance knew absolutely nothing about this study at all. He thought it had something to do with the previous government, which it did not. It was commissioned by a former Liberal transport minister. That is another strange aspect of this. 1 would have thought that the

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) would at least have informed his colleagues about this study and let me know that it had been completed, including cost figures.
With the CP rail relocation there would be great economic benefits, and they are referred to in a study which was completed in 1972. It is called the "Winnipeg Railway Study". It is quite an extensive study into the benefits of rail relocation. The federal, provincial and municipal governments were involved in this study. Quite a number of officials of the Ministry of Transport were involved in this "Winnipeg Railway Study". We have the Dillon study which was just tabled in January of this year. We have the "Winnipeg Railway Study" which points out all the economic benefits. We have enough studies for the time being. We cannot be trying to con the province or the city into doing more studies until we have a firm commitment of $80 million. Then they can assess their positions and come up with more funding if more studies are needed at that time. However, the initiative lies with the federal government right now, not the city of Winnipeg or the province of Manitoba. It is ludicrous to suggest that.
I will just read out a few of the guidelines in the "Winnipeg Railway Study". It says:
The technical report on the Winnipeg Railway Study has been received by the executive committee from the study team of consultants. We submit this summary of the technical report to you for your information and consideration.
In preparing the technical report the executive committee has been assisted by a Technical Co-ordinating Committee of representatives from the Ministry of Transport, the Province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg, CN Railways and CP Rail. In the course of the study, a spirit of co-operation has developed between the participants in this study.
Without your initiatives at the start of the study and encouragement throughout our work, we would not be able to report to you on the substantial progress which has been made toward the objectives of developing a railway network in Winnipeg which would improve the social, environmental and economic conditions for the urban community.
All the details are contained in this study, so we do not need any more studies for the time being. It was Damas and Smith Limited which conducted this study and completed it in 1972. The economic benefits would create many thousands of jobs in Winnipeg, and the study points out the following:
Programs 3 and 4-
These are contained in the study.
-create maximum opportunities to attain social and environmental objectives for Winnipeg. These objectives represent a higher quality of urban living in Winnipeg.
This has been one of the concerns of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He wants to revitalize the downtown area. Nobody has any objection to that. We all support that.
Damas and Smith also point out the following:
We are of the opinion that the social and environmental goals and objectives can best be attained by a variant of railway relocation program 3 embodying the urban development concepts in both programs 3 and 4. Further, we believe that it could be demonstrated that the social and environmental gains would warrant the investment in the railway relocation program 3.
Just to give an idea of what we could do with this $80 million, they point out in the Damas and Smith report that, and I quote:
The development of the main corridor is proposed to be staged, starting at the Assiniboine River with the development of park and residential uses south of the Provencher-St. Mary-York river crossing. Development would extend north into the corridor to include those lands served by CP industrial service tracks, after 1980. The residential uses could be fully marketed in the period to 1986, but the commercial development would be only 35 per cent complete.
So we can see that this study went into quite a bit of detail with regard to the different benefits we would receive. The study claims it would take at least ten years to absorb the remaining commercial land use created by this concept. There is no way the province or the city can do any further study ten years off into the future until we get a firm commitment for this $80 million which is the federal government's share in a proper rail relocation program.
In the Damas and Smith report there is a paragraph on real property, which is as follows:
There are potential economic gains in real property values which would accrue to the owners participating in the Urban Redevelopment Program. If these programs are planned for private enterprise exclusively, then the gain in property value will flow to the private sector. If on the other hand, the corridors are redeveloped as a joint private and public enterprise, then the gains which will be derived as an effect of the investment of public funds in the two transportation systems-rail and road-would flow back to the public directly.
These are the types of meaningful programs we need to put in place, not these short-term tax credit programs. This would create employment and industrial benefits for years to come in the province of Manitoba.
The Damas and Smith report goes on to say the following:
The urban development concepts explored under programs 3 and 4 are to a large extent interchangeable. In both programs railways are removed from the downtown. Program 3 indicates the magnitude of costs of almost complete removal of the CP tracks from the downtown.
That is what we are trying to accomplish.
The CN facilities are removed in all programs.
I am not particularly asking to go into that aspect at the present time.
The Damas and Smith report goes on to say the following:
In both programs 3 and 4, the objectives of the Urban Development and Transportation Concepts for the downtown were to seek a maximum total benefit-within the downtown and for Winnipeg as a whole. Program 3 approaches what might be a maximum in potential for the Nairn and Logan corridors. Program 4 indicates the potential maximum in the main corridor. Some amalgamation of the urban development and transportation concepts in Programs 3 and 4 for the downtown appears to be promising. Resident population could be increased over that proposed with the current development plan to between 25,000 and 35,000 people in this way. This would focus and integrate a wide range of urban activity; it would serve not only the increased local resident population, but also the recreational and leisure time activities which, at the present time, are dispersed throughout Winnipeg.
In another paragraph the Damas and Smith consultants state, and I quote:
In CP programs 3 and 4, the main line would be constructed independently of existing operations and the new classification yard built at the appropriate location. On completion, operations would be transferred to the new main line and the yard tracks removed in the downtown. The CP Keewatin-Carberry subdivision main lines would still be retained to service industry in the downtown.
May 9, 1980

So you can see how extensive the study has been. We do not need any more studies, Mr. Speaker. All we need is $84 million in cash and we could get on with one of the greatest industrial plans you have ever seen going into effect in this country. That would create employment. As one member said, they would rather give it to Mexico. Well, let us give it to Winnipeg, Manitoba, Mr. Speaker!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I should like to quote again from the Winnipeg Railway Study which states:
Program 4 results in the removal of approximately 400 dwellings but adds 4,500 new units, a net gain of approximately 4,000 units. This will mean a gain of about 4,000 people in the downtown related corridors. Because most of the housing under this program would be in the main corridor and would likely be priced for the high income sector, the benefits to socially handicapped people will be appreciably less than potentially created by program 3.
They go on to list the economic benefits, but this is where we get great industrial benefits and meaningful job creation. This study also points out the following:
These programs would promote lively residential fringes and recreational areas circling the north and east parts of the downtown, and will promote the fullest range of urban activities that belong in the centre core. They would have no serious or harmful effects on the development of suburban areas, however, it will mean a lesser function for the suburban shopping centres.
So you can see how extensive this was.
If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is not familiar with this study, he can check with the officials in his department because four were involved from the Department of Transport.
1 hope that this will clear up the need for more studies, and 1 hope we will not be reading more newspaper articles such as this. There is a headline in this article referring to the Minister of Employment and Immigration which reads, "Minister Raids Ottawa for Relocation Funding". This is where he has gone wrong.
As 1 pointed out earlier, this whole approach has been in reverse. Now that we have gone this far-we have discussed it-it is a serial in the daily newspapers, I hope that he will now take some time to meet with the President of the Treasury board and the Minister of Finance to work on obtaining the $80 million. This ridiculous proposal from the Minister of DREE (Mr. De Bane) for $5 million a year for five years is the most idiotic proposal I have heard in this whole series since it started about 15 months ago.


An hon. Member:: They lead with the hind end.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, as the hon. member says, they lead with the hind end. So let us stop the nonsense. Let us not have any more press conferences and meetings until the minister can come to Winnipeg and say, "I have met with the Minister of Finance, I have met with the President of the Treasury board, and I have the support of the cabinet. They have finally agreed to supply us with $84 million because we will have a meaningful program which will create employment." If he does that, he will go down in history as a hero and he will
Employment Tax Credit Act
make up for the blundering through which he has led us in the last 15 months.
I hope the minister is listening with interest to what I have said this afternoon because we are behind him on this. We all want rail relocation and we do not want to be talking about this two years from now and to find out that the Arlington and Salter Street bridges are closed and the only route remaining is Main Street-he knows how narrow it is-and all we have is McPhillips Street at the other end. People in Manitoba will be after him wanting to tar and feather him if he does not take some decisive action in the next two weeks.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to you, sir. I hope you will remain in the chair.


An hon. Member:: He has just left.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I see that one of ours is in the chair for a change.
This legislation on the employment tax credit is, in my view, representative of Liberal programs over the last 12 years. It is another band-aid, another fix-up, a little piece here, another little piece there. Because of our defeat by members on the other side, we have not continued with construction. House construction has stopped. They would not have needed to worry about the tax credit if they had allowed construction to go on. We were thrown out for that.
The second thing the Liberals have done since they have been in power is in connection with the synthetic oil production which our government was going to act upon so as to make certain that this country became self-sufficient and so as to provide jobs, not only in Alberta but many more in Ontario and Quebec. Because of force majeure provisions that the government has put in, employment is down again in Ontario. This attitude amazes me, being from Ontario. They talk about money for Chrysler, money for Quebec for manufacturing vehicles, but they do not want any production in Alberta so as to make us oil self-sufficient and create labour in this country which is so desperately needed.


An hon. Member:: Disgusting.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Yes, it is disgusting, as an hon. member says. They boast about not re-introducing the 18-cent tax and killing the mortgage tax deductibility. The 18-cent tax would have allowed us to make this country not only oil self-sufficient but also manufacturing self-sufficient and create employment. We would not need these programs if we had a program that would overcome the unemployment problem before you start.
1 congratulate the minister on the employment tax credit program. It is part of the total program, but it is only a little piece-it does not solve the problem. It does not help those big companies to expand and enlarge in a realistic way. It is a band-aid, a patch work. I urge the minister to work with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe), and come up with a solution.

May 9, 1980
Employment Tax Credit Act
This is only part of the total economic package. Our government put together a total economic package which would have made this country solve the employment problems. Let the minister look at it, copy some more of it, or take the whole thing and do it properly. I wish he would admit that we had a good program. We had an economic program which they could go on with. They took part of it. Let them finish the job and steal the rest of it. Let them do it properly. We had a good program. Let them give some incentive to the private sector, let them not always create government work. This is not working. During the election one party came up with the slogan "Control government, not people". 1 maintain that that is what we must do. By continuing to put in these patchwork programs, we will not be solving our over-all problems.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated that there must be a gradual reduction of inflation and interest rates and that this is the only viable solution to this problem. Why does he not practise this at home in Ottawa instead of spending more of our money? Let the people spend it, let the individual, the private sector spend it, not the government. We are compounding our deficits; our children are going to suffer. The government is not supporting any proper program, it is only creating a patchwork of problems. How will it get the 50 per cent equity in our oil industry? There is only one way to do it and that is to nationalize it, which will again mean bigger government. It is the same as they did with PetroCan. They owe $2 billion now for PetroCan. They can go and borrow another $2 billion. Then we will not stand at an 18 per cent average of world borrowing; we will stand at 50 per cent of world borrowing.
What happened to all the tax breaks? When will they bring in some tax breaks for working Canadians? We have seen the working people worried about unemployment and their retirement. When will we care about working Canadians? They are the persons who are the guts of this country. We must pay attention to them. My party provided for working Canadians. We provided mortgage interest and property tax deductibility to give them a break against punitive tax costs.
I should like to refer to a document which contains just general things that could be done by this government. They should reduce the burden on the economy by reducing government. They should reduce the size of the public service. They should disseminate Crown corporations and Crown agencies. They should get some initiative back into the private sector to generate growth and jobs for Canadians. They should do it through the private sector, not through government subsidy. They should help Canadians to get a stake in this country, not only through their own homes but through ownership of stocks of Canadian corporations. I plead with the government to do something about getting the private initiative back into this country. This is part of a program from which I am reading. They should help the regions of this country. There are regions which need more support than other regions. They should look at it realistically. They should not just pick the little pieces
here and the little pieces there. It must be done on a total global basis.


An hon. Member:: It is pornographic.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It is not pornographic. That is what I would consider their program to be. I will not use the term, but they are that. They are doing nothing to solve the problems of the citizens and the entrepreneurs of this country.
What about oil self-sufficiency? I have heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) talk flim-flam, mish-mash or whatever it is about this subject. What will they do? If they direct their energy toward oil self-sufficiency and manufacturing self-sufficiency, they would not need employment tax credit programs. That would solve it.
The five points I mentioned happen to be statements from the Speech from the Throne of the Thirty-first Parliament. They should steal more of our ideas. They were good ideas. They were excellent ideas that were going to turn this country around. Dealing with the oil industry, every time a synthetic oil plant was built approximately $3 billion would remain in Ontario because of related services. I never worked out how much it would be in Quebec. Alberta does not have these services. The services flow back to the east, and it is the east that is so concerned. They should look at the total picture. They should not worry about who is getting what here and there.
An example is DREE programs. The money usually flows back to the industrial base of the country. We know that it does not all stay where the DREE grants are given. It flows back. I am just saying that they should look beyond what they have in their employment tax credit program. They should develop a total program. They should develop an over-all strategy, an employment strategy. They have the people who can do it. They have the ideas they can steal and they have a lot of ideas they can create themselves.


Mr. McGrath:: They sure know how to steal ideas.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Working Canadians-and I must say that we contributed toward this-have been left with two pleasures. I am talking about the unemployed man whom they are going to help to get back to work. They picked two things out of our budget, which I do not think was very good. The man has two pleasures left-one, his beer, and two, his cigarettes. Now they are trying to tax that away from him. At least we were including that as part of a total package. It was relative to the 5 per cent tax on corporations. It was relative to the mortgage interest and property tax deductibility which would have created jobs. It was relative to the realistic price of oil. If there was a realistic price of oil, they would not need employment tax credit. They would have this country running, operating and working, and they would be as proud to be a Canadian as 1 am. We could have been proud. We should get back on the track. Instead of bringing in partial legislation, they should bring in a total package.
May 9, 1980


Thomas Edward Siddon: You have to know where you are going to do that.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Where is the youth employment program? There is double the number of people in our youth corps, that is, under 25 years of age. There is double the number there. Where is the youth program? Where is an apprenticeship program? Last year in Oshawa they were crying for trained personnel. They had to go to Britain to bring these people in. There is a program to which the government should be able to address itself to get these young people working, involved and particularly to give them a skill. This cannot be done by $2.50 an hour for so many weeks, or whatever it is. I am talking about learning a trade that may take a year, two years or three years, but it must be done realistically. This is a major program which the minister could introduce. It could do great things to solve the unemployment levels of this country and to get the country working again.
The government seems to spend more time investigating successful Canadian corporations to see what it can get out of them. Ministers should be encouraging those companies to develop additional manufacturing facilities. Instead they put punitive taxes on them. They do not give Canadians the opportunity to invest in those companies. They do not give the employees of those companies an opportunity. 1 am saying that they should get on with it. They should give them a greater chance to get this country going and to get private initiative going. That is what is missing. That is where the employment problems will be solved. They would get the country working-oil would be produced and iron ingots would be converted to steel products. They would have the country moving. We are just hewers of wood and haulers of water. It is time to change that. That is where an employment program could be very worth while.
As I have mentioned before, I maintain that it must be part of a total economic package. The government working together with others could accomplish this, but I plead with them not to do patchwork solutions to major unemployment problems. They should do a total package or a total frame. They should do a whole program. They have the time. They have the experience. They have a lot of friends. They have a lot of friends in the public service who have many ideas. An example is right in the Department of Communications with which 1 was fortunate enough to be connected. They are not addressing the problems there. There is employment there, but there are employment problems there too. I acknowledge that we should be addressing those.
As we are moving into the electronic age very quickly, they must realize that there will be a change in the labour force. There will be a reduction of people in the service industry. They will be investing an amount similar to the $50,000 per working person that is being spent in the manufacturing sector, or even the $70,000 per working person in the farming sector, instead of the $3,000 per working person which they are spending in the service industry at the present time. If we do not move on that now, we will be dependent upon Japanese and United States products. We have high technology.
Business of the House
The public service with which they are now working has some very fine people who have developed high technology. They should find out about Telidon. Find out about Annex C, D and E. Those are job-creating works. Get the money put in there and become numero uno in this country with high technology; we have it, we are not using it and we are not investing it. This is one of the greatest areas that can be developed in this country, and it is probably one of the most important places in this century.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four o'clock.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Thank you, Mr. Minister. May I call it four o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills. Pursuant to an agreement made earlier this day the House will now proceed to notice of motion No. 13.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the comments just made about an agreement made earlier this day, I should say, so it is legally tidied up, that we request that all private members' public bills and all notices of motions preceding number 13 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand the hon. parliamentary secretary has sought and received unanimous consent that all private members' bills and notices of motions now on the order paper shall stand. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is agreed and so ordered.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties about the speaking order on Monday during the seventh day of debate on the throne speech. I should point out that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) had the floor during the last consideration on the sixth day on the amendment to the main motion. While it is not obligatory that we allow the hon. member for Joliette to continue speaking on the seventh day on the main motion, it has been the custom and practice in recent years to allow the person speaking on the amendment to continue on the main motion. The hon. member for Joliette had five minutes on that particular amendment, and I understand that he will be the lead speaker for the Conservative party in the debate on Monday.
It has been agreed that the hon. member for Joliette will have an additional 30 minutes on Monday as the lead speaker in the debate after the question period, to be followed by a

May 9, 1980
Constitutional Amendment
speaker from the New Democratic Party, who will also speak for 30 minutes, to be followed by a member of the government, a minister of the Crown, who will also speak for 30 minutes. After that point in time it is agreed that other speakers will be limited to 20 minutes so we can accommodate as many people as possible in the House who wish to make their views known in the throne speech debate. This has particular reference to making it possible for many people to speak before the referendum is taken in Quebec on May 20.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is quite right in respect of the discussions that we have had. I hope that arrangement will commend itself to the House. If it does, I think it would be appropriate that a House order be made in the terms suggested by the parliamentary secretary. That certainly will give more individuals the opportunity to speak, a right that is sometimes difficult to acquire in the House. I think it is a first-rate suggestion. I commend it to the House and I hope the House is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) has correctly reported the results of discussions we have had, and we agree to this proposition.
Since the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has been given advanced billing to the effect that he will be speaking on Monday, may I say that the first speaker for the New Democratic Party will be the distinguished and hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
I believe there was one other understanding among the three of us, and that was that this arrangement will only work if no one seeks overtime. In other words, the 30 minutes applies to the first three, and after that no one asks for 21 minutes; 20 minutes is the limit.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette). The Chair does not have a copy of it. I will rely, therefore, on hon. members understanding as to what has been said. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is agreed and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


William J. Yurko: That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:



AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT IN CANADA OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Whereas the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of each and every province of Canada have requested, and consented to, the enactment of an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in the terms hereinafter set forth, and the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted addresses to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Subject to this part, the Parliament of Canada may make laws repealing, amending or re-enacting any provision of the Constitution of Canada.
2.	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of this act or section 51A of the British North America Act, 1867, or affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to
(а)	the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws,
(б)	the rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the legislature or the government of a province,
(c)	the assets or property of a province, or
(d)	the use of the English or French language,
shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces.
3.	(1) No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada that refers to one or more, but not all, of the provinces, shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislature of every province to which the provision refers.
(2) Section 2 of this act does not extend to any provision of the Constitution of Canada referred to in subsection (I) of this section.
4.	(1) No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education in any province other than Newfoundland shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislatures of all the provinces other than Newfoundland.
(2)	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to education in the province of Newfoundland shall come into force unless it is concurred in by the legislature of the province of Newfoundland.
(3)	Sections 2 and 3 of this act do not extend to any provision of the Constitution of Canada referred to in subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
5.	No law made under the authority of this part affecting any provision of the Constitution of Canada, not coming within sections 2, 3 or 4 of this act, shall come into force if such law is rejected by any combination of provincial Legislatures representative of not less than 20 per cent of the population of Canada (according to the latest census) within a period of 24 months after its passage by the Parliament of Canada.
6.	Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution of Canada, the Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive Government of Canada, and the Senate and House of Commons, except as regards
(a)	the functions of the Queen and the Governor General in relation to the Parliament or Government of Canada;
(b)	the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting a yearly session of Parliament;
May 9, 1980
[Stage Direction]
(c)	the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons, except that the Parliament of Canada may, in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, continue a House of Commons beyond such maximum period, if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of such House;
(<d) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate;
(ie) the residence qualifications of senators and the requirements of the Constitution of Canada for the summoning of persons to the Senate by the Governor General in the Queen's name;
(/) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province;
(g)	the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the constitution of Canada; and
(h)	the use of the English or French language.
7.	(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution of Canada, in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant-Governor.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, no province, through the passage of an act of its legislature, shall partially, or totally, secede from the federation of Canada unless such act of the province is approved by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of each and every province of Canada.
8.	Any law to repeal, amend or re-enact any provision of the Constitution of Canada that is not authorized to be made either by the Parliament of Canada under the authority of section 6 of this act or by the legislature of a province under the authority of section 7 of this act is subject to the provisions of sections 1 to 5 of this act.
9.	Nothing in this part diminishes any power of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislature of a province, existing at the coming into force of this act, to make laws in relation to any matter.
10.	Notwithstanding any conditions contained within sections 1 to 9 inclusive, the people of Canada, acting in consort, can petition the Parliament of Canada to hold a national referendum on any constitutional matter. Such a petition must be signed by no less than 5 per cent of the voting population of Canada and be validated and accepted by the Federal Government.
On the receipt of such validated petition, the Parliament of Canada shall, before the lapsing of two full years from the date of receipt of the validated petition, hold a national referendum on the substance of the petition and shall enact into law the substance of the petition if such petition receives a 75 per cent plurality of all votes in Canada and no less than a 50 per cent plurality of all votes in each and every province of Canada.
11.	No act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the coming into force of this act shall extend or be deemed to extend to Canada or to any province or territory of Canada as part of the law thereof.
12.	Notwithstanding the substance, rights or prohibitions, stated or implied, of the Constitution of Canada as revised, this act recognizes that Canada is a multicultural nation composed primarily of two linguistic solitudes, namely English and French. Furthermore, this act acknowledges the inherent right of self determination of each of these solitudes respectively and that each shall have the inherent right through legal and peaceful means to secede each from the other if so desired and duly and legally expressed through a referendum supported in a near unanimous fashion by the people of the solitude seeking separation.
Furthermore, that such separation, if and when decided upon by the solitude seeking separation, shall occur not along established provincial territorial boundaries but along such contiguous territorial boundaries that are duly and legally negotiated between the two solitudes but which fully respect the rights of large minorities and their expressed option to remain with the solitude of their choice.
13.	Without limiting the meaning of the expression "Constitution of Canada" in this part that expression includes the following enactments and any order, rule or regulation thereunder, namely,
(a)	the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1964;
(b)	the Manitoba Act, 1870;
(c)	the Parliament of Canada Act, 1875;
Constitutional Amendment
(d)	the Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, Session 2;
(e)	the Alberta Act;
if) the Saskatchewan Act;
(g)	the Statute of Westminster, 1931, in so far as it is part of the law of Canada; and
(h)	this act.


[Stage Direction]
14.	Class 1 of section 91 of the British North America Act, 1967, as enacted by the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, and class 1 of section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867, are repealed.


[Stage Direction]
15.	The French version of this Act set forth in the Schedule shall form part of this act.


[Stage Direction]
16.	This Act may be cited as the Constitution of Canada Amendment Act.
17.	This Act shall come into force on ...day of	
He said: Mr. Speaker, every member in this House has been humbled today by the passage of a motion stating that the Parliament of Canada submit an address to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom to provide for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada.
Parliament must pursue this objective with haste. This is the beginning of a dream that so many of us have cherished for so long; a dream to make this nation whole, to give this nation a distinctiveness, a wholesomeness, a Canadianism that is our own, and sovereignty as a nation and as a people.
Let us hope and let us pray that this process which has begun here today will not falter and fail. Let us all be determined that we shall succeed in patriating our constitution with provincial unanimous agreements, but without, if necessary, for the Parliament of Canada can patriate the constitution with a built-in formula of unanimity for the subsequent amendment of the Constitution in Canada. The question is, has Parliament got the will to do it?
Let us also be determined that we shall succeed in adopting a less rigid formula for amendment so that we can preserve what is good in our constitution and yet change with some ease what needs changing to keep pace with the evolution of the Canadian identity and the Canadian reality.
Let us also be determined to stay united as a nation and as a people so that we can live in peace, in harmony, in prosperity, and in mutual respect of each other's cultures, each other's languages, and the rights and responsibilities of each and every one of us.
The history of our search as Canadians for identity, for distinctiveness and for fulfilment, has been long and sometimes filled with divisiveness, yet always there has been a common
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1980
Constitutional Amendment
bond between us, for we were and we still are the children of adventurers, the sons and daughters of pioneers who laboured fiercely to give us a future, a future of opportunity and freedom beyond comparison with any other country in the history of civilization.
I plead with the people of Quebec not to cast themselves adrift from this most magnificent of human organizations where opportunity can and should be on the basis of equality for all, where humanism can be respected as the highest order of human organization. This House must act to follow up this motion. A properly structured address to the Queen must evolve. A meeting of first ministers must be convened to get agreement from the premiers. As I have said before, the first ministers should not only attend that conference some time in the near future, but the leaders of the opposition parties in each and every province, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in this House as well.
The reason I say that is because on this fundamental matter, the most basic law of this country, leaders of the opposition in some of the provinces indeed represent a greater percentage of the people in their province than the premiers. Indeed, in this House it is perfectly obvious that the one national force we have from coast to coast is the Progressive Conservative Party. The Leader of the Opposition in this House should be a full participant in that constitutional conference which will be convened in the next several months.
If agreement is not unanimous among the provinces after the conference of the first ministers and the leaders of the opposition, then the Parliament of Canada can act as it is obligated to act and should act to patriate the constitution with the built-in formula in the BNA Act, that is, unanimous agreement between the provinces and the federal government for any subsequent change to the constitution, the only change being that it will now be done in Canada.
It is well-known, and has been stated on several occasions by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that if the Parliament of Canada approached the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Queen, the Parliament of the United Kingdom would follow the dictates and the request or the submissions made by this Parliament to patriate the Canadian Constitution and make it an act of Canada.
There is a substantive history on the attempts to patriate the constitution and find an amending formula. It has been a history of failure, of smallness and of inadequacy on the part of politicians. It was during the federal-provincial conference of 1927 that questions concerning the constitution and its amendment were first debated. The search for an actual amending formula was reinitiated and addressed under the leadership of the late prime minister, the Hon. John Diefen-baker, in the 1960s. Debates emerging from that period centred on the search for a constitutional amending formula and resulted in the Fulton-Favreau formula of 1964.
At the conclusion of the federal-provincial conference held in Charlottetown on September 1 and 2, 1964, to commemorate the centennial of the conference of the Fathers of Confederation which took place in that city in 1864, the then prime minister, the late Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and the premiers issued a communique. In it the late prime minister and the premiers affirmed their unanimous decision to conclude the patriation of the BNA Act without delay.
The communique added that they decided to complete the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada based on the draft legislation proposed at the constitutional conference of 1961, which they accepted in principle. The attorneys general of Canada then met to complete the formula. At a conference of Canadian first ministers on October 14, 1964, the first ministers unanimously agreed on an amending formula. The communique issued by the late prime minister Pearson and the premiers from the conference states that when the amending procedures become law, all future amendments to Canada's constitution will be made in Canada instead of by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The communique added the following:
As a result our constitution will have become, for the first time in the history of Canada, truly and wholly Canadian.
This occurred back in 1964 under the guidance of the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, who was the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
The bill contained within this motion contains an attempt to find an amending formula, a structured, multistaged amending formula. I had a similar resolution on an order paper of the Thirty-first Parliament which was well debated by myself, the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan), the NDP member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). That debate is well documented in Hansard of October 22, 1979.
Again, 1 would like to summarize very quickly the basic principles of this motion which contains a bill to patriate the constitution with an amending formula. The principles are as follows: The BNA Act of 1867 served this nation well and renewal should be gradual and step-wise. The whole logistic approach of evolving a whole new constitution has proven to be unsuccessful. The package is so large that politicians and the Canadian people find it hard to swallow in one lump. It is a lump created in the throat and we choke on it and we fail.
I am suggesting in this motion that the step-wise approach is the more appropriate approach. The second principle in this motion is that this bill would effectively patriate the constitution of Canada and provide a formula for subsequent revision in Canada. The bill incorporates a constitutional-amending formula which has in it at least five very distinctive and important parts. First, it requires the unanimous agreement of the provinces to amend certain provincial powers including natural resource ownership and the use of the French language and the English language.
The second part is that it generally permits the provinces to amend their own provincial constitutions and, thirdly, it generally permits the federal government to amend the constitution on purely federal matters only. Fourth, it provides the people
May 9, 1980
[Stage Direction]
of Canada with a mechanism for amending their own constitution. In my history, in government and in politics, which now spans over a decade, I have always been unimpressed with the fact that politicians seem to think that they have the only God-given right to change the basic laws of this country.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the very basic laws of this country, it is not only the politicians who have a right to change those basic laws, but like most other countries-for example, the United States-and federations, of which Canada is the third oldest, the people have the right to initiate a constitutional change. They have the right, for example, to tell their elected politicians that in certain instances they need a very basic change to human rights and to certain matters of the constitution which affect people in every walk of life.
Nevertheless, one must have the safeguards. If one looks at this bill one finds that it is full of safeguards to protect people's actions to change their own basic law. It says that it must start with a plebiscite or a petition, followed by a referendum, and that referendum must pass in each and every province to the extent of at least 50 per cent of the voting population; and furthermore, that the amendment should receive at least a 75 per cent plurality on a total basis. This amending formula provides a formula for amending the constitution generally in all other areas.
I want to speak on this matter for just a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. 1 know 1 can speak for at least an hour on this subject but I do not have too much time, and anyway you would not allow it.
What I want to speak about is the formula for changing the constitution in all other areas besides those I have indicated. We have had the Victoria Charter which said that Quebec shall have, in perpetuity, a veto; it said that Ontario shall have, in perpetuity, a veto; that two out of the four Atlantic provinces shall have a veto, and two out of the four western provinces, provided they have 50 per cent of the population of those four provinces shall have a veto-in perpetuity, all of them, until it is changed again.
This country is changing, Mr. Speaker. The population is shifting, and although one might set a constitution at any moment in time on a basis of population in Ontario, there is absolutely nothing to guarantee that that population and that percentage of the population in Ontario will exist 50 years hence. If a fixed formula in terms of veto power is provided for the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec or any province, in perpetuity, then how can it be changed? How can it be changed, regardless of what the population becomes 50 or 100 years hence? Constitutions are the basic law of the nation and this should apply equally to all parts of the nation. If the population of Newfoundland went up to 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the population of Canada, would it not also then need a veto? Or British Columbia if the same thing happened there?
Constitutional Amendment
What I have suggested is that any combination of provinces across the nation, from the east to the west, from the centre to the outlying areas, any combination of provinces representing a minimum of 20 per cent of the population of Canada, should have a veto.
This type of formula is a futuristic one, Mr. Speaker, as well a formula for the present, so that if the population shifts, the formula shifts so that the little province can combine with the big province to get a veto; so that the Atlantic province which has an interest in offshore resources can combine with the province of British Columbia which has an interest in offshore resources, to say no-no way can central Canada take our resources from us for the good of central Canada, because the initial constitution provided those resources primarily for the growth and benefit of a region.
There is a certain degree of equalization in this nation and it is necessary, vitally necessary, but we can get into a process of over-equalization. Indeed, we are now in a process of overequalization in this nation, such that the regions are stifled, such that the process of co-operation between the regions is increasingly under stress and strain. We have a country now that is moving toward falling apart because we do not respect the very basis of that constitution in the first place, and that is that the resources which come under section 109 of the British North America Act of each and every province should not be taxed by either one jurisdiction or by the Government of Canada.
But what does the government do? It taxes the resources of one province in interprovincial trade; it taxes the resources of one province in international trade. That is totally inappropriate under section 109 of the British North America Act, the existing constitution. It does not tax gold, it does not tax nickel, it does not tax asbestos, it does not tax hydropower and it does not tax all the other resources. I can tell you that 70 per cent of the world's nickel was sold by Ontario not so many years ago. The proceeds of the sale, in terms of total mineral wealth, was very high. I can also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that oil and gas now represent some Sll billion out of $22 billion annual mineral wealth in the nation and that the actual flow westward literally is only another $5 billion a year which, on the basis of the gross national product of this nation, is not high. It is just a few percentage points.
What is wrong with capital flowing west or east in such a way that the development of this nation is regional in scope and so that our young people can move from one end of the country to the other and find great opportunities everywhere? At the same time, that formula for the well-being and for opportunities for young Canadians from one end of the country to the other, can be maintained in such a way that our cultures and our languages can be preserved.
That is the future dream of this country-a future dream which says that people will not stay fixed in one area because they get handouts, when at the same time there are great opportunities in other areas of the country. That is the future dream of this country-a new constitution that will provide this entire nation with the dreams and aspirations and the
[Stage Direction]
May 9, 1980
Constitutional Amendment
future well-being of young Canadians. Young Canadians should enjoy this nation from one end to the other; young Quebeckers should enjoy this nation from one end to the other without giving up their culture, their language, their history, their roots, their traditions and their emotions. This can be done, Mr. Speaker. We can make out of this nation the most magnificent nation in all of civilization if we put our minds to it.
One of the things that makes my blood boil is the narrow politician, the politician with the narrowest perspective that one can imagine. That is what I have seen across this nation as the president of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers, for example, in all the meetings I have had with ministers from all over this nation and, indeed, in meetings outside this country. With some latitude and some depth of thinking we can, in fact, make this a great country, Mr. Speaker, and 1 hope we do.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Kenneth Robinson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for his very eloquent presentation. He is probably one of those in this House who is most knowledgeable on the subject. In fact he presented the same motion in October, 1979, at which time he spoke with great eloquence as well.
It is also timely that this morning the hon. member presented a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning the patria-tion of our constitution, and now he has presented a motion for the amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada.
It is important that all the provinces and the federal government agree on this, so the hon. member's motion is very timely. He knows how difficult it has been in the past to change our constitution or, in fact, to patriate it. Many attempts have been made to patriate the constitution and I want to put some of those on the record in order to show how difficult it is to partriate the constitution, or even to change it.
The publication of the Balfour report in 1926 opened the door for Canada to remove itself completely from the legislative authority of the British parliament. The principal problem to be resolved was that of finding an amending formula for the British North America Act when patriated. That, of course, is what we are talking about today-the whole question of finding a magic formula that is going to patriate the constitution and allow Canada to change its constitution in Canada.
The first attempt to solve the problem occurred in 1927 at a dominion-provincial conference. That conference examined an opinion submitted by the then minister of justice, Ernest Lapointe, which involved patriation with a special amending formula. The agreement of all participants was not forthcoming and the matter was kept under consideration.
A second attempt to resolve this matter of patriation was at the dominion-provincial conference held in April, 1931, which was convened in response to representations by Ontario. Once
again they were unable to reach any conclusion and the matter was held over once again for subsequent consideration and approval.
The third attempt to deal with the matter occurred in January, 1935, when the House of Commons established a special committee to inquire into the need to amend the British North America Act and a procedure for amendment. Apparently the committee held some ten sessions but did not propose a procedure for amendment in that report. It is strange that a committee of the House of Commons itself could not come up with any formula acceptable at that time, and apparently we are still in the same situation today.
The fourth attempt originated in the dominion-provincial conference of 1935 which established a subconference on constitutional questions under the chairmanship of the minister of justice, Ernest Lapointe. Following a recommendation of the subconference, a continuing committee on constitutional questions was convened on January 28, 1936. The committee devised an amending formula incorporating elements of flexibility and entrenchment, but once again it was not adopted. And so it goes on and on.
The fifth attempt to deal with the matter was limited to the question of the power of the federal Parliament to amend the constitution of Canada, except for five protected categories, the current situation with respect to constitutional amendment that we have. The federal Parliament unilaterally requested that the British Parliament pass the British North America Act, 1949, which would grant this power to the Parliament of Canada under the new section. This in effect did happen. But that only happened with regard to Newfoundland entering into confederation with the rest of Canada.


Walter David Baker: And with the agreement of Newfoundland.


William Kenneth Robinson: Exactly, with the agreement of Newfoundland.
The sixth attempt occurred in 1950 when a constitutional conference was convened in Ottawa in January and continued its work in Quebec City in September. It was subsequently suspended because of the Korean crisis and the work was not resumed.
The seventh attempt was in July, 1960, at the dominion-provincial conference in Ottawa. The conference of attorneys general met four times during the succeeding 14 months and could reach no conclusion. At first the minister of justice, Mr. E. D. Fulton, suggested that the authority to amend the constitution of Canada in all respects, not known amendable in Canada, be transferred to the Parliament of Canada, subject to the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces. It was generally felt, however, that a less rigid formula could be found. A formula was devised in November, 1961, but some differences of view remained and the plan was not carried through. Of course, we are all aware of the Favreau formula which has not yet been adopted.
May 9, 1980


Walter David Baker: The Fulton-Favreau formula.


William Kenneth Robinson: An eighth attempt began at the suggestion of Prime Minister Pearson in 1964. This was mentioned by the hon. member for Edmonton East previously. At that time nothing further transpired. At a federal-provincial conference held in October of the same year, a modified version of the 1961 proposal was approved in principle, but subsequently it failed to get unanimous support, and consideration was postponed indefinitely. That is what usually happens every time there is a conference on the constitution.
The ninth attempt began with the federal-provincial conference of February, 1968, which became a continuing constitutional conference. The constitutional conference with its various committees of ministers and officials and its subcommittees and so on operated from 1968 until the Victoria charter, in Victoria, in June, 1971. The charter provided for a patriation procedure, an amending formula, to which all governments there represented agreed, and a number of changes in substantive areas, as well as for the modernization of the constitution. Quebec, however, has not prepared to proceed with the full charter, and once again action was suspended. 1 think the Victoria amending formula itself is very important to orchestrate at this time. The amending formula as approved, basically provided that the legislative assembly of a province or either the Senate or the House of Commons could initiate a resolution for amendment of the constitution. If the amendment applied to one or more, but not all of the provinces, it might be made when authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and the legislative assembly of each of the provinces concerned.
For other amendments, the amendment would have to be authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and by the legislative assemblies of a majority of the provinces including: first, any province that had, at any time prior to the proclamation according to any previous general census, a population of at least 25 per cent of the population of Canada-and that is where this differs somewhat from that proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton East, since he is talking about 20 per cent of the population; second, of at least two of the Atlantic provinces; third, of at least two of the western provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the western provinces. I assume when we are talking about the western provinces that we are really talking about Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
If the Senate, under either formula, did not pass a resolution within 90 days of a resolution being passed by the House of Commons, the House of Commons could pass the resolution again after the expiry of 90 days and thus authorize the Governor General on behalf of the Parliament of Canada to issue a proclamation.
The amending formula had been approved at the Victoria conference without the dissent of any province. It was because
Constitutional Amendment
of that general agreement that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) hoped it could be reaffirmed and made the basis of early agreement on patriation.
On the occasion of the discussion in April, 1975, the Premier of Quebec indicated that his province could not agree to patriation on the basis proposed without cultural guarantees. In the course of subsequent discussions, other first ministers suggested further additions to patriation plus the amending formula. These included the parts of the Victoria charter concerning the Supreme Court and regional disparities. Some western first ministers queried the population qualification in the amending formula for western provinces. However, no such qualification applies to the Atlantic provinces.
If all provincial governments agree to the amending formula, with or without the population qualification for the western provinces, to appropriate cultural guarantees, to the provisions respecting the Supreme Court and to the provisions respecting regional disparities, one could proceed toward patriation according to the procedure outlined in February, 1971. This is the solution that is proposed by the federal government.
Now the matter has been of continuing concern to the previous Liberal governments from time to time over a period of years, as a matter of fact, for some ten years from 1968 to 1978. I recall that in 1975 the Prime Minister of Canada invited two provincial premiers to take part in a further attempt to bring control over the British North America Act from Great Britain to Canada and to agree on a new system for amending the act once it was brought home. At that time, once again, although the former leader of the opposition, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, agreed and felt, as he stated at that time, that he did not think it was too much to ask that there be agreement at least on an amendment formula during the life of the Parliament, of course, as we all know, nothing transpired further as a result of this attempt either.
However, in 1979, during the election campaign the hon. member for Mount Royal, on May 10 in Montreal stated;
If you elect us, if you give us your support, if we form the government after the next election, we will have a Liberal government that will set in motion the patriation of the constitution.
That is all the more reason why it is so important today that this matter is before the House of Commons once again. I think it is fitting also that this matter was brought in by a member of the opposition to indicate that there is continued interest on both sides of the House to patriate our constitution. The Prime Minister went on to say:
It will be a Liberal government that will do this. We will do it with the co-operation of the provinces, if possible. And if that co-operation is not forthcoming, we will do it with the co-operation of the Canadian people, by means of a referendum.
What he has really illustrated here is not too different from what was suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton East in that it may be necessary to have a referendum on this kind of matter in order to let the people of Canada decide for themselves if in fact they wish to patriate the constitution.

May 9, 1980
Constitutional Amendment
1 would suggest that some form of referendum might also be considered when we are looking toward changes in the constitution as well in so far as it affects all of Canada and not just individual provinces.
As the Prime Minister said this morning, with regard to the motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, that, if possible, we want to deal with the provinces. The House leader for the opposition orchestrated the same thing: we do want to work with the provinces. This is an important matter, particularly since the powers of the provinces and the federal government fall under sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. The provision is that there should be agreement if possible to reach any conclusions with regard to changes in our constitutional or patriation of the constitution itself.
If all this negotiation fails, it would seem to me that in due course some action would have to be taken, possibly through a referendum, and as 1 mentioned before, this has already been suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton East. When 1 look at this bill, and I do not want to go into it in detail, I see that it provides for amendments and not patriation. It is unfortunate the hon. member did not feel he should bring patriation into it at the same time. If we have an amendment to the British North America Act, we want to have the power to make it here and not through the British Parliament.
Clause 1 is very important as it states the power will be in the Parliament of Canada to make laws, repealing, amending, or re-enacting any provisions of the constitution of Canada. That is a very far-reaching and wide power. It would probably require a great deal of discussion and debate before we could reach a conclusion on it.
As far as clause 2 is concerned, all provinces must agree on changes affecting the provinces. There is no doubt that this is well taken. I am sure there would be agreement on all sides that the provinces should be able to have a veto vote if it affects them directly. By the same token, they should be able to effect changes in the constitution if they are affected themselves, even though other provinces may not agree. This could be controversial. I cannot think of any possible problem at the present time that would make it desirable for one province not to agree with another province. However, that remains to be seen.
Clause 5 speaks of 20 per cent of the population rejecting a vote. It seems that this is a very small percentage and it should not be too difficult to obtain.


An hon. Member:: Don't talk it out.


William Kenneth Robinson: I really have not got much more to say. I want to say something with regard to clause 12 which talks about the right of self-determination. It is what you might call a selective right to determination only for people who are of either of the two linguistic groups, which he calls solitudes, French and English. This is something that might be considered unsupportable. It would have to be considered very carefully. Even if it were orchestrated by a referendum, I doubt whether it would carry.
When you look at clause 12, you must also look at clause 7(2) where the hon. member suggests that no province or even a part of a province could secede.
In summary, this is a very timely matter to be brought before the House of Commons. It is a matter we will be hearing much more of again. I am sorry there is not a longer debate so that more members could have the opportunity to say what they have to say about this very important matter. I again thank the hon. member for bringing it before the House of Commons.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 begin by saying that today we are talking about something that is very important. It has been and will be with us for a long period of time. The first note I want to strike is one of caution which I do not think was really in the speech made by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). In my opinion, it is very important that we not bring back the constitution to this country without the unanimous consent of all the provinces. That is very important.
It is also important that Parliament not pass any resolution or bill outlining the details of what we want to see as a Parliament without there first being negotiations between all the provinces and the federal Parliament of this country. I see some Conservatives nodding their heads in agreement. I am pleased to see that. Before we do something that fundamental, we must first have negotiations between the provinces and the federal Parliament and come up with something on which we all agree. That is the reason why I cannot support the resolution before us today.
The hon. member for Edmonton East asks, does Parliament have the will? I am sure that Parliament has the will to see a reconstituted constitution in Canada. However, I again underline the important part, that we only want to do that if we bring all the provinces with us. One of the basic laws of a federation is that all parts of that federation are treated as equals and all parts of that federation must meet together, plan together and agree on things together as one family. If we do not do that, there will be very serious problems within that federation.
There is another point, minor, and perhaps I should not mention it. The hon. member for Edmonton East, and it is typical of some of the oversights, said that at constitutional conferences all the first ministers should be there and leaders of the opposition. I say to him in passing that that does not include representatives of all the people. If we have conferences of the Parliaments and the legislatures, it should not only be of the two parties. I remind him that in this House, for example, his party represents 33 per cent of the people. Our party represents nearly 20 per cent of the people. Therefore, if there is any conference of any kind that involves more than just first ministers, it should reflect the legislative will of all the peoples.
May 9, 1980

That is why it is important to think of the province of Quebec as well. I cannot predict whether the Oui or Non votes will win. Regardless of who wins in the province of Quebec, there will be a large bloc of people not on the winning side and they must be represented in any conference held on the constitution of this country.
There are a number of things in terms of specifics that really concern me about the resolution before the House. The hon. member kept referring to it as a bill.


An hon. Member:: It is a bill within a resolution.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps that is what it is. It might be bootlegging. In clause 2 he talks about those things that cannot be done without agreement of all the provinces. He talks about the power the provinces have already, the assets of a province and so on. In subclause (d) he talks about the use of the English or French language. You go to clause 6(h) and he again talks about the use of the English and French language, that nothing can be done there without the agreement of all the provinces. I differ strongly with him on this. His leader, the former prime minister, differs strongly with him as well.
This Parliament and all parties in it passed an Official Languages Act which states that the federal government has the right to enact legislation on the official languages of this country. What the hon. member is trying to do here is render Parliament into what could be called a parliamentary unit where it would not have any power or authority over legislation when it comes to vfficial languages in our institutions. Therefore I can never support a bill on that account.
All you have to do is go back to what has already been agreed upon by the premiers. I go back to the Victoria charter, article 18, page 88, where it says that the federal Parliament has the right to enact legislation regarding the French and English languages in our institutions. I can also look at the special joint committee on the constitution in 1972 which said that we have that right. At the premiers' conference in 1978 the premiers agreed unanimously that we have that power. The government's bill, brought in by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1978, two years ago, also said we have that right. In this resolution there is a suggestion that clearly goes against the expressed wishes of the provinces, the people's representatives and groups that have studied the issue.
As I said at the beginning, the fundamental matter of importance here is that there be co-operation, agreement and consultation between all the provinces of this country and the federal Parliament.
The second thing which concerns me is section 6 of the proposed act, and here the hon. member is talking about the resolution, or the bill, as he calls it. It says:
Notwithstanding anything in the Constitution of Canada, the Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive Government of Canada, and the Senate and House of Commons-
Constitutional Amendment
I disagree with this too. 1 think we can make laws pertaining to the House of Commons and perhaps the executive of the Government of Canada, but I disagree when it comes to the Senate. I am not referring here just to the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the Senate should be abolished. I think that is a correct position.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Midnight tonight.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I refer also to Claude Ryan's paper and the Pepin-Robarts task force. I refer to positions now being talked about by various provinces, including my own, the province of Saskatchewan, whereby the Senate should be abolished and perhaps replaced by some other institution. Such an institution might perhaps be a council of the provinces. The provinces would appoint or elect people to represent directly the provinces here in the Senate. I am not sure exactly what this organization should be; all I am saying is that when it comes to the Senate and the future of the Senate, the provinces should have some say. We should not have the unilateral say when it comes to the Senate, and for that reason too I cannot support the resolution before the House today.
The hon. member lists all kinds of things which are exceptions, and amongst them is not the Supreme Court of Canada. When we get to the Supreme Court, we are getting to something which is very dear to the hearts of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), myself and Quebeckers. I think now of the question of asbestos and so forth. I am talking about resources. The Supreme Court is appointed by the federal government, and we in Saskatchewan have some problems with rulings made by the Supreme Court when it comes to oil-the CIGOL case-and when it comes to potash. Now the Quebec government is having similar problems with the courts when it comes to asbestos.
We feel that the province has the right to tax resources or to nationalize potash, asbestos or what have you. Those matters are under provincial law. The Supreme Court has been taking differing positions on some of these issues, and I think perhaps one reason it does so is that the judges are appointed by the federal government. What we are saying, and what many provinces are saying, is that some of those judges should be appointed by the provinces because those judges have to adjudicate and make rulings on conflicts between the provinces and the federal government, and they should therefore be appointed, some by the federal government and some by the provinces. Otherwise there perhaps could be a bit of a conflict of interest. In his resolution the hon. member leaves this to the exclusive power of the federal government. I do not think the premier of Alberta would agree with that being in the resolution here today. I do not think he would agree at all.
Another thing the hon. member talks about here is the right of the provinces to secede from the union. He says that before any province can secede, an act of Parliament must be passed and acts in each of the legislatures must be passed. I will not try to speculate on what the solution should be, but again that is something which had to be negotiated amongst all the

May 9, 1980
Constitutional Amendment
people of this country. I think, for example, of Newfoundland. Newfoundland came into this country as a result of a vote in Newfoundland, an act of the Newfoundland assembly and by an act of this Parliament. An act did not have to go through the legislatures of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and all the other provinces of this country.
As 1 keep going along here in this resolution I come to No. 10. The hon. member talks about referendums, and he says that if the people of Canada petition, they can have a referendum on any constitutional matter, and if 5 per cent or more of the people petition for such, there can be a referendum on any constitutional matter. What is a constitutional matter? Here we are getting into a very sensitive thing. We are getting into constitutional matters which pertain to the federal government, to the provinces and to the territories. In constitutional matters there are concurrent powers.
Then the hon. member goes on to say that if 75 per cent of the people agree in a national plebiscite and 50 per cent of the people in each of the provinces agree, the federal government must then enact the law or the wish expressed in the referendum. I think this too is very dangerous in a federation because, for example, it might be easy to get that vote across Canada when it comes to authority over oil. The rest of the country may say, by 80 per cent, that perhaps Alberta has a little bit too much power. It might be a very divisive issue in Alberta, but it may pass because of the wording of the referendum question by, say, 51 per cent to 49 per cent. There might be immense division, but the federal government would then have the obligation to make the intent of that resolution the law of this country. I just do not think that that is the type of thing we should have in a resolution or in a law of this Parliament. I think that again is an infringement on the rights of the provinces.
There is another thing which I find very interesting, and that is the proposed section 12. The way it is worded in English and French is contradictory. In English it says:
-the Constitution of Canada as revised, this act recognizes that Canada is a multicultural nation composed primarily of two linguistic solitudes, namely English and French.
In the French version it says:
Cette loi reconnait que le Canada est une nation multiculturelle composee cssentiellement de deux groupes linguistiques, a savoir I'anglais et le fransais.
The hon. member is talking about two different groups, but in English he is talking about two solitudes. I think that is getting rather dangerous. I looked up the definitions of "solitude" and "solitary" in the Oxford dictionary, and I found out that "solitary" means living alone, without companions, secluded, single, lonely, sole, by yourself, and I just maintain that that is not the situation in Canada today. We have in this country peoples in two linguistic groups, but there is a tremendous amount of interaction between those peoples.
[ Translation]
We are all in the same Parliament. We can speak either French or English.

Francophone members can, Anglophone members can and other people can. We have a tremendous interaction amongst the peoples. If there were two solitudes, in the first place why talk about the separation of the solitudes, because they are already separated? How can a solitude seek separation? I just do not understand how we can spend time talking about the integrity of Canada if this country is already being divided, as the hon. member implies, in the two solitudes. I just cannot buy that type of philosophy which is in the resolution before us today.

Another very important thing in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that paragraph 12 totally contradicts the principle of selfdetermination for Quebeckers. The New Democratic Party has always recognized the rights of Quebeckers to choose freely and without coercion their political future.
It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that such an argument is put in the House, and I refer specifically to this sentence in paragraph 12.

It says here:
Furthermore, that such separation, if and when decided upon by the solitude seeking separation-
This could be either the English or French solitude.
-shall occur not along established provincial territorial boundaries but along such contiguous territorial boundaries that are duly and legally negotiated between the two solitudes but which fully respect the rights of large minorities and their expressed option to remain with the solitude of their choice.
I wonder if anybody can explain to me what all this fuddly, muddly gobbledygook really means. It only says that either solitude can, and I quote:
-secede each from the other if so desired and duly and legally expressed through a referendum supported in a near unanimous fashion by the people of the solitude seeking separation.
That means you can secede by a near unanimous fashion. What is a near unanimous fashion? What is a near unanimous vote?
I put that question because again there is no elaboration in the resolution before us on what the hon. member sees as a near unanimous vote.
Those are only a few of the things one could refer to in the resolution which I think do not make much sense at all.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are telling me to wind up, so I suggest that the best thing to do with the resolution before the House today is to send it down to the paper shredder so that it can be shredded and thrown into the garbag; can. I think all the people of this country, including PT.mier Lougheed, would be very happy with that accomplishment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have three things to bring to the attention of hon. members, first, that the hour provided for the consideration of private mem-
May 9, 1980

bers' business has now expired; second, that it being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(2); and the	Constitutional Amendment third is that the Chair wishes all hon. members a good weekend, une bonne fin de semaine. At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 12, 1980