1980-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. At 9.30 last evening a fire broke out in the Extendicare Nursing Home on Queensway Avenue, Mississauga, causing extensive damage to the facilities, the loss of life of 21 of our senior citizens and the hospitalization of a further 60 of our senior citizens, some of whom are in real danger of losing their lives.
A number of firemen and police officers, in attempting to effect the rescue of persons caught in the conflagration, were also injured. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House extend its sympathies and condolences to the families who have lost their loved ones in the fire at the Extendicare Nursing Home on Queensway Avenue, Mississauga, and extend its prayers to those in critical condition that they will quickly recover, and this House express its appreciation for the diligence and competence of the Mississauga Fire Department and the Peel Regional Police in their heroic efforts to save lives and contain the damage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

McDonald commission

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the disclosure of the contribution by Guy Gilbert, one of the three commissioners serving on the McDonald commission looking into the affairs of the RCMP, including the role of the government and cabinet ministers in alleged wrongdoing in a $500 donation to the Liberal party, and Mr. Gilbert's statement, "I believe in the Liberal party. It's the party 1 want to support", and in view of the concern expressed today in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand), a former Liberal solicitor general, that such statements of partisan support may compromise the effectiveness of the commission and its ultimate report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions respecting the appropriateness of Mr. Gilbert's continuing to serve on the McDonald commission, established under the Inquiries Act to examine, inter alia, the activities of the Liberal government in its relations with the RCMP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of Terry Fox's continuing and courageous cross-country Marathon of Hope on behalf of cancer research, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), a non-partisan motion which I trust will receive the compassionate and unanimous approval of all hon. members. The motion reads as follows:
That this House, through its Speaker, send a message to His Excellency the Governor General commending to him Mr. Terry Fox as a recipient of the Order of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

In light of a recent interview published in The Globe and Mail in which the Prime Minister is reported to have stated, "Canadian people need protection from governments, which often try to take away basic freedoms", and in order to help fight inflation and keep food costs down, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That this government call a halt to forced metric conversion in the retail food sector on January 1, 1981, and show that the Liberals are prepared to recognize that the major food chains in Ontario and consumers in the three metric test centres do now wish to proceed with metrication, and that the $8 million annual cost of the Metric Commission and the millions of dollars that must be spent to buy weigh-scales, most of which are imported, will only result in higher food costs and more small business bankruptcies during these tough economic times.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

McDonald commission


DONATION BY COMMISSIONER GILBERT TO LIBERAL PARTY-REPORT OF COMMISSION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that when the McDonald commission was established in 1977 the then solicitor general stressed the importance of an independent, impartial judicial inquiry, and in view of the fact, as stated earlier, that the McDonald commissioner Guy Gilbert openly donated $500 to the federal Liberal party in 1979-while a commissioner-stating, "I believe in the Liberal party. It's the party I want to support"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It is interesting to see the response of the Liberals to this. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I am sure I will be supported by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to explain how this donation to the Liberal party by a member of the McDonald commission can be justified in light of the vital importance of an impartial inquiry; and, further, that the full unedited report of the commission be referred to the all-party Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to avoid any suggestion of Liberal bias even in the publicizing or drafting of this important document.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 15, 1980 |


PETRO-CANADA BIDS ON EXPLORATION EQUIPMENT IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Petro-Canada in its exploration activity in the Northwest Territories has apparently not enabled northern contractors to bid on its requirements for the supply of equipment, but prefers to bring this in from the south without public tender in the north, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House insists that Petro-Canada operate in the north with the same high standards of corporate citizenship required of private operators such as Imperial Oil and Dome-Canmar, with particular attention being given to proper public tender procedures.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas railway lines interlace urban areas throughout Canada, often occupying extensive land surface areas in the downtown or core areas of cities; and whereas the air rights and the subsurface rights above and below the railway rights-of-way in urban areas have become extremely valuable and useful for high-rise structures as well as for underground or subterranean structures; and whereas much of the surface land for railway rights-of-ways was deeded to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways through federal government action, and ambiguity exists as to the ancillary rights of such deeds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That the government move to establish a joint federal-provincial-municipal task force to inquire fully into the matter of air rights and subterranean rights associated with railway rights-of-way in urban areas and subsequently make appropriate recommendations for subsequent government action.


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

1


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to raise an urgent matter concerning the rights of women to employment.
In view of the fact that the Fleet Aircraft Company of Fort Erie has consistently refused to hire women for unskilled jobs, and since the Fleet Company has benefited from federal government contracts in the past and is seeking future contracts related to the production of F-18 aircraft parts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the federal government implement a policy of compulsory contract compliance and immediately require that Fleet Company sign an affirmative action agreement as a prerequisite for all federal contracts.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion can be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the Statistics Canada figures today on unemployment which reveal a sixth consecutive increase in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate-still 7.8 per cent this month as it was last month, even though it is the middle of the summer-and in view of the fact that the unadjusted June rate of 7.5 per cent is one-half of a per cent higher than last year, we have 887,000 unemployed, up 89,000 from this time last year, and in view of the uniformly poor economic forecasts of decreases in the growth of the gross national product, and the like, will the Prime Minister now tell the House-he has been 12 years in office; this is the twelfth year of his reign-what the government's policies and plans are to combat the high unemployment we now face and the high inflation which is still threatening?
In other words, when is he going to start battling these problems-


An hon. Member:: Wrestling.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: -wrestling with these problems? When is he going to start bashing these problems, rather than just bashing the provinces?
[ Translation]


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note, with the hon. member, that the unemployment rate for June was maintained at 7.8 per cent and it is hoped that under the program announced at the beginning of May by the Minister of Employment and Immigration the unemployment rate this fall will quickly decline as soon as the program is put into effect.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we can see how seriously the Prime Minister treats these problems now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The death of this government is going to be "Sore Throat"; the Minister of Finance is absent. Would the Prime Minister answer this question, then? In the Speech from the Throne, the government said it would not decrease the deficit at the expense of loss of jobs and higher unemployment. Now the deficit has increased by $3.7 billion, up to $14.2 billion, and unemployment has also gone up since the deficit increased.
Would the Prime Minister explain what his policy is? To what level does he think the deficit must rise before we can have the full employment we would all like to see? Is that the policy? How high does he intend to raise the deficit this year to combat this increasing unemployment?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration has just indicated to the hon. member that the unemployment rate has not increased and that there were 314,000 new jobs in June 1980 as compared with June 1979. This is specifically due to the steps taken by this government, so that the negative effects of the very difficult economic conditions will not be felt more strongly by those who find it most difficult to find employment, and by the poor. The figures provided by the parliamentary secretary reveal that the government has reluctantly opted for a slightly larger deficit than otherwise acceptable, but has enabled the economy to remain vigorous.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: -and of the Minister of Finance, who at least has the excuse of a sore throat, I will put my final supplementary to one of the page boys.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have the feeling that we are in for a rough question period. I think we should start off right now by disciplining ourselves.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, at least the page boys might show some concern about the 887,000 unemployed. For my final supplementary I will try the Prime Minister again. His flower is fading today. He does not have his usual bright red flower. Something is wrong with him today.
The OECD has predicted that the Canadian economy will have its worst performance since 1954. That is really something. On June 10 the Minister of Finance stated in this House that it was desirable to maintain the battle against the inflation. Would the Prime Minister explain to the House what his policies are to maintain this battle against inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: You just said I was absent.


John Carnell Crosbie: You certainly are absent. You are absent from any sense of decency or responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ask the page boy.


John Carnell Crosbie: In the absence of the Prime Minister, again, perhaps I can ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he will show some concern about the 887,000 unemployed. What is his new industrial strategy to put these people to work? The rate has increased for the last six consecutive months. The Prime Minister cannot answer. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce tell us what the government's policy is going to be?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry my hon. friend was not in the House yesterday. We set out our policy at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We do not want the whole question period to be taken up by heckling and cheering, do we?


HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT IN ONTARIO
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, it is a shocking thing to have such indifference about unemployment in this country. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not concerned about the unemployed in Canada, perhaps he is concerned about the unemployed in Ontario; 75 per cent of the unemployment increase since February last
July 15, 1980
year, when he and his government took power, has been in Ontario. His own city now has 15 per cent unemployment. Will he explain that to the House? Why has he turned on his own province and his own city and allowed such unemployment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we began taking decisive action on these matters even before we became the government, by leading the attack on the incompetent Conservatives, throwing them out-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and bringing about a change of government to a new Liberal government which is capable of and is taking decisive action on behalf of Canadian and Ontario workers.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is again to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If his attack has been so successful, could he explain to the House why unemployment has gone up every month in Ontario since he has been in office to the point that there are now 22,000 out of work in Windsor, compared with 11,000 when he took office? Why are there 46,000 more people out of work in Ontario today than when he took office, if his attack has been so successful?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, one reason-as far as 1 am concerned, at least-is that we have not yet overcome the negative effects on the economy of the Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You used that line for six months.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which arises directly from his press conference this morning, and it concerns the important matter of the pipeline. The Northern Pipeline Act clearly
states:
The company shall before the commencement of construction . .. establish to the satisfaction of the minister .. . that financing has been obtained for the pipeline.
Elsewhere in the act "pipeline" is defined to mean a pipeline "from Alaska across Canada"; that is to say, the pipeline is indivisible. Considering that at the press conference this morning the Prime Minister said that if the act said what I have just quoted-it says it in very clear language-the government would either be prohibited from going ahead with the prebuild or would have to amend the legislation. I should like to
July 15, 1980

ask the Prime Minister which of the two options the government is going to choose.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with regard to the financing aspect, 1 repeat to the hon. member what I told the press conference this morning, that is, that 1 am not aware of the particular provisions on the financing and I would defer to the minister on that.
As to the statement that the pipeline is indivisible, I disagree with the hon. member. There is nothing in the act which says it is indivisible. On the contrary, there is a section-section 12, I believe-which permits it to be divided, provided certain guarantees are given, and it is the nature of those guarantees which the government is presently expressing in order to determine whether or not we would let one part go ahead while waiting for the other part to be terminated.


John Edward Broadbent: Just to be very clear on the subject, let me point out that it is true that the pipeline may be divided in terms of the period of construction. But it is equally clear, in terms of the legal advice given to the National Energy Board by its legal advisers, that in terms of the guaranteeing of the financing before any section can be built, the financing of the whole pipeline has to be guaranteed. That is the crucial point. 1 should like to ask the Prime Minister if he agrees with that.
The language which I read out in the first question is unambiguously clear where it says the financing of the whole pipeline must be provided before commencement. "Pipeline" is defined as being a pipeline from Alaska to the American border. Does the Prime Minister agree, then, that before we proceed with the pre-build, a total guarantee has to be obtained for the financing of the whole pipeline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just answered the hon. member that on the problem of financing, I am afraid I cannot enlighten him any more than I was able to enlighten the press conference this morning.
Oral Questions
have suggested to the National Energy Board is the correct interpretation, after he-the Prime Minister-finally does his homework, will he assure us that we will either have a debate concerning an amendment in the legislation or he will not proceed with the pre-build?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the answer is predicated on the legal advice which the hon. member says was given to the NEB. I admitted that I am not aware of this aspect of the question. I will do, as the hon. member calls it, my homework. I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is at present, I believe, in Saskatchewan trying to see to the implementation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now it is the Tories who are a little bit ill because the minister is in Saskatchewan. As I told the hon. member, I am sure the minister will be able to answer the question. I am sorry I am not, but I will inquire.


LEGALITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, who 1 am sure shares the concern of all members of the House with the unhappy, unsatisfactory events of last Friday in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealt with raising the ceiling under the Petroleum Administration Act. I believe certainly it was not done maliciously-I do not make that accusation-but likely it was done very mistakenly. Now it appears very doubtful that the 2.5 cents per gallon tax on all consumers of petroleum products is illegal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Find out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the hon. member behind there saying? They do not feel well over there, Madam Speaker. That is not our responsibility. I am trying to answer the hon. member. I do not know the answer on the financing.


An hon. Member:: Find out.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada, 1 think will be more than a little disturbed that the Prime Minister, when he is discussing a project which may cost $22 billion, admits-two days before the cabinet is to make a decision on this matter-that he knows nothing about the financing of it. That is an incredible admission.
I should like to ask him if he can assure the House that if the interpretation is as I have outlined it, as the legal advisers


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Is legal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Is legal; I am sorry. Given that situation, is the President of the Privy Council privy to the advice of the law officers of the Crown in this regard? Can he inform the House whether that legal opinion indicates that the measures taken last Friday are abortive, in a legal sense, leaving the government open to the obvious remedies of any citizen of Canada who has been subjected to that tax?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, this point was raised last Friday during the debate on procedure. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had unsuccessfully sought in our Standing Orders some provision whereby we could have introduced this new levy without offending the opposition. Madam Speaker, you handed down a decision to the effect that everything we had

Oral Questions
done had been perfectly legal and procedurally proper, at which time a new point of order was raised questioning the legality of what I would call, not a new tax, but a new levy or charge on the Canadian people; I remember quite well the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources saying then to hon. members of the opposition that as far as he was concerned, he was satisfied, on the basis of the legal advice he had received, that the procedure was perfectly legal and in order.


Mr. Clark:: No, no!


Yvon Pinard: I can hear the Leader of the Opposition saying no. Obviously, he has failed to understand anything.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I regret I have to correct the President of the Privy Council, but that was not the nature of Madam Speaker's ruling.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor Lalonde's statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not correct.


William Herbert Jarvis: That is exactly what the President of the Privy Council just said.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, no.


William Herbert Jarvis: I wish the Prime Minister would compose himself. I think this is infectious today in the House. Is the government willing to run the risk of a probably illegal levy until this House resumes sitting after the summer recess, or is the intention of the President of the Privy Council to move within the limits provided for him before we recess to legalize what would likely be otherwise an illegal levy upon all consumers of petroleum products in the country?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what I said to the hon. member is that we have no evidence there is an illegal levy. On the contrary, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last Friday said very clearly that he had verified, he had checked and he was assured that what he was doing was according to the rules-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what he said.


Yvon Pinard: -and according to the law.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are misleading the House.


Yvon Pinard: The opinion we have so far is that everything is legal and I have nothing else to add at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 15, 1980


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Hansard of June 26 will show clearly that the new job-creation program announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration will only produce about 7,500 jobs this year. Could the minister indicate to the House whether or not he is pushing for a wage subsidy job-creation program as a way of aiding the small business sector and creating jobs in the country?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State, Small Businesses):: Madam Speaker, I believe the programs proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration already take into account the concerns of the hon. member.
[English \


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the direct job-creation program or the employer tax credit which will produce about 4,500 jobs in the calendar year effectively eliminates 50 per cent of the businesses in Canada which could create employment. A wage subsidy program at the same cost could involve the other 50 per cent and double the employment creation for the same kind of expenditure of funds.
Is the minister aware of that kind of information? Has he taken it into account? Is he saying clearly to the House that he will not push for a wage subsidy job-creation program?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, it seems obvious that the hon. member does not agree with one of the government programs introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I shall be pleased to look into the claims of the hon. member, to which I am not willing to attach credence for the time being. Should they be founded in any way, I shall be pleased to take them into consideration and consult my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in that regard.

*


LEGALITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I want to direct some questions to the President of the Privy Council relative to his answer a moment ago to my colleague, the hon. member for Perth. I regret I will have to quote from Hansard and perhaps take a moment of the time of the House. As reported on page 2839 of Hansard for Friday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
uly 15, 1980

here has been no formal legal opinion given on the matter as such, for the good eason that this is a procedure which has been followed historically on many asions for decades by this Parliament and the British Parliament.
What is clear is that the minister had sought no legal opinion, contrary to the words of the President of the Privy Council. The minister had sought no legal opinion on the propriety of the instrument that was used.
Since there is now very real question as to whether or not the tax increase which became effective at midnight Friday is legal, can the President of the Privy Council tell us whether the government, some several days later, has now sought the legal opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the question of the legality of that $500 million tax increase?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, had the right hon. Leader of the Opposition read a bit further on, he would have read as follows:
I am advised that parliamentary procedure has been operating in this manner for many generations. Although the rules do not provide for ministers giving legal opinions in the House, I have little doubt about the propriety of the method which has been followed if, as I said, we look at the countless precedents in this country and in the U.K. in terms of the role and technique which have been used when governments employ ways and means motions.
So, that is what the minister said at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Now answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I know full well what is in Hansard; I quoted it a moment ago. Also, I was here for all of the proceedings in the House on Friday. The obvious fact is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the time was speaking without the benefit of consultation because he was responding to questions that had been put to him immediately before in the House of Commons.
Now we have a situation where it may well be that the $500 million tax increase imposed upon the people of Canada at midnight Friday is illegal. All we are asking is: first, is the Government of Canada looking into the possibility of that being illegal? Second, do they intend to make a statement or to take corrective action in this House before the House rises, or do they intend to let the people of Canada suffer a tax which well may be illegal and let the government rest vulnerable to actions which might be taken in the courts of the land by a number of individual citizens across the country?


Walter David Baker: Right on.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, once again, has clearly stated in the House is that the procedure followed was pursuant to the Standing Orders, that he followed a practice recognized for decades by both the Canadian and the British Parliaments, and that consequently his action was perfectly normal and legal. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition can question the legality of this procedure in Parliament all he wants. He has a
Oral Questions
right to question the legality of our methods. But it is not because the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has doubts that we must each time ask for legal advice to reassure him and prove to him that our procedure conforms to a ruling by the Chair which was in our favour. So I will say to him again what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated very clearly, namely, that before acting he asked for advice, he consulted with his officials, who encouraged him to act as he did. The Chair recognized the validity of this procedure and therefore there is no reason why we should question the legality of the action taken.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as you will well recall, and as the House does, the decision you rendered on the procedural question set aside explicitly the legality of the action before a court of law. It was not on that that you, Madam Speaker, decided, but on the procedural question, and explicitly left open the legal question.
My question to the President of the Privy Council is whether the Government of Canada, since the matter was raised on Friday, has gone to the law officers of the Crown so that they can come to the House of Commons and give an opinion that is backed by legal advice taken since Friday, that the half billion dollar tax increase brought in at midnight on Friday is legal. Unless the minister can give us that assurance, we must assume that that half billion dollar tax increase may very well be illegal.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not think that because you ruled that you should not interfere in a legal aspect which would in principle be the responsibility of the courts, we must conclude that serious doubts exist in the present case as to the legality of the action in question. I am sure you did not mean that. You rejected a procedural argument and based your judgment strictly on the fact that it could lend itself to interpretation by the courts. In this case, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources confirmed very clearly to this House that he had had all necessary consultations and that there was no doubt in his mind as to the legality of that line of action. Again, if the Leader of the Official Opposition has doubts about that, I will inform the minister about them and it will be up to the courts to take them into consideration and rule upon them in due time. However, as far as we are concerned, we have no doubt that the process used was legal.

July 15, 198

Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
nology is already available for the safe curing of meat and meat products and which are not detrimental to health?

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, this is my weekly question to the Minister of Transport. For many months the minister of state in charge of the Wheat Board has been promising that he would make a statement on the adjustment of the initial price of wheat, particularly if the price of wheat was strong at the end of this month.
1 would remind the minister that it is now $16 a tonne more than it was on April 28. Is the minister prepared to indicate that the initial price of wheat will be increased from the $3.75 per bushel that was indicated earlier to something like $4.25 per bushel or higher?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the promise made by the minister of state responsible for the Wheat Board was that he would do so before August 1, which is the beginning of the new crop year. That still gives him a few days in which to perform.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, may I remind the minister that the minister of state said he would make the adjustment on June 30. Is the Minister of Transport prepared to reconsider the initial price of barley, since at the moment the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners are complaining that they are unable to get enough barley? We need barley both to feed the stock on the prairies and to fulfil contracts overseas. Is the minister now prepared to do something about the price of barley?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, usually the initial price, originally and when adjusted, applies to all board grains; that is, wheat, barley and oats. I presume that the minister of state will make his announcement applicable to the three grains.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has been a well established fact since 1956 that nitrates and nitrites used in the curing and processing of meat and meat products such as bacon, ham and similar products cause cancer when consumed.
In view of the fact that little or nothing has been done to phase out and replace the dangerous chemicals in food, why has the health protection branch of the minister's department, which is well aware of the facts, not been more forceful with the meat packing industry and food processors to ensure they eliminate this dangerous health hazard, when improved tech-
[ Translation |


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I regret, Madam Speaker, but I do not agree with the last part of the question. The use of nitrosamines came under discussion, among other places, at the Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs last week. Technical information was given to the hon. member by officials. Of course, Canada is working closely with other countries and watching the progress of research for additives as replacements for nitrites and nitrates. However, the rate that we are now accepting in the meat packing industry seems reasonable to us. To our knowledge, there are no product replacements. We are nonetheless most attentive to developments in that area.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: A supplementary question. Madam Speaker. In view of the fact that a spokesman for the meat packing industry stated in a press report, referring to the use of nitrates and nitrites, that consumers will never get perfectly safe foods and should not expect them, and in view of the fact that Canadians have every right to expect perfect safety in their food supplies, which is the prime reason why the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare was set up in the first place, and knowing the minister's genuine concern in this matter, I would ask if she would give real substance to this concern by ordering her department to give the matter the priority it really deserves, in order to give Canadian consumers the food protection they have every right to expect, regardless of her answer to the previous question.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I understand the concern of the hon. member. I remember he told us that he was a former employee of the Department of Agriculture, I think. He knows the state of the knowledge in that field. He recommended to us at the committee that we should look at the regulations in Scandinavian countries on that subject. I told him, and I repeat to the House, that of course we will be exploring that particular approach to the question and, as with any other development in the field of product replacements for nitrites and nitrates, we will move as soon as that is offered to the market.
*
* *
[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State. On April 23 last, he met
July 15, 1980

with representatives of Francophones outside Quebec about plans the association has been fostering for a long time about a joint commission, and according to the association's president, the minister seemed to agree to the establishment of such a commission. Could the minister tell the House if he is in favour of establishing such a joint commission and if he is, whether he recommended it, and when we can expect to have an answer to the question?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has mentioned, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec some time ago to discuss the matter of establishing an appropriate consultative forum between the federation and the Government of Canada. In the near future I intend to meet once again with spokesmen for the federation for further discussions with a view to establishing a suitable consultation mechanism. The federation wished to meet with me this week, but as it is impossible for me I agreed to meet them some time next week.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I wish to address a supplementary to the minister.
I would like the Secretary of State to be a bit more specific if possible. I know to what extent Francophones outside Quebec are relying on him to make an explicit recommendation. As the minister gave the federation this opinion during one of their meetings, could the minister at least inform the House that he favours the setting up of this commission? He knows which one I mean, in view of the fact that the federation's president said she was concerned about some information to the effect that the government might be tempted to change its mind. Could the minister assure the House that the government does not intend to do so? Could the minister assure the House that he endorses the setting up of this commission, an urgent matter in my opinion?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the government does not intend in the least to change its mind as it has never promised to set up a joint commission comprised of members of the government and the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec. The hon. member will remember no doubt that this type of suggestion or agreement had been favoured by his government during the electoral period in an endeavour to elicit votes from certain Francophone circles outside Quebec, a tactic which by the way did not give any results.
Madam Speaker, for our part, I do not think there has ever been any doubt as to our commitment with regard to Francophones outside Quebec either from a constitutional or government policy point of view.

Oral Questions INDUSTRY


LAY-OFFS-EFFECT ON SUMMER EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In recent weeks there have been lay-offs of more than 1,000 workers every working day. As a result of these lay-offs, the opportunities for summer employment for students has dropped by 20 per cent, according to Manpower centres in southwestern Ontario.
I wonder whether the minister has any immediate plans to deal with this problem of lay-offs which is having such an adverse effect on employment of students for this coming summer.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about these lay-offs, and that is why we are developing industrial strategy programs to strengthen the entire industrial base of the country.
We have to recognize, however, that to some extent our problem is due to the weakness of the economy of our major trading partner, the United States. Even though we are putting forward efforts to blunt the impact of that situation, unfortunately we cannot escape it entirely.


David Orlikow: My supplementary question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Given the fact that we have almost 500,000 young people up to age 25 unemployed, and that the number of young people unemployed has increased by 70,000 in the last month, does the Department of Employment have any plans for employment programs which will put our young people to work for the summer, who need work so desperately if they are to be able to go back to universities and community colleges?


Dennis Dawson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member certainly knows that there is a transition period during the months of May, June and July concerning the students who are finishing their studies before getting into the labour market. Traditionally, it has been during the month of June that the unemployment statistics have been a little higher, but when we get to July and August these statistics come down.
1 am quite sure that with the programs established by this government we shall be able to increase the number of students working during this summer, not only in the government programs but in the private sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2912

July 15, 1980
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


IMPROVEMENT OF FACILITIES AT MOUNT HOPE- MAINTENANCE OF NORDAIR SERVICE BY QUEBECAIR
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I want to make one final approach-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: -on the future plans for Mount Hope airport before Parliament takes off for the summer recess.


An hon. Member:: That is in Hamilton.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Will the minister please tell us when he will be in a position to announce a decision on this matter which is so vital to the entire Hamilton-Niagara-Brantford region? Before he answers "soon", can he say how soon is soon?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure that my hon. friend, when he goes home, has noticed some improvement taking place at the Hamilton airport. There is new paving on the runways and I presume he is more comfortable now when he lands.
With respect to the over-all program for Hamilton, this is being studied now in the general context of expenditures on airports. I hope to have news for him when he comes back in the fall.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I am delighted the minister can confirm that some of the grass is being paved at the Mount Hope airport. However, I would really like to know whether the minister can confirm the sale of Hamilton civic airport's prime carrier, Nordair, to the owners of Quebecair, and can he assure the people of my area that Nordair's service into and out of Hamilton will be maintained under its new ownership?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that no purchaser of the company would relinquish the privilege and advantage of serving Hamilton. But 1 will be making very sure of that before a sale is made.


VICTORIA-PROVISION OF RADAR EQUIPMENT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that within the last 13 months, at an airport without radar, there have been 19 near misses, many of which could have been avoided had radar been in place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we have this afternoon and on other days a clear indication of the needs that Canadian airports have with respect to equipment, runways, terminals, etc. We are trying to satisfy most of these wishes while living within our means.
With respect to radar at Victoria, as I indicated in a letter that I have written to my hon. friend, it is in the program. We do not think Victoria is endangered by the situation that exists now. The hon. member can disagree with that, however. But it is within our program to include these facilities at Victoria.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the minister is not aware that on two successive days on the landing flight path, small aircraft ran into parachutists that were not announced either to the control tower or to the pilot of the aircraft.


An hon. Member:: Liberal candidates.


An hon. Member:: It was Mackasey.


Mr. Hees:: They were those twinning fellows.


Donald W. Munro: On the second occasion the pilot had to dodge as many as 30 parachutists. They were American parachutists on the flight path, but within the control area of the control tower. Does this, at last, convince the minister that there is a new priority that ought to be assigned to the establishment of radar at Victoria international airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker. I am aware of two near misses, one that took place at Victoria and one at Vancouver in recent days. I checked on that this morning, and inquiries are being made by the Department of Transport, which is the normal procedure in these matters.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Given the numerous representations which the government has received from various native groups, the FFHQ and others, for meaningful input into the current constitutional process, has the government now decided on an appropriate means to ensure that the special concerns of groups such as these will be heard in the process?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will remember that following our meeting on June 9 with the premiers, I reported to the House that I had suggested some enlarged type of forum, such as the one suggested by my friend, the Leader of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is he still your friend?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, that was a wasted word: he is not even listening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
July 15, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I reported that the position of the premiers at that time was that we should continue within the restricted forum that we had created for the purpose of the meeting on June 9. I believe that is the position, an honourable one, which was supported by the Leader of the Opposition.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, at the Liberal party convention in Winnipeg a resolution was passed by the delegates saying "the delegates require that the Yukon Council and the Northwest Territories Council be represented at meetings of first ministers so that the people of the north will be directly represented by their locally elected members."
In view of the position of the government, namely, that the elected officials of these two territories are not to be represented by actually sitting down with the first ministers, is the Prime Minister now rejecting the resolution passed by his own delegates in Winnipeg?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. The hon. member will realize that I was referring only to the meeting of June 9 encompassing the meetings taking place this summer. I indicated at the time, and I repeat, that we have in the past and will in the future continue to include in our delegations representatives from the territories and representatives from other groups.
Under the present framework of federal-provincial meetings, the premiers, I think quite properly, indicated that it would not be quite right for the federal government to bring a lot of other representatives with a voice and a vote of their own into meetings which until now have been comprised of the 11 first ministers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure the minister knows he ordered, in late June, that the Aluminum Company of Canada increase the flow in the Nechako River to 1,000 cubic feet per second. The Aluminum Company of Canada has now publicly stated its intention to only increase the flow to 850 cubic feet per second. I have taken the time to contact the officials in British Columbia, and the flow today is only 800 cubic feet per second.
I wonder whether the president of Alcan is the minister of fisheries, or whether the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is seated here in the House today is. Perhaps he could advise the House today-everyone here-whether or not it is still his
Oral Questions
opinion today that the flow in the Nechako River, for the protection of salmon stock, is 1,000 cubic feet per second.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the figure of 1,000 c.f.s. is one which was given many years ago. There is a debate on whether or not a figure somewhat below 1,000 would be adequate.


An hon. Member:: There was no salmon in those days.


Roméo LeBlanc: We have been measuring and monitoring that very closely. We have made it clear to the Aluminum Company of Canada that if in our judgment, because we have to protect the fish that are moving in and out of that area, the flow was inadequate, then obviously we would go to court if necessary to make sure that the resource is protected.
I have not had a report on this issue since last Friday. I hope to have one when I get back to my office this afternoon. It is not our intention to allow an operation of this type to wipe out the very important run of the fishery.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I assume the minister is telling us it is his opinion that 1,000 cubic feet per second is required, because less than a month ago he ordered that and the Aluminum Company of Canada has come out and said that it does not intend to comply with what the minister said.
We have seen the frontier attitude of the minister in western Canada with reference to Riley Creek and other incidents. Will the minister confirm whether the opinion he held two weeks ago, of 1,000 cubic feet per second, is still held by him today, and whether he intends to use section 20(10) of the Fisheries Act to protect the fishery in British Columbia?


Roméo LeBlanc: The hon. member seems to be totally tied to the figure of 1,000, which was a ballpark figure.


James Ross Fulton: It was your figure.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member will be patient, I will try to explain. The fact is that 1,000 was considered to be desirable. There are, however, conditions of temperature, that is, how warm the season is or is not, what natural flow comes from areas besides the dam where the overspill occurs. This is being monitored.
I have not had a request from my department to take further action at this time. Following the hon. member's question this afternoon, I will obviously be checking with them. If, in the opinion of the scientists in my department- not my opinion-it is necessary to request more water, then we will do that.

July 15. 1980
Oral Questions ENERGY


LEGALITY OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council. It goes back to questions asked by the hon. member for Perth and my leader.
It is a very simple question. Does the government House leader have an opinion from the law officers of the Crown with regard to the legality of the tax that was set at twelve o'clock Friday night?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to quote an answer given last Friday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, on the first question, this ways and means motion was drafted upon the advice and with the help of the law officers of the Crown.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, that was a traverse of the question. Being a lawyer, the government House leader will know what "traverse" is. I do not know the word in French, but in English it is traverse. He avoided the question.
My question is, if he does not have an opinion from the law officers of the Crown, does he intend to get one before this House recesses, if it ever does?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, this is not a question of being a lawyer or not. The fact is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated clearly he had consulted with the officials, the law officers of the Crown before acting, and the procedure was entirely consistent with all parliamentary practices dating back decades here in Canada and in Great Britain. We have absolutely no reason at all to doubt the legality of the procedure that was followed, and I do not see why the hon. member persists in requesting that in this case, rather than another, we ask for a specific legal opinion. We on this side are not going to ask for specific legal opinions just because members of the opposition, at a time when they think they could be making political gains, believe a procedure could be illegal.
Once again, as I said, precautions were taken, and the procedure that was followed is in order. We acted pursuant to the rules. We have no reason to doubt the validity of the procedure and we have no intention of following up on the hon. member's question.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On Thursday, July 3 last, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) rose on a question of privilege with respect to information and documents that he was supplied by officials of the Department of Secretary of State.
The documents in question which he left with officials of the House are perhaps not as clear on close examination as they might appear at first blush. There is, first of all, what he refers to as the usual monthly reporting form of the persons granted certificates of Canadian citizenship with a stamp "Nil report for this electoral district" and which on the top shows that it is in respect of the electoral district of Peterborough for the month of May, 1980. It is dated June 3, 1980.
The next document referred to by the hon. member is dated May 23, 1980, at 10.30 a.m., Peterborough, is headed "Presentation of Certificates" and has the name of the citizenship court judge. There then follows a list of 55 names, beside each of which is a file reference. This document appears to be a list prepared for the judge of those persons without addresses to whom certificates were to be presented that morning.
The third and final document is the same as the first. That is, it purports to be a copy of the usual monthly reporting form showing a list of persons with addresses granted certificates of Canadian citizenship in the electoral district of Peterborough. However, this report is for the month of June and bears a July 3 date stamp. It also contains only 39 of the 55 names set out in the second document, the one that was given to the judge.
Under the circumstances, it is not clearly shown by these documents that the nil return for the month of May was not correct, because the only return with names of persons granted citizenship is for the month of June, and that one is dated July 3, albeit it shows many of the same names. Furthermore, even if they were shown to be incorrect, falsified or altered, which they have not, there is no indication that they were incorrectly of falsely made with intent to deceive the House, which is a necessary ingredient before it becomes a matter of privilege, as the hon. member correctly quoted from Erskine May.
If the hon. member complains about the poor service he is receiving from the Department of Secretary of State because it sent him documents which are incorrect or false and also too late to be of any use, it seems to me that all members could have the same complaint. In any event, the Chair has considerable sympathy for the member regarding difficulties that a member often incurs with respect to citizenship matters. A real difficulty lies, however, in the fact that the hon. member bases his question of privilege on the complaint that his ability to discharge his responsibility to his constituents is severely hampered by not receiving these lists.
While I am only too aware of the multiple responsibilities, duties, and also the work the member has to do relating to his
July 15, 1980

constituency, as Speaker I am required to consider only those matters which affect the member's parliamentary work. That is to say, whatever duty a member has to his constituents, before a valid question of privilege arises in respect of any alleged interference, such interference must relate to the member's parliamentary duties. In other words, just as a member is protected from anything he does while taking part in a proceeding in Parliament, so too must an interference relate to the member's role in the context of parliamentary work.
Under the circumstances, in this instance, therefore, I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.


MR. TAYLOR-APPOINTMENT OF &quot;TWIN MEMBERS&quot; IN CERTAIN WESTERN CONSTITUENCIES-RULING BY MADAM SPEAKER
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) also rose on a question of privilege on Thursday, July 3. His concern was whether public funds were being used by a member of the staff of a minister of the Crown in respect of work relating to the appointment of government members as twin members in certain western constituencies. If so, he suggests it would be an abuse and would amount to usurping and interfering with the elected member and his work in the constituency. The hon. member also had two other concerns with respect to the implementation of the twin member concept. One was whether any public funds were being used by those twinned MPs and, second, whether the mail from his constituents and his own mail to ministers of the Crown was being directed to the twin MP.
The hon. member received considerable support from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who elaborated on the effect such action could have. However, the right hon. member himself said we have no guarantee that this is the case.
While expressing concern for the preservation of democratic principles, the hon. member for Bow River did not direct the attention of the Chair to any specific instances of improper conduct by any particular member of this House. Furthermore, he will appreciate that, while the conduct of a member of this House may be raised by another member, Mr. Speaker Michener said in 1959 that an hon. member should not be required to submit his conduct for investigation by the House or a committee thereof until he had been charged with an offence by another member.
I therefore feel, in this case again, that I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order related to an incident which
Privilege-Mr. Fox
took place in the House last evening. As you will attest, I hope, it is not my general practice to be disrespectful in this House or toward this House. I have too much regard for the institution to behave otherwise. It therefore takes extreme provocation and a blatant display of disregard for the niceties of verbal performance in this chamber to cause me to overstep the bounds of propriety and use an expression which I know to be unacceptable in Beauchesne's sight. I do not deny using such an expression, but I was merely pleading for the truth. I expect others to treat this House with equal respect and regard and when there is an outrageous failure to do so my intolerance knows no bounds.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald W. Munro: Such was the case last evening when in an exasperated outburst I adjured the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), as recorded at page 2869, to adhere to the truth but added an expression meaning the same thing, although it was in a form to which exception is likely to be taken. I offer now to withdraw the offending word and urge the minister to show similar respect for this House and the Chair and to restore his good name by making a similar gesture. He could do so by repudiating the unspeakable assertions he perpetrated yesterday when he attributed views to the Conservatives by putting words in the mouth of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) which that member at no time expressed or espoused and which Conservatives had at no time voiced or would wish to voice.
I withdraw, Madam Speaker, and urge the minister to do likewise.


Madam Speaker:: I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Such outbursts of emotion often occur in the House and it is in the spirit of this chamber that a gesture such as the one which has been offered by the hon. member is accepted. The withdrawal is accepted and I think we will not discuss this matter further.
The Secretary of State.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon during the course-


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Could I be clear about this? Is the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) seeking the floor on a point of order flowing from the discussions we have just had? Yes or no? Then I recognize the Secretary of State.


PRIVILEGE
Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, during the course of the proceedings yesterday afternoon,

July 15, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Fox
while we were discussing the question of privilege upon which you have just ruled, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) made a statement which to my mind raises a new question of privilege on my part. In the course of that debate he indicated he would have been given false documents by the minister himself, by myself. Madam Speaker, I would like to reserve or have clarification on the point-


Mr. Nielsen:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member for Peterborough is attempting to catch your eye to raise a point of order to correct Hansard to dispose of the matter which has been raised by the minister, thus saving the time of the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. All I want to do is to make quite clear how I am handling this matter. The hon. member for Peterborough rose on a point of order. I asked him whether that point of order arose from the deliberations we had just concluded. He did not answer; he sat down again. Previous to that I had recognized the Secretary of State so I did, quite correctly, I think, go back to the Secretary of State. I must hear the Secretary of State and I would be delighted to hear the hon. member for Peterborough.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, pertaining to this very matter. I did nod my head, Madam Speaker, and I apologize for not being more vocal in my interests on my point of order.
My point of order stems directly from the notice given by the minister arising from the discussion here today, and that is that yesterday in this House the minister indicated that he intended to rise, perhaps, on this question of privilege. The point of order is this. At the top of page 2856 of Hansard yesterday the word "minister" appears and 1 would ask that it be changed to "ministry". It further goes on to explain in the third paragraph, as I detail the explanation, that it is the ministry which is in question, not the minister, as explained in the third paragraph where I say "namely that this matter of discriminatory treatment of members of Parliament by the Department of Secretary of State through the issuance of false documents-"
So I would ask that Hansard be changed to read "the ministry" instead of "the minister" at the top of page 2856, which is elaborated in the third paragraph to explain the error.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member might do well to withdraw his remarks. In my opinion it would be appropriate that he retract and apologize for having used those words, because substantially what he said in English has been well understood in the usual way we understand words in the House when he said-

"I had been given false documents from the minister in question".
To begin with, the question of false documents has not been established and once again the hon. member is raising the
question of false documents. He knows full well, because I told him yesterday, that of the 53 people sworn in in Peterborough on May 23, only 39 were from his riding. The Peterborough court held a swearing-in ceremony which applied to at least five federal ridings. As a matter of fact, people from any part of the country could receive their citizenship papers from the Peterborough court and the names would not be sent out to the hon. member.
The hon. member also knows that if he received a list on July 3 it was one month to the day after the previous list was sent to him on June 3, a list which was sent to him at the same time as it was sent to all members of Parliament. It is not unusual, Madam Speaker, as we all know, for members of Parliament to receive a nil report list. In the month of June, out of a total of 46 members who received nil report lists, 34 were Liberal members.
So, Madam Speaker, the type of innuendo which has been cast upon the Secretary of State Department by the hon. member is totally without foundation. Not only has the hon. member falsely accused the minister, he has also falsely accused the Secretary of State Department and I would ask him, in all decency as a parliamentarian, as a member who sits in this chamber with the rest of us, to withdraw that type of accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: My impression on reading Hansard was that perhaps the matter raised today by the minister as a question of privilege involves a slip of the tongue rather than an intention of implicating the minister. However, I would think at this point that the hon. member for Peterborough, having given his interpretation and explanation of what he saw in Hansard, having raised his question of privilege, and having now heard the minister on his question of privilege, might agree with me that the matter might be closed. Unless some other members wish to continue discussing this question of privilege I would feel the matter should be closed. However, I am in the hands of the House and if other hon. members wish to intervene in the debate I would, of course, have to hear them because it is a new question of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to reserve the right to review the record concerning the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox), particularly with respect to some of the figures he cited. It may well be that upon a review of that record and in particular of the reference to the document cited "nil", a further question will arise. I would not want to lose the opportunity to raise that question in such an event.
July 15, 1980


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I hope you will entertain my point of order. It is related to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday in this House. I was able to check Hansard today, and I believe this is a point of order.
I asked the Prime Minister a couple of questions, and in his non-answer to me he said that we should all be aware of commenting on what happens in committee. The question I asked him related to statements made in committee on July 10 with regard to Bill C-30. That bill has been passed in the House, and I asked him questions which were asked in the committee in relation to that bill. They were incidental to the bill, but they were still asked during that period of time. I have checked Beauchesne, and there is no objection to my asking any question in this House related to any item which was in committee, which has come back to the House and which is the property of the House.


Yvon Pinard: That is no reason, Madam Speaker, for the hon. member not to have looked into or not to look into what went on in committee. Be that as it may the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has given more details in his answers to the hon. member's questions so that he surely got a more complete answer than he was expecting on the point he had raised. So the Prime Minister started by telling the hon. member, and I recall that very well, that he should be aware of what goes on in committee, but the Prime Minister did not stop at that, he went on with his answer. I do not think the hon. member has a right to complain.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Oberle:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is not entirely unrelated to the discussions which have been going on here, but it is more with respect to House business. A report in The Globe and Mail seems to indicate that it is the intention of the government to bring in a freedom of information bill before Friday or before the House recesses.
That being the case, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could indicate whether that is the case, whether such a bill is being introduced and whether it is also the intention of the government, jointly or embraced within that bill, to keep a promise which was made in the throne speech with respect to section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Will that also be introduced before Friday?
Point of Order-Mr. Domm


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we keep our promises, and this very day a notice has been given for the introduction of such legislation.


POINT OF ORDER
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask if the Chair would entertain a response from me with respect to a request for an apology from the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox). Can that question or request go without an answer, or would Your Honour entertain my comments on his request for an apology?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, I suggest the hon. member has a nerve to rise on this subject. Through a correction made to Hansard he has managed to get away with it after having unjustly accused the minister yesterday. Had he had a minimum of courtesy he would have apologized and withdrawn his allegations. Rather, he chose to proceed by way of a correction to Hansard, which does not show much courage to start with. So I regret to see him bring back this subject and try to have a follow-up on the request made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) who asked him in a very courteous and parliamentary way to withdraw his statements. So not only did he act in a less than courageous way by proceeding through a correction to Hansard, but he should have withdrawn his words, pure and simple, and he should have apologized to the minister for having misled the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I submit respectfully that the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) acted quite appropriately. In fact, I can tell Your Honour that he was seeking the floor precisely for the purpose of correcting the record so that the record would be clear. I think that was an appropriate action for him to take.
Given the appropriateness of his action, I say with respect that it would be inappropriate-if the hon. member feels there is a unjust accusation in something the minister has said-if the hon. member is not allowed to reply. Then the Chair would have both sides of the issue, if there is an issue, before it in order to make a decision.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Come on.


Mr. Waddell:: You are wasting the time of the House.

July 15, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Domm


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I think the comments made by the minister require a response. When the minister spoke to me yesterday about his request regarding privilege in the House and with regard to speaking to my question of privilege, I advised the minister at that time-since he has brought the subject up today-that if he brought the subject up again in the House yesterday, I would stand and ask for equal time.
That was our discussion. Having said that, he rose, and he now accuses me when I correct one word-which is further explained in the third paragraph-the word "minister" to "ministry". There could be no doubt in the mind of anyone in this House who has listened to the conversation and my accusations since this dispute first arose over this misleading information that I was directing all my comments and my concerns at the minister's ministry and not at the minister.
Having said that and made my comments yesterday, on which the minister has given notice of his intention to rise on a question of privilege, I then said to the minister that 1 agree that it is his department that I am criticizing. It is his ministry I am criticizing, and I have offered to change the word from "minister" to "ministry". Having said that, the minister then stood up and pursued the subject by asking for an apology, which 1 consider is not necessary because I am not accusing the minister.
However, if the minister is not going to assume responsibility for his ministry and if his ministry is negligent and remiss and fails to give the right information out to a member of Parliament, then I do not intend to withdraw my accusation. The minister is responsible for his ministry, and he should not ask for an apology when it is his ministry which is negligent.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, there is just one sentence I should like to utter. I hope the next time Your Honour rules with respect to a question of privilege that there is no question of privilege and that the matter is ended, that Your Honour will not allow hon. members to reopen it under the guise that there is a new point.


Madam Speaker:: In reply to the hon. member, 1 think in some instances there might have been a fine line between discussing a new question of privilege and the one on which I had ruled, but as soon as I felt that that fine line was being trespassed upon, both hon. members came back to the question they were supposed to be debating. It often happens that an hon. member wanders by way of explanation without questioning the ruling. I do not think any hon. member did question the ruling.
However, the hon. member is right. Sometimes there is a fine line and I try to watch it, but as soon as I come to the point at which I want to intervene, things seem to be re-established.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have two questions of privilege, both related to Hansard. You will recall that on Wednesday, July 9, I raised a question of privilege with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae,) who referred to "bushels of hay", which expression was not accurately reflected. Indeed, it was changed in Hansard to refer to "bales of hay".
In addition, you will recall in my remarks when I raised that question that I put before the Chair the deletion from the final record of a whole series of interjections which were in the blues, and which I personally read and checked before returning them to the Hansard office .
I want to refer to something even more serious with respect to Hansard, and I certainly do not attribute any motive here with respect to the admirable job being done by the Hansard reporters. But the malaise seems to have spread.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The members of the socialist party to my left might not be interested in running this place as democratic institutions should be run, on the basis of accuracy, but we are.


An hon. Member:: What about the pipeline which is costing only $22 billion?


Erik Nielsen: On April 28 of this year-I am quoting from an extract from Hansard of that day at page 449-there appeared a motion put forward by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) to this effect, and I must quote it so that the differences become apparent. It reads:
That on the fortieth anniversary of the Katyn forest tragedy, this House sympathizes with fellow Canadians of Polish extraction over the great human sacrifices Poland had to endure during the course of the Second World War and declares that those who lost their lives at Katyn and all other sites of tragedy in Poland will long be remembered.
That is the exact verbatim quotation from Hansard of that day, and what prompted me to look at this matter was the motion of yesterday. But in checking the Journals of April 28 at page 86 and again Journals of April 30, page 104, we find the following:
Pursuant to Standing Order 43, on motion of Mr. Flis, seconded by Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands), it was resolved-That this House sympathizes with our-
I emphasize the word "our".
-fellow Canadians of Polish extraction over the great human sacrifices Poland had to endure during the course of the Second World War and declares that those who lost their lives at Katyn and all other sites of tragedy in Poland will long be remembered.
Madam Speaker, you will notice that there has been the insertion in the Journals of the pronoun "our" and the deletion from the actual motion cited in Hansard of April 28 of the
July 15, 1980

first phrase, namely, "That on the fortieth anniversary of the Katyn forest tragedy".
The differences and omissions give rise to some very serious questions. The first one, of course, is why are the texts from Hansard and from Votes and Proceedings quite different? Why were the changes not made in the House, as they should be since they are changes of substantial nature? What has happened to the televised Hansard; were similar deletions- and I have not checked that-made there? It may be quite adequately explained if an explanation is forthcoming as to who authorized the changes 'twixt Hansard and the Journals.
If we are currently to place any reliance on the accuracy of the written record of this place, these things should not happen without some sort of adequate explanation. Certainly for the future if any reliance is to be placed by students-although why they would want to study these matters in any serious way perhaps might be open to question-they too should be able to rely implicitly upon the total accuracy of the proceedings recorded in this place, and certainly when they are transposed to the Journals.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order. 1 am very glad the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has brought this to the attention of the House. I do not wish to comment on the first part of his point of order concerning the bales of hay. It was a rather raucous day in the House and I will leave that to interpretation.
On the question of the Standing Order 43 motion in the name of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), I think the hon. member for Yukon makes a valid point. It is one of my duties on the government side to look at motions under Standing Order 43 when members try to obtain the unanimous consent of the House and check them with all sides before presentation is made at two o'clock. I remember distinctly on that particular day that the words as read by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park differed from the written text he had shown me earlier.
I do not think there was anything malicious or deliberate in this. This happens from time to time when a member wants to express some sentiments and perhaps deviates a little from the written text. I would say that perhaps there has to be closer collaboration between what is given to the Journals, which is the actual written statement, and what is actually said by a member when he makes his point in the House of Commons.


Erik Nielsen: That is what should be recorded in Journals.


David Michael Collenette: We now have three ways of checking. First, we have any document referred to the Journals branch; second, the live voice recording; and third, the transcript of the Hansard reporter. So that this does not arise in future on matters of great substance, perhaps we could improve our procedure or at least, Madam Speaker, have you look into it to ensure that this does not happen again.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Madam Speaker:: 1 believe there are several ways of checking this. We have now in front of us at least three versions, the written, the spoken one, the one in Hansard and an extra one with the televised version. I will have to check on this matter to know whether there have been substantial changes which should not be allowed.
On the first question raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) concerning "bales" instead of "bushels", I would remind the House that some of these corrections, which appear to be slips of the tongue, are normally made as a matter of course by the editors of Hansard. This has been an acceptable custom in Parliament.
I should like to read an excerpt from Erskine May on these practices, defining what exactly is Hansard, as follows:
It is a full report, in the first person, of all speakers alike, a full report being defined as one "which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which on the other hand leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of the speech or illustrates the argument."
Another quotation from "An Encyclopedia of Parliament"
says:
A certain amount of revision is bound to be necessary . .. For instance, the tangled sentence-
Also there are repetitions, especially when they are subject to interruptions, which seems to have been the case in this particular instance.
-must be sorted out if they are to make sense when committed to paper;
What appears to be a lapsus linguae, of course, can be corrected. Therefore, on the first point, it seems quite obvious that it was probably a lapsus linguae, the kind of correction which is acceptable in Hansard. But I will check the second point to see whether all the versions differ substantially.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, you said something which rather alarmed me with respect to my second point, namely, that there were three methods of checking. May I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that there is only one official record of the proceedings of this House, and that is the record that is taken here by the Hansard reporters, and indeed it is so entitled on every issue we get: it is the "Official Report" of the proceedings of the House of Commons. What is said in the House, the actual wording of the motions that a member uses, is, in my submission, what should appear subsequently in Journals, not something submitted for vetting or whatever to the parliamentary secretary or to anyone else.
With respect to the first point, Madam Speaker, may I again draw your attention to the omission of a whole series of interruptions or interjections that were made after the statement of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. In order to make that change meaningful, all those interjections had to be omitted. 1 find that practice questionable.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that we should not eliminate the advantage we have of checking what is written in Hansard, taken down by the Hansard reporters in this House which sometimes is not completely audible because of the cheers and heckling that sometimes take place in the House. It
2920

July 15, 1980
Transport Committee
seems to me that the televised proceedings -offer a unique chance of counterchecking. Of course the official version is the one in Hansard, but I think these other means of checking should be used by the House in order to make sure that what appears in Hansard is exactly what the member said or what he meant, because we do admit slips of the tongue, do we not?


Erik Nielsen: That was no slip.


MR. GURB1N-DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION TO DEFEATED LIBERAL CANDIDATE
Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, on my return today I learned that in my absence yesterday the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) raised a question of privilege concerning the announcement of a small craft harbours project.
First of all, there is no formal procedure in place for announcing the approval of small craft harbours projects, except in the call of the tender which is normally done by the Department of Public Works. Tenders are called, and if members or other parties have shown an interest in particular projects, my office tries to inform them of the approval of the projects, which of course predates the formal calling of tenders.
The point I wish to make is that I have no record of the hon. member for Bruce-Grey indicating an interest in the project at Dyer Bay. Had he approached either myself or my office and informed me that he would like to have detail of the project at Dyer Bay, he would have been told once the project was approved. In fact, many hon. members of the House know that when inquiries are made they are usually answered. Many of his own colleagues have received information from my office that certain projects in which they had expressed an interest were going ahead or had been approved.
When the hon. member for Bruce-Grey contacted my office on July 10, he was informed that the Dyer Bay project had been approved. In my view there is no question of privilege. If there has been a discourtesy, obviously I apologize to the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: 
PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I will not take up much of the time of the House, but I should like to point out to the Chair that, while I recognize the difficulty in trying to keep order in the House and to give due recognition to all members, I would hesitate to think there is an over-reaction to a request by hon. members on the other side that we not be recognized as frequently as we had been. It occurs to me that today not one member from this side was recognized. I think we did better yesterday by one.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Certainly I concede the fact that question period is primarily for the opposition, but as a member of Parliament I feel my duties and responsibilities as a member are impeded if I do not have any opportunity to ask questions of ministers. I do not ask for equal time of the opposition to query ministers; I just ask that we have some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 15, 1980


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. I think I can say honestly that there is no over-reaction on my part. I agree with him that the question period belongs to the opposition, and I thought more so in what might be the last week of this session.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copy of the annual report on the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act for 1978.


TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of the list of cost-control projects reported to Treasury Board as of September 15, 1979.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   NORTHERN PIPELINES IMPENDING GOVERNMENT DECISION RESPECTING ALASKA GAS PIPELINE PRE-BUILD SECTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for the serious reasons I made quite clear to Your Honour in a letter which I sent to your office earlier today on the important subject of the proposed pipeline through Canada from Alaska, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the decision to be reached on Thursday by the government concerning the propriety of pre-building a section of the northern pipeline without assurances that the entire pipeline will be built.
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has given the Chair the usual notice of his intention to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. I must remind him the matter which he seeks to have debated under the Standing Order is not a new one.
The decision to pre-build or not to pre-build a section of the pipeline will be reached by a process set out in an act of Parliament, the Northern Pipeline Act. As the hon. member said in his notice, the decision about to be reached by the government "is of profound importance", but that is not a question on which the Chair has to make a determination. In effect, the hon. member appears to be questioning the adequacy of the legislation which does not provide for debate and decision by the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Not at all.


Madam Speaker:: The precedents are most clear. On May 20, 1970, on March 21, 1975, on April 30, 1975 and on many other occasions, the Chair ruled that it would be a questionable practice to debate proposed or existing legislation under Standing Order 26. In fact, on April 30, 1975, my predecessor ruled as follows:
-that the emergency provisions pursuant to Standing Order 26 ought to be distinguished, or their use ought to be distinguished from those items which, in a regular legislative program of the House of Commons and regular legislative consideration, can come before the House by way of amendments to existing statutes, or in any case will come before it in other ways.
The decision referred to by the hon. member is an administrative decision that may be made by the government in accordance with the provisions of a statute.
I should also remind hon. members that this is not a new matter. It is part of a continuing process that has been raised on several occasions in this chamber and which has also been debated in the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines.
Hon. members do not need me to set down other ways in which this may come before the House. May I refer them to my ruling of July 9, 1980, where I ruled on a somewhat similar matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
It is regretted, therefore, that I have to inform the hon. member that I cannot accept his motion at this time.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following

July 15, 1980
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: Nos. 69, 232, 347, 396, 628, 824, 831, 898, 924, 1,041, 1,042, 1,043 and 1,044.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
3.	N/A
4.	The following persons who are not Canadian citizens left their employment with the Canadian embassy over the past six months:


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the number of persons employed by the Canadian Embassy in Moscow who are not Canadian citizens and, in each case, what is his/her (a) name and address (b) salary (c) job designation (d) date of appointment (e) country of origin and citizenship?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, what is the number of persons employed by the Soviet embassy in Ottawa who are Canadian citizens and, in each case, what is his/her (a) name and address (b) salary (c) job designation (d) date of appointment?
3.	If any of the persons in part 2 are not native born Canadians, what was their country of origin?
4.	Have any persons who are not Canadian citizens and who were employed by the Canadian embassy in Moscow, left such employment in the past six months and, if so, in each case, what is his/her (a) name (b) address (c) reason for leaving?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. There are presently 27 persons employed by the Canadian embassy in Moscow who are not Canadian citizens. Following are the salaries, functions, date of appointment and country of origin of each one.
Name
Davydova, L. Fatyanova, A. Kuritsin, S. Neustroyev, V. Popikov, A. Mishen, S. Cherkasova, L. Nilubov, V.
Reason for Leaving
Husband transferred Husband posted Personal
Better work elsewhere None
Better work elsewhere Better work elsewhere Better work elsewhere


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Post Office Department's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: (a) Permanent indeterminate employees 60,490; (b) Term employees 2,809.
Name	Salary Roubles	Job	Date of	Citizen and(Per Annum)	Designation	Appointment	OriginSelivanov V.	4380	Commercial officer March 1973	U.S.S.R.Kudryavtseva 1.	4020	Admin, officer	June 1973	U.S.S.R.Slusarenko T.	4020	Trans/admin	Dec 1975	U.S.S.R.Lysak G.	3804	Dispatcher	May 1972	U.S.S.R.Rusinov I.	3936	Chauffeur/amb.	Oct 1955	U.S.S.R.Melnikovski P.	3804	Chauffeur	March 1969	U.S.S.R.Mityashov G.	3936	Mechanic	June 1972	U.S.S.R.Pavluchenkov A.	3768	Courier/driver	Jan 1970	U.S.S.R.Sukanov Y.	3384	Driver	Nov 1978	U.S.S.R.Kurakin M.	3480	Driver	May 1972	U.S.S.R.Andreev A.	3384	Driver	July 1976	U.S.S.R.Balzamov S.	3672	Maint/Driver	March 1980	U.S.S.R.Zarubin M.	3384	Driver	Sept 1975	U.S.S.R.Kruglov V.	3384	Driver	June 1977	U.S.S.R.Drozdova V.	3384	Translator	March 1980	U.S.S.R.Bykova S.	3480	Translator	Jan 1966	U.S.S.R.Lapkina Y.	3384	Translator	April 1978	U.S.S.R.Rybakova L.	3768	Translator	Jan 1971	U.S.S.R.Bakhtina H.	3384	Translator	June 1976	U.S.S.R.Tretyakova Y.	3036	Telephonist	Dec 1978	U.S.S.R.Sokolov V.	3372	Maintenance	Feb 1974	U.S.S.R.Artyushin V.	2856	Maintenance	Dec 1975	U.S.S.R.Levchenko A.	2856	Maintenance	Oct 1978	U.S.S.R.Minayeva V.	2484	Charwoman	June 1963	U.S.S.R.Novozhilova A.	2196	Charwoman	Dec 1972	U.S.S.R.Bogdanov V.	3024	Plumber	Aug 1972	U.S.S.RAbreu M.	$9840	Senior servant	Aug 1975	Portugal2.	The government is not aware of any persons employed by the Soviet embassy in Ottawa who are Canadian citizens.


Mr. Herbert: What is the current estimated production of hydroelectric power, by province, and what is the estimated production for (a) 1980 (b) 1985 (c) 1990?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
	Actual			Forecast*	
(a)	(b)	(c)1978	1979	1980	1985	1990(GWh)	(GWh)	Newfoundland	44,000	42,200	38,700	51,400	51,400Prince Edward	Island	-	-	-	-	Nova Scotia	800	1,200	1,000	1,000	1,000New Brunswick	2,000	3,100	2,800	2,900	2,800Quebec	85,400	88,500	99,800	134,700	163,900Ontario	39,200	42,200	37,700	38,100	38,300Manitoba	17,000	20,400	20,300	20,300	22,400Saskatchewan	2,600	2,400	2,600	3,400	3,400Alberta	1,800	1,400	1,800	1,800	1,800British Columbia	40,600	40,900	43,100	56,600	57,400Yukon Territory	300	300	300	400	600Northwest	Territories	300	300	300	300	300
This information is based in known commitments by electric utilities and industrial plants plus best estimates of future commitments to 1990. Figures are given in G Wh (gigawatthours) i.e. millions of kilowatthours, under average flow conditions.
July 15, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the Fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canadair Flextrac Limited?
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?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Canadair Flextrac Ltd. (Non-Operating)
1. Revenues	(a) 1977	(b) 1978Net Earnings	-	-2. (a) Grants, subsidies	-	-(b) Loans, advances	-	-guarantees	-	-(c) Investment	None	NoneOutstanding share capital	(120 Shares @ $1)	$120	$120


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Post Office Department?


Aideen Nicholson: Canada Post has a total of 61 employees engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations. Twenty-four are employed at headquarters and 37 in the regions.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1975, what amount was spent on studies related to marijuana by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: $10,945 was provided by the department to the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (July 1979-April 1980) to prepare a report on the "Use of Non-Medical Drugs among Inuit in Southern Canada". A section of the report studied the use of marijuana.
Order Paper Questions ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, were loans made under AHOP to persons in (a) Fredericton (b) York County (c) Sunbury County and, if so, in each case, how many?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
Number of loans approved in selected areas in New Brunswick under the AHOP program (direct and private) since January 1, 1978 (|)
Location	Loans	Units	$000
AHOP (Direct)			
New Brunswick	1	1	27Fredericton	-	-	-York County	-	-	-Sunbury County	-	-	-AHOP (Private)	New Brunswick	113	113	3,760Fredericton	13	13	452York County (2)	14	14	486Sunbury County	3	3	103
U)No activity after 1978 (2) Includes Frederiction city


Mr. Corbett: 1.	What are the services provided by the Canadian Farm Labour Pool (CFLP) to farmers and agricultural workers.
2.	Will the CFLP office be closed in Sussex, New Brunswick and, if so (a) will there be alternate facilities established to provide services to farmers and workers (b) will alternate facilities be provided in the area for the training of unskilled labourers (c) what amount of revenue will be lost to the area (d) will the local Agricultural Manpower Board remain as an active advisory board facilitating the area?
3.	What would be the approximate annual cost for an individual farmer to perform the services that are now provided by the CFLP?
4.	(a) How many employees have been provided through the CFLP to Sussex, New Brunswick area farmers since 1974 (b) how many (i) temporary (ii) permanent positions have been filled?
5.	How many persons have received training through the CFLP facilities in Sussex since 1974 and in what skills?
6.	Is the manager of the CFLP responsible for many duties other than those required under the previous structure?
7.	Does the manager of the CFLP have the use of his secretary on an exclusive basis?


Dennis Dawson: 1. The services provided by Canada Farm Labour Pools (CFLPs) are recruitment and placement, worker orientation, worker maintenance, payroll service, and relief milker service. The pools also provide, under the guidance of Local Agricultural Manpower Boards, information and advice on wage rates, employment standards and

July 15, 1980
Order Paper Questions
worker accommodation requirements. They work closely with Canada Employment Centres, particularly where a need for workers from outside the local area, for employment training or for other services, such as counselling, is indicated. In addition, the pools assist, as needed, with the delivery of federal and provincial employment programs and services, generally.
2.	The CFLP in Sussex, N.B., will continue operations this year, with the support of the established Local Agricultural Manpower Board, (a) (b) (c) not applicable; (d) Yes.
3.	It is not possible to determine such a cost.
4.	(a) 338
(b) (i) Sixty five casual vacancies filled (representing employment of less than five days duration).
(ii) Two hundred seventy-three regular vacancies filled (representing employment of five or more days duration).
5.	None. CFLPs do not provide training.
6.	The major change from the previous structure is that the CFLP manager's sole responsibility is to provide service specifically to the agricultural community. The Canada Employment Centre is responsible for all sectors of the labour market.
7.	No. The manager of the Sussex CFLP does not have a secretary but has clerical support available to him, as required, from the local Canada Employment Centre (CEC).


Mr. Mitges: 1.	What are the terms of reference of the recently appointed commission to review salaries and allowances of members of parliament and senators?
2.	What is the amount of money, salary and remuneration that will be paid to each member of the commission?
a period of two years following the expiry date of the eligible list which is established by the selection board. Therefore in response to this question our information only covers the years 1977 to 1979 inclusive. It is not possible either to be certain that candidates eligible for promotion (as per part (i) of the question) will apply since employees who may be eligible frequently choose not to apply for reasons known only to them. The figures below reflect only those candidates who met the basic requirements of the competitions.
ST-SCY-1-Eligible for promotion	252 promoted-
195	
ST-SCY-2-Eligible for promotion	122 promoted-
93	
ST-SCY-3-Eligible for promotion 12	40 promoted-
ST-SCY-1-Eligible for promotion 5	12 promoted-
ST-SCY-2-Eligible for promotion 1	1 promoted-
ST-SCY-3-Eligible for promotion 0	0 promoted-
ST-SCY-1-Eligible for promotion 1	2 promoted-
ST-SCY-2-Eligible for promotion 2	5 promoted-
ST-SCY-3-Eligible for promotion	1 promoted-


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROMOTIONS FOR CLERKS
Miss MacDonald: In the Department of External Affairs, how many clerks classified as (a) CR-1 (b) CR-2 (c) CR-3 (d) CR-4 (e) CR-5 were (i) eligible for promotion (ii) promoted in each year 1970 to 1979?


David Michael Collenette: 1. See sessional paper No. 321-4/ 20 tabled on May 14, 1980, by the President of the Privy Council.
2. An honoraria of $250 per diem each while on duty as commissioners and a non-accountable living allowance of $90 per diem each and actual transportation expenses while in travel status away from their normal places of residence in connection with the conduct of the commission.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROMOTIONS FOR SCYs


Miss MacDonald: In the Department of External Affairs, how many secretaries classified as (a) SCY-1 (b) SCY-2 (c) SCY-3 were (i) eligible for promotion (ii) promoted in each year 1970 to 1979?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Appointment files, including promotion records for the ST-SCY group are only maintained for


Louis Duclos: Appointment files, including promotion records for the CR group are only maintained for a period of two years following the expiry date of the eligible list which is established by the selection board. Therefore in response to this question our information only covers the years 1977 to 1979 inclusive. It is not possible either to be certain that the candidates eligible for promotion (as per part (i) of the question) will apply since employees who may be eligible frequently choose not to apply for reasons known only to them. The figures below reflect only those candidates who met the basic requirements of the competitions.
1977 - CR-1-Recruitment into the department is done at the CR-2 level.
48 promoted-30 99 promoted-43
CR-2-Eligible for promotion CR-3-Eligible for promotion CR-4-Eligible for promotion 134 promoted-39 CR-5-Eligible for promotion 43 promoted-25
July 15, 1980

1978
CR-2-Eligible for promotion CR-3-Eligible for promotion CR-4-Eligible for promotion CR-5-Eligible for promotion CR-2-Eligible for promotion CR-3-Eligible for promotion CR-4-Eligible for promotion CR-5-Eligible for promotion
43 promoted-30 83 promoted-33 17 promoted- 6 17 promoted- 7 13 promoted- 5 6 promoted- 3 4 promoted- 2 1 promoted-	1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-SCY POSITIONS-YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Miss MacDonald: In the Department of External Affairs, what was the average number of years of experience among those promoted from (a) SCY-1 to SCY-2 (b) SCY-2 to SCY-3 (c) SCY-3 to SCY-4 for each year 1970 to 1979?


Louis Duclos: As was the case of question 1,041 the department does not maintain appointment (competition) records for the ST-SCY group for the years 1970 to 1976 inclusive. Further the principle of promotion based on merit as set forth in the Employment Act restricts departments from according seniority or numbers of years of experience extra marks in the selection process. Employees' applications will therefore from time to time be most complete with respect to exact years of experience and in other cases will simply reflect the minimum requirements called for on the competition poster. Our promotion records therefore do not contain information as to the average number of years experience on all eligible candidates. Public Service Commission regulations in fact permit employees to apply in competitions even though they may have no direct experience in the SCY group. Their indirect or other related experience may in fact be sufficient to meet basic requirements for any competition and any assessment of such an individual's average years of experience would be an estimate at best. It is nonetheless conceivable that an exhaustive review of all promoted employees' file (as distinct from competition or selection files) might result in an estimate of their years of experience at the time of promotion. We estimate that such a review of files might involve as much as 20 working days' (one month) research by at least one employee and we are not entirely sure the results would be very meaningful or valid.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
in the Employment Act restricts departments from according seniority or numbers of years of experience extra marks in the selection process. Employees applications will therefore from time to time be most complete with respect to exact years of experience and in other cases will simply reflect the minimum requirements called for on the competition poster. Our promotion records therefore do not contain information as to the average number of years experience on all eligible candidates. Public Service Commission regulations in fact permit employees to apply in competitions even though they may have no direct experience in the CR group. Their indirect or other related experience may in fact be sufficient to meet basic requirements for any competition and any assessment of such an individual's average years of experience would be an estimate at best. It is nonetheless conceivable that an exhaustive review of all promoted employees' files (as distinct from competition or selection files) might result in an estimate of their years of experience at the time of promotion. We estimate that such a review of files might involve as much as 20 working days (one month) research by at least one employee and we are not entirely sure the results would be very meaningful or valid.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CLERICAL POSITIONS-YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
Miss MacDonald: In the Department of External Affairs, what was the average number of years of experience among those promoted from (a) CR-1 to CR-2 (b) CR-2 to CR-3 (c) CR-3 to CR-4 (d) CR-4 to CR-5 (e) CR-5 to CR-6 for each year 1970 to 1979?


Louis Duclos: As was the case of question 1,042 the department does not maintain appointment (competition) records for the CR-group for the years 1970 to 1976 inclusive. Further the principle of promotion based on merit as set forth


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Madam Speaker, as you have stated, the House has now reached the third reading stage of the bill which aims at increasing the Canadian participation in the International Monetary Fund and which is entitled "An act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act". Hon. members will recall that the International Monetary Fund was created in 1944 during an international monetary and financial conference held in a village in the United States called Bretton Woods,

July 15, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreements Act which is why these agreements are known as the Bretton Woods Agreements. As I said earlier, this bill aims at increasing our monetary participation in the fund.
Your Honour has stated that the bill has been reported to the House by the standing committee. The committee has carefully studied the bill. Many questions were raised about it. What is the situation of Canada concerning countries with balance of payments problems and what is the relative position of Canada within the fund? All these questions were examined in depth and with a lot of interest.
I would like to remind the House that the aim of the International Monetary Fund is to promote and ensure stability and order in the exchange rate. I would emphasize also that it strives at developing assistance mechanisms related to the balance of payments so that the member countries can rectify any temporary problem while disturbing as little as possible the international monetary system.
We have also seen, during discussion in committee, that the total subscriptions of member states is now $39 billion in Special Drawing Rights, and it will be remembered that the SDR is now worth $1.50 in Canadian currency. It may also be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that from 40 at the time the International Monetary Fund was established, the number of members has grown to 138, which is due to the number of nations that gained independence over these last 20 years.
The aim of the legislation is to increase Canada's quota to the IMF. It will be remembered that regularly, over five-year periods, fund members are called upon to adjust their quota. Indeed, the quotas are an extremely important aspect of the fund, because they determine the subscriptions of member states to the fund's total financial resources. The size of an individual nation's quota also limits its borrowing capacity under the various mechanisms of the IMF. It must also be remembered that these quotas determine the size of SDR allocations when these are issued. They also are of political significance, because they determine the relative influence of a country within the fund. It will be remembered that in the course of our study in committee, Mr. Speaker, committee members reviewed a table showing the relative importance of various member states, and Canada's relative importance as compared to other nations was extremely interesting. And that increase of our quota within the IMF will indeed allow us to retain that relative position.
Special Drawing Rights are a reserve instrument evolved from a basket of national currencies, a technique that superseded the original technique, that of the mid-forties until 1968, which was based on the gold standard. And currently, the subscription or quota of an individual country to the fund is calculated in the so-called SDRs, and as I said the Special Drawing Right is now worth $1.50 in Canadian currency.
Therefore this bill which amends the Bretton Woods Agreements Act is aimed at increasing Canada's subscription to the International Monetary Fund by replacing the amount of
$1,357 billion SDR's by the amount of $2,035 billion SDRs, Canada's quota. This transaction is part of our exchange operations and will have little incidence on our need for Canadian dollars. In fact, the cash payment in Canadian dollars brought about by this increase will amount to 'A of 1 per cent of the amount, or about $2.5 million. Twenty-five per cent of the increase will be covered by SDRs in the exchange fund; the balance, approximately $748 million, will be covered by term obligations which do not bear interest.
I would like to point ouj that if all members of the fund accept their respective quotas as proposed, the subscription to the International Monetary Fund will increase, on the whole, by $39 billion SDRs to $59 billion SDRs. This overall increase is designed to ensure a better balance between the importance of the fund's resources and the needs of members of the fund to finance the balance of payments over the next five years.
I would also like to say that Canada's acceptance to contribute this increased quota to the International Monetary Fund had been proposed by the fund's administrators and reinforces Canada's commitment during the recent international conferences to participate and see that the International Monetary Fund plays a much greater role to help countries experiencing problems with their balance of payments or exchange rates.
We know that since 1973, when the oil crisis became very critical, its influence was felt on some currencies and in particular on the balance of payments of certain countries. It has become much more important to consolidate the role of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even of private institutions to help countries having difficulties with their balance of payments to better their lot without creating greater imbalances.
Madam Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I wish to thank all members of the committee who took part in the work done in committee with respect to this bill. As I said at the beginning of my statement, the discussions were extremely interesting and I hope that the work done during the third reading by the House this afternoon will be as fast and efficient as that of the standing committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate on Bill C-5 I find it strange in our deliberations that we often spend considerable time debating matters of little consequence and yet with other matters that have tremendous far-reaching consequences there is often impatience to get on and pass whatever the matter happens to be. When I say that, I do not mean that there is any sinister motive on the part of members. I think it is largely a direct result of members finding that that which appears to be confusing, ambiguous or hard to grasp is something in which automatically they have little interest and they go on to the next thing that appears to be somewhat easier to understand.
July IS, 1980

I say that because I ask the House to be patient with me as I mention a few thoughts concerning the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, and the International Monetary Fund. Frankly, we are sitting in a climate as far as the world is concerned that is very unpredictable. We may be closer to an economic collapse than any of us care to believe. I believe the time has come when we, as perhaps the seventh strongest nation in the free world, should be addressing our thoughts, certainly domestically, to what we can do to try to avert this collapse. We should also consider what can we do of an international nature if the collapse is to be avoided.
I felt that in committee we had a worth-while hearing as to what were certain of the minister's views on this bill, the ongoing position with respect to the International Monetary Fund and what was the exposure. In short, I felt that some of the answers given in committee, while perhaps truthful and honest, were quite alarming.
First, I would like to recall for hon. members that as we live with inflation in this country, and to a greater or lesser extent with inflation in other countries, let us not forget that this is a highly unusual phenomenon. Inflation is not a natural thing. The byproduct of inflation, high interest rates, is not a natural phenomenon. I find it is alarming to hear, especially the socialists to our left-even their leader-rationalizing inflation and basically an unsound monetary and fiscal position as if it were something normal. I will come back to that a little later.
Let us not forget that when this country was formed in 1867 the world of that time, as far as economic conditions were concerned, was relatively stable. I think members might be interested to note that as we live with ever-rising interest rates and with an anxiety as far as the investment community is concerned in putting money out beyond five, ten, certainly 20 years, today the average investor is asking what he can get on his money for the next 90 days or one year. He does not want to know what he can get on his money for 20 years because inflation may be such that it has eroded the value of his money and he would lose whatever stake he invested.
Let us not forget that it was never always that way. For example, I have referred to 1867 when the world was relatively stable as far as monetary conditions were concerned. It is perhaps interesting to note that between 1860 and 1876, of 87 foreign government loans of $1 million or more placed in London, nearly half had maturities of terms from 100 years to perpetuity. I say to members, think of the contrast in the mental attitude then with that of today. People then were so confident with the well-being of the economic world situation that they were prepared, in the case of those loans, to put the bulk of their money out for 100 years to perpetuity. Contrast that with the fact that on a recent issue we offered 13.75 per cent on our money for 20 years and there was some doubt whether even at that price the issue would sell.
In committee I referred to an article that appeared only last month, on June 23, in the reputable magazine Forbes. The article is entitled "Recycling Petrodollars-How Much More can the System Take?" I invite hon. members to read this article. In particular, I ask them to note the two scenarios
Bretton Woods Agreements Act which the writer and the editorial board of Forbes magazine suggest at page 98 of the magazine, which reads as follows:
At the moment the world faces two equally grim scenarios:
Scenario one: Lending will continue to dwindle, and there will be defaults from which the various governments will have to rescue their banks. The poor countries will no longer be able to buy goods from the industrial countries, which, in turn, will suffer depressed economies and lack the means to pay OPEC. The entire world economy will sink into low gear. The poor will starve. The rich countries will stagnate. Even the Communists will have nothing to cheer about. The U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe depend heavily on world trade, and all seek cheap credits.
That is scenario one, Mr. Speaker. The article continues:
Scenario two: The merry-go-round will speed up again. OPEC will continue raising oil prices. The politicians, unwilling or unable to impose austerity on the industrial countries, will encourage the banks to provide plenty of liquidity both for their own economies as well as for those of the poorer countries; and inflation will move up another notch or two. For a while the faster inflation will enable the poor countries to handle the debts they constantly incur because they will be servicing the debt with dollars that are constantly shrinking. But the faster inflation, with its attendant disruptions, will end up by paralysing the international capital flows upon which everybody's trade and prosperity depend.
There is, of course, a way out. With a strengthened IMF, the nations might gradually accept a painful but bearable slowdown in their economies while the money supply is brought under control. This is probably the only way out.
I read that into the record as I did in committee because I felt that I would like to have a comment from an official in the finance department as to whether they felt that with those two scenarios, the conclusion of the writer of the article in Forbes was accurate.
For the record, this is what Mr. Hilton, a senior official with the Department of Finance, had to say. He had read the article. He read the two scenarios and he stated:
I think that the analysis probably could be in greater detail, but I think that the current trend of thinking in the western community is that inflation is the greater danger so that Scenario 2 is really not one that people are concentrating on or more to the point, they are trying to prevent, so it means that there has to be an adjustment process so that there is adequate financing through the world. That Financing is important to all countries, both developing and developed and particularly important to a country like Canada where our trade lines are more important to our economic performance than anything else. The problem is whether we have a system strong enough that can adapt and accommodate so that the channels of financing can continue through the 1980s. I think that we have a small period of time.
Think of it, here we are in July, 1980, being told by a senior finance official that, in terms of these economic conditions internationally, we have only a small period of time left to make the suitable corrections. Mr. Hilton went on to state:
I agree with the conclusion that no one country in the world is going to be able to develop a set of international policies, Financial policies or financial actions with which it is going to save itself. It is going to have to be done collectively and the collective implementation of that policy is probably going to have to be done through existing institutions of which the most important is going to be the IMF.
The possibility of finding some further strengthening of the IMF has been mentioned earlier today and that may be in the form of more direct participation by the surplus countries and particularly the OPEC countries so that the strength and the power of the IMF can be used for the beneFit of all its members.
I think in conjunction with the IMF because there is going to be the poorer countries of the world are going to need to continue receiving financial flows that cannot be expected through the private system, that we will have to transfer some of the aid transfer mechanism and in this connection, the World Bank is the most important organization because it is large. We can move large amounts of dollars and it works in conjunction with the IMF. And, finally, I think that
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
there is probably going to be over the next few years an adaptation of our debt machinery so that countries that do find themselves in payments problems again can work within a collective environment so that there is a modicum of equity throughout the world with respect to rescheduling, both with respect to government and official credits and international credits and also with respect to the private credits because they will continue, I think, to play a very, very strong role with respect to the transfer of resources to all the countries of the world.
I would emphasize this:
So, in brief, I agree with the conclusion that there needs to be a strong IMF and a strong IMF can work to the benefit of all countries both lenders, creditors and borrowers and I think that what we really need to do is adjust ourselves within the first scenario say, so that the adjustment process can take place without accelerated worldwide inflation which is to nobody's benefit.
I read that into the record because so many things that have been done by this government and are being suggested by our socialist friends to the left are totally inconsistent with what we should be doing domestically in relation to the international climate that we have spelled out there. As Mr. Hilton indicated, our time is short. It is very important that we as a nation arrest some of the things that have been contributing certainly to our falling dollar, high interest rates, high inflation levels and our current account deficit with the rest of the world.
Let me first specifically contrast the type of budget we brought in on December 11 with the present budgetary position of this government. Rather than, for example, cut expenditures, this government between December and April, when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) brought in his economic statement, increased expenditure levels in the country by $2.5 billion. He not only increased the level by $2.5 billion, but actually caused revenues to be lost by giving up certain of the tax revenue measures that our minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), proposed in his budget. The loss was $1.2 billion. Therefore, between December and April, our budgetary position as far as surplus or deficit is concerned is worsened to the extent of $3.7 billion further in debt or deficit, or a 35 per cent increase.
When we come down to the actual financial requirements, this government has led us into the position where, rather than have in a current year a financial requirement estimated in the Clark government budget of $8.2 billion, we now find it is estimated at $11.7 billion, a 43 per cent jump in financial requirements between December and April of this year.
The reason I bring this point in as far as the debate on Bill C-5 is concerned is that we must not forget it is the International Monetary Fund which is really our lender, if you like, of last resort. That is the fund we are eventually going to have to turn to if we do not right our own ship domestically. Certainly Italy and Great Britain have done it.
The available credits that are open to Canada in the International Monetary Fund are almost $9 billion, and they may have to be called upon at some time. However, there is absolutely no need for us to have to turn to the International Monetary Fund now or in the future if we take some of the corrective steps that were anticipated in the Clark government budget brought in on December 11. That is why we must first of all accept that we are in a world economic condition that is very precarious. Of the nations that are playing an important
July 15, 1980
role in that world economic condition, Canada is in one of the most serious financial positions.
It absolutely behooves this House not only to encourage but to make suggestions to the government as to how they can correct the irresponsible position which they led us into in earlier years. The reason I touch on the socialists to my left, who like to be called social democrats although I understand they do not have too much democracy in their party in Nova Scotia and certain other places-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The reason I want to touch on the socialists is that in their utter frustration, realizing they will never have an opportunity, certainly in this century, of bringing in a budget in Canada, they brought in what they called a shadow budget couched in typical socialist jargon. What could be better described as a socialist budget than a shadow budget?
If hon. members take the time to read some of the measures in that so-called shadow budget, they will see how absolutely irresponsible they are. With the international climate that we face, with a government which has lost control on spending in this country and is forcing us into a financial requirement 43 per cent higher than we felt was needed last December, we have the socialists egging them on to even more spending and a bigger deficit. That silly Keynesian type of rationale should should be left in the universities and practical people should be given a practical opportunity to run this country.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Don McGillivray in yesterday's Montreal Gazette put it rather well when he stated:
Canada's socialists might have got further in the 43 years since the Regina Manifesto if they had been as tough-minded in analysing their own proposals as they have been in exposing the sins of capitalism. A case in point is the "budget" brought down last week by Bob Rae, the financial critic for the New Democratic Party in Parliament.
What did they say in that so-called shadow budget? This is just a quick summary. They said they felt there should be higher federal spending, a larger deficit and higher taxes. Further, in their presentation of the federal government's accounts they felt there should be differentiation between expenditures which they call investments and expenditures which are not investments. So be it. What the New Democratic Party has done is this: they have looked over their old policies and brought them out again. There is very little, if anything, which is new in the pablum they spewed forth in the form of a so-called shadow budget.
Let us analyse the cost to Canadians should the government in a weak moment ever accept some of the things they are suggesting. For example, the net financial effect of the socialist plan would be to raise spending by a further $3.8 billion.


John Edward Broadbent: Wonderful!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! Mr. Hnatyshyn: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 15, 1980


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There. Eddie Broadbent said it, Mr. Speaker. He said, "That's wonderful!"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member knows, he must refer to members of the House by their constituencies.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When the people of Oshawa see the rising unemployment in that town they will certainly remember the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and how little he is doing to correct the unemployment in his constituency.
As I was saying, the financial effect of this NDP plan would be to increase total spending, not by the $2.5 billion by which those who sit on the government side have increased it, but by a further $3.8 billion. Their proposals would raise the deficit by $2.1 billion, which would mean a staggering $16.3 billion deficit in this country if the NDP had its way.
I do not think it is fair only to be critical. Some of the socialist spending proposals, taken separately, could be in the public interest. It is difficult to argue against implementation of the Hall report, increased skills training, an energy bank or measures to improve small craft harbours and expand research and development work. In fact, a few of their spending proposals reflect priorities of the Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There is an over-all problem, however, in that taken together, with no offsetting spending reductions in other areas, all the NDP plan does is increase government spending, thus leading to increased inflation. Any employment growth in the short term would very quickly dissipate in the absence of measures to encourage long-term permanent job creation in the private sector.
NDP policies would, in fact, discourage private sector investment. Increased taxes on capital gains would make it difficult for firms to raise new equity capital. The use of straight-line depreciation for tax purposes instead of the existing capital cost allowance would substantially reduce cash flow and would reduce the profitability of new ventures, thus reducing investment.
Let there be no doubt, there are only two ways to finance the deficit. The first is by printing money. This leads to an expansion of the money supply, resulting in increased inflation. The second way is by borrowing money, the line which the government has been left no alternative but to take. This crowds out private sector borrowing and thus raises interest rates. When the government borrows money its total interest costs go up. As a result, the deficit goes up. More money must then be borrowed to pay the interest on past debts. Whether the NDP decided to finance the increased deficit by printing money or by borrowing money or by a combination of two, the result would be higher interest rates or higher inflation or both. This is, presumably, the exact opposite of what they want to happen. Certainly it is the opposite of what is needed in the nation today.
Bretton Woods Agreements Act
I relate this to Bill C-5 because I believe that what the International Monetary Fund has been attempting to tell its various member nations is simply this: Get back to sounder management of your economies or we shall be obliged to come in.
It is not as though there were no examples of places where the socialists' experiments have been tried and found wanting. We know what has happened in Jamaica. We know the trouble that country has got into. At one time the socialists waxed eloquent about Manley and what a great job he was doing. Our little socialist, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is, of course, a bosom pal of Mr. Manley. But what happened, unfortunately, to Jamaica-its problems as far as the international world is concerned and the terms being set by the International Monetary Fund-could happen here if we fail to act prudently. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we have an excellent example of the way in which the socialists, following much the same views as have been put forward by the NDP financial critic in this House, have led that country to a position of crisis, one, hopefully, which is now being solved by a Tory government.
The bill before us is a short bill, basically to increase our contribution to the International Monetary Fund. It is also an extremely important one because of its international ramifications. It allows us, for a brief moment at least, to reflect on the consequences which could happen to Canada if we fail to set our own economic house to rights: eventually, the rest of the world will right it for us. And this has nothing to do with whether the rest of the world believes in socialism or not. There is only one economic law and we have been breaking that economic law.


John Edward Broadbent: Having listened to that speech, Mr. Speaker, I am even more convinced that the position outlined by my hon. friend from Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) so ably on second reading was 100 per cent cogent. I say this because it differed by perhaps 180 degrees from what we have just heard from the hon. member, who sits literally and speaks metaphorically to my right.
However, I have not risen today to repeat that we support this bill but for a quite different purpose. Given the answers we received from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in response to our questions on the pipeline and the ruling by the speaker earlier today, I have no option, bearing in mind the seriousness of this issue to the energy future of Canada, but to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell): '
That this House do now adjourn.


Erik Nielsen: Shame! Irresponsible!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is in order, and it is not debatable.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

July 15, 1980
Bretton Woods Agreements Act


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 6, in the name of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 10, in the name of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
July 15, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 12, in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved:: That Bill C-214 an act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the act) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-214 is to assert the primacy of the Official Languages Act over all other acts and regulations of the Parliament and Government of Canada in order to emphasize its status as fundamental Canadian legislation.
If there is one principle, Mr. Speaker, on which this House must be and is, in fact, unanimous, it surely must be that of the equality of the two official languages. The consensus reached on the Official Languages Act, when it was passed in the summer of 1969, is sufficient proof of that assertion. The willingness of the Canadian majority to accept the principle of linguistic equality has made remarkable progress during the last decade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If hon. members want to hold private conversations, I suggest they do so in the lobbies. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate your call to order. We therefore have reason to say we are pleased with the progress made. Still, that satisfaction must be tempered by the fact that problems have yet to be solved. I am happy with the fact that our official language policies have remained consistent during the last two years, and this is evidence of the high degree of unanimity among us despite the changes of government.
One may wonder about the priority which that principle of linguistic equality should hold in the scale of values of our Parliament. In other words, should linguistic equality be the cornerstone of Canadian federalism, or just one of its many assets? The government has already answered that question
Official Languages Act
both by way of the document entitled "A Time for Action" and by way of the constitutional changes we have proposed to enshrine linguistic rights in a renewed constitution. For some of us, linguistic equality is one of the main principles of our Canadian federation which must be recognized in a new constitution in order to be protected against any infringement. The supremacy of the principle of linguistic equality, at the very least in terms of federal legislation, is therefore unanimously recognized on the government side and, I trust, on the side of the opposition.
Some will say, Mr. Speaker, that we should wait till the constitutional debate is over before asserting and guaranteeing the supremacy of that principle. Can we allow ourselves, coming out as we do of a referendum campaign bearing on Quebec sovereignty, to exacerbate passions between Francophones and Anglophones with another issue comparable to that of Air Canada and that of les Gens de I'airl
The federal Parliament has the required political means to prove its good faith in matters of linguistic equality and it must act immediately in all matters within its own jurisdiction. It would suffice to modify the Official Languages Act, as suggested in Bill C-214, by indicating clearly that the linguistic equality rule set forth in section 2 of the act has priority over all other acts and regulations of the Parliament and Government of Canada, unless it is expressly declared that the other acts and regulations operate notwithstanding the linguistic equality rule in section 2 of the Official Languages Act.
This amendment has at least three striking advantages. First of all, it solemnly asserts the fundamental character of the principle of linguistic equality in all matters under federal jurisdiction. In addition, it does not deprive Parliament or the government, whichever the case may be, of the possibility of overruling this restrictive principle if it judges that a more important right or interest should prevail. Such would be the case in matters of public security, for example. Finally, it compels the government to assume its responsibilities before the people and before Parliament, thus dispensing the courts from playing their current role of scapegoats and having to decide, instead of the legislators, whether security, for example, has priority over linguistic equality.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Languages Act, as it exists now, does not prevail over any other ordinary statute of the Canadian Parliament. Regardless of its vital importance, it is just a simple and ordinary legislation which can be thwarted by just about any other legislation. As a matter of fact, this rule of interpretation was clearly confirmed, with respect to section 2 of the Official Languages Act, by the Federal Court of Appeal when, in the case of the Quebec Association des Gens de Fair, it handed down the following ruling:
It should not be inferred from the text of the Official Languages Act that Parliament meant that this power (to regulate the language or languages of

July 15, 1980
Official Languages Act
communication for air navigation) be governed by the provisions of that act. Only a specific intent clearly expressed by the legislator could justify such a conclusion.
When it adopted the Official Languages Act, the Canadian Parliament officially recognized the linguistic equality of the French and English languages in every area under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament and government. It must now, as the courts urge it to, express clearly its intention of making linguistic equality an overriding principle so that in case of conflict between any act or regulation of Parliament or of the Government of Canada and the principle of linguistic equality as expressed in section 2 of the Official Languages Act, the courts as well as federal institutions will recognize the supremacy of section 2. How can it be that after more than a decade since the enactment of the Official Languages Act Parliament and the Canadian government still have provisions which contradict the spirit and the letter of this basic legislation?
How can Canadians take their national Parliament seriously as far as linguistic equality is concerned when they see, for example, first of all, that Criminal Code sections 555 and 556 restrict their right to a bilingual jury to Quebec and Manitoba; second, that certain provisions of the Bank Act, specifically sections 82(3)(z/), 89(4)(n)(ii) and 89(4)(6)i) restrict to Quebec the requirement for a bank to advertise in French and English newspapers the sale of seized property; third, that several provisions of the Railway Act, for instance, sections 207, 235, 242, 243, 294 and 366-there are many-make it mandatory only in Quebec that the notices the railways must give the public about timetables and other pertinent data be bilingual; fourth, that section 159 of the Winding-up Act provide for the publication of notices to creditors in newspapers of both official languages again only in Quebec.
It is obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that such legislative provisions which are still part of our statutes in 1980 and which result in confining bilingualism to the province of Quebec only constitute an infringement of the Official Languages Act which is all the more serious because it is committed by Parliament itself and it is not the first time the problem has been raised in the House and hon. members made aware of it.
For at least the last three or four years several bills were introduced each session to amend those legislative provisions not consistent with the Official Languages Act as well as amend the Official Languages Act itself, each time to no avail. For instance, someone could challenge the right of railways to publish notices in French outside Quebec and on the basis of sections 242 and 243 of that act, challenge the right of a railway company to publish in both official languages timetables on its lines or notices about train arrivals and departures. For example, I quote subsection 3 of section 243:
Such notices, shall, in the province of Quebec, be written in the English and French languages, and, in the other provinces, in English.

Parliament has asserted in the Official Languages Act its will to grant the French and English languages "equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada". Further, in order to confirm that this declaration of equality was not to be limited to the languages used in providing services to the public but, that it applied as well to the languages used at work, Parliament adopted in June, 1973 a resolution which stated clearly that "public servants should, as a general proposition ... be able to carry out their duties in the Public Service of Canada in the official language of their choice".
The application of these principles of linguistic equality is an arduous business and gives rise to opposition and difficulties, as the Commissioner of Official Languages tirelessly points out in each of his annual reports. Despite and especially because of that, Parliament must today prove that it is determined to enshrine the principle of the equality of official languages in all of its legislative measures and in any regulatory action taken by the government. In other words, the principle of linguistic equality must have priority over all others unless, by exception, it be expressly declared in the legislation or in the regulations that linguistic equality cannot, for very serious motives, have precedence.

Mr. Speaker, pending the results of the constitutional reform, the federal Parliament can act immediately on all matters that come under its jurisdiction. In these troubled times when the Canadian crisis is more acute than ever and when Francophones demand the same treatment as their Anglophone fellow citizens, it is incumbent on Parliament to assure them that the act meets those requirements.
In my view, further provisions designed to ensure the para-mountcy of the Official Languages Act would achieve this goal in a decisive manner. This is an unequivocal declaration which, while stressing the fundamental nature of this act, repeals the other federal legislative or regulatory provisions which are now or may eventually be at variance with the principle of linguistic equality set forth in section 2 of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, even if the constitutional crisis had not reached the climax it has reached today, Parliament should hasten to ensure the paramountcy of the Official Languages Act. In my view, in order to show proof of its good faith in linguistic matters, of its regard for consistency and of the necessity to guarantee the Canadian people the most basic equality in the eyes of the law, Parliament has no other alternative.
The election of a separatist party in Quebec, the referendum held by that party on the issue of political sovereignty and the coming election are so many factors which prompt the federal Parliament to act immediately. Mr. Speaker, the least we can do, in spite of some hesitation in approving this private mem-
July 15, 1980

ber's bill, Bill C-214, is to refer the matter for further consideration to the new committee set up by Parliament to study the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which is to make recommendations to both Houses. If there is some hesitation in giving unanimous support to this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would be ready to agree that the matter be referred to the committee for further study, and as my time is somewhat limited because of the vote, I conclude my remarks expressing the hope that other members will give me their support.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would agree to withdraw his bill, I would move on behalf of members on this side:
That the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Possibly that would be acceptable to other hon. members in the chamber.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk on this subject as a Francophone from another area of the country. However, the hon. member and myself are neighbours in Ottawa. It might be possible, for instance, that because of our experiences and our requirements in the rest of the country, the very narrow principle of this bill might be prejudicial to us rather than helpful. However, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to something which happened rather suddenly, and I do not even know if the hon. member remembers that he is on a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate that will study the question. It is precisely because it is something that was studied and decided during the previous Parliament and which is now in the implementation stage, the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and I quote the Votes and Proceedings of May 23 as follows:
On motion of Mr. Pinard-
-government leader in the House-
-seconded by-
-his colleague-
-Mr. Lapointe, it was ordered-That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons be appointed to consider the report of the commissioner of Official Languages, 1978, tabled Tuesday, February 20, 1979, (Sessional Paper No. 304-1/301) and the report of the commissioner of Official Languages, 1979, tabled Tuesday, April 22, 1980-
And we have the reference number of that sessional paper.
Later, on June 9, the House passed the following motion proposed by Mr. Pinard, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, and I quote:
Official Languages Act
That the following members do represent this House at the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons appointed to consider the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Messrs. Beatty (Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe), Corbin, Gauthier, Herbert, Joyal, Kilgour, La Salle, Nystrom and Stollery.
Some members I see here, let it be noted, might want to participate in this debate. But is that the purpose of this bill? Well, I wonder for my part whether this should not also be referred to the same joint committee. I say that with the text and the recommendations of Mr. Yalden, the Commissioner of Official Languages, we could now consider the problems raised by the hon. member, and I would certainly agree to be on it.
The suggestion was made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) that the subject matter of the bill of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) should be referred not to our broadcasting committee but to the joint committee, and then we would have the whole thing to consider, and indeed I think a joint committee of the House and the Senate has the advantage of not being under the pressure of time.
Quite often, we have thoughts that have not matured enough, reflections made without enough consideration for the whole of the country. And here I must warn particularly my colleagues in this House from the province of Quebec. I say in all sincerity that, notwithstanding the fact that I am also a Francophone Canadian, that is a Canadian of Francophone origin and from western Canada, the attitudes in that part of the country are not necessarily the attitudes in this part of the country, not the ideas of central Canada. Indeed, here they want signs to be bilingual everywhere, French and English to be on a equal footing everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friends and colleagues are not aware of the difficulty we had convincing people in 100 per cent English-speaking communities to accept that any instructions or signs in post offices or elsewhere, such as in the Canadian National railway stations, at the gate of the National Parks or in the mountains either in Alberta or British Columbia, be written in both languages even though not even two per cent of the people who go there would read the French version. These are some of the problems we have seen. As for generalizing the use of French, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier knows that we share the same objectives.
However, perhaps I do not share his views concerning the means to be used. We have spent and wasted perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in the last decade, and I am thinking about the language program for public servants. This has failed. We simply have to look at the people we know who have gone through the Language School. Some of them have been able to learn the second language, and they are very happy to have done so. However, for others, it was simply torture. First, this has made people hate the language; second, this has cost a lot of money with which we could have achieved results much quicker by asking the co-operation of the provinces to train French teachers. There is a shortage of teachers in the coun-

July 15, 1980
Official Languages Act
try, a great shortage of qualified people-and I underline the word "qualified"-who can teach French to our young people.
I know quite well that in my area of the country, several school boards have not been able to obtain trained personnel, because it is not the first person named Jean, Pierre, Paul or Marie, with apologies to the ladies who are named Marie, who can teach a second language to children. You must start with the young children if you want to make progress. We have done so in some schools and considerable progress has been made. I am happy to note that there has been some progress, perhaps not as much as we would have liked, but there has been some progress. However, I would not want someone to impose something which might go against the objective of this bill, and I hope that my friend the sponsor will permit us to associate with the suggestion made by his colleague to refer the subject matter of this bill, not to the committee which deals with communications, but rather to the joint committee which was established and of which he is a member with some of our distinguished colleagues who are openminded and who might find, perhaps not right now, but at least in the near future, the means to meet the objective we all have, 1 hope, because there is no question that every party in this House supports the Official Languages Act. Certainly there is no question from this side of the House as to principle. Quite possibly we may object from time to time to the way it is implemented. Although someone may approve of medical science and recognize that some dentist is supposed to help him, this does not preclude his objecting to the way that dentist goes about it, especially if he breaks a tooth.
In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, if I may move an amendment to that on the order paper accepting the motion made earlier, that the subject of the bill be referred to the Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons established on May 23 with members named by the House on June 9, we would be ready to accept the motion.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement on this side of the House.
Mr. Lambert, seconded by the bon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) moved:
That the motion be amended by striking out ail words following the term "That" and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-214, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act), be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Official Languages.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker. I will take just one minute of the time of the House to indicate that we too are in agreement with this. I point out to the House that the special committee is meeting anyway for an organizational meeting on Thursday, July 17. I think it makes a
considerable amount of sense to refer this to the special mixed committee on official languages in which we are studying the Official Languages Act and the application of the act in this country.
1 do not want to go on at great length, but I just want to say that our party is one which has been a supporter and promoter of the Official Languages Act-

-since 1969, for 11 years now, and we still support the Official Languages Act in this country. In my capacity as a member of the special committee, I will represent the New Democratic Party to support all suggestions that are fair to the French and English languages in Canada.

I think there are many things which have to be ironed out regarding the Official Languages Act. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is making some excellent suggestions. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) made some other excellent suggestions, and rather than repeat all those things and rehash all of the arguments here in the House, I will save my comments for the committee meetings. I just want to indicate once again our party's support for the principles and the thrust of linguistic equality in our country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment moved by Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) agreed to.
Order discharged, bill withdrawn and the subject matter of Bill C-214 referred to the Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Official Languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
July 15, 1980


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres (for Mr. MacEachen) that Bill C-5, to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-26, to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There are two motions standing on the order paper at the report stage of Bill C-26. Motion No. 1 is procedurally correct, and it is the Chair's intention to put the motion to the House.
Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-De-Grace (Mr. Allmand), seems to be out of order on the ground that it goes beyond the scope of the bill. The long title of the bill reads as follows:
An act to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve.
I would refer the hon. member to citation 773(1) of Beau-chesne's fifth edition which is as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-
For that reason, regrettably, I cannot accept No. 2 and I must rule it out of order.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:: That Bill C-26, an act to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve, be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"on May 29, 1980, and recorded as document number 321-7/6."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Loiselle) agreed to.
Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act [ Translation]


John Carr Munro: that Bill C-26, to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Should the motion not be put by someone who is present?


Erik Nielsen: It should be put by a minister who is present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion is put by the
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). That is how it should read.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is better.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mark R. MacGuigan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief explanation of the purpose of this bill. The Fort Nelson Agreement is aimed at allowing the Indians of this locality the possibility of maximizing the revenue it can draw from the exploitation of minerals on the reserve. The act gives the governments of Canada and British Columbia a good opportunity to adopt measures which would favour the social and economic development of the Fort Nelson Band.
Among the 573 Indian bands in Canada, those who have the good fortune or the opportunity to benefit directly from the development of resources on their reserves are rare indeed. The report on the condition of Indians published on June 24 states in a striking way that we must increase the financial resources of Indian bands to allow them to improve their social and economic conditions. Now, last January an agreement was reached in the wake of negotiations held between the Fort Nelson Indian band and the government of British Columbia. Recently, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development had the opportunity to study this agreement of which we can be proud for, despite the contentious issues surrounding aboriginal rights, this is an agreement /which was negotiated willingly and in good faith between the

July 15, 1980
if;
Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act Indians of Fort Nelson and the provincial government, and the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development concluded that this agreement is truly in the interests and to the advantage of the Fort Nelson Indians.
Therefore, I recommend that hon. members here tonight adopt this bill on third reading. The bill will provide the Indians of Fort Nelson with considerable amounts which will certainly enable them to take their interests at hand-and this is the basic objective of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-and to decide their own priorities and finance them through the revenues derived from the exploration of natural gas on their reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party as well as from the New Democratic Party will be very brief tonight and give their approval to this bill. But I want to mention the excellent support given me by the member from Fort Nelson who supported this bill and I am convinced that such action should not go unnoticed. This is why I say this tonight.
Finally, I should like to point out simply to the House that this agreement applies only to the Fort Nelson Band and that it should not be interpreted at any time by anyone as creating a prejudice as far as the interpretation of native rights in this country is concerned. We ask you to ratify a very specific project, and this bill should not be perceived nor understood as having a wider scope. This is an agreement between the Fort Nelson Band and the government of British Columbia, the band being represented by the Government of Canada. This is why I want to repeat in a very formal way to native associations of the country that if we are fostering this project, if we are encouraging this kind of negotiation between a band and the different levels of government, it remains that it expresses the wish, the will of Fort Nelson Indians, a will which we respect and a behaviour for which we should congratulate them, considering the excellent results that agreement will have for each and every citizen in Fort Nelson.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to echo the remarks of the parliamentary secretary. I would be remiss if I did not stand in my place tonight and express some appreciation on behalf of my constituents regarding the manner and the expediency with which this bill proceeded through the House, the co-operation of all parties, and indeed the work of the committee. I want to return a compliment to the parliamentary secretary who can take some credit for the manner in which this bill was handled, for giving recognition to the members of the Fort Nelson Indian Band and their solicitors and for producing for the committee and its consideration a bill which was well thought out and an argument which left no doubt.
Some very serious reservations were expressed before committee by some Indian groups, particularly the National
Indian Brotherhood and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Indeed, I have had some concerns as well which bothered me throughout the negotiations that were carried on for a period of about five years. These were concerns respecting the implications that this agreement would have on the general idea of claims negotiations particularly in the province of British Columbia where, as all members know, the concept of aboriginal rights or special rights for native people has not yet been accepted. Of course we were all concerned that the claim, as it had been negotiated between the band and the provincial government, in some way could prejudice other claims that were being considered, indeed one particular claim before the courts in British Columbia, namely, that involving the former Fort St. John or Montney Band, now known as the Doig and the Blueberry Bands.
Because of the nature of the agreement and the fact that indeed it is the first time the province of British Columbia has come to the bargaining table and accepted in some way the concept of special rights for native people, all committee members agreed it was important that this bill should proceed in a manner which would not prejudice or injure in some way the agreement reached between the province and the Fort Nelson Indian Band.
The concerns raised by the National Indian Brotherhood, my concerns, and indeed those of the chiefs of the Fort Nelson Indian Band and their lawyers were particularly regarding the ownership of the resource. The agreement, as it is written, indicated that the province of British Columbia agreed to share 50-50 with the Indians in Fort Nelson the revenues or profits derived from the harvest of natural gas from three particular valves which are on the reserve. So, the province agreed to share with the band. In the view of the National Indian Brotherhood, it would have preferred if the agreement had read that the Indians were sharing with the province, in other words, vesting the ownership of the resource with the Indians. As we all know, it would not have been possible to negotiate an agreement of this kind with British Columbia which as I said earlier has not yet accepted the concept of aboriginal rights or title.
Also there was the question of arbitration procedures which involved the trusteeship of the federal minister. If something should go wrong with the agreement-and indeed that is the case with the James Bay agreement-the Indians in Fort Nelson could not initiate by themselves any arbitration proceedings. The federal minister or the trustee would have to do that on their behalf. I do not want to be unkind to this particular minister, but all his predecessors were equally guilty. The trusteeship, particularly in the case of native people in British Columbia, has not been a very honourable one. After all, if we look at the fact that this is the first agreement of its kind in British Columbia, it says very little for the trustee who is responsible for assuring that the legitimate rights of native people throughout our country are being respected and recognized. Certainly that is not true in British Columbia, nor is it true in any other part of the country at this point.



July 15, 1980

There are some peculiarities in British Columbia respecting court decisions which have set some precedents, and some commissions that date back to the turn of the century. First of all, the treaty was negotiated then. At the turn of the century in 1914 a royal commission tabled certain things in the province of British Columbia which are peculiar to that province. There is also this infamous Privy Council Order No. 1036 whereby in the province of British Columbia the government, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining public works, can in fact expropriate up to one fifth or 20 per cent of Indian reserves. That is unique to the province of British Columbia.
We were all concerned about that measure, but having regard to this peculiarity it was recognized by all members in the committee that it is a landmark agreement and we should, for the moment, be happy with it as it is.
I have a particular concern about the bill. It may well behoove us to recognize the standard clause which we build into all agreements of this kind. I refer to section 17 of the agreement, which reads:
No member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit arising therefrom.
I have no intention of becoming a member of the Fort Nelson Indian Band, although it would be a very lucrative proposition. What I am concerned about is that no member of the Fort Nelson Indian Band cannot in the future ever become a member of Parliament, because he would be a beneficiary forever of this agreement. It works both ways, and that is to me a very serious concern. I do not know any of my constituents who are members of the Fort Nelson Indian Band who want to challenge me for my position but, nevertheless, if he wanted to, he could not because he is a beneficiary of this bill. Hon. members should take note of that clause, and we should attempt to avoid such clauses in future bills.
I would like to outline a brief history of the agreement. There are roughly 300 members of the Fort Nelson Indian Band. They belong to about 35 to 40 families. The agreement provides for a prepayment of royalties and profits that have been taken from the reserve since the wells came into operation. At the present time there is roughly $17 million deposited by the province in a bank account and it is drawing interest. That account has been transferred to the trusteeship of the federal minister.
The calculations over the 20-year period would indicate that there will be roughly $100 million available to the Fort Nelson Indian Band through sharing in this resource. Each family will receive roughly $2 million to $2.5 million through their share. Indeed, for the moment there is no financial hardship which should inhibit my constituents in the Fort Nelson Indian Band from achieving a higher degree of respect and self-determination. In fact they have already made decisions which are in line with recommendations I have made. One of my recommendations was that there should be a corporation and an investment fund established with proper management to ensure that this
Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act
money will be available to the present generation and future generations as well.
The Fort Nelson Indians are very happy with this particular agreement. They do not feel that they have sold their aboriginal rights, whatever they may be, which are outlined in Treaty Eight. Nevertheless, no one has ever arrived at a definition of what aboriginal title means in this particular context. The natives in Fort Nelson do not feel as though they have sold anything at this point, but that they have reached an agreement which is in line with their legitimate rights and aspirations.
I, like the parliamentary secretary, would at this point propose to the House that this bill be passed without further delay.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-26 formalizes a surrender of natural resources on an Indian reserve to the government of British Columbia. It represents a settlement that is the result of a 20-year struggle by the Fort Nelson Indian Band with the government of British Columbia to obtain a share of the revenue from the exploitation of minerals on the reserve.
The people of the Fort Nelson Indian Band, by referendum, have indicated that this settlement is acceptable to them. They want this bill to pass, because without it they would get nothing. On that basis I will vote in favour of this bill, but I will do so with misgivings because this bill represents one more piecemeal buying-off of Indian claims.
This bill does not embody the kind of settlement which other Indian bands and Indian organizations see as being necessary if they are to get out of the kind of poverty trap that some members of Parliament bewail in a ritualistic manner every so many months. People from neighbouring Indian bands at Blueberry and Doig River have said that they do not want to stand in the way of their neighbours at Fort Nelson and that they do not want to oppose this bill and prevent the settlement from going through. But at the same time they are very uneasy about what kind of precedent this bill will set. In spite of what the parliamentary secretary might say, and in spite of any clauses which may be written into this bill, it does have that kind of effect, that it is one more precedent along the lines of the very unsatisfactory James Bay agreement.
Since 1973 this government has given some recognition to at least the concept of native Indian land claims and aboriginal rights, but the highly touted office of native claims has not been successful in settling these claims. Indeed, the Indian and Inuit people of Canada see that office as a stumbling block rather than as a help in the settlement of their claims. Indian people, denied a proper recognition and settlement of their rights by this kind of bureaucratic stonewalling, are becoming frustrated. The tragic poverty of Indian people, denied their rightful place in our society and their rightful wealth as the first inhabitants of our society, leads Bands to accept settlements which are less than satisfactory, such as we have embodied in Bill C-26.

July 15, 1980
Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act
This bill offers a cash settlement that on the face of it is very generous. However, we must remember that this cash settlement is in exchange for the denial of rights as well as for the sale of minerals. Bill C-26 will make it possible for the people of'the Fort Nelson Indian Band to assimilate on fairly good terms with the larger non-Indian society. From my point of view Bill C-26 does not offer much hope that the people of the Fort Nelson Indian Band will be able to develop their own identity, their own culture, and their own economy. It leads to assimilation, not to development.
Indian organizations like the National Indian Brotherhood and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs have indicated that they want settlements of their claims which will allow them to develop their own economic base. In turn, once they have this base, they will be able to develop their total society. Perhaps I can illustrate this by reading from the Nishga Declaration, a statement from the Nishga tribal council in northwestern British Columbia:
We as Nishgas, are living in a world where dynamic initiatives must be taken to achieve self-determination especially in respect of the natural resources of the Naas Valley, in order to control our own process of development within the larger Canadian society and to make decisions that affect our lives and the lives of our children. We realize that our struggle for self-determination will be a difficult one, but we refuse to believe that it is in vain, if governments and the Nishga people agree to their mutual responsibility for that growth and development. Nishga self-determination of resource development within the Naas Valley is the economic base that will allow for self-determination of the other aspects of modern twentieth century society that makes up this Canada of ours.
Also, we, the Nishga people, believe that both the government of B.C., and the Government of Canada must be prepared to negotiate with the Nishgas on the basis that we, as Nishgas, are inseparable from our land, that it cannot be bought or sold in exchange for 'extinguishing of title'.
This statement is typical of Indian statements from across the country; it indicates the direction we must go to settlements and cash respecting aboriginal rights. The Indian people want a recognition of their rights, not a real estate deal that will buy them off.
Indian people do not want a life of clipping coupons any more than they want a life collecting welfare. They want a chance to develop healthy societies for themselves and for their children.
The people of the Fort Nelson Band have had a long struggle. After 20 years they think that Bill C-26 represents the best agreement they can reach. Considering the negative attitude of the British Columbia government, and the indifference of the federal government, they may be right. But we must condemn the Government of Canada for making this unsatisfactory settlement seem so desirable and so necessary to these people.
Dealing with more specific issues, this bill has several shortcomings. Although it deals with Indian resources, it is a bilateral agreement between the governments of British Columbia and of Canada. This, of course, reflects the lack of standing Indian bands have in Canadian law-a bill dealing with their resources does not include them. This points to the need for Indian involvement in constitutional talks. The time is
past when they should be looked on as wards of the federal government. The time has come when they should be able to speak for themselves and sign for themselves. This becomes crucial when we look at the provisions for arbitration in section 12 of the attached agreement.
This section gives both British Columbia and Canada the right to apply for arbitration in the case of disagreement. But how about the people most affected by the bill? What happens if the people of Fort Nelson are not satisfied with the way in which the agreement is being implemented? There is nothing in this bill that gives them any recourse at all. They must depend upon the good offices of the federal government. When we look at the record of that government over the last 113 years, we cannot be very confident.
Last year this House unanimously approved a resolution calling for an audit of the government's handling of Indian trust funds. That audit has not been forthcoming in spite of the motion, and we are being told that there are difficulties. Indeed, many of the trust funds have not been audited at all since 1942. No wonder Indian organizations no longer trust the federal government. There has been no audit since 1942, Mr. Speaker. The government, however, has the presumption to tell the Indian bands that they have not properly accounted for the funds given to them. The House of Commons, supposedly speaking for all the people of Canada, now faces the same kind of stonewalling that the Indian people had to face when they asked for an accounting. We passed a motion asking for this audit but all we are told is that there are difficulties.
Speaking at the All Chiefs Conference at the beginning of May, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) made a commitment that he would tell the chiefs how the interest rates for Indian trust moneys were calculated. He promised to show a comparison of the rate for these Indian trust funds with the rates paid by chartered banks. The minister promised that this would be ready in two months. Although that time has passed, no such information has been forthcoming. In the face of this kind of indifference, incompetence, and unaccountability, how can we have confidence in an arbitration process that gives the Indian people no access, but instead tells them to rely on the good offices of the federal government?
As 1 said earlier, I will vote for this bill because it is what the people of Fort Nelson Indian Band want. It represents the best deal they feel they can negotiate. But I regret its inadequacies and I urge the government to clear the way for Indian participation in constitutional talks, a proper recognition and entrenchment of Indian rights and Indian governments. If that happened, inadequate bills such as this which do not touch the deeper problems will no longer be necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the two chiefs of the Fort Nelson Band who had the courage to take the initiative and get this agreement in place that is now before this House as Bill C-26.
July 15, 1980

The hon. member for the New Democratic Party who spoke said that the Fort Nelson Band was selling out their aboriginal rights for a cash settlement. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. He also said the Fort Nelson Band agreement would give them the funds to assimilate themselves with the rest of society. That is definitely not so.
I should like to point out that three years ago the Department of Justice sought a number of legal opinions to see if, indeed, the Fort Nelson Indian Band had claims to the natural resources that existed in their area. The opinions were to the effect that this was not the case. A private law firm in Vancouver concurred with those opinions and told the two chiefs and the band that this was not the case and that they indeed probably did not have any claim. The two chiefs then approached the British Columbia government and negotiated what is, in essence, a settlement out of court. I think they are to be commended for this.
We, the Canadian people, have said over and over again that the Indian people have to learn to run their own affairs. This is a prime example of Indian people taking the initiative and running their own affairs. They have settled out of court for an immediate cash settlement and also for a partnership with the British Columbia government in the development of resources on the reserve. It goes beyond the reserve, because they will receive 50 per cent of the revenue. In other words, they have entered a 50-50 partnership with the British Columbia government. I think they are to be commended for this.
This agreement can set a precedent, Mr. Speaker, but not one that is going to jeopardize other agreements. The bill has set limits in order to ensure that this will not happen, but it will open a new avenue that will result in many more agreements being reached with different bands across Canada because of the foresight, courage, and integrity of these two Indian chiefs in their approach to this problem.
I support this bill wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: As hon. members are aware, there are seven motions standing on the order paper at the report stage of Bill C-4. Motions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 seem to be procedurally acceptable, and it is the Chair's intention to propose these motions to the House separately.
Grants to Municipalities
Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) seems to be out of order on the grounds that it seeks to add an additional annual grant to municipalities which is not contemplated in the royal recommendation attached to the bill. May I refer the hon. member to citation 540 of Beauchesne's fifth edition and Standing Order 62 in this regard. The hon. member for Edmonton East may wish to offer argument on the procedural acceptability of this motion and, if so, I will recognize him for that purpose.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have been caught with my notes in my office rather than here, so I will speak from memory.
With regard to Bill C-4-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a convenience to the hon. member, I wonder if we could not take the motions in order? Let us do motions 1, 2 and 3 and then the question of order on No. 4 can come when we get to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If that suggestion is agreeable to the hon. members, we will proceed in that fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I think I can speak on this matter without necessarily having my notes before me. The first thing I would like to say is that we were very pleased to have the opportunity in committee to hear a number of witnesses from the municipal level of government presenting to the committee the very excellent case with regard to their views for receiving what might be called grants in lieu of taxes for federal property in their constituencies in relation to the services which they provide to the federal government for their facilities. There were, of course, several recommendations made by most of the people presenting submissions to us. One of the most strident ones was the fact that the minister was given arbitrary powers to decide matters of technical importance, for example, assessment procedures. As a result, we have proposed a series of amendments in committee which we hope to bring before the House. Nevertheless, the minister was very accommodating in indicating to us that he would be prepared to set up a committee to review the nature of submissions made in revising the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the hon. member that 1 invited him to put any arguments he had with regard to the acceptability of his amendment which we thought was not acceptable. If not, we will proceed with the bill on clause 1. If that is the wish of the hon. member, he will be recognized.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, on the suggested amendment which has been ruled out of order, 1 have already withdrawn

July 15, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
that in committee. In fact, that proposed amendment is already withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Therefore, is it the wish of the hon. member to withdraw motion No. 4?


William J. Yurko: It is withdrawn.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Yurko) withdrawn.


William J. Yurko: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-4, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be amended in clause 2 by striking out line 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
" 'assessed value' means the value attributed annually".


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


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks I will speak to the first amendment and the next several amendments and indicate, as I was saying, that the minister was accommodating in committee and said that he would set up a committee to review the suggested amendments. Therefore I made a statement in committee that I would withdraw amendments 1 and 2 on the basis that the minister would give us the assurance that the government would bring this bill back to the committee in one year's time after the committee which he had established, in consultation with representation from the municipalities, would review the suggested amendments.
On the basis of the minister giving us this assurance in committee, which we expected he would do in the House- although I notice he is not here-we would be prepared to withdraw the various amendments we had suggested. I am surprised the minister is not in the House.


Yvon Pinard: He is coming.


William J. Yurko: Again, on that basis we had agreed that if the minister were setting up his committee, to review this matter and the suggested amendments, not only by members on this side of the House but indeed by members from various municipalities making submissions to the committee, that if he gave us this assurance on behalf of the government that this committee would sit for a full year and bring the bill back in the year, we would be prepared to withdraw the various amendments. This was stated in committee, and it is again stated here in the House.
I find it difficult to put an argument forth when the minister is not even in the House. I say again that I am finding myself in some difficulty without being able to speak directly to the minister and getting his assurance that he gave us in committee. We wanted the same assurance presented to us in the House on behalf of the government rather than just on behalf of the minister. On that basis we were prepared to accept the bill and move it through third reading and therefore expedite the bill accordingly. I am waiting for the minister to hear his assurances before going any further.
[Translation}


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have had a conversation with the minister, and he did not tell me that he had any intention of making a statement in the House on behalf of the government giving formal assurance that these amendments or part of this bill would be reconsidered in committee. He has no intention of making such a formal undertaking here tonight. In these circumstances, the hon. member might as well try to justify his amendments. I am informed that the minister should be here in a few moments, and if there is any change in what I have just said, which is not very likely, I am certain that the minister will not hesitate to rise on a point of order to elaborate on what he told the hon. member. However, once again, I am convinced that the minister did not give any formal assurance that, on behalf of the government, he would undertake to reconsider the bill in committee within a year if the amendments are withdrawn. He could perhaps lead the hon. member to hope that he would be willing to suggest that the government reconsider some of the provisions of the bill, but as for providing formal assurance that the bill would be reconsidered in committee within a year, the minister did not tell me that he had done so. For my part, I am not prepared to give such an assurance to the hon. member on behalf of the government. However, it is not too late. No damage has been done, and if the hon. member wants to try to justify his amendments, we are prepared to hear him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have heard the request by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) and the reply by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). If the hon. member for Edmonton East wishes to be recognized, it will be to discuss the amendment he has before this House.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order rather than to participate in the discussion. It is with regard to the assurances we were given in committee. The minister not only assured us in committee that he was prepared to set up a committee and report back the findings of that committee to the standing committee in a year, but in fact released a formal news release to that effect which he distributed in committee and released to the members accordingly. On my point of order, I intend to disagree with this statement of the House leader. I wish the minister were here to assure us of the procedure he set forth in committee with regard to reviewing this bill in committee in a year.


Yvon Pinard: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, this is a new element the hon. member is introducing, unless I misunderstood him the first time. What he is now saying is that the minister did not give him the assurance that the committee in question would reconsider those amendments or the bill or part
July 15, 1980

of the bill within a year. The hon. member says that in committee the minister stated, which would have been followed by a press release, that he was prepared to consider the formation of a special committee which would consider the question and would see that it is referred to the committee. This is another story.
I was not in committee, so unfortunately I can neither deny nor confirm it. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Savard) is here, but 1 do not know whether he is in a position to confirm it or not. 1 see he is prepared to rise on the matter, Mr. Speaker, so I respectfully suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works enlighten us on this.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just said is in part quite true. We were in parliamentary committee and I believe the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) gave the assurance that, from now on, when the bill is passed, he would consider the possibility of getting together all the groups involved, let us say specifically to meet those people and form a committee, and in the future, to give more information and be more available to those people.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, considering that statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Savard) which clarifies the government position on this, I do hope the hon. member will be satisfied with that statement made in the House and he will be able to speak to the amendments he put forward or withdraw them and no longer question the bill at this stage if he is satisfied with that statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, otherwise I cannot object to the hon. member speaking further on the reasons for those amendments.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I direct it to the parliamentary secretary who witnessed the same procedure in committee that I did. 1 would simply like to put forward our understanding of the minister's commitment in committee. It was to this effect, that the minister shall prepare a report on the operation of this act and cause it to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of that act coming into force and that such report shall stand permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works.
The understanding I had from the minister in committee was that the minister would establish a committee of representatives of several departments of government to consult with the municipalities with regard to the amendments proposed, not only on this side of the House but by the various groups from Quebec and other parts of the nation which make submissions to the committee in the period of a year. As I indicated, he would bring this forward in the nature of a submission. If the parliamentary secretary will agree that that was what was agreed on in committee, I will then indicate that
Grants to Municipalities
we will be prepared to withdraw the amendments and proceed with the bill.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if it is correct that the minister made that statement in committee, and I have no reason not to believe the hon. member, then that commitment will be on the record. I am sure that the minister is a man of his word and will live up to his commitment. I do not understand why the hon. member is again seeking confirmation of that statement. If the minister made a commitment in front of the standing committee of this House and that commitment appears in the record of the proceedings of that committee, that should satisfy the hon. member.


William J. Yurko: Again, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This has gone on for too long. We have a commitment from the President of the Privy Council that if the statement was made by the minister in committee, he will stand by that commitment. I do not see why we should proceed any further on this. The question is on the amendment. Is there anyone who wishes to address the House on that amendment?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am rising on my last point of order. What we are interested in obtaining, and I assume I have obtained this commitment from the House leader, is that this is a government commitment rather than a ministerial commitment. Ministers come and go. What we want is a commitment in the House from the government rather than a ministerial commitment. I would like to hear from the House leader or the parliamentary secretary if they are prepared to give us a government commitment rather than a ministerial commitment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to listen to the hon. member on the amendments. I have told the hon. member that if the minister made that statement in committee, it will be on the record and he will live by his commitment.


Erik Nielsen: And so must the government.


Yvon Pinard: That is a conclusion drawn by the hon. member. He has the right to make his own judgment. What I am saying is that it is not necessary that this commitment be made over and over again. If it was made by the minister responsible in committee, the record will show that and he will live by his commitment. I do not see why the hon. member is insisting that the minister come back to the House and say that what he said in committee is the truth.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 15, 1980
Grants to Municipalities


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the amendment negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Yurko) negatived.


William J. Yurko: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-4, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be amended in clause 2
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "the opinion of a provincial assessment authority, would be ap-"
(b)	by striking out line 48 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "that, in the opinion of a provincial assessment authority, would"
(c)	by striking out line 6 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "opinion of a provincial assessment authority, would be attribut-".


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Yurko) negatived.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes be amended in clause 2 by striking out lines 37 to 46 at page 4 and lines 1 and 2, at page 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the point of this amendment was an attempt to bring some reality to the legislation. This act, according to the government's own statements, is an attempt to provide grants in lieu of aid in the same proportion, or placing the government in the same position as an ordinary taxpayer but, of course, not admitting that the government is
liable to a municipality for any tax. The point of all these submissions was to pursue that goal and make the whole thing more rational.
My hon. friend from Edmonton East directed his amendments to that issue and my amendment is directed to it also. It is an amendment to include urban parks as subject to taxation. I understood at the time that the minister was making an undertaking which the government now refuses to honour. I gather he was to set up a committee and that committee would look into the rationality of this act within a year. Since the government is not prepared to back up its minister with respect to this undertaking I certainly do not intend to withdraw my motion. In this sense I speak to it.
1 believe it is the due and right of every municipality to be paid proportionately by the federal government. If this is not so, then two things happen. You are asking, say, the municipality of Ottawa, to subsidize the operations of the federal government, or you are asking the city of Vancouver to subsidize the operations of the federal government. I think this is unfair and unjust. It is just not rational. Second, what it does is completely against the Lambert commission report which said that every government department should so handle its accounts that we might know the exact costs of each department. The bill before us and the proposals it contains giving the minister discretion not to pay tax to the municipalities make it very simple to hide the actual cost of government.
For those two reasons I think the bill is irrational and unfair and treats the municipalities of Canada in an unreasonable fashion. Until the act is changed and the government treats the municipalities as if it were a citizen of the municipalities we shall continue to experience problems with the municipalities, as was evidenced by the briefs they submitted.
The minister says, "We cannot afford it; we are following spending restraints." It is very simple. The province of Quebec has passed legislation. It has said, "Fine, we will be subject to the laws of assessment as they exist in the province, but we will phase in the cost because we cannot afford it." That is all we in committee were trying to get the government to recognize. It is a very rational thing. We cannot afford to do it now. Fine. But at least admit the principle and then phase it in. The government with its bureaucratic entanglements was unable to do this, and that was the whole point of these motions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.

July 15, 1980


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Dantzer) negatived.


William J. Yurko: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be amended by adding immediately after line 41 at page 13 the following new clause:
"18. The minister shall prepare a report on the operation of this Act and cause it to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the act coming into force and such report shall stand permanently referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works."


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Nowlan) negatived.


William J. Yurko: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be amended in schedule II at page 15
(a)	by deleting "3. Docks, wharves, piers, piles, dolphins, floats, breakwaters, retaining walls, jetties"
(b)	by deleting "11. Roads, sidewalks, aircraft runways, paving, railway tracks" and by substituting the following therefor:
"11. Roads, sidewalks, aircraft runways".


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Grants to Municipalities
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Friesen) negatived.


William J. Yurko: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be amended in schedule III by adding the words
"Harbour Commission Ports".


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Erik Nielsen: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Friesen) negatived.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (for the Minister of Public Works) moved:: That Bill C-4, respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with the full intention of making my intervention as brief as possible. I realize that the bill we are discussing is similar to measures which have been before the House on other occasions. It is not my intention, therefore, to slow down the proceedings tonight. However, there are a couple of comments 1 should like to make and I am disappointed that the minister is not here to take note of them. In fact, neither the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) nor the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is available on this occasion when the bill is before us for third reading.
2944

July 15, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
As many members of the Elouse have pointed out both in the House and in committee, this is a bill which is long overdue, and I certainly associate myself with those sentiments. There is one concern, however, which I would like to raise and draw to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. 1 trust it will be passed on to him. When Bill C-3 was introduced into the House last December by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), it was my understanding that apart from Ottawa and the national capital region-this immediate region-Kingston and area would receive priority in the administrative arrangements required in the four-year phasing in of this legislation. 1 was assured of this by the former minister of public works, my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I trust that the present Minister of Public Works will see that that commitment is carried out. The reason why Kingston and area are important in this regard is that one only has to look-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is here now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am glad that the Minister of Public Works has arrived, and I trust that he will listen to my supplications with a very real interest, because when I mentioned that there was special preference given in the preceding bill to the position of Kingston and area, it was because of the very large federal presence there and, of course, this area will be a major beneficiary under the bill.
One only has to look at the list of the holdings the federal government has in the Kingston area as presented by the minister in committee to see just how much of a federal presence there is in that region. One can very quickly list them: Bellevue House, the residence of the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald; the Canadian forces base at Barriefield Village; the Royal Military College; and then the large number of federal penitentiaries and related institutions. All of these are located in the Kingston area, and I know that those in the constituency which 1 represent will be very glad to see the passing of this bill. I trust that the minister will indeed see fit to give Kingston the same priority which was accorded to it by the previous government.
The minister has also stated that over the four-year period which will be required to phase in this new legislation an additional $25 million will be available. In the committee, as I understand it, he was not able to provide a municipality by municipality breakdown of the figures which would be received, how much each municipality or constituency would be receiving when that $25 million is allocated. I realize that because this legislation is bringing more property under the act, that is, property which still has to be assessed, it is not possible to provide the information I request at the moment, but I hope that the minister and his department will work very closely and quickly with municipalities all across the country to see that these figures are made available. Again, the reason is very clear. The municipalities must start their work of budget planning for next year immediately, and without a concrete figure from the federal government as to how much
they will receive, it is difficult for them to establish the priorities of spending that they would otherwise be able to do.
I have one final comment. As many hon. members have already pointed out, municipalities in this country face a wide variety of problems. This bill is not going to resolve all of them. However, it represents a move in the right direction, one which we had certainly tried to put into effect as the government.
I note that the minister has undertaken to set up a special task force to deal with problems which affect municipalities and which are not dealt with in this act, and I hope that when his report is made public-as he has mentioned that he would do-all members of Parliament will then have an opportunity to comment on it.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill for the second time. I suppose by now we are all familiar with its specific contents, but I think there are some general principles and concerns which deserve comment.
The bill deserves support because it will give further financial aid to municipalities, and that is worthy and necessary. In addition, the minister's commitment with regard to a task force to look into further aspects and problems with respect to this bill deserves applause, and we will be glad to see that report within the year promised and to see that report come back to the committee for close study.
Even though this legislation deserves support, there are still fundamental problems of principle with regard to it. The basic problem with this legislation is that we continue to operate on the basis of a grant system to municipalities rather than on the basis of the principles of a taxation system. That is, rather than the federal government's acting as a taxpayer like any other taxpayer in a municipality, the federal government reserves unto itself arbitrary authority to decide, in the final analysis, the amounts of money which go to the municipalities and the process by which the money eventually gets to the municipalities.
There was a good number of submissions before our committee, and I think that if the committee had wished to do so it could have had many more public submissions and certainly much more in-depth discussion with the groups which came before it. The other fundamental problem with this legislation is that there has not really been adequate and sufficient consultation and involvement with the people affected by the legislation to come up with what I would consider totally satisfactory legislation.
I am not asking for pie in the sky. 1 am not asking for something which cannot be done. I am actually seeking something which has been done already in at least one jurisdiction in this country. I think what we need is a reference of this legislation or at least its subject matter back to the committee, with the commitment on behalf of the government that the committee should undertake the drafting of new legislation based upon principles respecting the local taxation authorities rather than upon the notion of continuing the grant system.
July 15, 1980

This reference would allow for full involvement of municipal groups and organizations and local authorities, including the provinces, in the development of new legislation. In my discussions with some provincial people I have found that even some provincial authorities support many of the central concerns which have been raised by municipalities.
The basic problem with this legislation is that it just does not go quite far enough. The reason that that is important is that municipalities are the level of government which have the least revenue in the country. The federal government, by contrast, has the greatest range and depth of revenues. By not changing this legislation as much as it should be changed, we are in effect asking the poorest levels of government to carry the largest burden while the federal government gets away with carrying the smallest burden in the package.
1 note that the minister indicated an interest in revenue sharing when he was speaking before the committee. 1 think he was referring to the present federal-provincial discussions with regard to the constitution, and if the federal government was interested in pushing adequate revenue sharing at that level, I think that would be something which would be well worth supporting.
However, until we reach that nirvana where the federal government is willing to get behind the municipalities and fight for them to have sufficient and adequate revenues, we have before us this legislative measure. Before we move to a constitutional solution there is a legislative solution, and surely the basic constitution of the country is more than simply words in a document. It has to do with the way we practise government, the way we act. By adopting the kinds of legislation which would be most sensitive to the local municipal authorities, we would in practice be changing the way government is carried out in this country and changing the constitutional practice. I think this should be a notion which should be welcomed particularly in Parliament, because it has always been the tradition of British parliamentary practice to change the constitution by practice or by custom rather than by changing the words of a written document.
It is not only in the area of this piece of legislation itself in terms of revenues for local governments that this bill points to the shortcomings of the policies of the government of the day. I think that the lack of action as it affects municipalities and cities is also a grave oversight. I am thinking of the whole lack of any reference in this session in a comprehensive way to urban policy. When 1 refer to urban policy 1 am thinking about the need to co-ordinate the activities of either housing or transportation or programs for intercities in such a way that these things work together. I am thinking now of my own city of Winnipeg where the activities in what was known as the neighbourhood improvement program have often conflicted with transportation activities.
In Winnipeg we have a conflict between an overpass and a neighbourhood improvement program which is benefiting from DREE funds which have recently been announced for the
Grants to Municipalities
Winnipeg core area redevelopment. We will once again have this kind of conflict of objectives where DREE funds are obtained to redevelop the inner-city and yet the federal government is financing the transportation route and overpass which is going to cut through the same neighbourhood, thus making it a less desirable place for families. In other words, by cutting through another major transportation route, the area would be less desirable for families to live in, and therefore the federal government will be undercutting its own DREE spending.
Another fundamental area in which l find deficiencies in terms of municipal and urban areas is the whole area of Indians in the city. In this session we have heard from the other side of the House the government pledge that by the fall the government will be taking some action with regard to Indians, and yet I heard no commitment to any action for Indians living in the city. We find that there is a great need for action in this area. We hope that when the government announces its action with regard to Indians in the fall, it will include action for Indians living in the city, whether they be status or non-status Indians.
Coming back more closely to the legislation, I should just like to say that this is an improvement over past legislation. It brings about an improvement basically through administrative changes, and while those improvements are welcomed, it would have been far preferable if we had gone back to the basic principle and developed legislation which had real respect for local authority and local democracy and really reflected the desires and wishes advocated to us by representatives of the municipalities in this country.
IMr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much of the time of the House. 1 am pleased to see the minister in his place because I would like to address my questions specifically to him. First 1 should like to indicate to the House that the minister was quite accommodating in committee in meeting the demands of the various members of the committee. He made a number of commitments in committee with respect to setting up a task force and studying the matter for one year, with the assistance or involvement of people in other levels of government. This was a ministerial commitment and we felt that perhaps what was needed was a government commitment. 1 know that the proceedings of the standing committee are on record, but I wonder if the minister would clarify whether his commitment was a government commitment rather than just a ministerial commitment, because ministers come and go but governments last a little longer. So perhaps he might indicate to us at this time that it was a government commitment which he gave to us in the standing committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on the Minister for Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), 1 must warn the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 just have a couple of quick observations, one of which is prompted by an article which appeared in The Citizen of yesterday, in the editorial pages, referring to "Cosgrove, Friend of the Cities".

July 15, 1980
Grants to Municipalities
It cites two examples of the reason for coming to that conclusion, one that he has had the magnanimity to introduce this bill-which, of course, has been introduced in the previous Parliament by the person who 1 thought had the responsibility, namely, the former minister of national revenue or the minister of finance, because all the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) does is to assume responsibility for the administration of the provisions of the bill-and the second that the minister gave a commitment, as though it were something new, to participate in the Rideau convention centre, which, of course, was a commitment also given by the previous government. I wonder whether that will sound reasonable for this normally unbiased and impartial newspaper, The Citizen, in so far as the Liberal party is concerned, to have come to those conclusions.
It is something like the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) on Sunday on the program called "Insight", hosted by Mr. Douglas Fisher, who took credit for the implementation of project management and project control, cost control guidelines and control of cost overruns in Treasury Board as if they were something new. Indeed, all those programs were implemented by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), when he was president of the Treasury Board.
A more serious question to which I should like the minister to reply when he closes the debate is whether or not it is his intention to delegate all or part of the authority which is granted to him under the provisions of the bill to the National Capital Commission in so far as the administration of municipal grants in lieu of taxes is concerned because, as the minister knows, there are some 17 municipalities in the National Capital Commission, which body has, over the years, cemented a very close working relationship with those various municipal bodies. It was very strongly put, during the term of office of the previous administration, that perhaps this delegation should be made. While there was no final conclusion, because there was no conclusion of the debate on the bill which died on the order paper in the last Parliament, I wonder what the position of the government or of the minister will be with respect to the delegation of any part of those powers which are granted to him under this legislation to the administration of the NCC.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago you suggested that if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) were to speak at that point, he would close the debate. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seemed to go along with your statement because he referred to the minister closing the debate.
May I remind you, sir, that we are at third reading and the minister does not have the right to speak twice, therefore, he does not have the right to close the debate. But I suggest that since he was not here when the motion was moved, the House agree to let him speak any time in the debate. I suspect from the way Your Honour has been smiling and nodding your head that you agree with me he does not have the right to close the
debate. He may be the last speaker, but that would be accidental.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken. I wonder if we could put it this way: by unanimous consent of the House, perhaps the minister could be invited to speak at this point and close the debate. Is that agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should just give him unanimous consent to speak, even though the motion was already moved in his name. Since he does not have the right to close the debate at third reading-although he may in fact be the last speaker-let us let the rules take their course.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has not observed any other members seeking to be recognized. In the circumstances, by unanimous consent the Chair calls upon the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove).


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) wishes to be recognized. I hope by the consent of the House 1 can recognize the hon. member. I apologize, but I did not realize the hon. member was seeking to attract the eye of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By agreement the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Okanagan North.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words this evening now that the minister is here. Indeed the minister has been designated in publications throughout various parts of Canada as the president of municipalities. I think it is incumbent upon him to prove that particular designation which the newspapers have given him.
Once again I should like to speak to this act. It has been said already that the act attempts to improve the position of the federal government vis-a-vis municipalities. At report stage I said that it does not go far enough. The House should be aware as should this country that the whole place of municipal government in Canada is not recognized fully or appreciated.
I believe in an old political principle, that is, the political principle of "subsidiarity", which indicates that the laws should be made by those people who ultimately will be most affected by them. In that sense the municipal government is probably the most direct, efficient and best kind of government in this country. Certainly we have heard from many people that this Parliament does not work any more because it is overworked. With that understanding one should attempt to give government to other areas, but it is pointless to give responsibilities to other levels of government unless they are given adequate financing. I do not believe the federal government can justify its position vis-a-vis municipalities over the years in terms of financing.
July 15, 1980

I think the minister will agree with me. In fact the minister agreed at committee that we are not treating the municipalities fairly. His argument at that time was that under existing financial restraints the government cannot afford to pay or to stand in the place of a private citizen in municipalities across the country. I will go along with that. With the deficit the government is running and the built-in expenses which now exist, I think people on this side of the House would agree that now is not the time to solve the whole municipal financial problem because of federal government presence in each municipality. That does not mean to say we cannot admit the principle, that we cannot say we will allow ourselves to be subject to provincial assessors and their appeal procedures throughout the provinces if we do not like that kind of thing, that we will include all our property, including urban parks, docks and whatever which we now try to exclude, that we will attempt to be rational in our approach to municipal governments. Then, every year when we redo this act, we will not have the various assessors' associations, cities and municipal organizations coming to the federal government and spending perhaps thousands of dollars preparing briefs. I gather the minister agrees with the contents of them.
As has been said before by speakers in the NDP and other members on this side of the House, I am merely saying that rather than trying to increase, include and carry on the bureaucratic tangle which now exists in the act, we should rationalize it and place ourselves exactly in the position of a taxpayer. We should provide grants equivalent to the level an ordinary taxpayer, if he existed in a certain municipality, would pay. If we cannot afford it now we could phase it in just like the Quebec government has done. It is the only government in Canada which has recognized in a rational manner its obligation as a senior government to pay fair municipal taxes. Federally we should recognize that principle and perhaps phase it in if we cannot afford it now, which I think is true. That is merely the point I wish to make.
It is incumbent upon the House to encourage and support municipal governments. As I said previously at report stage, I do not think any municipality should have to subsidize the operations of federal government. Under the existing act, municipalities subsidize operations of federal government in their municipalities. I challenge anyone to deny that, that we are not paying our fair share of the taxes. We are doing one other thing. We are hiding the true cost of government.
Any department which owns buildings in any municipality and is not paying its fair share of the taxes is not revealing its true cost of government to the Canadian people. I think it is patently ridiculous that this House should support an act which to my mind carries out those two great indiscretions. Those two matters are really unfair. Therefore I appeal to the minister to carry out the undertaking he gave at committee stage to put this into the hands of tax experts in order for them to study the problem, bring it back to committee within a year and if necessary open up the act to rationalize it.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank all hon.
Grants to Municipalities
members present for what I perceive to be support for the bill before the House this evening.
Today I asked if I could be given an accurate number of the present members in this Parliament who had been elected to local offices, whether municipal offices or school boards, through the democratic process. I do not have that number, but with the support for this particular bill before Parliament on its third occasion, I can only guess that there must be a large number of people who, as I, have municipal experience and understand that the benefits of this act will be an improvement even though, as many members have indicated, it is not Utopia.
There will be a payment of some additional $25 million to approximately 2,400 municipalities from coast to coast across Canada. I thank hon. members who are present this evening for that support. In particular I thank my House leader and minister for agreeing to put the bill in this position so that it can be dealt with before the recess. In addition, I thank the House leaders of the parties on the opposite side of the House.
Although I have said that this is a small improvement, nonetheless I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member that the municipalities have not been "hard done by" by the federal government. Indeed, until 1979 the federal government transferred grants in lieu of taxes in an amount which was greater than the total transfer of all provinces combined. If one considers local, provincial and federal government operations in Canada, with local governments doing much of the work of provincial governments, the federal government has carried its weight. This evening we see that the federal government, with the recognition of the efforts of the party opposite which introduced this bill in the last Parliament, has moved a step further in approving the transfers.
1 would ask hon. members to refer to the comments which I made in committee in so far as that study group is concerned. I indicated I would address questions with regard to appeal provisions and ministerial discretion. With regard to the other questions raised this evening, given the opportunity, I will ask my department, which has now become the lead department in the administration of this program, to note all the comments made by all hon. members this evening or at any time which this matter was considered by this Parliament, whether the bill was in committee or in its earlier stages.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the NCC question.


Paul James Cosgrove: I will conclude by saying that I believe the government process in Canada works best when it is a co-operative exercise at all government levels-local, provincial and federal. I believe that it is a remarkable gesture on the part of this House to move to recognize the problems of local governments even at a time when this federal government under its jurisdiction is in the process of negotiating a new arrangement with its partners, the provinces.

July 15, 1980
Business of the House


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before the minister resumes his seat, would he kindly answer my question as to whether it is his intention to heave off any of his responsibility under this act to the NCC?


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked this question in his comments. 1 have the opportunity and the pleasure of leading this bill because administration was transferred within the last four months to the Ministry of Public Works. It was heretofore administered and under the aegis of the Minister of Finance. 1 can assure the hon. member that the question that he has raised will be one of the questions which I will address in the report which 1 undertook to prepare for committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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

[ Translation]

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I see it is quarter to ten or nearly so and there is a vote scheduled for tonight. Rather than start the debate on the next bill now that there is barely a minute left, I suggest to my colleagues that they agree to call it quarter to ten.
1 would like to use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say immediately out of courtesy for my colleagues that tomorrow we will be considering Bill C-18 first, to be followed immediately by Bill C-31. 1 have good reasons to believe after consultation through some of my colleagues that Bill C-18 should not require too much time tomorrow afternoon and we will once and for all be able to proceed with Bill C-31 which will allow the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who has been here since yesterday as well as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to make their speeches tomorrow afternoon, and 1 do hope so.
So the order of business of the House for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, is Bill C-18, followed by Bill C-31. If tomorrow morning certain bills come back from committees-I am thinking in particular of Bill S-2 and Bill C-13-we would like to call one of those bills as a third item for discussion tomorrow afternoon. I see it is a quarter to ten, Mr. Speaker. I ask that you call it a quarter to ten.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the government House leader for making this announcement about tomorrow. As one who has taken part in the discussions, I think it is reasonable to expect that we can deal with both Bill C-18 and Bill C-31 tomorrow afternoon, provided there are not too
many delays in getting started on government business at three o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to an order made on July 11, it is my duty to interrupt the business of the House for a deferred division on Bill C-3. Call in the members.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the taking of the division on the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-3, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the third time and do pass.
(Division No. 13)	
Andre	YEAS Messrs. de Corneille	HeesAppolloni	Demers	Henderson(Mrs.)	Deniger	Hervieux-PayetteBachand	Desmarais	(Mrs.)Baker	Dingwall	Hnatyshyn(Gander-Twillingate)	Dion	HopkinsBaker	(Portneuf)	Howie(Nepean-Carleton)	Dionne	HuntingtonBeatty	(Chicoutimi)	IsabelleBeauchamp-Niquet	Domm	Jarvis(Mrs.)	Dubois	JelinekBegin (Miss)	Duclos	JohnstonBerger	Dupont	KaplanBlais	Dupras	KellyBlenkarn	Duquet	KemplingBloomfield	Ellis	Killens (Mrs.)Bockstael	Elzinga	KingBossy	Epp	LachanceBreau	Erola (Mrs.)	LajoieBujold	Ethier	LalondeBussieres	Evans	LambertCaccia	Fisher	LamontagneCardiff	Fleming	LangChenier	Flis	LanielClark	Forrestall	Lapierre(Yellowhead)	Foster	LapointeClarke	Fox	(Charlevoix)(Vancouver Quadra)	Francis	LapointeCollenette	Fretz	(Beauce)Comtois	Friesen	LawrenceCook	Frith	LeBlancCooper	Garant	LeducCorbett	Gass	LefebvreCorbin	Gauthier	LewisCorriveau	Gendron	LoiselleCosgrove	Gilchrist	LonsdaleCdte (Mrs.)	Gimaiel	LumleyCousineau	Gourd	MacBainCrosbie	Gray	MacDonald(St. John's West)	Greenaway	(Cardigan)Crouse	Guay	MacDonaldCullen	Guilbault	(Miss)Cyr	Gurbin	(Kingston and the Islands)Dantzer	Halliday	MacGuiganDarling	Hargrave	MackaseyDawson	Harquail	MacLarenDe Bane	Hawkes	MacLellan
July 15, 1980
[Stage Direction]
++YEAS
Messrs.
Malepart	Parent	ShieldsMalone	Patterson	SiddonMaltais	Pepin	SimmonsMarceau	Peterson	SmithMasse	Pinard	SpeyerMasters	Portelance	StevensMayer	Prud'homme	StewartMcCain	Regan	StolleryMcCauley	Reid	TardifMcKinnon	(St. Catharines)	TaylorMcMillan	Reid	TessierMcRae	(Kenora-Rainy River)	ThackerMunro	Robinson	Thomson(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	TobinNeil	Rompkey	TousignantNicholson	Rooney	Towers(Miss)	Rossi	TurnerNickerson	Roy	VankoughnetNielsen	Savard	VeilletteNowlan	Schellenberger	WatsonOberle	Schroder	WeathcrheadOlivier	Scott	WilsonOstiguy	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WrightOuellet	Scott	YanakisPaproski	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Yurko-194.
Unemployment Insurance Act
++NAYS
Messrs.
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Broadbent
Deans
de Jong
Fulton
Hovdebo
Keeper
Knowles
Kristiansen
Manly
Miller
Mitchell
(Mrs.)
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Rae
Robinson (Burnaby) Rose Sargeant Skelly Waddell Young-25.
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


Madam Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, July 16, 1980