1981-07-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, whereas the consumer price index for June was 12.8 per cent higher than one year ago, which is the highest rate of increase in 33 years, and whereas the government for the first time in history has invoked closure to shut down Parliament in order to divert the attention of Canadians to the glories of international summitry and away from the government's appalling economic failures, national divisiveness, and cartel scandal at home, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House condemns the government for pretending international triumph when in fact it has produced tragedy in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, previously visiting heads of governments of Canada's closest allies have been invited to address joint sessions of Parliament. Canada has a close political, cultural and economic relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany, one of our NATO partners. In not inviting the head of West Germany, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, to address Parliament the government has slighted our esteemed guest, the people of West Germany, and the Parliament of Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House protests the decision of the government not to have our reliable friend. Chancellor Schmidt, address Parliament during his current state
visit to Canada, and that this House extends its heartfelt welcome to the head of the government of one of our closest allies.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, there are times when I realize more than ever how valuable I feel this institution is, and I must say that I deplore it when anything is done which does damage to it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House calls on the government to show respect for Parliament by withdrawing its announced intention to invoice closure under Standing Order 33 on the adjournment motion now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the tourist season in the country is in the midst of its peak period, and because of the potential of the tourist industry to assist in generating extra income for all sectors of the economy, and because thousands of tourist operators are experiencing severe financial hardship due to excessively high interest rates in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism take immediate action on behalf of the people he represents, and establish a program of financial assistance to aid tourist operators now when they need help and not after many have gone bankrupt or deeply into debt.

July 17, 1981
5.0.	43


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, whereas proposals to reduce VIA Rail passenger service are before cabinet and a unilateral decision without public input could result in the cancellation of the Atlantic Limited, the only passenger train which serves New Brunswick's three largest cities and all of southwestern New Brunswick, and whereas the government appears to be prematurely reversing the 1979 CTC decision taken after extensive public consultation and remarkable progress by VIA on the shortest and most widely used route between Halifax and Montreal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the government be directed to refer the whole matter of VIA Rail service, CN and CP charges to VIA, and the question of the VIA corporate structure to the CTC for public input.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the barley growers of western Canada who now find that their select barley has been rejected, and find themselves unable to deliver it because of the arbitrary April 30 deadline for quota re-assignment of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that there is presently a 100 bushel per acre quota on barley, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Canadian Wheat Board allow those producers to re-assign immediately their select barley acres or move to an open quota on barley, which would make re-assignment unnecessary and allow those producers to fill the Canadian Wheat Board's need for barley that is indicated by the present high quota.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has drawn attention to the ongoing service of Priority Post during the postal strike, this service, along with many private couriers, has been picketed by striking postal workers. In view of this further example of interference in the postal strike by the Conservative party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House pass the adjournment motion so that the new postal mediator. Judge Gold, is not sabotaged by the Leader of the Opposition in his attempts to end the postal strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Atlantic Limited is the most highly used train linking Atlantic Canada to the rest of the nation. Its use has increased significantly since VIA's inception of the service. Today, on checking availability of space, I have been informed that the train is sold out. This train of some 15 cars is usually sold out. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That, as it is the stated intention of the government to eliminate poor ridership routes, and as it is obvious that the Atlantic Limited does not fit this criteria with passenger miles continually increasing as well as revenues, the Minister of Transport assures the tens of thousands of people who use this train annually that they will not have this vital transportation link discontinued.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 17, 1981

[DOT] (mo)


EMERGENCY MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government recently introduced by order in council sweeping measures which give the cabinet broad powers to direct arbitrarily and manage all aspects of Canadian life, and whereas this was done without the knowledge, assent or consideration of Parliament, and whereas there are serious dangers inherent in this arbitrary assumption of powers in the event of vaguely defined emergencies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House opposes the imposition of order in council 1981-1305 giving the Solicitor General the responsibility to establish civilian internment camps, and directs government to bring the emergency planning order before this House in a bill which can be debated by the people's representatives instead of imposing these measures in secrecy behind cabinet's closed doors.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The budget of the government is in a shambles. The cost of living has gone up 38 per cent since this government took over. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House demands that the Government of Canada prepare a new budget which will propose an anti-inflation policy to protect consumers from the double whammy of inflation and high interest rates.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Trudeau government, at great expense-


Some hon. Members:: Order!
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: -to the Canadian taxpayer, has provided the national and world media with a slick package of briefing material for the forthcoming Ottawa Summit. Included in this material is a backgrounder on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in which he allows himself to be described as possessing "a keen, biting intellect", as a leader with world prestige, and as one who places party and country ahead of his personal desire to resign from the leadership of his party. For the sake of completeness, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the House calls upon the government to add to the backgrounder that the same man now has the distinction of being the first Canadian Prime Minister ever to invoke closure to close down Parliament to muzzle opposition criticism of his government's economic incompetence and cover up the uranium cartel scandal.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Prime Minister Trudeau-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -has become a great dictator with his clones carrying out his every wish-closure again-with this the First time in Canadian history that a Parliament has been adjourned in order to give the Liberals a holiday; and with the laying on of the Prime Minister's hands on Jim Coutts with instructions for Coutts to be named the Liberal candidate, etc., etc., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That this House deplores the actions of this dictatorial Prime Minister and his majority government who are betraying the people of Canada, particularly the Canadians who died in foreign lands fighting against dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question, in the absence of the Prime Minister-

July 17, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


James Aloysius McGrath: -is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. At a time when Parliament is being shamefully gagged by this government, we now face the highest increase in the rate of inflation since the immediate postwar period. It stands today at 12.8 per cent. That represents an increase of 38 per cent since this government took office.
My question to the Minister of Finance, or the Acting Prime Minister is: since we are about to close Parliament by the invocation of closure, can he tell this House and can he tell the Canadians what relief they can expect to get during the months ahead, when Parliament will not be sitting, from these rising prices in food, cost of living, high interest rates-the whole critical factor?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we are sorry that the figure is that high, but the hon. member is asking what we expect as relief in the next few weeks and months. Of course the increase in the month of June had been principally caused, in the case of food, because of fresh vegetables and all these items which, beginning in July and August, will not be imported to Canada any more. We will have the benefit of the produce being produced in Canada. Therefore, in terms of fresh fruits and vegetables, the prices are likely to decrease during the summer months, so that will help.
The second aspect of the increase in the price index was caused by the rapid increase in the price of energy. Of course I think that at least we will not be following the advice of the opposition party-to increase energy prices rapidly to the world level-because otherwise the increase on that factor would be even worse.


Some hon. Members:: Higher, higher!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Tell us about the cartel.


Mr. Clark:: That is a lie. That is a lie.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So there will be no more increase.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are a liar.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There were some in the spring, due to special circumstances, which will not be there in the summer.


MEASURES TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME GROUPS
James Aloysius McGrath: Increases in the price of produce have gone up by 37.6 per cent over June of last year. The Acting Prime Minister cannot blame that on the farmers. There is only one culprit, and that is his government, and he knows it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We now have the worst rate of inflation, with the exception of Italy, of any of the seven western industrialized countries which are meeting in Ottawa. There may be a
problem at the Summit, but there is a crisis in this country. I believe that the low income earners, the unemployed of this country, and the old age pensioners have a right to expect some relief from the policies of this government.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of State for Social Development, given the fact that the government's only response to date has been a $30 increase in the GIS, what relief can the poor, the unemployed and the old age pensioners of this country expect in the next three months when this Parliament will not be sitting?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think I said earlier that, on the contrary, I am not blaming the farmers. I said that the farmers of Canada will be helping us, because we will have their fresh fruits and vegetables to eat, come July and August. Therefore, the farmers will be helping us, not hurting us. I do not blame the farmers. I said that, unfortunately, the prices of imported food increased very rapidly in the month of June, and we had to face that problem; but because of the Canadian farmers the problem will not be the same in July and August, because we will benefit from the work of our farmers. Therefore, the hon. member was wrong when he made that accusation.
The opposition is asking the government to spend even more money at this time, but it is the same group of people who complain because the deficit is too high. The hon. member is asking us to add to the many increases that we have put into the social programs over the last 18 months. In many instances it was to re-establish some payments which had been cut off by the hon. member's party when it was in power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING USE OF CLOSURE
James Aloysius McGrath: The minister makes a very unattractive Marie Antoinette because what he is saying to the people out there is that during the month of June he let them eat cake because they were faced with high produce prices.
I should like to put my next question to the Minister of Finance, or the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of State for Social Development. Since this government took power the misery index that comprises the unemployment rate, the interest rate and the inflation rate, has gone up by a whopping 250 per cent. That represents misery. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, since the government has now taken the responsibility of invoking closure to close down this Parliament in the face of this crisis in the country, what measures we can expect-


An hon. Member:: Joe is in trouble.


James Aloysius McGrath: No, my friend. You are in trouble and your leader, and you know it.
July 17, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The question, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: I apologize, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Chenier:: Ask the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Groucho Marx always seems to speak from his seat.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order. We will have the question right away, or we will not have it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Surely, Madam Speaker, we are entitled to expect some indication from the government, since their monetary policies are not working, since they gave an undertaking that they would not-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The hon. member will ask the question immediately. One sentence, leading to a question, with a question mark-that is a question. He has had several preambles and I cannot be more patient with him.


James Aloysius McGrath: Does the Acting Prime Minister shamefully intend to adjourn this Parliament by closure, without doing anything about inflation in this country?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member in the first place that the unemployment rate in Canada is the lowest in five years and is therefore less than the rate that prevailed when he was a minister in the previous government. Secondly, when the Progressive Conservatives were in power economic growth was at an absolute standstill in our system. Since our return to power we have managed to increase the economic growth in Canada. Unfortunately, there is an aspect which we deeply deplore, and that is more inflation than we had anticipated. That is why the Minister of Finance is determined not to allow the government deficit to increase at the present time, which would only make inflation much worse. It is a situation we are now trying to deal with as quickly as possible, and this is no easy task, but I think that of the three factors I have mentioned, two of them are most significant. We have the lowest unemployment rate in five years. We are now in a period of economic growth, and I think that the policies of the Minister of Finance will succeed in the medium term in checking inflation.


CIRCUMSTANCES OF LOW INCOME SINGLE PARENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I want to direct my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. I would say to him, or to her, that the government is doing nothing while Canadians out there are hurting. I want to ask the Acting Minister of Finance about the case of a single parent, a mother, with three children, who is working but cannot quite
Oral Questions
make ends meet. This mother is without her family allowance cheque this month.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yet she has to go to the supermarket today. She has to go to the supermarket and she does not have her family allowance cheque. She finds that the price of vegetables is up by more than one third, and the price of dairy products is up by 15 per cent. Since the Minister of Finance said that he would not fight inflation on the backs of the poor, which is what he is doing, I would ask the acting minister what effort he is going to make on behalf of this single mother who may have to cut back on dairy products and fresh vegetables for her children, because of the government's lack of action?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, it is always very moving to single out an exceptional case and then try to appeal to emotions. If one wants the people to understand the policies and fully appreciate the current situation of the country, one should refrain from resorting to lowly demagoguery and make an effort to appeal to reason instead.
The hon. member said that the Minister of Finance has shown no compassion for the most underprivileged people in our society. I might remind the hon. member that when the budget was announced last September, her leader, herself and other members of her party were saying how imperative it was to maintain the indexation of the income tax schedules so as to shelter low income earners from inflation. The Minister of Finance did just that and therefore the people to whom the hon. member has referred ended up with $1.6 billion more in their pocket so as to be able to cope with soaring prices.
I should like to add as well that, when consultations were being held about the budget, we received many representations to the effect that certain social measures no longer be indexed. Indexation has been maintained for old age benefits, family allowances and all social assistance payments made by the government so that the most underprivileged Canadians were cushioned against the impact of rising prices.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO FIGHT INFLATION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, obviously the minister does not care about those many Canadians who have to cut back on dairy products and fresh vegetables for their children. He mentioned the Minister of Finance. In May the Minister of Finance boasted that the rate of growth in the CPI had slowed down from 1.3 per cent to 0.7 per cent that month. Referring to the slowdown, as reported in Hansard at page 9631 he went on to say the following:

July 17, 1981
Oral Questions
If that trend continues for the rest of the year, certainly it would register an appreciable drop in the over-all inflation rate.
That trend has not continued nor has there been an appreciable drop in the rate of inflation. Therefore what plans, projects or programs does the minister have in mind to take into consideration a situation that he did not foresee just two months ago?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They have nothing, and that is why they are running from Parliament.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: To
answer that question, Madam Speaker, I think we must go further than a review of the current figures which represent the increases between June 1, 1980, and June 1, 1981, and analyse them. As the Acting Prime Minister said a moment ago, roughly 34 per cent of that increase is due to the higher costs of energy, fruits and fresh produce. As the Minister of Justice pointed out earlier, thanks to the efficiency of agricultural producers and, of course, to the current season, deliveries of fresh fruit produced in Canada will appreciably lower the price of such foodstuffs so that the people about whom the hon. member expressed concern will find it easier to buy them at more moderate prices. If we want to follow a policy under which Canadians will be increasingly relieved, we must continue to support the gradualist approach of the Minister of Finance as well as the policy adopted by the government with respect to energy prices.


GOVERNMENT'S CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, a very interesting motion was moved earlier under the provisions of Standing Order 43 about sabotage. The only sabotage going on here is that of the incomes of low and middle-income Canadians by the government.
My question is for the Minister of State for Finance, and I am hoping for an answer to it today.


Charles Joseph Clark: You won't get one.


Raymond John Skelly: The CPI is up, the bank rate is to be sustained for many months to come, and as a result all of us will be facing many hardships. The minister falls back continually on the fact that we gave $35 to an already inadequate pension base and that we have indexed pensions. That is not an acceptable answer.
What consideration has the government given to alternatives that we might produce if we stayed on a little longer? What consideration has the government given to tax reform legislation, a cost of living tax credit, the setting up of a fair prices commission, and a reduction or an offsetting of interest rates? What other alternatives does the government have that may help Canadians?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the kind of measures mentioned by the hon. member are, of course, of a fiscal nature and are normally announced in a budget. Since the Minister of Finance has indicated that there will be a budget in the Fall, various measures are now being considered by the Department of Finance to cope with the economic situation. However, I would like to remind the hon. member that measures have already been taken and implemented, such as the Small Business Development Bond, which will be of great benefit in the present situation of high interest rates and which will greatly help the small business sector. There are also many other measures. The hon. member could refer to the last budget to see what has been done.


BANKS AND BANKING
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, these measures have been very helpful to the banks. So has the government's interest rate program. Its energy policy has been very helpful to the oil companies. The only segment the government has not been helpful toward is low and middle-income Canadians and pensioners. The minister mentioned that food prices are going up. Possibly he can tell us how farmers will be able to produce lower-priced food when energy prices and interest rates are going up? We are not going to see reduction in the cost of living.
There were questions about bank profits. What is the government doing to prevent the windfall of bank profits that is occurring under the interest rate program? Is the government considering using that money as a possible offset against high interest rates, and attempting to ameliorate the cost of living?


Walter David Baker: They are trying to run away from Parliament, that is what they are doing.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in his preamble the hon. member has referred to the lack of concern of the government for certain groups of people. In a previous answer I indicated that the basic concern of the government is precisely for those members of our society who need assistance the most, such as the senior citizens. The hon. member says that the increase in the guaranteed income supplement has been minimal, but it still amounted to $420 a year, plus the various increases provided by indexation. The child tax credit this year has reached about $238 per child. These are substantial amounts which apply to the neediest and the most disadvantaged in our society.
July 17, 1981

The hon. member would like the government to panic and implement such programs haphazardly whenever there are worrying signs in the economy. I must say that this is not how this government intends to manage the Canadian economy, because we want to take medium and long-term action which will bring back stability and not cause any upheaval in our economy.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the only panic in this House is indicated by the minister's tone of voice and by his lack of an answer. Maybe I can shift to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs because there does not seem to be much coming from the other direction. If that is care, 1 would hate to see contempt.
One factor, especially in food prices, is the degree of corporate concentration in this country and what appears to be absolute control over prices, with no competition. The taking over of Dominion Stores by Provigo is an example of concentration in the food industry. It is the same situation whether it is fish on the west coast or food in Ontario. Will the minister indicate what his department is doing to see that prices and the consumer price index are being held in line and that Canadian consumers are not being gouged by the government's failure to act positively for years on the degree of corporation concentration in this country?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, the issue of corporate concentration in the food industry in Canada is of course a source of concern for the officials of my department and for government as a whole. That is why we have indicated our desire to introduce legislation in the new session to amend the competition Act and specifically to restrict take-over operations in Canada.


COMBINES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the desperate attempt by the government to cover up any evidence of possible ministerial involvement in an illegal cartel. We learned yesterday that not only is the Bertrand report to be hidden from Parliament, but also the Henry report. Now the government wants to throw members of Parliament out of the House of Commons so that we cannot
Oral Questions
continue to ask questions about the possible illegal activity of ministers of the Crown.
My questions have to do with what the government knew in 1972. 1 would like the Minister of Justice to confirm the accuracy of the uranium cartel minutes of a meeting held April 10, 1972, in the boardroom of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources at which was present Mr. Jack Austin, then deputy minister of energy, subsequently principal secretary to the Prime Minister and now, for his pains, a senator, in which Senator Austin is quoted in the minutes as affirming that the uranium cartel "could later become illegal if orders have to be declined by Canadian producers as a result of the arrangement". Will the minister confirm that Senator Austin gave that advice in 1972, and confirm that the advice which Senator Austin gave in 1972 was correct?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has again spoken about illegality. Some years ago this government asked Mr. Bertrand to look at the possible illegality of a cartel operating in Canada. He took four years to complete that inquiry. He hired some outside lawyers on his own to look at all the files and to make recommendations. They looked at thousands of documents and listened to hundreds of witnesses. Mr. Bertrand and his lawyers looked at all aspects of the legality of the situation and made recommendations to the Attorney General of Canada that six companies should be prosecuted.
I received a report from them which I have accepted. I accepted that recommendation, and I am prosecuting the six companies that had been recommended to be prosecuted. I repeat, I have received a report. I hired the same lawyers who advised Mr. Bertrand, to advise me. They gave me that same advice which they gave Mr. Bertrand, and I followed that advice. All those who, according to the four year inquiry, supposedly committed illegalities, are being prosecuted. There is nothing that I can add now that the matter is before the courts.


POSITION OF CABINET IN 1972
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister once again refuses to answer the question. That indicates why he wants to throw members of Parliament out of the House of Commons. We ask questions which he is afraid to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since he refuses to answer, we must assume that the quote attributed to Mr. Austin was correct, that Mr. Austin knew, that the ministers knew, that the government knew in 1972 that this would be an illegal act. We must assume that. Let me ask another question about the same minutes of that meeting in 1972 in the boardroom of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, a meeting of the cartel.

July 17, 1981
Oral Questions
Mr. Austin, according to the minutes, stressed that the cabinet was in favour of the arrangement. That is what Mr. Austin said. Will the Minister of Justice stand in his place and tell us whether that statement by Mr. Austin as deputy minister is correct, and whether it is true that in 1972 the cabinet was in favour of an arrangement which it knew would have illegal consequences? Will the minister confirm that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister replied to these questions the other day. At that time the government wanted to establish an international agreement with many nations to protect Canadian producers against the activities of the American government which was shutting out Canadian products from its market. We wanted to ensure that workers in Uranium City and northern Ontario were able to keep working.
The international agreement was known. It had been discussed and agreed to. It was completely legal. The point was, as indicated by the Prime Minister, that this did not give companies in Canada the right to fix the price in the Canadian market. That aspect was referred to a commission. The commission looked at the fixing of prices by Canadian companies in the Canadian market. This was illegal, and that is why I decided to prosecute the six companies which tried to fix the price in the Canadian market.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the other day the Prime Minister said he did not know until 1975, and he did not act until 1977. This evidence by Mr. Austin, which the minister cannot deny-and will not deny because he knows it is true-indicates that the Government of Canada had the knowledge that this arrangement could be illegal three years before the Prime Minister admitted he knew.


LEGAL OPINION PREPARED IN 1972
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Justice whether there was another opinion by the Canadian Department of Justice, again in 1972, which indicated that the arrangement approved by the cabinet would lead to a possible offence under the Combines Investigation Act by 1977 at the latest. Can the minister confirm that such a report was received in 1972? Can he confirm that the Department of Justice told the then minister of justice and the Government of Canada as early as 1972 that the course upon which they were embarked was a course which could break the law of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat again that when the Canadian government decided to establish an international agreement to make sure that the Canadian producer of uranium would keep producing uranium in Canada, it was to protect the Canadian product against the actions of the American government at that time. That was
done. It was acceptable to everybody because it was the goal of all the people who were producing uranium to make sure we were not shut out completely from the international market because of the action of the American government. This was the problem of the international cartel or the international agreement, but it did not give permission to the companies to try to fix the price in Canada.
It was exactly this problem which was inquired into by a commission for four years. The commission had access to all the government documents it needed. Mr. Bertrand at one point asked to see cabinet minutes, and later on he declared he did not need them, so he had all the documents he wanted. He said that not long ago and, after four years of looking at all the aspects of the illegalities, he made a recommendation to me which I accepted. After four years of inquiry he found that six companies should be prosecuted. I accepted his report. The matter is before the court, and it is up to the court to decide.


DOCTRINE OF CROWN PRIVILEGE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, what Mr. Bertrand in fact said to The Toronto Sun-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -was that having access to the cabinet documents would help to confirm his suspicions.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Justice for the assurance that he would not invoke the doctrine of Crown privilege to block testimony concerning the cartel, or to block the production of papers concerning the cartel in the court case, a doctrine which has been invoked in previous instances relating to the cartel. The minister refused.
In view of the fact that the government is today using its majority to padlock Parliament, will the minister give this House the assurance that under no circumstances will he invoke the doctrine of Crown privilege to frustrate the attempt of courts to get to the bottom of this incident?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues established very well some weeks ago that when the source is The Toronto Sun it should not be relied upon too much.
The second thing is that I said yesterday-and I will repeat it for probably the sixth time-that in terms of Canadian courts dealing with Canadian laws and Canadian problems there has been a decision of the appeal division of the Federal Court which says that these documents would be available. I am facing a hypothetical question. I am the Attorney General of Canada. The case is before the court. I have no request from any court or any judge about documents at this time. I do not deal with hypothetical questions, but I would like to say that when we are dealing with Canadian problems before Canadian courts, the documents cannot be prevented from being produced in court because the rule was that foreign
July 17, 1981

tribunals were not to force Canadians against their best interests.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the minister is attempting to confuse the issue. The issue does not relate to the gag order. The issue relates to the doctrine of Crown privilege which was invoked by the minister of energy, mines and resources previously to prevent testimony by his officials before provincial government inquiries relating to energy. The issue relates to Crown privilege. The minister refuses to give any assurance that he will not invoke it again.


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN COURT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that there are some 40,000 documents Gulf has locked in a safe at McCarthy & McCarthy in Toronto, the release of which the federal government attempted successfully to block so that Gulf could not use them in its cases in the United States, and in view of the fact that the rationale used by the government was on the ground of national sovereignty, which does not apply in cases in Canada, will the minister give the House the assurance that he will take no action, including a re-amendment of the gag order or any other action, to frustrate the production of those documents or any other relevant documents which would be valuable to the defendants in this case?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said earlier-and I have answered this question many times-that there is a ruling of the appeal division of the Federal Court on that. I do not have to answer a question about a situation I do not face. Nobody has asked me any question in any court about it. The case will be before the court. I do not want to have the trial in this House of Commons. There are some companies which are accused. They have rights under Canadian law. They will be before the court. They will make requests of the judge and, if I am faced with some problems at that time, I will cope with them.
1 have given an indication that, in my view, when we are dealing with Canadian problems before Canadian courts in relation to Canadian documents, there are some rules which apply. The gag order will not apply in those circumstances because the gag order was in relation to the intrusion of foreign courts into Canadian affairs.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns another disaster which really must be dealt with before this House closes for the summer. There are tens of thousands of home owners who are very worried and are
Oral Questions
experiencing increasing tension because they insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. Their families have health problems. Their homes are worthless. Their life savings are gone, and the government has persistently refused to help.
In view of the fact that health officials in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have now agreed that testing is unreliable and inconclusive and the only solution to this disaster is to remove the foam from these homes, does the minister not agree that the government, which encouraged the use of this foam in the first place, should now have a responsibility to assist home owners to remove it?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, the answer is no, because we are not as sure as she seems to be. Testing will be done over the summer and the Government of Canada has established a centre which is already operating and which satisfies the needs of many Canadians. An inquiry under the Hazardous Products Act is under way and I think we will have to wait for its findings before making any inferences, despite the hon. member's eagerness to do so.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I do not think the minister listened to the reference about health authorities in three provinces having proved that this will not do anything to solve the problem.


REQUEST FOR RE-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I know that in times of difficult financial restrictions it is difficult for the government to find money to help home owners in the face of a real disaster like this. Therefore, I would like to ask the minister to take a proposal to the cabinet which would not cost extra money but would use funds which are already allocated.
Would the minister propose to cabinet, and particularly the Minister of Finance, that they re-allocate the $5 million budgeted for useless testing of UFFI homes, and will he also propose that they designate the $330 million recently approved for home insulation programs for use in solving the problem the government itself created, the poisoning of the atmosphere in homes?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the answer is no, since the programs and the funds allocated for such programs were fully justified.

July 17, 1981
Oral Questions COMBINES


URANIUM CARTEL-POSSIBILITY OF HOLDING SPECIAL INQUIRY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The minister is aware that the terms of reference of the Bertrand investigation were quite narrow. Mr. Bertrand, for instance, could not consider whether there had been violations of the Criminal Code provisions pertaining to conspiracy by individuals and corporations. Is the minister aware that Mr. William McKe-own, a former director of the combines investigations branch, stated that the only way to deal with the involvement of the government and ministers of the Crown in the cartel is through a special inquiry under the Inquiries Act, and is the minister ready under the circumstances to launch a special inquiry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is my view that Mr. Bertrand was in a position to make a full investigation of the matter. He stated publicly that he had obtained all documents needed for his investigation. He hired the best lawyers available under the circumstances. Those same lawyers are now working for me as Attorney General, with a view to securing convictions, and I am satisfied that the work done by Mr. Bertrand and his lawyers was quite complete. Further, I have no intention of recommending that a new investigation be conducted by anyone. I will leave it for the courts to decide.


REQUEST THAT REPORTS BE TURNED OVER TO ONTARIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the answer demonstrates that the minister is one of the most pleasantly incompetent and naive justice ministers in history. He will say nothing of substance in either language.
My supplementary to the same minister, Madam Speaker, is this. Mr. Bertrand could not consider whether there were violations of the Criminal Code. Will the minister have the courage to turn over the Henry report, the Bertrand report, and all other relevant documents to the Attorney General of the ripped-off consumer province, namely, Ontario, to see whether or not any person or company has violated provisions of the Criminal Code for which the Attorney General of Ontario is responsible, not the Minister of Justice and not Mr. Bertrand?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I am the Attorney General of Canada, and if there was an offence in that matter, it was against laws which come under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. I have fulfilled all my obligations in accepting the report of Mr. Bertrand and taking legal action against the six companies.
Of course some of the comments of the hon. member do not impress me. I am not at all afraid to compare my record in this
House to the nasty little comments he can make, once in a while.


Some hon. Members:: Bravo, bravo!


LEGAL ADVICE ON NAMING OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Justice. He will remember that on May 26 last he told this House, quite properly, that the final decision to prosecute was within his domain. Subsequently he said that he has acceded to the recommendations of Mr. Brown. The thrust of my question has to do with the recommendations given to the minister by Mr. Brown.
The minister is aware that a conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act. Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls were named parties to this agreement, and there must have been a reason. I ask the minister a very plain and simple question. What was Mr. Brown's advice to the minister in recommending that Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls be named as parties to this illegal agreement, but not the deputy minister, Senator Austin, in circumstances where he was the president of Uranium Canada Limited during the formative years of the cartel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the recommendations of Mr. Brown were very clear.


Charles Joseph Clark: And confidential.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He recommended that I take legal action against six companies, and he named a certain number of people and companies as unindicted co-conspirators. This is not unprecedented. In previous answers I gave to the House the precedents where, in three different cases of a similar nature, there were unindicted co-conspirators. It is a technique used to give them special status in court in order to help make the case against those who have conspired.
These people are not accused because they did not commit an offence. Mr. Brown's advice to me is the same that he gave to Mr. Bertrand. After four years of work on that file he concluded that there are six companies which shall be prosecuted, and nobody else. I have accepted his recommendation.


REASON FOR NAMING OFFICIALS
Chris Speyer: My supplementary is to the same minister. We certainly know what he has done; the questions we want to ask pertain to why he has done it. I ask the minister is it a matter of legal technique or a matter of policy that this agreement between Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls-because that is exactly what it was according to the indictment, an agreement to conspire to commit an unlawful act-is it just a matter of evidence and legal technique that they were named? Is that the only reason?


July 17, 1981

Hon- Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development): Madam Speaker, I do not want to start the case here.


Walter David Baker: I guess not.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said I have accepted Mr. Brown's recommendations.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have hired him as a special prosecutor in this case. He will have all his documents in front of the court and he will use them in order to have the six companies found guilty. His best judgment, accepted by Mr. Bertrand, was that the six companies should be prosecuted and no one else. I have accepted that recommendation, both from Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Brown, and I hope they will be successful in proving in court that the six companies involved are guilty of conspiring to fix prices in Canada.
According to Mr. Brown and Mr. Bertrand, the others were not part of it. After four years of hard work on that matter, I have no reason not to accept their recommendations, or change them.


CABINET POSITION RESPECTING URANIUM CANADA
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, one thing the minister cannot deny is that the Bertrand report recommended the prosecution of Uranium Canada. The minister will know that Uranium Canada is a shell company. I have the letters patent and certificate of continuance with respect to that corporation, which indicate that anything that company does is done under order in council. It is not run by a board of directors, it is run by the cabinet.


Charles Joseph Clark: By ministers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister has attempted to avoid taking any responsibility in this matter. Will he not now do the honourable thing, stand in his place and not let two public servants wither on the vine? Will he stand up and admit the fact that the Government of Canada, the cabinet in fact, was involved directly with Uranium Canada, and in fact was aware precisely of what was going on and stands convicted in this House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to say I have done the honourable thing.


An hon. Member:: Oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 have accepted the recommendations of Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Brown. Not only that-


Charles Joseph Clark: But you will not publish them. You hide them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -I have asked Mr. Brown to be the special prosecutor in the case. On top of that, I took that on my own
Motion to Adjourn
responsibility. I did not discuss that in cabinet with my colleagues. I faced all my responsibilities as Attorney General and it was only after the charges were laid in Toronto that I informed cabinet of the action I had taken.
I felt it was my duty as Attorney General to take the best advice I could get in this matter, which was from the people who did the inquiry. In fact I did not seek the opinion of the Department of Justice; I relied on the opinion of the lawyers hired independently by Mr. Bertrand. And I accepted the advice of Mr. Bertrand, too.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the sixty-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, under the order of motions, and because I am deeply disturbed over what the government plans to do today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.

July 17, 1981
Motion to Adjourn
And more than five members having risen:	Madam Speaker: I declare the motion lost.


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.	Motion (Mr. Knowles) negatived.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Althouse
Benjamin
Biaikie
Cossitt
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworthy
Bachand
Baker
(Gander-Twillingate)
Baker
(Nepean-Carleton) Beatty Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blaker
Blenkarn
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bradley
Breau
Burghardt
Caccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Nova) Campbell
(Cardigan)
Cardiff
Chenier
Chretien
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Collenette Cook Cooper Corbin Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crouse
Cullen
Darling
Dawson
de Corneille
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois Dupont Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Fennell
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
de Jong Ittinuar Knowles Kristiansen
++NAYS
Messrs.
Flis
Foster
Fraser
Frith
Garant
Gass
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Gurbin
Halliday
Hargrave
Henderson
Herbert
Hnatyshyn
Hopkins
Howie
Hudecki
Huntington
Irwin
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Kempling
Korchinski
Kushner
Lachance
Lajoie
Lamontagne
Lang
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Lefebvre
Lewis
Loiselle
Lonsdale
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald
(Miss)
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
Mayer
Miller Mitchell (Mrs.) Skelly- II.
Mazankowski
McCain
McCauley
McCuish
McDermid
McGrath
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
McRae
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson
(Miss)
Nowlan
Oberle
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)
Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Rossi
Roy
Schroder
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Simmons Speyer Tardif Taylor Tessier Thacker Tobin Tousignant Towers Turner Vankoughnet Veillette Watson Weatherhead Wilson
Wright-160.
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just had an opportunity to read the "blues" for earlier in the day, and 1 note that during remarks by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in an exchange between the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) I am quoted in Hansard as saying, in reference to the comments of the Minister of Justice: "That is a lie. That is a lie". Later I am quoted as saying to the Minister of Justice: "You are a liar".
Whatever I might think about the conduct and probity of the Minister of Justice, those remarks are unparliamentary and I would like to withdraw them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That point of order is well taken.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 901, 1,977, 2,288, 2,514, 2,608 and 2,614.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80, what was the number and total value of contracts let under the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP) (i) between $0 and $50,000 (ii) between $50,001 and $100,000 (iii) between $100,001 and $500,000 (iv) between $500,001 and $1,000,000 (v) over $1,000,000 (vi) in total?
2.	For the same years, what were the expenditures under the program in the (a) Textile and Consumer Products Branch (b) Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Products Branch (c) Chemicals Branch (d) Electrical and Electronics Branch (e) Machinery Branch (f) Resource Industries Branch (g) Construction and Consulting Services Branch?
3.	What was the total for all the branches listed in part 2?
4.	For the same years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the program?
July 17, 1981

Order Paper Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. For the number and value of contracts let under the DIP program in 1978-79 and 1979-80, see list below.
2 and 3. Expenditures made by branches under the DIP Program and the total expenditure for 1978-79 and 1979-80 are given in list below.
4. The geographical distribution of DIP funds is given in list below.
Alberta
Contributions	92,500	
Grants	98,052	5,700
British Columbia		
Contributions	264,538	73.504Grants	64,821	999,563Total	Contributions	45,922,485	37,806,853Grants	6,277,515	11,093,147$52,200,000	$48,900,000
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP)
Number and Total Value of Contracts
1978-79	1979-80
No.	Value No.	Value$0 to $50,000	8	$ 281,991 9	$ 275,434$50,001 to $100,000	7	525,885 8	695,421$100,001 to $500,000	34	8,352,466 27	7,893,844$500,001 to $1,000,000	10	6,685,872 7	5,399,282$1,000,001 & Over	11	49,885,560 9	27,342,930Total	70	$65,731,774 60	$41,606,911Expenditi	ures	1978-79	1979-80Textile & Consumer Products Branch	Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Products Branch	Chemicals Branch	2,578,879	1,291,379Electrical & Electronics Branch	10,593,036	12,494,602Machinery Branch	255,957	16,171Resource Industries Branch	617.712	1,518,275Transportation Industries Branch	36,926,840	33,266,846Defence Programs Branch	1,227,576	312,727Total	$52,200,000	$48,900,000Geographic Distribution	1978-79	1979-80Newfoundland	Contributions Grants	Nova Scotia	Contributions	8,173	15,628Grants	13,599	154,839New Brunswick	Contributions Grants	16,235	Prince Edward Island	Contributions Grants	Ontario	Contributions	23,981,737	15,053,360Grants	3,243,874	4,684,280Quebec	Contributions	21,575,537	22,664,361Grants	2,840,934	5,248,765
Manitoba
Contributions
Grants
Saskatchewan
Contributions
Grants


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account as at March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal year ended on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a)	1978-March 31	$685,317,113.70(b)	1979-March 31	$775,338,253.37(c)	1980-March 31	$886,083,228.512.	Interest is paid quarterly and the annual rate has been computed as follows:1977-	19781978-	19791979-	1980 3. (a) 1977-1978(b)	1978-1979(c)	1979-1980
7.32 per cent 5.77 per cent 6.36 per cent


[Stage Direction]
The rate of interest paid into the RCMP superannuation account does not in any way affect the amount of benefits paid to retired members. The benefit is computed on an employee's length of service and the average salary received over the highest paid six consecutive years of service.
4. (a) 1977-1978
(b)	1978-1979
(c)	1979-1980
Mr. Stewart: Since 1945, were charges laid against individuals under the Official Secrets Act and, if so (a) how many (b) how many (i) were withdrawn or dropped by the Crown (ii) resulted in acquittals or dismissals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department of Justice: 1. Yes. (a) 25, (b) (i) 1, (ii) 13.

July 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions VERAPAMIL


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware that a drug, generic name verapamil and trade name Calan or Isoptin, is about to be placed on the market in the United States?
2.	Does the government have information with regard to the value of the drug for angina, arhythmias, abnormal heartbeats or other heart disorders and, if so, what is the information?
3.	Was the drug tested in Canada and, if so, what are its merits?
4.	Will the drug be approved for sale in Canada and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. Verapamil in the injectable form is about to be approved in the United States. No. Oral form is under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but has not been presented to their cardiovascular and renal advisory committee for their consideration. According to the information available to the Department of National Health and Welfare, there is no definite projected date for approval in the United States.
2.	Yes. A new drug submission for Verapamil injection under trade name of Isoptin has received a notice of compliance. A new drug submission for tablets is being reviewed at present. Results of the review should be available in the near future.
3.	The drug was/is being tested in Canada. Preliminary information indicates that the drug is likely to be effective in angina pectoris, and cardiac arrhythmias.
4.	Verapamil injection was approved by the health protection branch on May 22, 1979, for the treatment of arrhythmias, and is now available as a prescription medication. Tablets can be expected to be approved barring any new adverse information. The projected marketing date for tablets is 1982.


Mr. Lawrence: What are the names of all lawyers and/or legal firms within the constituency of Durham-Northumberland who have received or are receiving payments from the government for legal work since the government took office following the 1980 general election and, in each case, what was/is the amount?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Department of Justice:
Names	Amounts
Brooks, Harrison & Company	$13,935.45
Clark, James	$ 1,696.63
Fitzgibbon, C.D.	$23,704.27
Hamilton, Irwin A.	$	229.25Irvine & Irvine	$	154.00
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT-T & H PRINTERS LTD.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of the Environment issue contracts to T & H Printers Ltd., for $65,000 and for $42,000 for perfect bound booklets and, if so (a) what are the titles (b) what is the (i) number printed (ii) cost per booklet (c) to whom will they be distributed?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Supply and Services as follows: DSS awarded two contracts, for perfect bound booklets, to T & H Printers Ltd., on behalf of the Department of the Environment: one for $65,000 and the second one for $42,000.
Contract for $65,000
(a)	(i) History and Archaeology.
(b)	(i) The contract calls for a series of ten publications
with an option for up to 20 additional issues. The number printed is to be determined at time of order.
(ii) The contract specifies that for a basic 75 French copies of 100 pages, the cost will be $912.00 and for a basic 100 English copies of 400 pages, the cost will be $3,178.00. There will be extra charges for additional pages, halftones, etc. and these are included in the total value of the contract.
(c)	Department of the Environment distributes copies History and Archaeology primarily to Parks Canada offices nationwide as working documents; in addition, copies are sent to the National Library, the Library of Parliament and to the National and Provincial Archives. DSS distributes free of charge to the principal libraries in the country using a computerized mailing list, and will supply to others upon request; copies are sold to non-governmental researchers and to the general public through authorized retail outlets and directly in response to mail orders.
Contract for $42,000
(a)	(i) Surface Water Data Publications.
(b)	(i) The contract calls for ten books during the fiscal
year 1981-82. The number printed is to be determined at time of order.
(ii) The contract specifies that the cost for 650 copies will be $74.90 per 100 pages saddle stitched and $223.00 per 100 pages perfect bound. There will be extra charges for additional pages, halftones, screened areas, etc. and these are included in the total value of the contract.
(c)	The water resources branch distributes data publications to approximately 1100 agencies whose names and addresses are maintained on a mailing list. These agencies include federal government departments, provincial governments, American and foreign governments, municipal governments, universities, consultants, public and private utilities, libraries and private individuals.
July 17, 1981

Publications are also supplied to users (whose names are not on the mailing list) upon request. In addition, 200 copies of each publication are supplied to the Department of Supply and Services for distribution to government depositories.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 33, I move, seconded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
That debate on the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Government Orders, Government business, Number 51) regarding adjournment of the House to October 14, 1981 and any amendment or subamendment thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think now it would be in order for us to proceed with the vote without the ringing of the bells.
Summer Recess


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried. Motion agreed to.
Summer Recess



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its "business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Madam Speaker:: Order. Before I recognize the first speaker, I should like to point out to the House that normally, when such a debate is held, the Standing Orders provide that we recess for dinner from six o'clock to eight o'clock. Nothing is provided for Friday. The Standing Orders mention Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, but not Friday. I suppose you may decide that we should recess from six o'clock to eight o'clock, as if it were a regular week day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if that was put as a question to the House, then we would say no to the question.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I understand that you did not put a motion to that effect. You merely said that on a regular weekday, the House takes recess in the evening from six o'clock to eight o'clock. However, since it is Friday when usually the House adjourns at five o'clock, you conclude that we should normally recess for dinner from six o'clock to eight o'clock. That is what you said and we agree with your interpretation.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, we can talk about this all the time, but you were asking the opinion of the House. This government, which has for the first time in the British Commonwealth moved closure to shut down the House of Commons, is now suggesting that we take two hours of very valuable time enabling us to lambaste the bounders for what they are. The answer is no; they deserve the two hours of lashing they are going to get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I regard what is now being discussed as quite unimportant; the damage has been done. Since there is not unanimous consent to adjourn for supper hour from six o'clock to eight o'clock, I take it we will sit through until one o'clock in the morning. As I say, the damage has been done.


Madam Speaker:: Quite obviously, since the Standing Orders are not clear, I suggested an interpretation which could be taken. However, I would naturally need the unanimous consent of the House to determine we would adjourn from six to eight. Since we do not have unanimous consent and the Standing Orders are silent on this matter, I have to rule on the side of allowing Parliament to debate as long as possible. Therefore, there will be no adjournment from six until eight.
I believe I have two members rising on a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, although I regard it as unimportant too, perhaps there should be an understanding as to whether we will have private members' hour between four and five o'clock or spend the time on this adjournment motion. It does not matter, but it should be clear.


Madam Speaker:: It is quite clear in the Standing Orders that private members' hour must commence at four o'clock.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I see that the Postmaster General is seeking the floor. I notice in the record of last night's proceedings in the House that the hon. Postmaster General spoke. He announced his intention to move a motion, and he has now moved a motion. 1 think it could be argued, and I do argue, that we should consider that he has lost his right to participate further in the debate. He was not contributing very much, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Perhaps for the benefit of the House this should be done.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I find the attitude taken by the opposition House leader somewhat inconsistent. He complains that we are trying to muzzle them, and yet he now wants to muzzle the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). Yesterday, the Postmaster General started his speech; he took only fifteen minutes out of the 40 minutes allotted to him. In his speech, he gave notice of a motion. He moved a motion today but not during the debate on the business of the House. He had the floor. He may therefore continue his speech, except that today, under Standing Order 33, if one reads it intelligently, he may not speak more than twenty minutes. Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to quote from Standing Order 33 which stipulates that if the resolution is
. .. resolved in the affirmative, no member shall thereafter . . .
July 17, 1981

And I stress "thereafter".
. .. speak more than once, or longer than twenty minutes in any such adjourned debate...
Therefore, there is nothing which says that the member who had the floor when notice was given no longer has the right to speak even though his time may not have expired. The minister never said that he had concluded his speech last night. He had hardly started, and 1 respectfully submit to you that he still has the right to speak today and, furthermore, that if Standing Order 33 were not being applied, he could go on for about half an hour since he only spoke about ten minutes. However, according to our rules, his time is limited to twenty minutes and he will comply with that requirement.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I was trying to save the House the trouble of listening to the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is absolutely right. Under the Standing Orders, which are quite clear, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) can continue his speech, and I therefore recognize him.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this adjournment debate and to note once again how some opposition members take pleasure in abusing the rules as well as parliamentary procedure.
Yesterday the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was indignant that his colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) might be deprived of his right to speak. Today, resorting to the same Standing Orders, he tried to prevent me from taking the floor. That shows to what extent there can be a double interpretation of the Standing Orders of the House, namely one very cavalier and very generous interpretation on the part of the opposition, and another interpretation which the opposition wants applied very strictly when the government is involved.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to adjourn Parliament at this time. Today is July 17. We are now at that time of the year when hon. members usually go to their ridings to meet their electors. That contact with the ridings of the country is part of the task of a parliamentarian. It is obvious that the Parliament of Canada, more than all the provincial legislatures, sits during long weeks and long months in the course of a year. Too often our electors tell us that we spend too much time in Ottawa. They do not appreciate how demanding our parliamentary responsibilities can be. And I must say that if
Summer Recess
they were to spend a few days here, a few hours even, they would realize to what extent we are prisoners of an absolutely archaic parliamentary procedure, Is it conceivable that in 1981 we waste hours and hours because the opposition whip lets the bells ring unduly and does not return to the House to count the votes?
Is it conceivable that in 1981 the hon. member for Win-nipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles), who fancies himself as being a parliamentary expert, an ardent champion of parliamentary procedure and a lover of the parliamentary rules of the mother of Parliaments in London, would take it upon himself to waste the time of the House as he did this morning after Oral Question Period by needlessly moving the adjournment of the House for the rest of the day? Mr. Speaker, let people compare the proposition I myself made to adjourn Parliament with that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who moved the adjournment for the rest of the day because, he said, he is indignant that I proposed to adjourn the House business as we have been anxious to do after a week of useless work in the House where absolutely nothing has been accomplished thanks to the filibuster of the Progressive Conservative Party which has kept us here one week too many, in my opinion. Mr. Speaker, I was saying that it is important that Parliament be adjourned at this time so as to enable federal members of Parliament to spend some time with their electors in their ridings, close to the people who send them to the Parliament of Canada. We in Canada are going through a difficult period with respect to the relations between the provincial governments and the Canadian government.
The provincial viewpoint is constantly being explained and expounded by the MLAs who are in their ridings, sit during much shorter periods than we do and sit only three or four days a week while we have to stay there from Monday to Friday evening, at which time many of us have to take planes to go back to the Pacific or the Atlantic coasts, which means that we spend only a few hours a week in our ridings, while MLAs may spend at least two or three days there.
Since all provincial legislatures have already adjourned and provincial members are, if not on holidays, at least working in their ridings, we, federal members of Parliament, have the duty to go back home and explain to our constituents the programs and policies of the Canadian government. Parliamentarians have the duty to explain more fully the role of the Canadian government in this country. There is nothing better than personal and direct contacts to explain the aims and the role of the Canadian government in the face of the systematic encroachment of provincial powers. Now is the time to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, to get down to this work in our constituencies.
I have another reason for saying that now is the time to adjourn. The vote just held is a good illustration of this. It is easy to see how agitated and frustrated some parliamentarians

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
have become when we look at some of the interventions in the last few days. It is obvious that while the rules of the Canadian Parliament are designed to protect the minority in Parliament, these rules were made in the last century on the basis of what we call the checks and balances of the British system and English fair play. However, these rules were never designed to give absolute power to an intransigent opposition which forcibly imposes its views and its instructions on a majority which was democratically elected by the Canadian people.
It is an undeniable fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have witnessed during this session an abuse of the technicalities of parliamentary procedure by the opposition parties, and especially by the Progressive Conservative opposition, in an attempt to counter the government's intentions and legislation. Parliament is undeniably the place where such issues should be debated, but it is first of all the place where legislation must be passed. And when the opposition abuses systematically its right to speak to prevent Parliament from voting, I suggest that our parliamentary procedure is seriously deficient and that we must soon correct this situation which allows Parliament to be held hostage by an inflexible and fanatical opposition. It is undeniable that we have not been able to dispose of a great many government measures because the opposition has insisted on extended debates, and even unacceptable debates in my opinion, because I remember interventions which were taken verbatim from previous speeches.
We have seen opposition members read word by word speeches made a few hours or a few days earlier by one of their colleagues, making exactly the same points, harking back to the same views. Not only did opposition members stage filibusters but they rehashed old speeches in order to hinder the normal parliamentary process. People who know the British system, the Parliament in Westminster, are fully aware that legislation introduced for second reading is passed on the same day. Second reading is an opportunity to consider the principle of a bill and the advisability of referring it or not to a committee where it can be examined clause by clause and amended if need be. Such a simple discussion on principle never requires more than one day in London. All important pieces of legislation introduced by the government during the course of the current session took hours and hours of repetitive debates by the opposition, and none of our bills was approved the same day. I find this quite unacceptable in a modern society that has a constant need of a vast number of measures from its central government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should stop to reflect on that sad state of affairs and as soon as possible after the summer recess ask for an in-depth, major reform of our parliamentary procedure. This would allow a freely elected government to do its work, admittedly with criticism from the opposition. Criticism however should be made with due form and within a reasonable time frame in modern society. And once the government has passed the legislation, the people can then judge
whether the government was right or wrong. But as things stand now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the people cannot even judge whether the government's work is good or bad, because we have all the trouble in the world passing our legislation. We are impeded by a nineteenth century procedure that is no longer consistent with modern times and the hurried way of life of the twentieth century. In the few minutes left to me, I would like to say that the adjournment will have beneficial results on the current negotiations that have just started under the direction of Mr. Justice Gold, the mediator. Mr. Speaker, I think I have ten more minutes. Is this correct?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: According to my information the minister's time will expire at 3.04 p.m.


André Ouellet: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I still have some seven minutes left to explain to the Progressive Conservative members the serious mistake they made this week by delaying the settlement of the postal strike and leading the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to believe that back-to-work legislation would be introduced. It was obvious, Mr. Speaker, that as long as Parliament would be sitting no pressure would be applied on the union leaders to return to the bargaining table and reach a settlement regarding their collective agreement.
The easy way out for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is to have a settlement imposed upon them rather than have to go back before their members and tell them: "Here is what the government is offering us, we could not get more, and we suggest that you accept the results of the negotiations just completed with management representatives.
It is always embarrassing and difficult for a union leader who promised them pie in the sky to tell his members that he cannot deliver. But as long as he can give as an excuse the drastic and unilateral effect of a piece of legislation to justify his action, then his honour is saved. That is the idea the Leader of the Opposition and the Progressive Conservatives have tried to plant in the mind of the union leaders all week long by protracting parliamentary business. Now that we are adjourning, I think that Judge Gold will be in a position to carry out his mediation efforts because the two parties, the postal workers and the Treasury Board, will know that the solution to the postal dispute is to be found through negotiation, through a negotiated settlement, because it is the only avenue left now to settle this dispute. I am convinced that this situation will be beneficial and will make things easier for Judge Gold as a mediator.
In closing, may I mention that the opposition has claimed that we want to adjourn Parliament to cover up the so-called uranium scandal. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here in Parliament for several years now; not a single year has gone by
July 17, 1981

without the Progressive Conservative opposition rising to claim there were scandals, that representatives or friends of the government had behaved shockingly. That is an old, lowdown traditional political trick of theirs. Every year, the Progressive Conservatives have nothing better to do than to try to discredit the government's authority and the integrity of the politicians who are members of the Liberal Party of Canada. Not one of them has gone before the courts and been condemned as a result of the alleged scandals dug up by the Progressive Conservatives. Never in all those so-called scandals that were supposedly exposed has anyone been found guilty before the courts!
In the case of the uranium affair, the Canadian government did absolutely nothing improper or illegal. We followed standard procedure; we have nothing to hide. The matter is now before the courts where it will be settled and decided whether or not a few companies broke the law in Canada. No aspect whatsoever of government activity is involved in the matter. To my mind, the irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour of the opposition in this connection is a complete aberration.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what we just saw in the tawdry and hysterical performance by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was culminated by the use of closure for the fifth time in 25 years in this Parliament. It has been used five times in 25 years; yet it has been used two times by this government within the past 12 months. What we see is a pattern developing on the part of this government of gagging Parliament, of attempting in this instance to padlock Parliament to prevent-


André Ouellet: That is because of the abuse of rules by the opposition!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -the representatives of the people of Canada from discharging their business on behalf of their constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the history of closure the five times it has been used in the past 25 years. The first time was when the Liberals used it to gag Parliament on the pipeline debate. They said it was urgent that debate be ended and that the vote be taken. The second time was when the Liberals again gagged Parliament in the 1960s to terminate the flag debate. The third time was when they again used the closure rule to gag Parliament, using the same arguments as have been used today by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to change the rules of Parliament to facilitate the government's getting its business through, unchecked by Parliament. That was the third time.
Summer Recess


André Ouellet: Oh, come on! Unchecked!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The fourth time was last fall, when this government imposed closure to prevent debate on the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


André Ouellet: After how many weeks?


Henry Perrin Beatty: In all of those instances the government justified its activity on the ground that there were important matters that Parliament should be considering, that there was an urgent public business to be done; that there was a matter which should be dealt with by Parliament, that the debate had gone on long enough on the matter, and that it was time to move on to something else. How does this differ, now that the government has used closure for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth to close down Parliament, to padlock Parliament, to prevent debate from taking place? What is the urgent business which faces Parliament today?
If one listens to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and reads the speech he made last night, the urgent business is that it is time for MPs to go on holiday. That is the urgent business. That is the reason closure is being used, according to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Last evening Madam Speaker prevented the government from closing this Parliament down through subterfuge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: It was a courageous decision which Madam Speaker made. Let me read, just briefly, two sentences from that decision. She said:
My ruling is very much based on the right of hon. members to express themselves in this House. This is the most sacred thing that the Speaker must protect-
Yet within one hour of Madam Speaker's preventing this government from closing down Parliament through subterfuge, and within one hour of Madam Speaker's saying that the most sacred right of Parliament and the most sacred obligation of any Speaker is to protect the right of freedom of speech of parliamentarians, this minister, whose conduct in the uranium investigation is very much in question in the House, moved closure which will prevent this Parliament from investigating the conduct of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The minister said that nothing has gone wrong, that there was no illegal act and that there was no cover-up. Let us take a look at the facts and the history of cover-up on the part of this government in the uranium cartel.


André Ouellet: Repeat the speech that your colleague made last night!

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess


Henry Perrin Beatty: There have been at least nine instances in which the government used the powers available to it to prevent a full investigation from taking place. The first was in the creation of the cartel. The government had two options. It could either have done it the honest and straightforward way by bringing legislation before Parliament, which would have disclosed its plans, and setting it up in the same way as it set up agricultural marketing boards, something which is quite legal, or the government could have done it through secret agreements, through hiding the facts, through subterfuge. It chose to do the latter.
Any study of the public record will show that at the time this was set up, there was very little news released to the public and to the general press. The only information which was released referred to a number of officials who had met to exchange marketing information. No information was released as to the existence of a secretariat, of a policy committee, of a quota system which divided the international marketing, or of a system of bid rigging that Canada engaged in with the knowledge of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. These facts are incontestible, and the government itself does not contest that bid rigging took place; yet all of that was hidden. The government operated by secrecy. Indeed, when it was raised by reporters at that time, Mr. Macdonald, who was the minister of energy, mines and resources then, disclosed the fact that something was up when they passed regulations. However, when the press inquired about that on August 24, 1972, The Globe and Mail reported this response:
"Because of the nature of the uranium export contracts, it would not be in the public interest to disclose further contract details at this time."
Therefore, the cover-up began in 1972, as this was set up.
The minister says now that they were not aware of anything illegal and that there was no problem. Mr. Speaker, one gets a sense of deja vu when one hears a cabinet minister say that. I have in my hand a copy of an article which appeared in the Toronto Star, the House organ of the Liberal party, an unimpeachable source as far as the Liberals are concerned. It is dated September 1, 1976, and is headlined "Minister denies uranium price was fixed". The dateline is St. John's, Newfoundland, and the article reads as follows:
Energy Minister Alastair Gillespie has denied allegations that Canada has conspired with other countries to fix uranium prices since 1972.
Later, the article goes on as follows:
In denying the allegations, Gillespie said that if anyone could be accused of monopolistic tactics it is the U.S. itself.
Yet what do we find now, in the laying of charges, Mr. Speaker? We find precisely what the government is alleging, that there was an international conspiracy which Crown corporations participated in, which was set up-


André Ouellet: Not true.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -in the boardrooms of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in which senior officials of the government participated and whose activities were legitimized
by actions of the Government of Canada. When the minister makes a statement like that, why should we trust his word now, any more than we should have trusted Mr. Gillespie's word then?
The second incident occurred in 1976 after the U.S. Department of Justice began its criminal investigation into the cartel. The U.S. congressional subcommittee examined the actions of international uranium producers, and information was sought in Canada. After Mr. William Gilchrist, president of the Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear, gave a deposition to U.S. authorities, the federal government at first flatly denied the existence of a cartel, which it euphemistically referred to as a "marketing arrangement", and then enacted the uranium information security regulation, or the gag order.
The regulations went far beyond what was necessary to achieve the professed aim of the government, namely, to prevent the extra-territorial application of the law of other countries. It was claimed that the issue was national sovereignty. What the regulations did was to prevent anyone in Canada from discussing or seeking any information about the cartel. The government admitted this in its subsequent enactment, 13 months later, of less restrictive regulations which applied to government and uranium company employees.
Note, Mr. Speaker, how the regulations dealt solely and expressly with the uranium cartel. The government justified its action, on the basis of a broad principle, that documents should not be subpoenaed from Canada into other countries, yet it rejected the proper course of bringing in legislation to deal with that broad principle. Instead, the government introduced a gag order which prevented discussion in foreign countries or in Canada about the Canadian government's participation in the cartel.
In the same year, the then minister of energy, mines and resources, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, also invoked Crown privilege to prevent the disclosure of information relevant to the cartel, regarding the case Duquesne Light and Electric.
You will remember that when I put the question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) today, Mr. Speaker, and sought the assurance that the government would not again try to impede these criminal cases by invoking the doctrine of Crown privilege to prevent testimony being given by federal officials or to prevent federal documents from being made available, the minister refused to give that assurance.
The regulations had the effect of preventing free discussion of the cartel for a year. In the summer of 1977, the U.S. congressional subcommittee released documents pertaining to the involvement of Gulf Minerals Canada Ltd. in the Canadian producers group. Correspondence from such people as Senator Austin and the unindicted co-conspirators, was included in the package.
Under pressure from the Canadian government, this Liberal government, the U.S. state department had "Specially Confidential" pencilled on the documents and requested the subcommittee not to release them publicly. Due to the Canadian government's past refusal to co-operate with the U.S. authori-

July 17, 1981

ties, they, in turn, refused to co-operate with the Canadian government and they subsequently released the documents.
The fourth example of the cover-up was that the Uranium Information Security regulations were revised only after the opposition, the Progressive Conservative party, brought an action in the Ontario high court to contest their validity. In order to minimize the potential political embarrassment of a negative decision, the government enacted the less restrictive regulations. These at least permitted some public discussion of the government's involvement in the cartel but, of course, all the information came from the investigation conducted in the United States, not from discussions which took place in Canada.
The fifth example of the cover-up was the government's announcement of a combines investigation which came fully two years after the cartel was exposed in the world press. This development was the result of sustained opposition questioning in Parliament. Of course, there was the added benefit to the government that no information about the subject of a combines investigation may be made public while an investigation was in progress. This short-term political expendient had the effect of putting discussion of the cartel on the back burner.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs asked the director of combines investigations to undertake the inquiry, an article appeared in The Globe and Mail of October 4, 1977 which reads in part as follows:
Mr. Allmand said Mr. Davidson would be able to look at all relevant documents, including privileged Cabinet documents, during his investigation. "His purpose ... is to look at all evidence to determine whether there was an infraction of the combines investigation act. This means he has the right to look at documentary evidence, behavioural evidence, conversations and whatever."
But what happened when Mr. Bertrand, the combines investigator, asked to see those confidential cabinet documents? What happened was that he was refused by the government. Today, in the House, the Minister of Justice said that the documents were not necessary for Mr. Bertrand's investigation. That is not so. An article in The Toronto Sun of June 8, 1981 reads, referring to Mr. Bertrand, in part, as follows:
He said that, although he was not allowed to see the secret cabinet minutes, they weren't necessary "to make things any clearer." He refused to elaborate.
A cabinet trustee holding the minutes would not release them despite Bertrand's reminder former consumer affairs minister Warren Allmand had pledged cabinet documents would be available, Bertrand said.
"I think now they're making a distinction between documents and minutes. Mind you, I never made that distinction."
How can the government ask for the trust of the Canadian people when its behaviour in this affair from start to finish, has been so tawdry?
The sixth example of how the government has engaged in this cover-up is that there were two provincial inquiries to nuclear affairs, namely the Cluff Lake inquiry in Saskatchewan and the Ontario Select Committee which sought testimony from the unindicted co-conspirators, Dr. Runnalls and Mr. MacNabb, who both worked for the government. In both these cases the government refused to allow them to speak on matters related to the cartel. This was so, notwithstanding the
Summer Recess
fact that these were domestic political inquiries and that no question arose as to the need to protect national sovereignty.
The government's argument in the cover:up, from the word go, has been that it was essential to have the gag order to prevent threats to national sovereignty. These were cases in Canada, Mr. Speaker; they were cases where the government sought to prevent evidence from coming out in Canada.
In the seventh example, the Westinghouse Electric Company in England sought evidence for its uranium supply court cases in the United States. This evidence, in the form of testimony and documents from Rio-Tinto Zinc Corp. of London, was crucial to Westinghouse's case, because it could not obtain evidence in Canada and in Australia.
The case was appealed up to House of Lords before it was disposed of by it, and an interesting fact came out; namely that Canada and the other cartel members had applied extremely strong diplomatic pressure to the government of the United Kingdom to step in and prevent the release of the Rio-Tinto Zinc evidence. This point was made by the British attorney general and solicitor general on the motion for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
The next incident shows that the same sort of pressure was applied in the United States. As the Department of Justice grand jury investigation drew to a close, the U.S. state department prevailed upon the White House to vet the recommendations that the department had sought for criminal indictments. After diplomatic pressure was applied by Canada, however, Gulf Oil Corporation was charged only with a criminal misdemeanor, and was fined $40,000 after pleading nolo contendere.
In the ninth incident, the Government of Canada has consistently refused to make public the Bertrand report, the 1972 opinion by D. W. Henry, or the justice department opinion as to the cartel's potential illegality, as well as other government documents relating to the cartel.
We have seen incident after incident of cover-up taking place, so let the minister then not ask for the trust of the Canadian people and say that there has been no cover-up. On August 5, 1977, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined to the House what he saw as the course that should be followed. At page 8074 of Hansard he is reported as having said the following:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously entering into a debate. I indicated yesterday that we would welcome this debate. We will put every fact we have before parliament so it can debate this matter properly. Obviously, this game of putting statements on the record of which I have no knowledge may be profitable for the hon. gentleman, but I do not think it advances the question whether the government at that time either acted legally or illegally. Nor does it answer the question whether we did so in the interests of the Canadian people or not. We are anxious to have this debated-
That is a firm assurance from the Prime Minister of Canada that all relevant documents will be put before Parliament, yet the cover-up has continued.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
What is most extraordinary is that the Canadian government initiated the setting up of this cartel. It was set up in large part in the offices of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa with that department's senior officials. The government, according to a Gulf internal memo dated April 12 from Mr. Coleman to Mr. Minks said that it would follow a four-point program outlined by the producers themselves that would result in a promise of non-prosecution from the Department of Justice and a statement of cabinet approval. Two days later the then minister of energy, mines and resources, Donald Macdonald collaborated by sending a telex advising of cabinet approval, and touching on the four-point program advised the following:
I have been authorized by Cabinet to advise you that the Canadian government .. . has followed carefully discussions among world producers, is preparing to allow Uranium Canada and Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. to enter into an informal world producers arrangement, that in order to be workable all Canadian producers should participate ... your company is requested to make every effort to adhere to the common terms.
The government was so anxious that Gulf be part of the cartel that it gave Gulf officials department of energy stationary and allowed them to draft Gulfs invitation to join the cartel. This was done and then signed by the federal government.
Mr. Austin told the producers that they could, in effect, write their own quotas and allocations into Canadian law by simply supplying the appropriate figures for new regulations under the Atomic Energy Control Act.
Documents which have been released in the United States indicate that the government has taken every action possible to prevent prosecution from taking place. Even after cabinet made the decision to participate, the government solicited an opinion from the Department of Justice in order to protect the producers, "at least as long as the present government is in power", according to the memorandum of April 12.
This government may be able to close down Parliament. This government can padlock Parliament, but the issue will not go away. The truth will come out. We are determined to get Parliament back on the job. We are determined to get the truth. Nothing this government can do can prevent the truth from becoming known.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, as the House prepares to recess today until October, I go with a clear conscience because, like most other hon. members, I do not really go into a period of vacation but I go to do other things which are necessary to serve the country and my constituents, and to play my part as a parliamentarian.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is not what Mr. Ouellet said.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: We have heard many remarks from the other side on the uranium cartel. I do not propose to comment on that because I have colleagues who are better versed in the matter than I am. However, my experience tells me that once the matter is before the courts, and we have been assured that all material will be made available to the courts, the courts are
the proper place for the issue to be discussed. If there are other items to be brought to light, the courts, in their wisdom and with the resources available to them, will do whatever is necessary. On that score I feel very comfortable that the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien) has behaved most properly.
I have said that we are going to move on to other things as parliamentarians. While I respect this chamber, it does not give the total picture to the public of our duties and own work.
I shall just run through some of the activities in which I will be involved this summer. They will begin on Monday. I will now have an opportunity to be in my constituency on a weekday. This is not possible while the House is sitting, except on rare occasions. I think that most hon. members will recognize that although I am one of the more quiet members, I am usually here from Monday to Friday, as many of us are. I look forward to the opportunity of being able to spend some time in my riding with my constituents for a number of very good reasons.
On Monday an important report on the airport at Thunder Bay will be released to the public. I will be meeting with the mayor and council, the advisory committee which helped prepare the task force report, with the media and many members of the community. I will be able to hear what all of them have to say on this matter.
Transportation is vital to Canada. This is particularly true in Thunder Bay. But while transportation by air is of immense importance to Thunder Bay, I submit that the transportation system which passes through Thunder Bay is vitally important to the rest of the country, particularly to the west. The port at Thunder Bay still continues to be the major eastern port for western Canada through which flows grain, potash from Saskatchewan, coal from Alberta, and so on.
While we are supposedly on holidays this summer, many of my activities will be devoted to meeting with representatives of the Lakehead Harbour Commission, with railway officials and with a special committee of the city council of Thunder Bay in order to discuss the matter of rail transportation as it affects Thunder Bay. While that is parochial in a sense, because I am concerned about what happens in my own community, it is important that the transportation system of Canada remains strong and remains in a position to serve the needs of the country.
We all recognize that rail transportation and our transportation system in general has basically served the needs of the country well, but the question remains: will it be adequate for the future?
Along with many of my colleagues and people in the area, I will be investigating the rail situation in Thunder Bay to see that that end of it is able to handle the expected heavier traffic from the west. On a more intimate basis, I want to study with people who are more knowledgeable than I the ramifications of the recent report on the Seaway, the bottleneck problems at the Welland canal and so on. There is fear that unless something is done over the next few years while the port of Thunder
July 17, 1981

Bay is operating most efficiently, as it is at this time, by 1985, although it is expected it will be able to handle the expected movement of traffic and goods, it will have difficulty moving the goods down the full length of the seaway. I know that the Department of Transport, along with many other interested parties both in Canada and in our area in particular, is cognizant of that fact and will work toward that end. That project alone will take up a considerable part of the summer for me as a member of Parliament.
There are other things that members of Parliament do over the summer, especially those of us who have far-flung ridings. We have an opportunity to meet the people in our constituencies who like to talk to their member of Parliament and express their concerns first hand. Similarly, we have the opportunity to submit those concerns to the government of the day.
We all recognize that, for the most part, we try to express our concerns to the government in this chamber. But if matters were to end there, the public would not be as well served as it is. I recognize that I am among many members who have vastly more experience than I have been able to accumulate in the 18 months I have been here, but I have observed that ministers are receptive to what a private member has to say, no matter on which side of the House he or she sits. While we go the public route of expressing our concerns in the House, we also have the opportunity to discover individual problems of a constituent or a region. These can then be forcibly presented to the minister by letter, a telephone call or at a one to one meeting. We are then directed to the proper authority in the department. That is part of the process of being a parliamentarian that does not or should not end when the House recesses.
We are supposedly coming back on October 14. However, it should be noted that at any time should the need arise, this House can be called back into session. It is not as though we are going to leave here tonight to enjoy a blissful summer of doing nothing and no longer having any obligations.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Tomorrow morning.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: I thank the hon. member. Very early tomorrow morning. I always was a morning person. We should note for the record that this House can come together should the need arise. All hon. members, certainly those on this side, are prepared to do their duty.
The impression is sometimes gained that if this House is not sitting, the members no longer have any input into government. That is not correct.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister said you needed a holiday.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: What the minister probably had in mind is that we have a holiday from being here to go and do other things, something I look forward to. The demands of this past session have been very great on all of us. The committee work has been onerous. The hours have been long. I do not think any
Summer Recess
of us complain about that. However, a perspective starts to develop here that is not necessarily the perspective we should have concerning the country as a whole. In other words, there is the very real danger of our getting away from the people we are here to serve.
1 look forward to the summer recess and to meeting people in all parts of my riding and in other parts of this country. As members of Parliament, it is our duty when possible to visit people in other parts of this land so that we understand our country better. I look forward to meeting these people in more than a cursory fashion. It is an opportunity to hear their complaints and concerns. It is an opportunity for me to acquire a proper perspective in order to represent my area and the country as a whole.
There is something else that I look forward to this summer. In addition to seeing the riding and getting into some of the specific problems regarding transportation, which have more than a parochial connotation and in fact have an impact on the rest of the country, I look forward to a very positive event. It has been positive for Thunder Bay which this summer will have the opportunity of hosting Les Jeux Canada Games 1981. Sometimes we must find other things to do and to think about. We need to find other devices to bring us together.
Les Jeux Canada Games 1981 will bring together over 3,000 athletes to compete in Thunder Bay from August 9 to 22. This is the first time Ontario has had the opportunity of hosting these games which to date have been very successful. I look forward to the most successful games ever this summer.
There is a real need for these games. It brings our young athletes together to test their mettle in an environment that is second only in size to the Olympics. The games will bring to the very centre of this country people from the east, the west, the north and the narrow strip of the south. These people will be able to talk about other things in terms of national unity and getting to know each other.
The games are being brought to Thunder Bay not only because of its geographic location and ability to handle this large scale undertaking. It was recognized that Thunder Bay is a new city in the scheme of things, having come into being only in 1970, combining the old cities of Port Arthur and Fort William. Like this country, it has had to go through a shakedown period, and still faces a real coming together. A statute does not bring people together. That has to come out of mutual trust and contact and takes time.
I am very pleased to report that the citizens of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario have rallied around this focal point, Les Jeux Canada Games 1981, and have stopped worrying about whether it is Port Arthur, Fort William, West Fort William or whatever. They know they have a big job to do. They have the opportunity of playing host to Canada for a very important national event. In doing that, our communities have come together.
Some 3,500 volunteer workers will be involved in the staging of these games. In a community of 118,000, when 3,500 people become intimately involved, this has a tremendously profound

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
effect on the unification of the community. There is a feeling of pride in this coming together in Thunder Bay. This will spill over on August 9 when we proudly open the games and welcome Canadians from across Canada into our community. Easterners will be meeting westerners, Francophones and Anglophones will be together in one place. They will be doing something constructive, striving together for excellence and getting to know each other a lot better.
Sometimes during question period in this chamber we do the country a great disservice. The job of the opposition is to oppose. In opposing, you strike a negative connotation in most instances. It is a job that has to be done. Sometime, somehow, all of us in this House must find opportunities to say, "This is good, this is proper". By creating a negative attitude, we do not serve the country; we do it a disservice. We must learn to recognize what is good and distinguish that from what needs to be corrected. We must maintain a balance.
Les Jeux Canada Games 1981 gives us something else to think about. It is something we can point to with pride. Athletes will be coming from British Columbia, the prairie provinces, Newfoundland, the maritimes and central Canada. They will be meeting together as Canadians, not as easterners or westerners. We often hear the expression, "We are proud to be Canadian." Sometimes we have difficulty in defining whether a Canadian is a Canadian or a Canadian from western Canada or a Canadian from eastern Canada or a Canadian from Newfoundland. However, at an event like Les Jeux Canada Games 1981, we come together as Canadians. I hope that that thought and feeling might have the chance to last a little longer.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many reasons why I look forward to the summer recess. It is not that I want to take a vacation, although I hope I have an opportunity to spend a little more time with my family, as all hon. members would like to do. I want to spend time with my grandchildren, but primarily I will have an opportunity to look at some of the matters which are pressing to northwestern Ontario but also have some impact, 1 respectfully submit, on the rest of the country. I look forward to having the chance to meet with people and to give them the time I cannot always give. None of us can do so the way we would like while this House is in session. It is only by being able to sit down with individual family men, businessmen and farmers that we can get away from the abstracts and get to the realities. Then we can come back and really try again collectively as a House to do the things which are necessary to continue this country's growth and prosperity.
Despite all the negative things which have been said, I think we can take a great deal of pride in Canada's progress over the last few years. I know hon. members opposite recognize the good things about our country. I hope when they have had an opportunity to reflect over the summer months, they will find that there are opportunities to say positive things. A good idea does not belong to any one party. If it is adopted, if it is good
and if it works, everyone should admit it. We have that duty to the people of Canada so that their spirit is raised once 'in a while. We have a tendency in this chamber to make them feel down sometimes. I do not think we do that intentionally; I suppose it is just the nature of the beast.
As we go into the summer recess, I might say that it is not really a vacation period for any of us in this chamber. It is an opportunity to do other things and to come back in the fall- unless we are called back, for whatever reason, before that, which is still very possible, as we all recognize-recharged and prepared to continue to serve this great country of ours in a more positive fashion.
If I may be allowed just one last commercial, I hope the 1981 Canada Games in Thunder Bay will do its part from August 9 to 22 to provide a unifying voice here in Canada.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in contributing to this debate I would like to touch briefly on a number of subjects, but first I would like to address myself to the events of the last few hours. All of us do silly things on occasion. The government party, for all its failings, usually can be expected to show a modicum of common sense, at least when it comes to questions of political tactics. In the last few days the party which forms the Official Opposition has been going through weird and wonderful motions to extricate itself from the awkward position its members irresponsibly talked it into. A little while ago they stood as fools for everyone to see. However, the government suddenly let them off the hook totally and made a fool of itself with what should initially have been a good proposition. That has to do with the importance and the good common sense there is in having this Parliament adjourn during this period of Post Office negotiations.
I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the comments of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan). He said- and I agree-that anyone with any experience at all in industrial relations would have to agree that if we expect either of the parties, particularly the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, to make any movement in their position in terms of Post Office negotiations, it has to be made clear-and the possibility of parliamentary adjournment provides for that-that there will be no intervention by Parliament to bring an end to the free collective bargaining process and the right to strike. To do otherwise, particularly with the addition of the irresponsible comments being made by representatives of the Conservative party, would simply delay, delay and delay the opportunity for a peaceful settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We all know it is important, and many of our constituents feel it is very urgent, that this dispute be settled soon, but it is even more important in the longer term public interest that when the new Post Office Crown corporation begins its work later this year as an independent agency, there should be, as much as is humanly possible, restored to that operation some good faith relationships between management and labour so that when they try to get their act together
July 17, 1981

in an administrative way, they can also have an end, hopefully, to the built in hostility which has been locked into that institution for the last several years.
In addressing that locked in hostility which we all know has been created, we must realize that one of the reasons for it was that the Post Office was set apart from those laws in this country which allow other working people the right to have a say in technological change. When major changes took place within the Canada Post Office over the last few years and working people were denied the opportunity to have any direct say in how their lives would be affected and how the existence of their jobs would be affected, we were sowing the seeds we have been reaping ever since.
We are finally at a position where we have a management and a union which, in a sense, deserve each other. It is difficult to say where the problem started. What came first-the chicken or the egg? However, once we get into that situation, the last thing we want to do is to raise irresponsible ideas in this House which will make the matter fester even more and build in deeper the deep-rooted hostility which surely it is within the public interest that we eliminate.
I find it difficult to find appropriate words to describe the near contempt I feel toward the irresponsible jibberish which has been emanating from parts of this House over the last few days on this subject. Members of Parliament certainly realize some of the horror stories within the Post Office. I think we realize them more than anyone else because we get letters, when the mail is moving, we get telephone calls and we are constantly hearing from constituents about the problems and frustrations they have when dealing with that organization. There is no doubt that it has gone downhill over the last few years.
I find it particularly annoying to get mail from constituents bawling me out for not answering correspondence I have not received, and then I finally get the first letter after I have written back trying to explain what happened. I am sure I am not the only member of this House who has been through that exercise.
Hopefully, we are going through a period now when some of the hostilities will wear down. Hopefully there will be an amicable settlement sooner rather than later, but later if it must be. It is important to build an agreement with which both parties can live in a constructive way but, as I said earlier, it is even more important to set the new Post Office Crown corporation off on an even keel and give it a chance for success.
There has to be an opportunity to introduce new mechanisms, new management processes, and a new climate of industrial relations into that organization. Part of that, and there is provision for it in the new corporation, is to give the people who work in the Post Office an opportunity to have a say in management. That may seem like a pretty far out idea considering the hostility there has been, but I can speak with some personal experience, having been an employee of a corporation which for almost ten years now has had employees
Summer Recess
on its board of directors. While it did not eliminate the adversary system, which is a process appropriate to the grievance procedure and collective bargaining, it did lead to a much more understanding relationship. By checking out ideas before they were put into practice, we were able to provide employees with a feeling that they were genuinely participating in their own future. This is particularly important to the younger generation of workers. Indeed, the Post Office is a classic example of that, particularly in the major centres. They must find an outlet for the increased education and interest among today's generation of workers.
It saves money. Engineers can come up with all kinds of beautiful plans, whether for a postal system or a sawmill, but unless you check it out first and get some real input from the people involved in the industry, you are going to be wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars which could otherwise be saved. Again speaking from some personal experience, I know that money is saved and there is a great deal of production time saved as well. You can increase productivity, profits, you can increase good labour management relations. All of those put together are what we need in the Post Office if it is to serve Canadians properly.
Because we do not get the chance very often, Mr. Speaker, to deal with certain subjects in this House, 1 would like to say a few words now about the Canadian forest industry and some of its needs. Forestry is Canada's number one industry in many respects. It produces a greater share of our net trade surplus than does mining, fisheries, agriculture and energy, including both oil and gas, put together. That is not commonly known. It produces more jobs and revenue per investment dollar than do fisheries and agriculture, and it directly or indirectly provides close to one out of ten jobs in Canada.
The problem is that the industry, and those persons and communities dependent on it, are so widely scattered and diversified across this country that, in fact, they suffer from invisibility, not only to the public but particularly to politicians and governments, especially federal. Being everywhere, the industry is seen to be nowhere. Many members of this House and their assistants do not appear to recognize that the industry in many cases is the biggest employer and the most significant economic and political constituency within their own ridings.
That is a very odd situation. Most politicians are assumed to be a little more sensitive than that. When a lay-off or closure takes place in that industry, usually it is 100, 300 or 400 people affected rather than the thousands who are affected in the auto industry in Ontario. It does not make national headlines and does not appear in The Globe and Mail in the mornings before question period. That creates again a disadvantage not only for that industry, but for everyone of us, for government budgets, and for all the spending plans which each of us may cherish in our own way.
The forest revenues, which should be renewable, as well as the industry, suffer the same fate because the impact of such a closure is scattered in our communities. Canadians, whether

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
they be private citizens, legislators or governments, simply cannot see the lack of forest for the trees. Again, being everywhere it is seen to be nowhere.
This is beginning to change, to the point where all levels of government are now beginning to pay at least lip service to the importance of that industry, the need for action and expanded private and public investment. However, the dollars are still far short of the minimum required, although they have finally stopped shrinking. While it is a subject which lacks political sex appeal, it is a vitally important industry and is extremely relevant to Canada's future. As the coalition of forest management, labour and professionals solidifies and expands-a process which is well under way in British Columbia and beginning in other parts of the country-it may well become increasingly relevant in a political sense. I would urge all members and the government to begin taking it more seriously.
About a year ago, a Mr. Les Reed was appointed associate deputy minister responsible for the Canadian Forest Service. That appointment was seen as a symbol of change and was welcomed by industry management, labour and professionals right across the country. However, we have been waiting and waiting. While there are some good, sound recommendations coming from that service and the deputy, again supported by the industry, we have yet to see meaningful action come out of Treasury Board or the Department of Finance which will give the go ahead to these recommendations so vital to the industry's future. I would urge all members of the government to take these proposals very seriously.
1 suspect one of the problems in cabinet is that the forest industry, in spite of the fact it is number one in so many ways in this country, is totally outgunned when it comes to the inner circles of government where the decisions are made. As 1 said earlier, the forest industry contributes more to our net trade balance than mining, agriculture, fisheries and energy. Yet if you compare those five sectors with forestry, you find they have five ministers as opposed to a half or one third of a minister responsible for forestry because the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has several other key responsibilities. He is outnumbered about 15 to one, in fact, in cabinet when it comes to pressing the case of an industry which has so much more to contribute in terms of growth. They are talking now about the possibility of the doubling of real forestry revenues in Canada by the year 2000. That is a possibility if we get our act together soon. However, because it is outgunned in cabinet to that extent, and because of the relative invisibility of that important industry, we are not getting results and people are getting more and more impatient.
In April of this year, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forestry Association sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which I would like to quote from very briefly. It said:
At the recent annual meetings of the Canadian Forestry Association and our national forestry forum, there was unanimous agreement that I write to you requesting formation of a forestry task force or special forestry subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The letter goes on:
The proposed Forestry Task Force or special sub-committee would allow selected members of the House of Commons to develop an in-depth picture on forests and forest use across Canada. It should be concerned with the resource as well as its many applications to society, particularly as the latter relates to present and future employment and development, as well as to its other direct and indirect values to our country.
This Forestry Task Force or special sub-committee should be small enough to form a viable working group, should include the Minister of Environment or his designate, the official forestry critics from the Opposition Parties, as well as at least three other members of Parliament who have demonstrated interest and a knowledge on the subject. They should have sufficient funds to enable them to travel (primarily in Canada), to meet key people and visit representative as well as outstanding examples of forestry in practice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Items Nos. 18, 22, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 41, 44, 47, 49 and 51 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot) moved: that Bill C-252, to amend the Constitution of Canada (federal general elections), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say at the outset that this is a good time for a motion such as this one to come before the House. It has been a somewhat comfortable period of time since the last election. I would not want to deceive anyone by telling him that the atmosphere in the House has been comfortable, but certainly the amount of time since the last election has been adequate. Yet, it will be some time in the normal course of events before the next election is called.
I should like to talk about including predictability in the government's calling of federal elections. Going back to the times of Sir John A. MacDonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada, during the Riel rebellion, in the heat and discomfort of that summer, dissolved Parliament for the calling of a federal election. The last election was actually called as recently as 1979, since the one forcing out the Conservative government was caused by a loss of confidence in the House of Commons. People can reflect back upon the last election call in 1979. There were expectations in early 1977 that we were
July 17, 1981

going into an election. All through 1977, 1978 and 1979 the citizens of Canada were on hold, basically believing that an election was coming right away.
Essentially, my bill would provide a situation in which four years from the last election we could expect another election. To say that an election will fall on every anniversary date four years hence would cause some logistic problems. For example, the most recent election was a February election; it would commit us for a long period of time to having elections every February. Clause 1 of my bill seeks to repeal section 50 of the act to allow the government four months, either before or after the anniversary date, in which to call an election. Virtually, it is an eight-month leeway or four months either side of the anniversary date. Then the citizens of Canada would know that an election would take place within a specified timeframe. It ought not to be the prerogative of any government to hold off its best legislation, then put it through and, as a surprise, spring an election on the public. Certainly during the years when Lester B. Pearson was the Prime Minister of Canada the country was polled to sample the public mood. When the mood was felt to be a bit sour from the perspective of the government, there was no election announcement; but when the polls showed that it looked right for a win, the government went to the people.
What is wrong with the system as it exists now? The presumption is that the purpose of Parliament is to serve the government in power, whereas the presumption ought to be that the purpose of Parliament is to serve the people of Canada. They should be able to put in place their government, and the tools which make this place function ought not to be solely in the hands of the government. The government should not have the power to dictate, on the basis of polls favourable to it, the calling of an election. In the case of the 1979 election, the government held off for three years before finally calling an election. It would have been only a few more months before the Governor General would have been required to call an election.
The right opportunity for a win is not reason enough for an election to be called. If this bill were-passed, the citizens of Canada would know that on the anniversary date four years from the last election, either four months later or four months earlier, or at any time within that time-frame the next election would take place. It would mean that opposition parties, government parties and the citizens of Canada would know what is going on. If the government holds off its best legislation until that period, then they would know what is up. It would be much better than what appear to be deceptive methods used now, where there is ongoing polling and the calling of an election when the government finds the time to be right. The government utilizes its ability to gather information in order to retain power. Elections are called today for the extension of power. They are not called, as they ought to be, with the presumption in mind that the people are the ones who should decide when an election is called.
There has been an ongoing manipulation in the calling of elections. This has been unfair, and the public has been deeply
Federal Elections
dissatisfied. In 1979, the public expected a snap election. Rumours were flying for at least all of 1977 and ail of 1978, which was the normal year for an election. It did not come about because the polls were not ready. Then we were approaching the date in 1979 when the government would have been forced to call it. Yet, the government went almost to' the death knell waiting for something to break, but leaving the people hanging as if somehow the running of this institution is only to satisfy the savouring of power by the elected government. I could say that of any party; it ought not to be its power nor that presumption.
I had the experience of attending a university in the United States for six years of my life. While there are aspects of the American system to be commended, others to be criticized and some to be condemned, I sensed the fact that they know that every four years they would elect their president and government made it a much more satisfactory arrangement than the one in Canada where we can have a majority government which on some issue it thinks is popular with the people can call an election and go for another majority government. This process is not used very much in the Parliament of Canada, but it is in some of the provincial legislatures.
We could have a majority government with a two, three or four-year range in which it can actually tease the people by saying that it will be going early. I do not think a majority government should be going early. It was sent to govern. If it has the people, it should be governing; it should not be talking about an election. Also it should not be tormenting the minds of citizens with the notion that next month there will be an election, and then not calling it. The people then wait for the next month, and it does not come. This keeps going on. The people wonder whether there will be a winter election. Then we come into the spring and through the whole next year, and still no election. It tortures the minds of Canadians in terms of when the members of this institution will be replaced. It is simply unsatisfactory.
I realize that putting a fixed formula in place has its limits in that it defies the parliamentary system. My bill would take care of that situation by providing a leeway of 40 days on either side, because a minority government could fall and the election could be called in the midst of winter.
I am sure hon. members will remember that the February election was rather uncomfortable. As an Albertan, I went about knocking on doors in Saskatchewan, and I should like to tell hon. members who are not from that province that it is pretty cold there in February. The steel doors on some of the houses were even colder. Four months later the election could have been held in the spring, and its anniversary date would have been sometime later.
I know how private members' hour works. If the subject matter is talked out, that means those who have talked it out will have denied what the citizens of this country want with regard to having some predictability. They do not want the government, this government or any other, using the election
11662

July 17, 1981
Federal Elections
process purely for political reasons. I will sit down soon since this is not a bill which requires great and extensive explanation. The citizens of Canada know its value. They believe in predictability and want it. I expect that there will probably be a speaker from the New Democratic Party, which is normal. There should be one speaker from the Liberal Party. But if the Liberals choose to put up speaker after speaker until five o'clock, then the people of Canada will be denied the opportunity to have some predictability about when elections occur. That is symptomatic of what they are demonstrating here. They would like to cling to the power they have and embrace it to themselves and call an election for political reasons, not necessarily seeing it as serving the people of Canada but, rather, serving the political party in power. I believe that this bill, while simple in its form, has a great deal to merit its adoption.
1 hope that hon. members will make a couple of short speeches and let this bill pass before five o'clock. As I have said, those who choose to speak until five o'clock are effectively denying Canadians the right to know when the next election is coming up, at least this is so in my own riding where I have conducted a simple poll. If Canadians know when the next election is to occur, they can work toward it. This allows them to believe that the government does not hold all the power with respect to when an election is called and to use that power at its whim.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few comments about the bill which is before us today. 1 must say that it is an engaging piece of legislation and one with which I have some sympathy. Perhaps what outweighs any possible advantages I see in the bill is that in my opinion it is not fitting that a short private member's bill should be the avenue for changing our parliamentary system. This bill would perhaps cause the most radical change to our system if it were adopted. I am not saying it is a bad thing, but it is something which must be given a great deal more thought. Thus, in speaking on this bill I am not in any way saying we should not be looking at it in a serious way, but I do not think this is the proper vehicle to bring about this change.
The parliamentary system, as we know it in Canada, Great Britain and many other countries, is based on the notipn that the executive, that is, the cabinet, has these powers but it is nonetheless at the mercy of Parliament. If Parliament decides at some particular point in time to vote against a government on a major issue, as took place on December 13, 1979, then the government is defeated and an election must ensue.
I can see some great advantage to having a fixed term. Certainly if you are sitting on this side of the House, as members opposite did a year or two ago, there is a great advantage to having a fixed term. It was of great advantage to my party a few weeks ago, when we were dealing with a major money bill, and we had only five or six more votes than the opposition. There are many times when members on this side of the House must be here. Anyone in government will know you have to be here more often than do members of the
opposition since you do not know how many of them will come out to vote. There is a great deal of insecurity caused by this situation.
I would like to look at the American system for a moment. I think more of us are familiar with that system, perhaps, than with any other system, with the exception of our own. I would like to look at a system which operates under fixed terms, a two-year term for congressmen, a four-year term for the president and the executive, and usually a six-year term for the Senate. These terms are set out in the constitution and there is no possibility of change with regard to them. I think we should look at this system to see the advantages and disadvantages associated with it and then adopt the best provisions for our system.
For a good portion of my life I have been very interested in the American system of government. I spent a great deal of time studying the American system of government in university, and I have visited Washington many times. I am always amazed at how the Americans make the system work at all. It is a system in which the executive body is separate from the legislative body. In our system, they are one and the same. In the American system, there are so many checks and balances. For a long time it has been a mystery to me how bills ever get through the American system. One of the major reasons for this is the intense politicization which goes on in the United States. People are constantly lobbying their representatives. Politics is a deadly serious game. One of the reasons for this is that bills are initiated in the Congress or the Senate where there is no tight party discipline. If a bill is defeated, the government does not fall.
Let us look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of this type of system. I think one of the real advantages to the American system is the fact that it is much less adversarial than our system. In that system, you cannot sit down and make a deal with another member. In ours, you can sit down and reach agreement with your opposite number, which means that we are not constantly exchanging violent and rabid debate. We are not constantly fighting. As time goes on, and certainly with the advent of television in the chamber, and the upgrading of the question period, I feel that the adversarial part of our system is not working well. Some strains are developing because we are constantly fighting with each other. Perhaps the fight might not be as real, but the public perceives us as being constantly in a quarrel. That is not true to the same extent in the United States. There is no question that the fact that one may vote on one side or the other side of the issue and that party discipline is not nearly as strong is one of those things which removes the adversarial part of it, and I think that is an extremely important fact.
I have talked to congressmen and I have talked to people who work in the congressional office. I have talked to lobbyists in the United States. There is constant, ongoing lobbying and constant politics. Someone from another party may absolutely and entirely disagree with one's views; two people may disa-
July 17, 1981

gree, a Democrat and a Republican, but one may still make a deal with them and say, "Do not be too harsh on this, and I will not be too harsh on that." That is constantly going on. I think that a lot of this, or most of this, comes from this fixed term idea. This is where one of the big disadvantages come in. When there is constant lobbying going on, when there is constant pressure, and when individuals are singled out, they could fall one way or the other on a bill when it is an individual sort of thing; and there is a great danger-I do not say that it is widespread-of corruption developing. As a matter of fact, I think Canadians get the backlash of this. Canadians look at the American political scene. American TV portrays congressmen as being politicians with their fingers in the till, as being people who are in some way corrupt. One sees this constant discussion about corruption in American politics. There is wheeling and dealing going on.


Arnold John Malone: And in Canadian politics?


Paul Edmund McRae: I think most of it is upright; but there is wheeling and dealing going on all the time, and we do not have that here.


Arnold John Malone: You want to bet?


Paul Edmund McRae: Maybe in committee we might sit down and make a deal on a certain amendment, but it is very rare. In the American system, it is a constant thing.


Arnold John Malone: Where have you been?


Paul Edmund McRae: We are politicians in this House, as there are politicians in the American Congress and in the American Senate. However, because of the closeness to the American scene, the fact that Canadians are exposed to American TV and so on, Canadians begin to see politicians in this light, as wheelers and dealers, as people who have fingers in the till, or people who are being influenced by this lobbyist or that lobbyist. That is not the correct picture in this House of Commons.
Certainly, there are some lobby groups which will come around; but basically speaking, we do not make deals, because we tend to be in an adversarial situation. One of the disadvantages that 1 think stems from this fixed term is that one develops this constant political activity, and from that comes some corruption, and from that comes the notion that politicians, in some way or another, are seedy characters who are influenced by groups which may or may not be on the up and up, and so on. Therefore, this is one of the disadvantages that I see. One leaves oneself open for the kind of corruption, or the kind of apprehended corruption, which is really not possible under our system.
I suppose I could count on one hand, in nine years in this House, the number of times that I have actually sat down with an hon. member opposite and said, "Can we get this thing through, or can we do something like that?" It is just not done to any great extent. It is done by the House leader, but it is usually only done at that level. There may be people who have opportunities to do more of this, but I do not think that is the
Federal Elections
situation. I think it is a shame that we as Canadian politicians and as members of Parliament are labelled as wheeler-dealers, because we really are not. We really do operate in this House in a very adversarial way, in a much more adversarial way than do the Americans.
I think there are other things we could say in terms of advantages and disadvantages. I have a feeling that when there is a fixed term, as there is in the United Stats, the election is constantly in progress. One knows the date, one always has it in one's mind, and one is working toward it constantly. When we are in this situation where we do not have a fixed date, where we have some kind of feeling that in three years down the line, or every four to four and one-half years, there will be an election in this country, one is not so tied down to a date and to an idea that one must meet a certain objective.
I watch the American congressional elections, and certainly, the presidential elections. I think that for a good two years, the Americans are at it. They have this date for the presidential election well in front of them. They are into primaries, pre-primaries, post-primaries, and a whole host of things, and it goes on for years and years. 1 do not think that is the case, to the same degree, in this country. Certainly we are well aware of the fact that two or three years down the line, that will happen. However, if there is not a fixed day, something that one can really grab, then I am not so sure that people tend to take it nearly as seriously or work only toward that objective, as they do in the American system. I think that is a rather bad feature of the American system. Again, it lends itself to that intense politicization which carries some dangers with it.
I do not come down on either side, because I thought about it. This is not something that I just thought about ten minutes ago, picked up and said that I would speak on it. I have thought about it a great deal. I want to say that I have not really decided, in my own mind, which way we should go. First, I would very much like to see steps in this House, through our parliamentary system, to limit, to cut down the amount of adversarial activity which goes on. Really, between parties, we are not all that far apart.


Arnold John Malone: Oh, yes, we are!


Paul Edmund McRae: Certainly, there are people on all sides who relate very well to people in other parties.


Arnold John Malone: Not to you!


Paul Edmund McRae: That is true. I may be one of the more progressive members of my party, but there are certainly people in my party who feel differently from me. It is certainly a good thing that we are able to sit down and talk to each other after we leave this House. But still and all, I think it is important that we work toward a less adversarial system. I think we should be trying to find more common denominators than we have. However, I have some really serious worries about intense politicization, the fact that we will be lobbying each other, and that we will be lobbied by everyone else if we come into a fixed term.

July 17, 1981
Federal Elections
Therefore, for these two reasons, I would not support this bill at this stage, although I think there is a concept here which is really worth looking at. I go back again to say that I think it should be looked at in a much broader way, than just in a private members' bill. This is no reflection on the private member. I welcomed the fact that he raised it. However, we must also remember that the basic parliamentary system is based on the idea that the executive has the confidence of Parliament, and that when it loses that confidence of Parliament, that is, when it is defeated by Parliament, the government ceases to exist and an election is encouraged.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-252 is to provide an element of predictability in the calling of federal general elections at fixed dates, thereby replacing British North America Act section 50 which reads as follows:
Every House of Commons shall continue for five years from the day of the return of the writs-
Section 50 could be repealed or amended to read as follows:
Every Parliament shall continue until dissolved by the Governor General, which shall be not sooner than four years less forty days, nor later than four years plus forty days-
In fact , it would be established that general elections would be called at fixed dates every four years.
Of course, when the bill was introduced in the House, one of its supporters, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), emphasized certain positive aspects, but with very little conviction, it must be admitted. It has been said, for instance, that if the dates were fixed we would be able to gather on Parliament Hill on July 1 and hand out certificates and other things. That is a positive aspect of rather limited value. On the other hand, we must recognize that such a decision, in my opinion, would lead to radical changes in the operation of Canada's current political system. A government in office must indeed enjoy a certain flexibility. It will always be argued that such a flexibility will be used only for political and partisan purposes, the fact of being able to extend a mandate somewhat, and hon. members opposite believe that the intent is simply to leave enough room for the government to call the elections at the best time, at the most appropriate opportunity.
However, it must also be realized that in order to administer the country properly and run the country's business, a government must have a certain flexibility. It must be realized as well that at times when crises occur and a government cannot set a date to adjourn Parliament and simply forget what is happening. For all these reasons, I find it somewhat strange to have such a bill before the House when we have so many more important matters to discuss. We could discuss setting fixed dates for sessions, such as is the case for the National Assembly in Quebec. We would then know when the session would begin and when it would end. There are many other
important issues that could be discussed in this House. We could talk about parliamentary reform.
However, I do not believe that the bill now before the House should receive so much attention or deserves as much consideration as the hon. member opposite seems to want to give it. 1 shall therefore be very brief and simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not consider it most urgent or necessary to approve this bill. In my opinion, if we were to decide that this bill is more important than we realize, I would prefer that it be referred to a subcommittee to be studied in depth. However, for my part, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that this is so, and I must say that I really cannot support this bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill and commend the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) for bringing it before the House for discussion. This bill in no way suggests that we eliminate the British parliamentary system in favour of the American system. It provides that the government must always maintain and retain the confidence of the House in order to stay in power. In spite of what the hon. member for Thunder Bay Atikokan (Mr. McRae) suggested, I think that is the difference between the two systems. At no time does the bill suggest that the government should stay in power for four years if it loses the confidence of the House. But, as the hon. member for Crowfoot said, it provides an element of predictability.
As things are today, we do not know when an election will be called; it could be at any time during a five-year period. The only thing that we do know is that it must be held five years from the time of the last election. That is the only fixed date we have, and it is seldom used by governments in this country, provincial or federal.
I think the hon. member should be commended for his bill and I should like hon. members of the House to consider the merits of it. Does the bill do away with some of the difficulties we experience today as the result of having no fixed day for an election? If so, the sensible thing would be to send the subject matter of the bill to a committee where necessary changes could be made to it. The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atiko-kan mentioned he also had some thoughts along this line and it is possible that other members have as well. If the bill should go to committee, then we could receive input from different parts of the country and in the end, have a better Elections Act than we have at present.
One of the objections that I have to the present act is that it disenfranchises too many people. For instance, an election may be called during holiday time. No one knows how to plan his extramural activities in order to make sure that he is in the constituency at the time of the election. There have been elections in the months of June, July, August and September and, as a result, many people have claimed that they were disenfranchised. The election must be called within a limited number of days from the date of the proclamation, and there is
July 17, 1981

a proposal before the House to reduce that from the present 63 days. Many people could be out of the country or away at college or doing anything at all and, under the present system, they could be disenfranchised. It could be argued that if there were a fixed date for an election, people would still be disenfranchised, but the number would be few because, generally speaking, they would know the date of election.
This bill provides that an election be held forthwith on the defeat of the government as is the case at the present time, and I would not want to see that changed. A government should never remain in power when it has lost the confidence of the representatives of the people. On the other hand, although this bill would make the date of the election flexible, it would give the government the opportunity to set a date for the election if it should lose the confidence of the House. It also has the advantage that instead of having a general election, the Governor General could call upon the Leader of the Opposition to farm a government. That might well save the expense of an election, if the leader could get the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. An exact date would have a great deal of merit. But that has some disadvantages. This bill has suggested that 40 days be added or taken away from that particular date. That concept has some advantages and some disadvantages and is another reason why the bill should go to committee to be discussed. We should not think because we have one method now-that of calling an election only when the government wants to call one-that there is no better way.
The strength of the present system gives the Prime Minister of the country or a premier of a province the opportunity to call an election at a time most advantageous for his particular party. It might not be most advantageous for many people or in line with the general thinking of the population. Consequently, the present election system favours the party in power. That might be all right if you are in power, but if you are not in power, people could have different views with regard to that point. Putting the power in the hands of the prime minister or a premier of a province to call an election when he or she wants and when it is most advantageous for a particular party gives an advantage to one party rather than to the people.
However, there are some disadvantages with regard to a fixed date for an election. Some people say a fixed date means you have a four-year election campaign. I am not so sure that is so. In the period from April, 1977, through to 1979, thousands of people in Canada wanted an election, but it was not called until well on into 1979. The election was called almost at the time it was mandatory. Campaigning went on in anticipation of that election for almost two years. I suppose in the United States it goes on for four years. That same situation occurs here, too. I start my election campaign the day after I am elected by trying to serve the people who elected me. I think every hon. member should be doing that. All of us look forward to the next election whether it is a fixed date or not. I do not think that aspect will change very much. However, I think this bill has enough merit to go to a committee so we can
Federal Elections
get input from the people in the provinces. I emphasize the words so splendidly spoken by the mover of this motion that the bill not be talked out but that the merits of it, or otherwise, be looked at by a committee in order that we can have the best general election act possible in the country.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speeches made by hon. members concerning Bill C-252. When I look at a piece of legislation, I always ask myself the following questions: who will win, who will lose, who will benefit and who will not benefit. Immediately I see that the person who will not benefit is the prime minister of Canada. He would lose the power to call a general election at his convenience.
I think hon. members will recognize that when the prime minister does call an election at his convenience or otherwise, he has to live or die with the decision he takes. There is responsibility in the decision in that he must abide by the results of his action.
I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what has happened in the past. I ask hon. members to cast their minds back to 1957. An election was called by the then prime minister, Louis St. Laurent. He was defeated. We had an election in 1958 called by the then prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who won the most overwhelming electoral victory Canada had ever seen. In 1962 an election was called by the then prime minister, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who suffered the most significant loss of parliamentary seats that has ever been suffered by a prime minister. Such was the majority gained in 1958 that he was able to continue in power until 1963. In 1963 the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker lost the confidence of the House of Commons and he was eventually defeated at the polls. In 1965, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson called an election without a cause. He was rebuffed by the electorate. In 1968 an election was called by the newly elected leader of the Liberal Party who later became prime minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau. He received a substantial majority in that election. In 1972 he called an election at his convenience and was severely rebuffed by the electorate. He hung on to power with two seats. In 1974 the House of Commons again voted non-confidence in the Trudeau government, but his government was restored to power by the people of Canada.


David Kilgour: That was a real tragedy.


John Mercer Reid: In 1979 the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau called an election and he lost that election significantly. In 1980 when the House expressed non-confidence in the Conservative government, the government headed by the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau was restored.


David Kilgour: That was another tragedy.


John Mercer Reid: Even though a prime minister may have this power to call an election, if hon. members look at what has happened, this power has not been

July 17, 1981
Federal Elections
abused. It is a power prime ministers have had to pay for having.
There seems to be no correlation between when a prime minister calls an election and what the results are. I would say there are two exceptions, however. In 1958 Mr. Diefenbaker used the power with devastating effect and in 1968 Mr. Trudeau used the power with devastating effect and in 1968 there was another set of circumstances at play. Both Mr. Stanfield, who was then leader of the Conservative Party, and Mr. Trudeau who was then the leader of the Liberal Party, were new and both were seeking mandates. The election of 1968 was welcomed by both sides. If we want to change the system, we must first find out where the abuses are. Have there been abuses? There has been no evidence, at least in the last 20 years, of abuse.


Arnold John Malone: In 1979.


John Mercer Reid: In 1979, the hon. member who is the sponsor of the bill says. I refer hon. members to what happened in 1979. The prime minister of the day was defeated. A new government took office. The point of the exercise is that the prime minister, having the power to call an election at his convenience, called it and he was defeated. It may be that he used the power incorrectly or he called the election at the wrong time. But I cannot understand hon. members saying that that was an abuse of power.
If you can find only one exception in the last 20 years, it seems to me there is no powerful case to be made, and the hon. member has not been able to make it.
I want to take another look at the equation. Specifically, who wins and who loses? In this case the prime minister would lose. Who would win?


David Kilgour: Democracy.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona says that democracy would win. I do not see how democracy would win by having an election on a fixed date.


Arnold John Malone: Because the people would know.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for Bow River indicated in his argument that it would be more convenient to have an election on a specific day. But convenient for whom? It would be convenient certainly for those of us in the House of Commons. He has indicated some doubt as to whether the totality of the population would benefit from the concept of an election at a fixed time. I see no particular argument for a fixed date. If one takes a look at what actually goes on, we do have elections at fixed times. We have an election on the average about every three and a half years. By stating an election must be held every four years we would be denying the Canadian people the opportunity to pass comment on their elected representatives more often than they do now.
I do not advance that as a serious argument, but I do say that the arguments of convenience or predictability do not hold much water. I say that for two reasons. First, there would be no predictability, as we have seen in the last 20 years. We have had three elections where governments have lost the confidence of the House. Under the bill of the hon. member for Crowfoot, we would still have elections. Those elections would be held when the time came, irrespective of whether or not there was a fixed time. The next election, presumably, if it went to its full term, would be held four years, plus or minus 40 days in advance or behind, a total of an 80-day variation.
Again we are not looking at predictable times or fixed times. What we are looking at is a bracketing of times. We are looking basically at removing flexibility in the system and putting it into a system which would have that much less flexibility.
We have to see what are the abuses we want to correct. The hon. member has not been able to adduce any. What are the benefits we would achieve by making this change and the benefits we would get by some form of predictability? On his own evidence and in his own bill, this would not be very much more predictable than that which we already have.
If the hon. member is not able to make a case that is powerful and strong in terms of abuses and powerful and strong in terms of benefits, why should we proceed to committee? Why should we put more time into this kind of proposal when the hon. member has not made his own case?
I want to deal with some of the questions which were raised by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), that is the question of the American system versus the Canadian system. I must confess that I have a completely different focus of attention than he does. What we are dealing with is not necessarily the Congressional system versus the parliamentary system. We are looking at two contrasting parliamentary systems. It is important to recognize that when the American revolution took place, they basically adopted the British Parliament way and froze it. We have taken the British system since that time as it has developed and grown. Consequently out of that we have had two distinct political cultures.
One of the things people complain about in our system is that it is too adversarial. It may very well be, but by and large what we are here to do is to argue out different points of view. We are here to argue in this House at least three separate points of view on the issues that come before us. There is nothing in the party structures in the House that I have ever seen that has prohibited the very strong presentation of the regional point of view. In my view, nothing has stopped the government of the day from accepting those regional points of view in decisions that are made.
I can recall when I was in opposition that we had a problem with VIA Rail. The minister of transport of the day sat down with the two members concerned. We discussed it and he came forward with a solution which, while not everything that I asked for, certainly took into account the needs of my region. I
July 17, 1981

have seen ministers on this side do that time and time again as well. There is an attempt to accommodate. I make the argument that while there is a political structure that operates in an adversarial way, that merely takes into account the kind of political culture we have and the types of political parties we have.
The second point I make is there is also room in the system, as we have all seen, to ensure that the regional interests and local interests of members are taken into account and to ensure that the government is flexible enough to take into account those needs which members on all sides of the House see as important to their areas, constituencies and regions.
I argue that when one starts to tamper with a system in a constitutional sense, the arguments to do so have to be powerful and strong. The point the hon. member is getting at in his bill is not one to be solved by dealing with the constitutional structure of the land. Instead, it is one that has to be dealt with in terms of the context of what I would call the political culture of Canada in the way in which we as parties organize ourselves in the House of Commons and in the country and the way in which we find it necessary to avoid setting any kind of fixed schedule which interferes with the political programs and activities we have in mind. I have been an advocate of fixed sitting terms for the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: So have I.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rain River):: We have not succeeded in being able to do that because by and large most members have found that it is more convenient for them in terms of the political responsibility which they bear not to fix the sessions of the House of Commons. The same argument applies equally, and perhaps more forcefully, to the constitutional proposal that my friend from Crowfoot has advocated.
I confess to having another reason for being concerned with proceeding with this bill. When you have a system that is seen by the Canadian people and the electorate as being reasonably acceptable and fair-note I did not say absolute but seen as a workable system and fair-it strikes me that when we begin to tamper with it, without powerful reasons for so doing, we begin to chip away at the kind of confidence that we have built up laboriously in our system over a long period of time.
I raise the point because if you look at the activities of a democratic system of government across the whole world, this kind of system of responsibility to the electorate is very much in peril and very much in a minority in the world. It is a system that is not growing. It is not a system where other countries are moving in to take advantage of it. We see a great many adaptations but we do not see the kind of four square democratic process that we enjoy in the North American and western countries. It is not a system that is growing. It is a system which is inherently fragile, one that has to be looked at very carefully and dealt with carefully as well.
When we start moving in to change the rules of the ball game without a necessity, without a powerful argument, without abuses to be corrected, then I have to say that I am not one of those who can see taking this bill any further. The hon.
Summer Recess
member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has performed a service. He has demonstrated the use of this rather unique private members' hour by bringing forward the proposal so that we can examine it. By so examining it, we can see whether the hon. member has made his case. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made a number of points.


David Kilgour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question if I do not interfere with his right to talk out the bill?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


David Kilgour: It is a soft question to the hon. member. If the hon. member does his arithmetic, he will discover that there have been ten elections since 1952. We have had ten elections in 29 years. Would he agree that works out to one election every 2.9 years? Does that affect his argument in any way?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the sequence that I took started from 1957. However, it does affect the argument I was making. My argument was that by analysing each election that has taken place, to look at whether there have been any abuses of the power of the prime minister or whether there has been anything we could see as a culpable bona fide abuse of the system, my conclusion is that if you go back to 1945 you will find there was probably no abuse of the system. In fact, the only one I can think of that would be of real interest would have been the election of 1917 during World War I when, in my judgment, Parliament acted improperly, although not illegally. In my judgment, the election was not done properly, but again it was not illegal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the statisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
! 1668
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the debate on the motion to adjourn the House was interrupted at four o'clock, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) had the floor and had three minutes remaining.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, just prior to four o'clock I was making an appeal to the government that, in line with the request of the Canadian Forestry Association, there should be a special task force or special subcommittee on the forest industry.
It is one of the anomalies of the Canadian political and industrial scene that it sometimes takes a work stoppage such as the one now taking place in British Columbia, where the industry there accounts for significantly more than half of the Canadian industry, for people to realize how important the forest industry is to this country in terms of government revenues and the spin-off throughout the private and public sectors.
As do the Canadian Forestry Association and many others throughout the industry, I believe that a task force or some other means is needed to draw certain matters to the attention of the public in a concrete way. We must take advantage of the increased joint interest demonstrated, for instance, by the Canada Forest Congress held last September in the city of Toronto, and the renewed interest and the working together of management, labour and professionals throughout that industry from all parts of Canada. Such a committee could take advantage of that interest and that tripartisanship, which is really a first in the history of this country to take place on such a dramatic and important scale.
The attention of the public across Canada, including politicians, should be drawn to how vitally important it is that we begin paying some attention to the supply side in the country. I suppose 1 am what is sometimes called a supply side socialist. That in itself may be an anomaly to some people's way of thinking, but within the democratic left many of us have been very interested in the productive side of the ledger for many, many years. Most of the arguments, no matter from which party they emanate, seem to refer most often to the problems of distribution. It certainly goes without saying that unless the industry which produces more for our balance of trade than all of the other major industries, other than manufacturing, combined, is in a healthy state-and it is not in a healthy state today-we are in for very serious trouble as an economy and as a society.
The last point I want to make was commented on to some degree by the Minister of Labour yesterday. It relates in a sense to the stoppage not only in the Post Office but also in the forest industry. There are some in the House who decry the right to withdraw one's labour. That right is as old as Magna Carta. I believe the phrase was "No man shall be forced to build bridges". The right to strike was not granted by government. The right to withdraw one's labour was not granted by government. It exists because it was claimed and because it was exercised, and when government recognized that right it did, by so doing, limit it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Indeed 1 feel compelled to speak this afternoon in defence of the uranium industry. I feel that there should be some perspective put into this entire argument, and I ask members of the House to bear with me for a moment while I talk about the situation as it was in Elliot Lake, an area adjacent to my area, some years ago.
This area is a one-industry town. It is a uranium town, and I urge the people in this House again to ask themselves, "Was I there?"-I do not mean here in the House, I mean there in Elliot Lake-when the markets went bust. It was not a pretty sight. People who had invested heavily in brand new homes had to pack up and leave. People who had invested in businesses walked away from them. A brand new booming town boarded up is not a pretty sight. It was a very, very difficult situation, and those of us who lived in the north were suffering very badly in that situation. I was there. At that time I was the mother of young children. We were in business, and people such as ourselves were desperate. We were very, very grateful that the government acted responsibly and wisely to help the uranium industry.
The other day an hon. member was brandishing a copy of the UCAN annual report and suggesting there was something subversive in the report and something not of benefit to Canadians. However, the hon. member neglected to read the report. I suggest it is a success story and not a failure.
How did UCAN come about? May I fill in the background? UCAN is a Crown corporation created by this government. Why? To buy uranium when nobody else was buying it, to save an industry, to save jobs, and to save a town. It was successful beyond its wildest expectations. I would like to read the president's letter included in the annual report:
Sir,
On behalf of the Board of Directors, I have the honour to submit the Annual Report of Uranium Canada, Limited (UCAN) for the year ended December 31, 1980.
UCAN's task over the report year has been to administer the Government's general stockpile of uranium concentrates which were acquired during the 1963-70 period. As action has been taken subsequent to the end of the report year to transfer this residual stockpile to Eldorado Nuclear Limited, it is appropriate that I take this opportunity to review briefly the performance of the Corporation as manager of the joint venture and general stockpiles.
In summary, the following specific actions have taken place:
1.	A joint venture uranium stockpile was developed with Denison Mines Ltd. and later sold to Spanish utilities over the period 1972-78 together with a portion of the general stockpile. UCAN's cost of acquisition for its 76 percent share of the joint venture stockpile and the acquisition cost of 1,075 tonnes of uranium from the general stockpile was $44.2 million; its net revenue from the sale was $81.6 million, resulting in a net profit for the Crown of $37.4 million.
2.	As administrators of the Government's general stockpile UCAN sold 769 tonnes of uranium to Japanese purchasers and realized net revenues exceeding the original $10.5 million acquisition price by $13.2 million.
July 17, 1981

That is a profit.
3.	The Corporation has also supported Canadian uranium producers and consumers through the loaning of stockpiled material as described in this report. Through these transactions the Corporation has realized actual revenues of $8.8 million plus long-term interest receivable of $18,147,966.
During that period.
As a result of these combined transactions the Corporation had either earned or was owed net revenues on December 31, 1980 totalling $132.2 million. This exceeds the original purchase price of the uranium sold by $77.5 million, which, in turn exceeds the original acquisition price of the residual 5,572 tonnes of uranium which has now been transferred to Eldorado Nuclear Limited.
Not only has the Government's uranium stockpiling program been a financial success, it brought stability to the dependent mining communities during the doldrums of the 1960s and has provided support to the mining industry during the chaotic marketing conditions of the early 1970s and the rapid expansion programs of the late 1970s. The uranium refining operations of Eldorado Nuclear Limited have also benefited in a number of ways.
For all these reasons, it is with considerable satisfaction that, on behalf of the Board of Directors, I submit this annual report of Uranium Canada, Limited.
For the Directors,
G. M. MacNabb President
I suggest to members of this House that this is indeed a success story, and I shall tell hon. members that a visit to Elliot Lake would prove beyond their wildest dreams that what Canada did during that period, and what Uranium Canada did for the uranium industry, was indeed a success. I invite hon. members to come to Elliot Lake to see what a boom town is all about. I invite them to examine our uranium industry here in Canada to see how healthy it is and how well it has served Canadians and Canada. I personally find it offensive that those officials of this company who have worked diligently on behalf of Canadians for the industry are now being attacked by hon. members opposite.
The stockpile was intended to save the industry, and it has done that very well. I, for one, am very proud of the actions taken by this government during that very difficult period, and I can tell hon. members that the people of northern Ontario and the people involved in the uranium industry are extremely grateful for the responsible actions the government took.
I suggest to every member of this House that they take the time to read how thoroughly and how well the report has been prepared, and how well this government has been served. A substantial net profit has been realized here which came directly to the general revenues for the benefit of all Canadians. I suggest to the hon. members opposite they do their homework and read one of the latest stories in The Financial Post which came out just this last week, suggesting that many of the things they have been saying in this House are totally unfounded and irresponsible.


Chris Speyer: Name some of them.


Judith A. Erola: I rest my case.
Summer Recess


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we met here today under the shadow of the guillotine.


An hon. Member:: Louder. Louder.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would remind you and the House that I listened with great attention to the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola). I am operating under a time restraint because of closure. I hope I will be given the same courtesy.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are operating under closure. Closure has been imposed for the first time in the history of this Parliament, indeed in the history of the British Parliament, on an adjournment motion. It is an unprecedented situation we are faced with today because normally closure is invoked to terminate debate. Here, sir, we have a situation where closure is being invoked to terminate Parliament.


Arnold John Malone: Cromwell.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is there any wonder that this government's action today is unprecedented?
Now, sir, we have to ask ourselves why we are facing closure on the adjournment motion. Last week we were faced with an intolerable situation. Parliament was scheduled to adjourn on Friday, July 10. We had a national postal strike, negotiations were deadlocked, with both sides refusing to come to the bargaining table. As responsible parliamentarians we could not walk away from that situation, and we did not. The result of our staying beyond July 10 was that we now have both sides coming back to the bargaining table. A mediator has been named. I think that is important in terms of both the debate and the closure motion.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), when he spoke yesterday in leading off the adjournment debate, made the position of our party very clear. We wanted the mediation process to work, we wanted the mediator to be given the opportunity to operate within a framework where there would be no pressure imposed on him by the parliamentary process. Consequently we made it very clear that it was not our intention to raise the Post Office dispute during the adjournment debate. So why, then, did the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), of all people, stand in his place last night, serve the notice of motion of closure, and move that motion today?


An hon. Member:: To settle the strike.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we have to look beyond the postal dispute. The real reason why we are faced with a closure motion is because the government could not tolerate the heat of the cartel scandal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that the one who stood in his place to serve notice of the closure motion, and indeed moved that motion today, was the one getting most of the heat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess


James Aloysius McGrath: He was getting that heat, Sir, in his capacity as the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a minister who has the statutory responsibility of protecting the consumers of this country. I will get back to that in a moment with reference to the remarks of the Minister of State for Mines who just took her seat.
However, there was another event which took place last week with respect to the cartel affair. That was an information laid with the court in the city of Toronto on July 7, two days, Sir, before we were due to leave this place for a long summer recess. I suspect the timing was designed to coincide with the adjournment of Parliament, so that Parliament would not be around to ask the embarrassing questions we have been asking for the last several days. However, Parliament is still here and there are very important questions we must ask.
These charges, Mr. Speaker, are serious in that they are charges of a conspiracy to commit an illegal act. That illegal act was to prevent competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, sale or supply in Canada of articles, to wit, uranium, etc., and thereby commit an indictable offence contrary to section 32(1 )(c) of the Combines Investigation Act. The information also names a group of companies as unindicted co-conspirators, including two public servants of this country, namely, Gordon M. MacNabb and John C. Runnalls.
Now, Sir, let us go back very briefly, and I do not want to repeat some of the excellent material laid before the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). However, what we are dealing with here-and this is why I wanted to go back and review it very briefly-is a concept the government seems to forget. That concept, under our rule of law, is that no person or group of persons is above the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Not even the Government of Canada, not even the Crown, is above the law, Mr. Speaker. That is the principle we are dealing with here.
There has been a charge laid of conspiracy to commit an illegal act, namely, to breach the combines act. Well, sir, let us go back. On July 8, 1981, as reported at page 11326 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked when he became aware of the activities of the uranium cartel affecting prices in Canada. The Prime Minister's reply was this:
It was several years, I think three years after the international agreement had been made, that this international cartel began to have some possible effects within our country. Once again, I am repeating information I received at the time-
He then went on to say:
Until then, there had been no demand for uranium in Canada. It was only around the mid seventies that this demand arose.
That is the Prime Minister on record.
We know from what the hon. member for Wellington-Duf-ferin-Simcoe said today that the information was in fact out. It is passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister would
not be aware of it because, according to the Congressional Record of the summer of 1977, and from the minutes of one of the meetings of the cartel which were released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, a meeting of the cartel was convened by the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, one Jack Austin, in the departmental headquarters in the city of Ottawa. All the people at that meeting, with the exception of the one who convened the meeting, Mr. Austin, the then president of Uranium Canada, have been named in the charges as co-conspirators or unindicted co-conspirators.
Reference was made to the minutes of that meeting yesterday and today in the House, and I would quote Mr. Austin from those minutes:
He further stressed that the Cabinet is in favour of the arrangement and believes it to be in the best interest of Canada for the five-year period under discussion. He further stated that the Canadian government wanted to leave it to each producer to determine the legality of the arrangement.
It continues:
At this point, Gulf inquired concerning the opinion that was to be obtained from the Minister of Justice as to the legality of the arrangement under the Canadian Combines Act. Mr. Austin replied by stating that an opinion had been obtained by the director of the combines investigation branch that the arrangement is legal as it is presently understood by the director but that it could later become illegal if orders have to be declined by Canadian producers as a result of the arrangement.
This was taking place at a time when the then minister of energy, mines and resources was stating on the public record in St. John's, Newfoundland, that no cartel existed. It must be said, notwithstanding the lack of knowledge of the Prime Minister or the fact that he did not know what was going on between 1972 and 1975, that it was not until the United States Congress began to take an interest in the matter in 1976 that the "gag" law was passed under the Atomic Energy Control Act by the Cabinet of Canada by order in council. It was entitled "The Uranium Information Security Regulation". It was not until that Congressional committee got around to an in-depth examination in 1977, by producing information and secret memoranda under its freedom of information act, that the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs decided that there would have to be an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, because obviously there was a combine operating internationally and there was enough evidence to indicate that it was affecting prices in Canada.
No one will quarrel with the hon. intentions of the government in establishing this marketing cartel. I have no quarrel with what the hon. Minister of States for Mines (Mrs. Erola) had to say. The uranium industry had to be protected. It was the government's responsibility to protect Canada's uranium mining industry. I have no quarrel with that; the motives are honourable. But I find dishonourable what the government did when it discovered to its chagrin that the cartel operating legally in the international market was having an impact on prices in Canada and was in fact fixing prices in Canada. What did it do? What did the government do when it found out that they were breaching the laws of Canada? The government attempted to cover it up, that is what it did. That is what
July 17, 1981

this whole shamefulness is about today, an attempt to cover up the fact that this whole affair was impacting upon prices in Canada.
We know that back as far as July, 1974, Ontario Hydro was told uranium would have to be bought at world prices, and that subsequently Ontario Hydro in fact complained. Going back to March 8, 1974, we know that a Gulf Minerals memo was produced under the freedom of information act in the United States which read in part:
The EMR staff does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same prices that we could achieve from export sales.
There is no question that in 1974 the cartel was operating to fix prices in Canada. No action was taken until 1977, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister became aware of it in 1975. His reason given in the House for not taking action until 1977 was that no complaint had been laid. This sounds like a rather strange way in which to administer the law. What we are dealing with here is not the honourable attempt of the government in 1972 to protect Canada's threatened uranium industry, but the attempt of the government to cover up when it discovered that the cartel was illegally operating in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of State for Mines talked about her gratitude to the government for saving the uranium industry. I would have expected the hon. lady to express her concern in the House on behalf of the Ontario consumers of electricity, since she represents an Ontario constituency. What was the effect of the cartel? Uranium prices rose from $6 per pound to $40 per pound to Ontario Hydro. We know that as of today and as of 1975 over one third of Ontario's domestic electricity comes from nuclear power, and that it will go to two thirds by the end of the century.
I am sorry the Minister of State for Mines is not in her place, but let us take a look at what happened to domestic electricity prices in Ontario during the period of the cartel. I am referring to Ontario Hydro's rates to consumers. In 1972 the first 750 kilowatts were charged at 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour. In 1974 it rose to 3.55 cents per kilowatt hour; here we see the cartel coming into play. In 1976 the first 750 kilowatts were charged at 4.8 cents per kilowatt hour. In 1978 it was 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour. In 1981 it was 9.25 cents per kilowatt hour. That is a 500 per cent increase. It is not all due to the operation of the cartel or to the increase in the cost of energy, but a large part of it is. Ontario consumers have been bilked illegally of millions of dollars, and they have a right to some redress.
Where was the minister of consumer and corporate affairs in 1977 when he started the investigation with respect to the impact on Canadian consumers? He knew at that time because it was brought to his attention. What action was taken when it first came to the attention of the Prime Minister in 1975? He did nothing, except to bring in a "gag" law by order in council in 1976 to shut up public servants who were beginning to feel
Summer Recess
uneasy. That is what he did, and the cover up carries on to this day.
I hope the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) does not interrupt me. He will have to explain to his users of electricity why Ontario users have to pay prices based on an illegal cartel operating in the country.
We know that charges have been laid selectively. We know that the companies involved in the cartel have been charged. One of those companies is a Crown corporation, Uranium Canada. During the time of the setting up of the cartel, its president was Jack Austin, then deputy minister of energy, mines and resources. We know that the present chief executive officer of Uranium Canada is one of the unindicted co-conspirators. He had the misfortune to be the assistant deputy minister of energy, mines and resources in 1972. Yet it boggles the mind that the government refuses to tell the House and the country why the co-ordinator of the cartel in Canada, why one of the instigators of the cartel in Canada, namely, the then deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, the former principal secretary to the Prime Minister, the now Senator Jack Austin, has not been named as one of the unindicted co-conspirators. That is the question.
1 submit that the reason Mr. Austin has not been named in the information is because if you get to the deputy minister, then obviously you are getting to the minister; if you get to the minister, you are getting to the government; if you get to the government, you are getting to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Because, Sir, the government is not above the law and this government stands guilty by its own inaction, by its own stonewalling, of being not only a conspirator to an illegal act but of being engaged in an attempt to cover up an illegal act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has pointed out, time constraints do not permit anyone in the House to deal at any great length with the reasons why, on July 17, we are still sitting in the House of Commons. I share his point of view, too, that enough has been said about the Post Office and that Judge Allan Gold is one of Canada's top mediators. I can say that from personal experience, having sat in on more than one dispute with him, particularly on waterfront problems.
I, too, like the hon. member, would like to talk about the uranium cartel. One of the things which has always puzzled me, intrigued me, and at times upset me about this House, is the ease with which we can fabricate a picture, weave a story based on innuendo, half lies, and sometimes blatant disregard for the truth. Let one member opposite stand between now and 1 a.m. and accuse Jack Austin of wrongdoing-just one person.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
Virtually everyone who has participated in this debate so far has emphasized that Jack Austin was a deputy minister, private secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and is now a Senator. Without saying more, these hon. gentlemen are trying to weave a picture. They seem to imply that his progress could not be based on talent, ability or knowledge, that his progression had to be as a result of some intrigue, collusion, or unsavoury act, and that this goes on all the time. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is an expert at this, if you read his questioning of the ability and talent of a lawyer named Brown, just as he questioned the integrity of a Senator not too many months ago. But I do not want to get sidetracked by rabbit tracks if I can avoid it.
I would like to talk for just a moment about the cartel. I think I recall a few of the events of 1972. I was in the cabinet at the time, and the minister at that time laid it out very clearly that Elliot Lake and other cities to all intents and purposes were bankrupt, as hon. gentlemen know. No amount of stockpiling by this government or Denison Mines could have prevented the total bankruptcy of this industry. As 1 recall, there were not less than 22 productive uranium mines at the time and, because of the selfish attitude of the United States, that number dwindled to only three. What was the attitude of the United States? Contrary to its responsibility as a signatory to GATT it simply let the world know, including Canada, that henceforth no uranium would be imported into that country at any cost. The U.S.A. showed a total disregard for its moral and legal obligations as a trading partner.
The consequences were obvious. The value of the stockpile certainly dwindled as that customer disappeared. The level of unemployment in Elliot Lake was a national disgrace. The minister explained in elegant style that the impact on small businesses and family life was obvious. As mines shut down, miners were surplus. The government did what it was expected to do, move in and do something legal about a horrible social problem.
What did the government do? It formed a cartel with other countries which also had vested interests, against the actions of the United States. And people talk about the Combines Investigation Act! Let me tell hon. members that the establishment of such a cartel for international purposes is perfectly legal, and section 32(4) of the Combines Investigation Act contains that provision. First of all, let us stop right there. According to the opposition, the government was irresponsible in taking advantage of a provision which the signatories to GATT considered to be perfectly legal and which the laws of Canada consider to be perfectly legal, that is, the right to form a cartel or trading bloc with other partners of like interest in the international sphere. That action, of course, was legal and if that cartel were to start-


David Kilgour: That is just another red herring.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suggest the hon. member opposite has said enough in this debate. This hon. gentleman has forgotten more about this House of Commons than that hon. member will ever learn. He should be reminded by his colleagues that one of the
courtesies extended in the House in a debate of this importance is that you keep your mouth quiet, your ears open, and you might learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Canada, because of the value of the stockpile, faced with the terrible impact of the United States' actions on Elliot Lake and other like communities in western Canada, sat down with other uranium interests in order to protect itself against the selfish action of the United States which was, as I remind you, contrary to the spirit of GATT. Today hon. members have said that a meeting was held in the boardroom of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Where did they want the meeting to take place? In the cellar, in the restaurant, or down the street? What was the meeting for? To do something which was perfectly legal under the laws of Canada. Why should the meeting not have been held at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources since it was dealing with mining and uranium?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I suspect the furtiveness is not to be found in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but rather in the warped minds of some members opposite. I repeat, let one member stand between now and 1 a.m. and accuse Jack Austin of corruption or wrongdoing, or suggest that he, too, should appear before the courts. The innuendo has been there in the words of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but let an hon. member have the courage to stand in his place and make charges.
I have seen so many reputations destroyed forever in this House of Commons, during the sixties. I remember a youngster named Guy Lord, working in the office of the late Guy Favreau, who had his reputation destroyed. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) gets a little tired of these insinuations. I saw that youngster's reputation destroyed by innuendo to the point that, when proven innocent months later, he was still out of work and had to go to Paris to continue his practice in the legal profession.
As a personal friend of Jack Austin, I take umbrage at hearing members opposite remind us that he was once secretary to the Prime Minister, deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, and is now a Senator, and that he somehow must have done something terribly wrong by being one of the innovators of a legal action, the success of which, if measured by the alleviation of poverty and the return of prosperity to Elliot Lake, is already in the history books of Canada.
What about Ontario? The hon. member for St. John's East, for whom I have sincere affection, talked about the detrimental impact on the cost of electricity. I share his views. If there has been wrongdoing by these uranium companies they should be prosecuted. I think that is all the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has suggested in implementing recommendations which people spent four years determining. But, as someone said earlier in this House, there are certain basic principles in this country. An hon. member opposite said that no one is
July 17, 1981

above the law. But equally no one in this country is guilty until proven guilty, and that includes individuals as well as companies.
I wonder if anyone here would like to say that the six companies are guilty. Have hon. members opposite already set up their kangaroo court? Are they doing, in the House of Commons, what the courts of the land are supposed to do? Have we lost our concept of British justice? Have we presumed, by innuendo and already come to the conclusion that everyone attached to this cartel, to this alleged illegality, this alleged price-fixing in the domestic market, is guilty? Are we at least going to have the decency to wait until the courts prove their guilt? It seems to me that this is a fundamental concept for parliamentarians. Have we lost that concept, safe in the security of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who quite often enjoys the immunity which members of Parliament are granted?
This immunity is abused by the opposition's innuendo's from time to time, when it talks about Mr. Austin-senator and deputy minister-being guilty of doing something wrong because he set up a cartel which was perfectly legal under the laws of the country, provided its impact was in the international markets. Mr. Austin left that department in 1974.
Incidentally, in 1970, when this was set up, the province of Ontario had a vested interest in its success. It was not in the market to buy uranium, but it too was concerned about what was happening in Elliot Lake. It was concerned about the social impact of the American policy on the lives of thousands of decent Canadians from Ontario who lived in Elliot Lake. When it eventually needed uranium, and when, as the hon. member said, it paid an abnormally high price, by certain standards, the hon. gentleman thought enough to say it was not strictly as a result of the cartel, because we all know that around that time uranium prices rose dramatically throughout the whole world.
The fact is that this issue is before the courts. No amount of alleged finagling or any kind of influence prevented the appropriate agency from investigating the charge of the illegality of price-rigging by certain companies in this country. The agency, after four years of investigation, feels there is a prima facie case. The recommendations of that agency to the Minister of Justice are very simple. And I am not a lawyer. It recommended that charges against these six particular companies proceed before the courts. I think there are six companies.
The Minister of Justice has not deviated from that recommendation. Imagine what would occur if he had deviated. Imagine the feigned anger of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona if we removed Mr. Brown and substituted another lawyer, called Mr. White! Imagine what he would say,"Oh, they do not want that lawyer with the great knowledge which he has acquired over four years to have any input. He knows too much as a result of going through papers for four years. Let us get rid of him and get some Liberal hack to replace him." So, how can the Minister of Justice win? The Minister
Summer Recess
of Justice is an intelligent politician, and a good and honest man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the minister had appointed-reappointed, if you like-a lawyer named Brown, whom I am defending, though I never met him, I think it is because he believes in the quality of law in this country. He believes in the qualifications of lawyers. He did not, as the hon. member did, phone some of his friends in Ontario. I will just quote, because I do not think it is worth spending too much time on it. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona phoned his friends in Ontario and he claims they never heard of Mr. Brown. Some of them never heard of Mr. Kilgour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Time!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I have to say that I am at a disadvantage when I have to refute some of the arguments of my friend from St. John's East when he talks about the heat and the scandal. I say, what heat? It is certainly not from the question period. It is certainly not from the quality of debate. What heat is on the government? Really, the case is in court. What scandal?
I challenge anyone in the opposition to stand up and accuse Jack Austin of impropriety, or any other individual, or any member of the cabinet. The opposition can do it. It has parliamentary immunity. If hon. members want to prejudge the courts, go ahead. They are the eminent lawyers, and I am only a layman. They can tell the courts they do not have to go to the courts with this problem. They will prejudge it in the question period. They will prejudge it in the House of Commons. They will make speeches with enough innuendo and enough inference that it will make the right headlines, and after two or three days it will not be alleged impropriety-it will be improper conduct.
I may appear flippant about the subject, but in conclusion, I have always been concerned that when we review the rules of the House of Commons that we try to find a medium, some happy note. Those people whose names are dropped a little loosely in this House deserve some way of redress. In some way, we must learn not to abuse one of our parliamentary privileges.
We all know the history of how this happened, the immunity we have and the immunity we need if we are going to do our job. I am used to debate; however, it seems to me that in the 20 years I have been here too many people have been slurred, vilified, condemned, ridiculed, and tainted by innuendo, to leave me totally easy with the system. It makes us immune and above the law when we resort to that practice.
I come back to the young man I knew in the sixties, called Guy Lord, and a total stranger, because months later his father sent me a letter, thankful that someone got up in the House of Commons. "Perhaps the hon. gentleman, perhaps that lawyer, is not guilty. What happens?" I remember that

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
question. One can see it in the Debates. Events proved that he was not guilty, but the press did not bother making that point. It was no longer news. His career around here had been effectively destroyed. I just make the point: go after the government, but let us be a little more careful in dropping names and weaving that great trail of innuendo, the suggestion that there has to be something wrong because the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources held an office in the boardroom-not in the bathroom, but in the boardroom-of the department, in order to sit down with the leaders of the uranium industry to put together a cartel which, under the Combines Investigation Act in this country, is perfectly legal.
In conclusion, if these firms are guilty, then the courts will decide so. Again, I might say that it might be stretching the patience of some of the members opposite if I suggested they are innocent until proven otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). I agreed with certain things that he said, and I wish to point them out. Number one, I do not like abuse of parliamentary immunity. I will be willing to go outside the doors of the House of Commons and repeat anything that I say in my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Chris Speyer: Second, no one can disagree with the basic and fundamental right of any accused that he is innocent until proven guilty, and that is beside the point in many of the matters that I want to draw to the attention of the House.
The uranium cartel, as it started out, had an understandable purpose. The last hon. member to speak was quite correct when he said that the uranium industry was, in fact, depressed throughout the late sixties and the early seventies, and that there was a need to take some action to protect the uranium industry. No one on this side of the House disputes that fact. What is at issue in this particular case is the manner and the method by which the cartel operated, and second, the actions of the government in implementing the functions of the cartel. I wish to address those two points right at the moment.
The first thing I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the uranium marketing investigation which was called in 1977. At that time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said that it would be in the public interest that the air be cleared and that the status of uranium arrangements under the Combines Investigation Act be thoroughly investigated. Not only has the air not been cleared but it has been muddied and it is murky. The investigation certainly has not been complete.
I think that in some ways too much of the time of the House has been spent considering some of the legalities and some of the charges and not enough time has been spent discussing morality.
No member of this House, including members on this side, has full information about what happened with respect to this cartel. For four years we have been asking, persistently and consistently, for information so that people's reputations would not be smeared, so that there need not be innuendo and that we would not know only a part of the truth. We have been asking for full disclosure so that the facts would be self-evident and that the law could take its normal course, and so that those who have to assume responsibility would assume responsibility.
We know certain facts which I would like to point out to hon. members opposite. We know how the cartel operated. We know that it operated through a secretariat in Paris and that this was agreed upon not only by companies whose ambition was to derive a profit but by a Crown corporation whose president was a deputy minister of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In those circumstances, the cartel would meet in Paris. There would be lead bidders, there would be secondary bidders, and there would be tertiary bidders. The sham was carried out in secret, and countries like Japan had to compete with companies whose bids were rigged. Mr. Speaker, it is no different from the dredging scandal which happened in Hamilton, close to the riding of the hon. member-


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Oh, oh!


Chris Speyer: I question the morality of operating a cartel where there are fixed bids, where there is bid rigging in circumstances such as I have described and which is outlined all through the Maas committee testimony and report. I find this absolutely shameful, Mr. Speaker, and I Hope that hon. members opposite do as well.
I think we can all imagine that, if profit is the motive, companies might get together and say, "We have to fix the price; we need a floor price". I hope it shocks hon. members opposite to think that senior officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were party to the rules that were established in Paris. That is absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker, and 1 will say it anywhere in Canada. We only have part of the documentation because we cannot get it in Canada. We have to get it in the United States where it is part of the confidential Westinghouse uranium litigation. There is a memorandum dated March 8, 1974. It should be of concern to hon. members opposite, as it is to me, in which the manager of Gulf said that "the EM and R staff, does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same price we could achieve for export sales." In other words, one can understand having an international price and having a domestic price. But can one understand when the officials of EM and R are saying, in these circumstances, that Canadian utilities "must be prepared to pay the same price we could achieve", especially when those prices are derived as a result of bid rigging?
There are many other aspects of this case, Mr. Speaker, but in 20 minutes no one could ever outline such a complex matter.
In 1977 the then minister of energy, mines and resources said in this House that there was no cartel, that a cartel did
July 17, 1981

not exist. Yet, as I pointed out in question period yesterday, Donald Macdonald, in an interview on CBC last Monday, replied in answer to a question as follows:
... all the Canadian producers or in the case of Gulf Minerals and all the essential Canadian producers at that time were told that there was government policy to maintain a floor price on uranium for export and were required to participate.
What was the situation? There were a number of companies which were apprehensive about joining the cartel and they were not apprehensive about making the profits that they saw they could make. What they were apprehensive about was not only the litigation that they could foresee when they had lawyers like Bud Estey, but they were worried about what the effect would be in the United States. It should be remembered that the agreement apparently did not apply to Canada, in the United States. Counsel for all these uranium producers had the foresight to understand that when prices are fixed internationally, they will become the world price domestically.
Companies were compelled to join this cartel because otherwise they would not get uranium export licences. That is why they were compelled. Certainly Steven Roman made that clear after charges were laid, and the former minister agreed to it when he said they were "required to participate". Yet the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien) says, "What you have done is you have violated the laws of Canada on the basis of reasonable information and belief," and launches a prosecution.
I do not know whether that shocks hon. members opposite as it shocks me. I want to know how a Canadian Crown corporation can be a named, indicted conspirator, how a Canadian corporation can be charged. We know that any corporation is just a veil. There are people behind it who make the decisions.
I have the indictment before me and I must ask many questions to which the government will not give the answers for the people of Canada. For example, the conspiracy occurred in Ottawa. That is in the indictment; that is what the Attorney General has alleged. The unlawful agreement-I am not talking about the agreement that happened in the boardroom but about the unlawful agreement that forms the substance of the conspiracy-that happened in Ottawa, up until 1978. We know that the regulations only applied until 1975.
What series of circumstances occurred between 1975 and 1978? The Minister of Justice has not been forthright about this, and there has been absolutely no statement whatsoever with respect to it. I cannot believe the stonewalling on the part of the minister. Like a broken record he gives the same answers day after day. He has quite properly made the assertion that he wants independent legal advice. No one could ever fault him for that. He has said that on the basis of that legal advice, charges were laid and that he acceded to those. No one could fault him for that.
One thing that the minister owes the House of Commons, however, is an answer to why charges were laid against some people and why other charges were not laid on the basis of the investigation. We could clear this up very easily, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you how it could be done.
Summer Recess
If the gag regulations were rescinded, then we could look at the document and we would know exactly what happened. That is not the case, however.
On May 26 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House that the underpinnings for the gag regulations remain the same, that is, to protect Canadian companies against American litigation. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what American litigation is pending now. That answer was given before charges were laid. We know that Denison Mines has settled its lawsuit and Rio Algom has settled its lawsuit, so what litigation is still pending? What is the purpose of this muzzling of the Parliament of Canada so that it does not know what is going on? Can any member of the House on the other side give any factual justification why, in 1981, these regulations should stand?
I pose a further question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has said that every accused is entitled to a fair trial. Nobody can dispute that, Mr. Speaker, but part of a fair trial is provided for in the Criminal Code where it says that every accused is entitled to a full answer in defence.
As a full answer in defence, we know that Gulf Oil and many of the other defendants have in the vaults of McCarthy & McCarthy 40,000 documents which they are unable to use at the moment. Is it fair to their defence or to the defence of any other accused to have these regulations which will prevent the defendants from getting a fair trial. What possible purpose do they serve? The minister does not want to tell us exactly what happened. Innuendos have been flying around; there is no doubt about that. That is natural in view of this government's refusal to tell the people of Canada exactly what happened in this totally sordid mess.
Now that the horse is out of the barn, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has put proposals for amending the Combines Investigation Act before interested people in Canada. One of the factors that he considers important is found on page 19 of those amending proposals respecting the Combines Investigation Act. Many hon. members on the other side might be surprised to see that the minister is recommending a ban on participation in international cartels to the people of Canada. The reason given is this:
This proposed provision is designed to cover situations where domestic competitors make agreements or arrangements with foreign competitors which restrict exports from Canada or imports into Canada or otherwise adversely affect competition in Canada. As part of the conspiracy law, it would be a criminal law provision. The increasing concentration in world trade has given rise to concerns over the dangers of the cartellization of world trade and a number of countries have taken action recently against international cartels which not only affect prices in those countries but also their trade performance.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and I have been asking questions of the Minister of Justice in the last few days concerning this cartel. Mr. David Henry, now one of the most respected jurists in this country, occupied Mr. Bertrand's former position. Obviously there was a fear during

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
the formative stages of the cartel about its legality and the best lawyers in Canada were consulted by the uranium cartel. The government had its lawyers and it was not unnatural for the Government of Canada to ask Mr. Henry who was head of the combines investigation branch what his opinion was. Why can the Government of Canada not now produce the opinion that was given so that we can all see it and can say once and for all whether or not the government was aware of the domestic consequences that would be visited upon Canadians, particularly upon the people of Ontario, as a result of the establishment of this cartel?
I defy anyone on the other side to stand in his place in the House of Commons and give a reasoned answer as to why the opinions of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) at the time and Mr. Justice Henry's opinion cannot be tabled so the people of Canada can understand. It is the refusal to make these opinions known and a refusal to rescind the gag regulations which will keep people, such as myself and every member on this side, asking question after question until we get the answers.
One problem has been pointed out by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), namely the problem of innuendo and insinuations that will occur in circumstances when the government is not forthright with respect to this matter.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that I am glad to take part in this debate. However, may I say as well that the reasons which explain our presence here this evening fill me with sorrow. I was elected on February 18, 1980, to participate along with all members in the administration of the affairs of my country. At that time I admit I thought I would be sitting here to do my share in building something or continuing to build something. Unfortunately certain events have shown me that people can also destroy just as illogically and, to my mind, that is distressing.
If we consider the work of a parliamentarian we realize that it can be extremely challenging and enriching, especially if we are concerned about doing it positively and objectively. Mr Speaker, for one year and a few months now I have been participating in various experiments, if I may put it that way. I had an opportunity to deliver a speech on the constitution. I have listened to a lot of speeches about the bills which have been introduced, but rarely did I hear objective and constructive remarks from members opposite. That puzzled me, and I wanted to know just what was the Canadian reality and especially what sensible Canadians thought of our performance in the House. So I gathered some very interesting statistics. In 114 years, from 1867 to 1981, we have had three different governments, that is three political parties which have administered the affairs of Canada: a National Union Party during four years, the Progressive Conservative Party during 35 years and the Liberal Party during 75 years. Does that mean that the party of the official opposition does not
know anything about the Canadian reality? Is it really unable to understand what Canadians want, wish for and would like to see being accomplished in their country? Are we here to build or to destroy? Are we here to go forward or to go backward? Above all, Mr. Speaker, I was altogether astonished when I heard my colleague opposite state that the most absurd aspect is that we are debating what we called closure and that this motion has been moved by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), the head of a department which was established to protect the interests of Canadians. If I may say so, that does not surprise me, particularly when we bear in mind the fact that the House of Commons is costing Canadians $300,000 a day and that during five days spoke of nothing but matters about which the government properly discharged its responsibilities. In other words, we spent $1.5 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money wasting our time here.
As concerns the postal strike, I believe that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) said that there is a collective agreement, that there are standards and regulations, that we are living in a democracy, that Parliament has given the right to strike to these workers and that they may therefore use it. There are also mechanisms which provide for mediation, conciliation, and everything necessary to settle a strike. The government has seen to it. As for the uranium cartel, what has been done this week, except to try to tarnish the reputation of certain individuals and to prejudice decisions which could be made by our courts? I have the impression that in addition to wasting the time of the House, the opposition has dealt with the issues in an ignorant manner, and 1 do not know if this term is parliamentary or not, but in any case, as an hon. member opposite paointed out this week, we have been listening to people who speak with forked tongues.
Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been elected to represent my constituents and to participate in the administration of Canadian affairs, as I have already noted. We have work to do in the House with regard to legislation. We must also sit on committees, because this is important. We must take part in the proceedings of the House and we must also work in our constituencies. Moreover, unless we were brought in by the stork, we also have a family, and for my part, I believe this is important even though we have not talked about it very much.
As I was saying, in our constituencies-it should also be said that the House of Commons sits five days a week, including three evenings, and that we must be here. This is perhaps not quite as important when you are in either party of the opposition, but when you are a member of the government and you want to live up to your responsibilities, you have to be here. If you want to represent your constituents, you must also be in your constituency to know what is going on. I would not want to speak about the problems of Elliot Lake because I am not from there, but it would be a terrible thing or a lack of
July 17, 1981

awareness on my part if I could not speak about the problems of Rimouski and Temiscouata, a rural area which needs assistance and has an absolutely shocking unemployment rate, while we are wasting a million and a half dollars in this place.
I must admit that I would have put this money to better use in my own area, and if I do not know what is going on there, how can I speak about it?
We must therefore go back to our ridings. We must therefore sacrifice our Saturdays or Sundays. How much time does this leave us for our families? If a member of Parliament has to become a slave to his job, it is time to change something in our rules, Mr. Speaker, because if members of Parliament have certain rights-and I think that they are abused at times-do the citizens who have elected us not have any? 1 am speaking about the right to meet their member of Parliament, the right to talk about what goes on in this place, the right to ask questions about the bills we pass that will influence their lives, about how we are shaping the society in which they will have to live, about how we are preparing the future for their children and ours. We must therefore sacrifice yet another day. What remains for our own family? What shall we do finally about our families? Are we going to forget them? Does the Canadian society really ask this of its members of Parliament? We are 282 in this place to represent a population of something over 23 million-


An hon. Member:: 24 million!


Eva Lachance Côté: -24 million. We are, therefore, in a privileged position. It is a great thing for someone to be elected to a parliament anywhere in the world. The question that we must ask ourselves to day is this: Are we really working positively? When I see certain things and certain actions and when I hear certain speeches, I ask myself some serious questions about democracy in Canada, and I have to wonder who has only rights and who has only responsibilities or duties.
In our system, the opposition has the right to speak. I agree with that. But when that right is changed into tyranny, when the compulsion to speak at any cost becomes tyrannical, I submit that we are bordering on anarchy. When we are detaining citizens who did a good job, and by that I mean members of Parliament who did their jobs, the people working for the House of Commons who are here with us, the people at the Printing Bureau, the translators, the cleaning staff, all those people are unfairly compelled to remain here today in order to listen to what? I would rather not answer. I would rather not know the answer either. Something is disheartening, Mr. Speaker-the more they speak, the more they repeat themselves. I do not want to pass judgment on my predecessors, but I tell myself that at some point we should attack the problem, we should especially agree on how we are going to represent our constituents, how we are going to manage the affairs of Canada.
Summer Recess
While we are here practically talking about nothing, there is in preparation something absolutely unique in Canada, if not on the American continent. I refer to the economic summit. I will not believe that no Canadian is interested in knowing what is going to happen there. But in the meantime, we are forcing the public to disperse their interest to follow what is or is not being said here. To some extent it is our own fault if they are not aware of what this country is about to experience, what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) succeeded in organizing, the meeting of the leaders from the seven most industrialized nations in the world, to discuss the problems of the haves and have-nots, while we are here wasting one and one half million dollars. Fortunately, there is a way out in the Standing Orders, otherwise we would still be sitting here at Christmas of next year. All that time, we have shirked our responsibility to tell our fellow citizens or allow them to hear what the country is experiencing.
Mr. Speaker, when I first came here, this is some sort of story, I met a reporter who asked me: Where would you rather be, here in the House of Commons making speeches, taking part in the legislative process and so on, or in your constituency meeting people? I must admit I was somewhat taken aback. However, I answered, "If you ask me what I would rather do, certainly I would rather be in Rimouski and in Temiscouata meeting the people, seeing what they are doing, what they need, how we could better help them." The gentleman from the press smiled, and I wondered what was so funny. He told me: "You amaze me. Probably you are new here, but many MPs would rather be here in Ottawa."
In the House of Commons everything is generally quiet, nobody is disturbed. If nobody comes to ask you to answer the phone, you will not go. Therefore, you will not know what is going on in your area. Is it possible that the House of Commons has become, for some, a kind of haven away from their constituents? If such is the case, it is high time we adjourned. Because there are some that need to go back in the field to see how the world is breathing. It is high time. Maybe this is why we are still here on July 17, to do what? Are we bringing anything positive to Canadians? We did not change the inflation rate 0.01 per cent. If anything, we contributed to it by keeping everybody here. But it is appalling to have a system which operates that way. Painstakingly, since the beginning of the session, the government managed to get some important legislation passed for the good of the Canadian people. No thanks to the opposition, it didn't happen with its help either. Every time a major piece of legislation was introduced, closure had to be imposed to get it passed.
Mr. Speaker, it would seem, and I have made inquiries in that respect, that it is the first time closure has to be imposed on a motion of adjournment. Allow me to say that this is no sign of progress, not at all. To my mind, it is a step backwards. It is about time that we should straighten this matter out because we are certainly setting a bad example for the young

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
Canadians who might come and visit us in this House, that is for sure.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked my comments to be more objective, more positive because, although I think I wasn't biased my remarks might not have been as dispassionate as I would have hoped. But when you represent, as I do, a riding with 43 municipalities, 75,000 people at least, 53,500 voters more or less, and an unemployment rate which fluctuates between 17 and 30 per cent you know that those people as other Canadians suffer from the same rate of inflation. They would have a lot of things to tell us, lots of advice to give us. At the present time a poll is being taken concerning some amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We are not there. We are here doing God knows what. In the meantime our constituents have to look after their problems by themselves. One of my voters wrote to me to give me a piece of his mind because he found that 1 was hard to get in touch with. I understand that. I go on television on Saturday morning in Rimouski on the French channel-


An hon. Member:: When they are not on strike.


Eva Lachance Côté: You understand his problem and I understand it too. I have sympathy for his concerns. He took the trouble of writing to me to explain how he was living through that, the strikes, the inflation, the energy problem, a problem which became more serious ever since the Conservative Party was in power. Fortunately, it was in power only nine months otherwise one wonders what might have happened afterwards. We are trying to solve the energy problem to the satisfaction of all Canadians. That particular constituent gave me his suggestions, his ideas. You cannot expect every citizen, every voter to take the time to write to you to tell you their experience and what you should do to be of greater service to them. Today we are dealing with the issue of tax agreements between the government of Canada and the provinces. We are not taking part in it, we cannot tell our people what is happening. We feel sort of powerless, but it is a self-imposed situation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion moved by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs today has become a pressing necessity. I think it is unfair to waste our time and our money in such a manner, and to deprive people who have honestly worked for months at our service from well-deserved holidays. The present situation, that is closure being applied to an adjournment motion is an aberration because nobody here who has worked honestly, who has been assiduous, positive, openminded and constructive should be embarrassed to agree to an adjournment. Above all, we should not be afraid to meet our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I think that my time is almost up. I ask the understanding of my colleagues. This situation is the first of its kind, and I hope it will not happen again.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. It has come to my attention that the reading room and the library have closed down. This is very unusual. In my 16 years in the House of Commons, whenever the House has sat the library and the reading room have been kept open.
I wonder if the Chair would look into this matter and report back to hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Yes, I will, and as soon as I have information on the matter I will report to the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak about this motion I must begin by saying that, despite my admiration for the hon. member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote), I could not disagree with her more fundamentally. She suggests that Parliament and the provision of debate in this institution are a waste of time. I find that very difficult to accept. I know the hon. member speaks with a great amount of sincerity and feeling, but I must say that I am surprised that she would tend to treat the institution of Parliament so loosely.
If we believe in parliamentary democracy and the right to freedom of speech, then we must ensure that the rights and privileges of Parliament are always secure. I think those rights and privileges are very sacred. After all, Parliament is the foundation of and very fundamental to our basic freedoms, and to suggest that we might be better off without it frightens me very much. I have been here for 13 years and I have seen an erosion of the rights and privileges of individual members of Parliament. We as individual members of Parliament obtain our rights, privileges and powers, whatever they may be, from this institution, and I would hate to see them eroded further.
By virtue of a closure motion today we have a further contempt for and erosion of the spirit and privileges of this institution. I believe tyranny begins when parliamentary debate ends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are being forced by a closure motion to adjourn at this time when there are very important issues facing this country. I too would like to get back to my constituency to deal on a first-hand basis with the people who sent me here, but at the same time I must say that I am somewhat embarrassed by the report card I must take back to them because the issues which were with us when this session began are still with us today, and in fact have been complicated and aggravated in many respects. We are sitting here in an extended sitting, which is quite unusual, but we are sitting here because there is, was and continues to be a postal crisis which is causing untold hardships and costing millions of Canadians across the country many millions of dollars.
The House has stood by. I believe it has accepted its responsibility, and it has produced some results. We now have a mediator, and we are all hopeful that the work of that
July 17, 1981

mediator will be successful. I know we all wish him well in his very challenging task because we all recognize-and I am sure I speak for all members of the House-that postal service is very fundamental and basic to our country. It positively has to be considered an essential service, because when postal service stops our country suffers very, very much.
We are faced with a motion of closure to adjourn the House. Closure has been used on five different occasions in this House, but this is the first time it has ever been used to adjourn the House. This is unprecedented in Canadian history and, I suspect, in the history of the Commonwealth.
At the very outset I must say that I abhor this tactic. I find it offensive. I find it repugnant because it strikes at the basic fabric of our parliamentary democracy. Instead of having a parliamentary democracy, we have what resembles a parliamentary dictatorship. It concerns me very much that government members tend to gloss over this so lightly and that hon. members opposite are questioning the institution of Parliament and the institution of our parliamentary democracy as we know it.
1 started out by saying that there are very important issues facing this country in addition to the Post Office crisis. There are serious economic issues including high interest rates, inflationary pressure and pressure on the Canadian dollar. There is economic depression in various parts of the country. To respond to my good friend, the hon. member for Rimouski, I must tell her that these are not insignificant matters. These are very important matters which affect every individual Canadian from coast to coast.
Much of the problem with which we are faced today has been contributed to by the failure of this government to negotiate an oil pricing agreement with the province of Alberta. The government has been in office for more than 16 months and we are really no closer to an oil agreement today than we were when the government assumed office. I find that very irresponsible and I will have more to say about it a little later on in my remarks.
The speakers on this side of the House have certainly raised many questions today about the uranium cartel, but we have not received satisfactory answers. The government is looking bad on this issue. It has every appearance of a major cover up. The government refuses to come clean and expose the documentation which it says justifies the actions it is taking. The exchanges which have taken place and the speeches made in the House only arouse more suspicion. Canadians are suspicious, and I think the whole matter smells.
Another important area which will affect many Canadians is the government's proposal to reduce rail passenger service in the country by approximately 20 per cent. This has very grave implications for many Canadians in many communities. It bothers me that the government seems hell-bent on making this announcement at a time when the House will not be in session.
Summer Recess
I can only suggest that this action is cowardly and deceptive. The government will embark upon a very unusual practice. I am not suggesting that it has not been used before, but it will perform massive surgery on the rail passenger service without giving Canadians an opportunity to be heard and without giving them any recourse. The government will circumvent the regulatory process as well as the traditional and historic methods of doing things.
When I speak of "traditional and historic methods", I bring to the attention of the House that we are all aware VIA Rail was established under a dollar vote in the estimates and that it has not been properly constituted in the parliamentary sense. It forms the basis of report No. 12 of the Standing Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments which is contained in Votes and Proceedings. It is the continuation of an early report which read in part:
The making of extensive subordinate laws on important matters such as VIA Rail Canada Inc., under votes in Appropriation Acts also produces laws and policies never debated by Parliament. Your committee's predecessor called for an end to this practice inimical to parliamentary sovereignty. It should stop and all existing subordinate laws made under Votes should be the subject of review as to merits by the appropriate Parliamentary Committees.
To follow up on that, the joint chairmen of the standing committee have been in constant correspondence with the Minster of Transport (Mr. Pepin) urging him to ratify in a parliamentary sense that which was done improperly through the estimates by bringing forth the VIA Rail Canada act so that the objectives, the mandate, the merits, the regulatory process, and all the pros and cons of VIA Rail could be debated properly before the House. We have a situation where a corporation charged with the task of providing rail passenger service will now have the rug pulled out from under it by a unilateral act, by a government edict which will reduce rail passenger service.
The other day the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) talked about parliamentary reform. If he wanted to give credence to his good intentions, he would begin by obeying the directions of the joint committee and by urging the Minister of Transport to bring forth a bill to ratify VIA Rail Canada in a proper fashion.
Before embarking upon the massive surgery of the rail passenger service which is contemplated, it seems to me that the minister should consider seriously a deferral of it until the VIA Rail Canada act is brought before the House so that we can debate its mandate and objectives. I call upon the President of the Privy Council to use his good offices to recommend to the Minister of Transport that this be done.
We do not know the rationale or the basis upon which the rationalization will take place. As for the proposed discontinuance of the Supercontinental Winnipeg-Vancouver line which goes through Edmonton, we really do not know upon what basis the decision will be made. I think an article in The Edmonton Sun put it in proper perspective:
The generally accepted rule governing the continuation of any public passenger service is that the communities it serves must either use it or lose it.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
On this basis there seems to be no case for the federal government to terminate VIA Rail Canada's transcontinental passenger train service through Edmonton. No case for the rail transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to approve an application for such termination . ..
During June, according to VIA, transcontinental trains leaving Calgary carried a total of 12,621 passengers. Those leaving Edmonton carried 539 more.
July figures for Edmonton are expected to be much higher. That's largely because VIA has been adding equipment to Edmonton trains since early June, and is still adding, in order to handle increased sales.
We would like the facts exposed. We should not be subjected to an edict by cabinet circumventing the regulatory process, with no recourse or opportunity for the Canadian people who are affected to express their dissatisfaction or objections to the move. I call upon the Minister of Transport and all members of the government to consider seriously the implications of this step before engaging in such wholesale abandonment as is proposed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the mayor of Edmonton summed it quite well in a telegram which he sent to the Minister of Transport. In part it reads:
At a time when Canada should be building communication links, your government appears to be attempting to destroy them in one of the most important areas in Canada. Surely at such a critical time in Canada's history we should be building a spirit of co-operation, and not separating parts of Canada. Any unilateral decision by your government can only be detrimental to a unified Canada.
Another telegram from the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce reads in part as follows:
This proposal is competely and totally unacceptable to the residents of this area. Such a move would greatly increase the feeling of alienation in western Canada.
The telegram from the Edson and District Chamber of Commerce reads in part as follows:
The Edson and District Chamber of Commerce strongly recommends that the federal government prior to any firm decision being reached allow the communities and the persons involved the right and opportunity to voice their objections to this proposed partial or total withdrawal of this essential rail service.
I am sure concerns and objections are being expressed in every part of Canada. If the Minister of Transport does not want the CTC to deal with the question, then he should refer his proposal to the parliamentary committee before he makes a firm decision. He should let the parliamentary committee consider the package and hear witnesses who want to express their views. Then he could make a decision. It should not be done unilaterally. It should not be done by a decree which can only hurt the people in the community and add to the divisiveness in the country.
I am sure the minister will be aware of the fact that VIA Rail is deeply starved for capital to improve its equipment. I think it has done an excellent job in merchandising, but it has to back it up with the product. VIA Rail is at the point right now where it can almost be charged with misleading advertising. It has a good marketing approach, but it needs the product to back it up. They need at least $200 million worth of capital each year over the next five years to refurbish and
build the kind of fleet and infrastructure which is required to provide a realistic and effective rail passenger service.
We must have clarification whether rail passenger services are to have priority over freight cars. That is another issue which has still not been resolved. VIA really have no power and no authority. It plays second fiddle to the railway companies; it has no lever against the railways. It has to subscribe to an open-ended contract. It is a contract but at the end of the year it is renegotiable and additional charges which the railways incur are charged back to VIA Rail. It is really no way to run a railroad and the costing order has to be revised.
I urge the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), who is sitting in the House at the present time and who is occasionally nodding in the affirmative, to clean that mess up before starting to perform wholesale surgery on the route structure, thereby denying the rights of many Canadians to passenger service in this country. I say this in the most objective and non-partisan fashion of which I am capable. I know it is an expensive service but we, as Canadians, have to make up our minds whether we want a rail passenger service in this country. Every indication I have seen, all the testimony I have read before the CTC, shows that Canadians by and large support, and will continue to support, the provision of an effective rail passenger service in this country. I urge the government to pay attention to this.
Another issue which has not been adequately dealt with in this session is the energy situation. We really have an energy crisis which is fueled by the suspension of the $12 billion Cold Lake heavy oil plant as well as by the prospect of suspension of the Alsands project. The suspension of the Cold Lake plant can only be described as one of the most destructive decisions which has ever been made in the energy sector in Canada. I have to say this quite categorically and quite bluntly, Mr. Speaker. The blame for this has to be laid at the foot of the Liberal government in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is well outlined in an editorial which appeared in the Edmonton Journal for Friday, July 10, 1981. Incidentally, Mr. Patrick O'Callaghan, the publisher, was at one time a pretty good Liberal. I think he has seen the destructive policies which have been levelled against western Canada and he certainly is very supportive of the current administration at the present time. That is not to say that he is not still a Liberal, but he has expressed a point of view which I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, is shared by most Canadians in western Canada. In an article entitled "Ottawa's failure", he writes:
Imperial Oil has shelved its Cold Lake heavy oil plant. And Alsands will probably suspend its plant north of Fort McMurray within two weeks. The responsibility for these tragic delays rests with the Liberals in Ottawa.
Canada desperately needs this oil. Conventional oil production will fall from 1.3 million barrels a day now to 710,000 barrels in 1985 and only 400,000 barrels in 1990. Canada has no hope of energy security without vast new oil



.
July 17, 1981

production. Even with Hibernia, Alberta's oil sands are essential to Canada's economic health and national security.
There are two issues: permits and prices, the first political, the second economic. The Liberals have failed completely on both counts to encourage oil sands development.
Alberta has the power to grant permits but will not do so unless there is a comprehensive energy agreement with Ottawa. Marc Lalonde failed the Canadian people miserably last year when he made no perceptible effort to reach such an agreement with Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And so you have headlines like this: "Esso decision could leave businesses out in the cold"; "Cold Lake exodus"; "Ontario loses too". It is not only the communities of northern Alberta which will suffer, the whole economy of Canada suffers. Our ability to secure energy self-sufficiency is a goal that is lost. We are losing expertise, research, and Canada desperately needs the oil. The fact that this delay will postpone the development of this plant for about two years will, in itself, cost the Canadian people some $5.6 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue on this way.
If we look at the economy, interest rates, unemployment, inflation, energy-there really is not anything good one can say about this particular session of Parliament. This session did not produce one iota of good in fostering national unity. The country is literally being torn apart. Not one piece of legislation to improve the economy has come before us, Mr. Speaker. Not one piece of positive legislation in the area of energy has been enacted. We are relying more and more on imports every day and it looks as though that situation will worsen. We are no closer to agreement. There is the suspension of Cold Lake and the possible suspension of Alsands. Gasoline and oil prices have risen and the tensions continue. Mr. Speaker, there has not been one piece of legislation introduced in this session which would help the average Canadian. This government is not only a failure, it has been an absolute flop.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, like many members in the House at the moment, and probably like many members who will appear here at one o'clock tomorrow morning, I am somewhat surprised that we are here tonight. But considering that, and considering some of the difficulties and problems still facing this nation, I may not have appreciated having to be here last Monday on the pretext that it was in some way going to help the postal workers reach an agreement with the Government of Canada in their dispute. I do not think there are any delusions in this party that the sitting of Parliament will not really contribute anything to the collective bargaining or negotiations between employers and employees. However, it has given us the opportunity this week to ask some questions about some very important issues which still face this nation.
The question of rail transport in Canada, VIA Rail, and the possibility of large-scale abandonments of those rail lines which many Canadians still support in terms of the need for rail transportation, is a very important issue in mainland Canada, and also on Vancouver Island. The closure motion
Summer Recess
which was imposed by the government this afternoon, which I think was quite unnecessary, gives me the opportunity to explain to the government some of the concerns which people on Vancouver Island have about VIA Rail and some of the activities which they have been involved in over the years to ensure that the rail service continues.
The continuation of this service is supported by people on Vancouver Island who recognize that a rail system can form a very important link between the communities on Vancouver Island from Victoria in the south to Courtenay in the north and Port Alberni inland. That rail service joins 24 communities, some of them very small, but others fairly large and growing. It takes some of the pressure off the road system on Vancouver Island, and could take off far more pressure if it were given a chance. It appears that the government of the day will do what the CPR of yesterday was not able to do and was not permitted to do by the Canadian Transport Commission, that is to say, abandon the rail line on Vancouver Island. For many years the CPR attempted to curtail its passenger service and maintain a freight service on the island.
In 1978, in a hearing held in Victoria on an application by the CPR to curtail that line, many community groups, municipal groups and individuals such as railway union workers made presentations to the CTC chairman at that time, Edgar Benson. Half way through the hearings, everyone was elated because they had heard that rail passenger service was going to be maintained on Vancouver Island. The E & N, indeed, was going to get a reprieve and four more years of passenger service would be provided.
The true significance of that event was not immediately known or recognized because people thought that the CTC was directing the CPR to continue its obligation to provide passenger service to Canadians and to people on Vancouver Island; but what had happened was that the government decided that VIA Rail would take that losing proposition away from the Canadian Pacific Railway and would subsidize the losses of CPR by renting equipment from the CPR and taking the losses of rail transportation passenger service on Vancouver Island. Therefore, CPR, after having the land grants, the mineral grants, the forest timber leases and all the real estate that it had developed, was able to get out of a losing proposition, and the Canadian taxpayer was allowed, quite magnanimously, by the Canadian government to take on that losing proposition.
Now we have a situation, three years later, where the government itself, in its restraint program, is prepared to do what the CPR could not do, and is prepared to do it in a far more cynical way. We will not even have the opportunity to have public hearings to indicate to the government the feeling of Vancouver Islanders about the necessity of a railway system on Vancouver Island, and what we would like to see that rail system really do, because it is not doing what it could do or should be doing at this moment.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
I think my colleague, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), in asking a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) the other day, summed up the attitude of the CPR when it was running passenger service on Vancouver Island, and also what VIA Rail, because of lack of budgeting and lack of finances, has done. The hon. member for Regina West says that if a passenger train is run old enough, late enough, slow enough, and dirty enough, no one will get on it and the route can be abandoned.
That is exactly what the CPR was doing, to the extent that it allowed two railway trestles north of Parksville to become so worn out and so unsafe that there was no service over those trestles. The CPR had no intention to repair that bridge until the CTC required it to do so.
If one does not want people to ride on one's rail system, one does what has been done on the E & N. We essentially have a rail system which can be considered to be a heritage rail system. The stations were built in the early 1900s. The plaster is chipping off the walls. They may have had paint. It is doubtful if they have had new roofs. However, if we want to make it a tourist attraction on Vancouver Island, and I think there are some possibilities to use that railway system for the tourist industry, we already have railway stations which were built in the early 1900s.
Another way to prevent people from using the railway system so as to abandon it, as is likely to occur, is to not let anyone know when the trains are running, or run them in such a direction that the traffic flow at that time of the day is opposite to the direction of the train. That is being done on Vancouver Island.
In 1976, there were 6,585 people who used the E & N bud car, a single car. In 1977 11,000 people used it. I can understand why the CPR was asking for abandonment of this rail line. In 1977 there was an increase in passenger service and use of that train to 11,343. In 1978, when the railway union and people became aware of what was happening and that there was a real danger of losing that system, and publicity became prevalent about the E & N, the number of passengers rate went from 11,000 in 1977 to almost 44,000 in 1978. When people understood that there was a system and were interested in taking a trip from Victoria to Courtenay, to see the beautiful Vancouver Island scenery, in 1979 that passenger service provided service for 57,000 people. So it increased, from 6,000 people in 1976 to over 57,000 in 1979 because people knew there was passenger service. In one year the CPR spent $175 advertising that service.
There is all kinds of other information and evidence to indicate why people were not using it. One of the problems with the E & N railway is the speed at which the trains travel. The track bed, the rail, the ballasts and the ties are so bad that for safety, in some parts of that route, passenger trains are down to five miles per hour, in many places 10 and 20 miles per hour, and the maximum is 40 miles per hour. That is an indication both of a desire to discourage people from using rail service in Canada, particularly on Vancouver Island, and
second, it is an indication of how poor the track is and how poor the CPR has been at maintaining the track bed.
Hearings were held in Nanaimo in March of 1980, at the insistence of myself and other groups within the community. Representatives from the CPR, the RTC, represented by the Vancouver regional director, Mr. Jim Eisler, people from the community, including fire departments, municipal councils, regional board directors, union people, ecological alliance people, and the E & N steering committee president or chairman made representations about the track and the desire to maintain the track and rail service.
Coming from that meeting was a very comprehensive report done by Mr. Eisler of the RTC. The report was submitted November 1, 1980. It is called "A Report on Certain Engineering Aspects of the Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway". We were informed that this would be one of the more comprehensive reports on any rail track bed taken in Canada. It was a kind of pilot project to do a detailed study of that track bed and relate that to standards and safety standards of rail systems. Mr. Eisler made some recommendations to the Railway Transport Commission in Ottawa dealing with derailments. I quote as follows:
There are no readily discernible trends as regards frequency of occurrence, however it has been noted that oscillatory behaviour of equipment has been a factor in four of the last seven reportable derailments on the E & N.
Oscillation occurs at certain speeds on rails systems, and often at very slow speeds. Four of the last seven derailments on that system have been because of harmonic oscillation. Trains are going very slowly because of safety factors. Because they are reduced to that speed, they are going so slow that the wheels of the train virtually creep off the track and derail that train. That is the kind of track condition we had on Vancouver Island. Because of this report, there have been some improvements.
Much of the track is 80 or 85-pound rail which was installed in 1900, and it was designed for much lighter cars than those which are going over the track now. Some of the big tank cars carrying propane, caustic soda and other hazardous goods are in the 22,000 pound range and they are not built to go over tracks of 80 to 85 pounds.
Most people on Vancouver Island are concerned about the ties. As one walks down the rail line it can be seen that ties and spikes are defective. A lot of reports made to the meeting in Nanaimo referred to those ties. We appreciate the attention paid by the CTC to the residents of Vancouver Island who expressed concern about safety.
The CTC report of November 20, 1980, had the following to say about ties:
Sampling has indicated that prior to the commencement of the 1980 work season there were well in excess of 200,000 defective track ties in place on the E & N. It was determined that 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the trackage did not comply with CP "in house guidelines" for permissible defective ties and that about 4 per cent of the trackage did not meet FRA safety standards when such criteria were applied for comparative purposes.
July 17, 1981

The CP in-house standards were not met, Mr. Speaker, for 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the trackage. That is why trains were travelling at five, ten or 15 miles per hour. The only way that safety can be maintained on a rail system like that is for trains to go slower and slower and slower until they stop. Nobody gets on the train. This is what was happening.
There was the same kind of problem with ballast. In fact, the report points out that in some places on the E & N Railway the trains were virtually travelling in the mud. We now have the spectre of the CPR, in order to eliminate some of the vegetation on the track, proposing a major spraying program in areas of the island, going through watersheds in communities such as Bowser in the north part and south of Courtenay and using round-up to alleviate the vegetation problem. I would submit that a lot of those vegetation problems would be eliminated if proper ballast were put on the railway system and plants were not allowed to grow in the mud and soil, as is the case at present.
It is no wonder that Canadians do not use rail transportation. They are being discouraged from using it just as they were under the CPR. VIA Rail has not been given the access to the capital needed to improve the system and upgrade stations-or to double track. We just want one track on Vancouver Island; we are not interested in double-tracking. What we are interested in is the opportunity to go before the CTC and make the point that we want the rail transportation system on the island. If VIA Rail abandons it, it is doing exactly what the CPR wanted to do. That transportation corridor on Vancouver Island could be used by municipalities for rail transportation and for access to the highway.
Canadians have subsidized the CPR long enough through land grants. They have been betrayed by the CPR which has not provided rail transportation. We would like to see this government take action to take over some of the assets of the CPR. If Canadians have to assume all the losing propositions, perhaps we should start looking at some of those rail lines that have been abandoned, with a view to taking the property itself and using it to better advantage.
We reject the government's attitude of abandoning those lines without giving people in the communities access to the CTC in order to make their points.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) asked the Chair to investigate the use of the library and reading room facilities. The library is open and will remain open until the House adjourns. The reading room is now open and will remain open until 10 p.m., after which time members are asked to use the identical services of the library.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is not with pleasure that I intervene in the debate on the adjournment motion but rather through duty, since,
Summer Recess
normally, in a meaningful and worthwhile debate, it would have been interesting to talk not only about our constituents but also about a concrete bill, which I assume, must have gotten far ahead of the actual work of the committees, and to debate concrete bills aiming at promoting the welfare of all Canadians.
A poet once said, "Liberty! How many crimes are committed in thy name!" On hearing what is being said on the other side of this House I feel that not only is history being relived but it seems it will always be so.
Mr. Speaker, I shall direct my comments to you although they are really intended for my fellow Canadians. I heard the Hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) say this afternoon that we should not waste the precious time of this House. Yet, it seems unbelievable that at this very hour, at 7.05, there are no more than 30 members in attendance out of the 282 who were elected, from which I infer that if this debate had been really so important, there would be more of us participating. I am pleased to note that the Government side is better represented than the two opposition parties combined.
In his play "Les Femmes savantes" Moliere wrote that if blue-stockings were short of imagination, they at least had an elaborate vocabulary which enabled them to sound impressive. Just about the same thing could be said about this Chamber. Since 1 p.m. nothing meaningful has been discussed, and I admit to being as guilty of glibness as anybody else around here. I would have liked to deal with important matters, but since we are expected to focus on the adjournment motion, we have to demonstrate the urgency or the importance of breaking up at any given moment, so that we may resume our business in our constituencies. Government members agree and so do opposition parties. I had the opportunity to travel with the Hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) last year. We went around Canada to study transportation problems, and I think that in normal circumstances, it would have been interesting, instead of making those pompous speeches, to address ourselves to the question of transport, as you have so rightly pointed out when we were dealing with that subject in your area and in Western Canada. Now, what have we been doing for a week? We said, "Let's keep the House busy at any cost, because there was the mail strike and it is the only subject we dealt with." Later on, we jumped on the opportunity to introduce the subject of the uranium controversy. As far as the post-office is concerned, our colleagues opposite who are just as well-meaning, well-informed and competent as we are, know full well that once a mediator was found, appointed and set in his office, the House as such had not much more to do about that. Even if we meant to bring moral support to the two parties, namely the Post Office and the union who are now discussing with the mediator, we would not have achieved much. On the contrary, by insisting on hanging around here like watchdogs, we seemed to imply that we expected a failure. This is the very argument put forward by the Right Hon.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
Leader of the Opposition when he advocated our staying on, here in Ottawa, to put pressure on the Post Office and send the postal workers back to work.
Why is it that a week after, just when a mediator has been appointed and negotiations have resumed only today, they oppose the adjournment motion? Why? For political gains? To show Canadians that they have their interests at heart? How commendable! But we know full well such is not the case. We know very well that the only reason we are here is that it gives the opposition the opportunity to show that we can do more than what a mediator can accomplish or what the opposing parties could do. But that is not so. As the government has said, nothing more can be done for the time being. There will be no special legislation. We will have to go along with the mediation process until we find a common ground for negotiations. That is provided for in the statutes. The opposition is always clamouring for freedom, freedom of speech and the right to be heard.
We do indeed enjoy freedom and the right to speak, but where does a right begin and where does it end? Because there has been abuse, at some point we have to be more reasonable and show some self-discipline. Members have the right to eat any time they want, twenty-four hours a day if they wish. But we know very well that using that kind of freedom would make one sick. In fact, what all members on both sides of the House should understand is that once they have voiced their opposition to some government proposal or regulation, their right has been respected. Opposition members have indeed been able to voice their opposition to a government measure and they have had press coverage.
But that is not the kind of freedom they want. They want to abuse freedom to hinder the due process of democracy. What can the opposition gain by keeping government here all summer? They will say that we must stay here because otherwise interest rates might go up, the postal service will not be restored, the uranium cartel will only get worse, while knowing full well that the report is in the government's hands. What more can they achieve? That would be akin to a doctor refusing to leave the hospital at any time, day or night, for fear that new patients might come in. At some point one has to draw the line. You have shown your opposition. The people understand. The press has reported your arguments accurately. It is not for us to judge the validity of those arguments, yet at some point one has to call it quits. I know that the hon. member for Vegreville represents a large riding whose problems are very complex, as he has told me many times. It is the same thing for me. I wish I could have attended to the construction of a road where one has yet to be built. I also wish I had had the opportunity to discuss matters with the candidate to the leadership of the Conservative Party, the president of the Iron Ore Company, my friend, Brian Mul-roney. I would have tried to find a solution to the problem of
those 150 fellows in Schefferville who have been laid off, but it still has to be solved.
That is why I have been unable to do everything I should have as vice-chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport since the month of January, at which time I met Mr. Mulroney in an attempt to find a solution for the workers who have been laid off; Mr. Mulroney himself wants the members opposite to be reminded of that. The president of the Iron Ore Company congratulated the Minister for Small Businesses, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) and myself on the measures taken to help the people in Sept-Iles and Schefferville; this is the government that came forward with this special budget proposal for industrial restructuring and community adjustment. But one problem remains, that of Schefferville. Under normal circumstances, I should have been there to help the parties involved find ways and means of implementing the plan to greater advantage. But for 15 days now, I have had to postpone all that because, day after day, a debate has been extended which in itself is useless. Anyone can ask the president of the Iron Ore Company whether or not the plan set up by the government party during the winter has been of help to him and his company. Such a plan is mostly responsible for the collective bargaining without a strike. However, hon. members opposite will not mention that. I think that as a member from an area which has known 2,000 lay-offs last winter, we have more important things to do than to discuss an entirely fictitious extension of this session. Some people, as the hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote) put it very well earlier, have done their best for us throughout the fall and spring and they should normally be entitled to holidays. Families are involved in this. The opposition is showing how irresponsible it is. If it cannot be more responsible in the House of Commons, how could it be given responsibility for the public administration as the government? This is important.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata also raised the issue of families. When hon. members get together what do we often hear? That the life of a parliamentarian is not easy, that it is difficult and complex. We are far from our families. We would like to be closer to our children and look after their education. However, we are the first ones to burden ourselves and to become martyrs in a cause of our own making. We would be much more responsible if we were in our constituencies, with our families, working normally, finding out what is going on there rather than trying to solve the issue of interest rates within the next six weeks or trying to solve the postal conflict when the ability of the mediator has been acknowledged by both sides.
Let us deal with the uranium issue now: the new problem this week. Hon. members opposite know quite well that the report delivered to the Attorney General of Canada comes from the officials of the departments involved. Unless we want to question the professionalism of those people, all that
July 17, 1981

remains to us now is to do exactly what the Attorney General is doing, that is to defer everything to the courts. Now Parliament is not a court. Parliament is supposed to legislate. When the reports are tabled, when the proceedings are launched, we will be in a position to know what it is all about and to ask questions if we should probe deeper into some matters. However, this is absolutely not the case at present. This week, we had nothing but presumptions and innuendoes. How can we possibly have a serious debate when all we are doing really is to try to mark time, to show interest in an issue which does not concern us for the time being since it is before the courts. I am surprised that mature people who were members of the previous government cannot assume their responsibilities with more seriousness.
A moment ago I said that there were 30 of us when we started off. I see now that there are two members on the NDP side and four members of the Progressive Conservative Party. I am still thinking of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who was saying that above all we should not waste the precious time of the House. There are very few people in the gallery and not many members in this House. I think we ought to be more serious because if the people saw what is going on here they would be quite discouraged because we are not doing democracy any good. Quite the opposite. When we travel through our ridings and hear what people have to say about the institutions which represent them, there is no reason to be surprised to see how little respect they have for those institutions and even for parliamentarians.
The type of comedy-that is exactly what it is, I think-we have been witnessing for the past week does not do anything at all to enhance the calibre of the debates we should be having and above all does not contribute anything to restore the fame and the lustre of an instituton such as Parliament. I for one am far from being proud to see the situation we have gotten ourselves into as parliamentarians because we did not want to co-operate and especially because we did not want to be reasonable.
We are the first to ask in the name of public interest that reason triumph over passion and that we have some parameters to guide us in certain institutions and certain conflicts, but when the time comes to apply such things to ourselves, I often have the feeling that we are unable to accept that kind of discipline. We may have a tendency to act somewhat childishly as though we were in boarding school, but this is not the way to inspire the Canadian people with respect for parliamentary institutions. And I know that people of my own generation often have a tendency to smile when we speak about Parliament.
When I first came here myself, 1 had the impression that Parliament was much more serious than this. We must admit that we deal with serious issues, but the rule which gives us the
Summer Recess
right to speak does not necessarily mean the freedom to abuse this right, even though the two are often confused. This does not restrict democracy but shows a certain discipline, and we should normally be able to do so as responsible people. It seems much easier to have good intentions than to do something concrete. What gets somewhat irritating in this House is the fact that they always want to speak, and even though I have taken 20 minutes to speak, I would have found it much more normal to be in my own region representing my fellow citizens than to repeat what has been said earlier and to say things which will be repeated later by members on both sides of the House, even though nothing will have been gained. I am certain that, sitting in his place, the hon. member for Vegre-ville is aware of this, and he should be free to say so, but I believe he is prevented from doing so by a mental restriction, because basically there is common sense on both sides of the House. However, there is always a tendency to say what we want to say and to ignore the rest. I remember one of my teachers who always said: It is better to keep quiet and be thought silly than to speak and prove it. I have the impression that it would often be better here if we kept much more quiet


Mr. Shields:: Why didn't you?


André Maltais: Perhaps we should apply this principle on this side of the House, but perhaps it has been better illustrated this past week by the other side. That is the difference. What I want to say in closing is that we should amend our rules as early as possible during the next session, because I am told that the same situation has existed and the same things have been repeated for 114 years. I would prefer the party opposite to be much more progressive than conservative, because I often feel that the opposite is true now and that they are more conservative, more limited in their creativity and their imagination than able to do something positive to see to it that our rules are changed as quickly as possible.
I have to say in all honesty that it was perhaps a good thing a few years ago to have long debates and long speeches, but I believe this is no longer the case. What is important is to outline principles, to make the public aware of the regulations and to see to it that the opposition has the time to explain its objections, and then we can vote. That is a democracy. All the rest is talk and discussions which lead nowhere unless, as the hon. member for Rimouski said earlier, we do not want to have any contact with our constituents and prefer remaining in Ottawa to enjoy the weather.
I do not think that Members of Parliament in general want this. Most of them would like to go home. It seems to me that we have fallen into a trap much deeper than we could have imagined. The hon. members should now admit that the government had no other solution than to impose this motion of closure and finally draw the line so that we could go back to our ridings. I know that the opposition would perhaps have

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
liked to show more strength, but this changes nothing in the role of the opposition. What is important when you express an idea is the strength of your argument.
It does not matter how long nor how vigorously they argue, it will not change a thing. I think their leader expressed the views of their party quite clearly and what was said after was just a rehash. It does not matter whether we stay here a year, a month or a week longer. What the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on the government side does not change the situation either. It is like a dog running after its tail. I do not think we are getting anywhere by staring at each other here on this Friday July 17 at 7.30 p.m. when we could be doing some concrete work.
Finally, I would add that it is not by sitting here, by making speeches like the one I am now making that we are going to change the country or make interest rates go down. That is for sure. I remember that when the opposition party was in power, we had to increase productivity. What is happening today? Our productivity is certainly not excessive. And I remember also that when we had 14 per cent interest rates, it was the party across the way which renewed the mandate of the head of the Bank of Canada for another seven years: It was the government of the day which confirmed the president of the Bank of Canada in his position. If we want action, if we want to find formulas, it is not by arguing as we have been doing for the past five hours now that we will do it. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the guillotine be applied, for lack of anything better, but that as early as the next session, we really get down to work in order to find rules much more appropriate not to the twentieth century but to the twenty-first century ahead.


Hon. Allan B. MicKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the speeches this afternoon. If one listened to them and looked them over, one could lump together the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) and the hon. member for Rimouski-Temiscouata (Mrs. Cote) who both seemed terribly dissatisfied with the rules of this House. I wonder who they think brought them here. The rules of this House were brought in with closure by a Liberal government. It took the spending authority out of the House. That is when this House lost its authority, effectiveness and responsibility.
That is one of the main reasons for the small attendance in the House these days. Besides, this is the dinner hour. The hon. member should not think that the shortage of personnel belongs to only one party in this House. I recall to his memory the last time, and it was a very rare occasion, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decided to speak to us, and over 100 Liberals were absent from their places.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I don't blame them. It was a terrible speech.


André Maltais: When was that?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If the hon. member cannot remember when the Prime Minister spoke, he may have been one of those who were absent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) on a point of order.


Mr. Dubois:: I would like the hon. member to give us the specific date and time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That may be something the hon. member would like to know or ask to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), but first, it is not a point of order, and second, I should like to remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Victoria is not required to answer in one way or the other.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I can only say that I endured the Prime Minister's speech on that date. When I spoke shortly after, I pointed out that there had only been 42 Liberal members present. I believe that leaves over 100 members absent. I will look up the date and give it to the hon. member. I obviously do not have time now to look it up.
I suppose it would be fair to say that this adjournment debate actually started over a week ago when the motion respecting the summer recess was introduced by the government House leader. Adjournment debates are often looked upon as opportunities to review the performance of governments. Time never permits it to be done comprehensively or in detail. Therefore, I can only speak of a few of this government's many faults.
First let us turn to the atmosphere in the House. In my eight and a half years here I have never seen anything like it. It has been an extraordinarily long session. Much of the time has been spent in the struggle between the official opposition and the government over the arbitrariness of the government. The struggle has had two quite disparate facets. One was the Constitution debate. The other was a grouping of items which could only be put under the heading of general incompetence of the government. It surfaced as a national energy program, an ineffective budget, the uranium cartel, the paranoia about hiding information, and the cessation of mail service.
The struggle concerning the Constitution resulted in a victory for the Official Opposition when the government finally agreed that the Supreme Court of Canada should have an opportunity to look at the legality of the course the government was set upon. Had it not been for the determined stand of the Official Opposition, the Constitution question would long since have been sent to another country for amending, with the amendments not having been provided by the several parts of this confederation but by the federal Liberal Party only. What a travesty of federalism!
July 17, 1981

In his speech eight days ago when the government House leader first attempted to send this Parliament home in the midst of the worst scandal to strike the government in 15 years, in the middle of a mail strike and at a time when the highest cost of living of all time was upon us, the government House leader attempted to console us with a litany of the bills which had been passed. To me it was a rather incredible performance, particularly when he stated, as recorded at page I 1426 of Hansard'.
During this session, we have passed more economic or financial bills than ever before in previous sessions-
Later he said:
-there is a lot of major and most important legislation related to financial matters, related to budget, and related to other major subjects, like the Post Office, the Bank Act and others.
Why do I consider these remarks incredible? It is because of the results so far obtained by the government. We have the largest national debt ever, the highest rate of inflation ever, the highest interest rates ever, the largest deficit ever and, worst of all, the highest cost of living ever. There is no plan for resolving our economic problems.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), when not in seclusion, seems satisfied to let things drift, hoping that a recovery will occur in the United States which might drag us up with it. That is a most peculiar attitude, in that if our government seems to be heading in any direction, it is directly opposite, economically speaking, to that of the United States.
Now the government has produced the final insult to democracy. Beset with all these difficulties, which of themselves demand action, the government has decided to abandon Parliament and to adjourn it by closure, a step never taken before in our history or, as far as I know, in the history of any mature democracy.
I believe it is quite appropriate that the cabinet minister selected to move this vicious closure does so not in his role as Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) but, rather, in his position as Minister of Corporate Affairs. The uranium cartel scandal falls within the responsibilities of that department. This is a minister, hon. members will recall, who promised that the Bertrand report would be made public. He now has the effrontery to claim that by passing it in secret to the secretive Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) he has, by his version of Orwellian double-speak, made it public. I am a salmon fisherman, but I have never seen a fish try as hard to get off a hook as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has tried to get off the hook of cabinet and ministerial responsibility in this matter. He has squirmed, he has jumped, he has dodged and run, but all to no avail.
What about the uranium cartel? I have watched carefully during the past weeks the stonewalling, deception and cover-up being practised by the mover of this closure motion as well as by his colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. The last two particularly try to answer every question on the subject by saying that their government initiated the Bertrand review. They carefully stay away from dates. This is simply begging the question.
Summer Recess
The facts are, first, that in 1971 the government began to consider forming a cartel to control the price of uranium on an international basis. In April 1972 the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources chaired a meeting in the boardroom of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources when both the deputy minister, now known as Senator Jack Austin, and the former director of the combines branch, opined that the cartel would be illegal according to Canadian law if it affected the price of uranium within Canada. Senator Austin stated that the cabinet agreed with the arrangements. Although Mr. Austin was the president of Uranium Canada, a Crown corporation now charged as a result of Mr. Bertrand's report, Senator Austin has not been charged or even listed as an unindicted co-conspirator.
The price of uranium skyrocketed in the early 1970s, and Ontario Hydro was forced to pass the extra costs on to the purchasers of electricity. I must say that I found the remarks of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) perhaps rather influenced by the district from which she comes. She was proud that Uranium Canada had, subsequent to this, made a lot of money. This may go over well in Sudbury where mining is the chief local industry, and in that particular respect I have often wondered how the Minister of State for Mines would feel if a large excise tax were imposed on nickel as this government has imposed one on natural gas which is found in my province, in Alberta and in Saskatchewan only.
In any event, the extra costs which built up that profit were paid by consumers. Consumers paid extra charges for electricity. This, of course, also rendered the cartel illegal in terms of Canadian law, and anyone connected with its management and operation, if possessing knowledge at all, would appear to be in a very serious legal position. The question then arises: was the cabinet aware of this? Was the then minister of energy, mines and resources aware? Was Senator Austin aware?
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), a former minister, spoke with his usual eloquence an hour or so ago, but I am sorry he did not see that as a good time to clear up one matter which is bothering all of us, and that is just when the cabinet did find out that the effects of the cartel were in fact raising the cost to consumers in Canada and therefore indulging in an illegal practice.
I will get back to the question of just who knew about this and who did not in a few moments because that really is the crux of the present debate.
In 1975 the effects of the cartel were known. Subsequently a group of Conservatives started an action regarding the matter. Still the government did nothing.
In 1977 the government commissioned Mr. Bertrand to investigaste the cartel. At the same time or shortly after, it passed a secret Privy Council order forbidding any disclosures or discussion of the matter in public. That was the famous gag order. In fact, it was seriously questioned as to whether members of Parliament should be allowed to ask questions on the matter.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
To get back to whether the appropriate companies and persons have been charged or not, first I might point out that two of the firms are Crown corporations the correctness of which surely must be of interest to parliamentarians. The individuals about whom we are concerned were also either senior employees of the Crown or cabinet ministers at the time. For such individuals to be held blameless, as the Minister of Justice has determined they are, they must have had no knowledge of the illegal activities carried out during what has been considered an illegal operation-and so considered by the Minister of Justice, I might say.
The government is asking us to believe that all those against which there was viable evidence have now been charged. Therefore, we assume that he considered that no cabinet member or deputy minister of the day knew anything about the illegality of the cartel, and I am speaking in so far as the effect the cartel had on the prices in Canada only.
If anyone believes the Minister of Justice, he must believe that Senator Austin chaired a meeting at which the director of the combines branch, Mr. Henry, stated that the cartel would be illegal under Canadian law if it affected prices in Canada, and yet the Minister of Justice claims that Senator Austin is innocent. If one believes the Minister of Justice, one must believe that Senator Austin, then deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, pointed out that the cabinet agreed with what was happening but, on the other hand, that he knew nothing about it. If one believes the Minister of Justice, one must believe that the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources never told his minister, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, anything about the questionable practices the cartel was engaging in.
While on the matter of Senator Austin's not even being named as an unindicted co-conspirator, one must consider that as deputy minister of energy, mines and resources Mr. Austin was also president of Uranium Canada, a shell of a company now charged as a result of the Bertrand inquiry. The additional question concerning Senator Austin is a statement to a cartel meeting, held again in the board room of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, that the cabinet approved the agreement. If the cabinet approved, one would presume it knew about it. One wonders if the one-time secretary to the Prime Minister ever found time to brief the Prime Minister on this important matter.
The Minister of Justice expects us to believe that all cabinet members, including the Prime Minister and all deputy ministers, were in blissful ignorance of these matters. The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) told the Minister of Justice that he was stretching our credulity to the breaking point. I will go somewhat further. The Minister of Justice long since passed the breaking point of my credulity. I simply cannot believe that all these people knew nothing about what was going on.
No more do I believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that model of rectitude who assured the House
that when the Bertrand report was completed it would be made public, and then passed it in secret to the Minister of Justice who refuses its release. It has been a sorry story. The government first helped to organize and coerce Canadian companies into a cartel that shortly turned to illegal practices in Canada; then, when discovered, the government passed a "gag" privy council order to stifle and to make illegal all discussion of the matter.
When one listens to the Minister of Justice at the centre of this debate, one should notice that he answers nearly every question by stating that the Liberal government set up an inquiry that lasted four years and that this should exculpate them from any complicity in the alleged illegal operation. The Minister of Justice never states when the four years were.
There are just three or four dates to remember. The cartel started in 1972. During the period 1973 to 1975, the effects of the cartel were well known but no action was taken. The Prime Minister has admitted himself that he knew of the illegality in 1975, but nothing happened until 1977. The four years the Minister of Justice boasts about were the last four years, from 1977 to 1981. Thus, during the nine-year course of this disgraceful and devious deal, the government took five years of price gouging, bid-rigging and other nefarious practices before they did anything.
Now the government has decided to adjourn Parliament, using closure to do so. This will give them three months away from the critical voices on this side of the House. They will no longer even need to make a pretence of answering questions or | accepting responsibility for the Canadian situation.
It is bad enough to close Parliament with the economy in serious difficulty, the mails not operating, rampant inflation and high interest rates devastating businesses and individuals alike, but to do it by using closure is an affront to democracy in this country of ours. It is a sorry day indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I will start my speech by saying that I am a little surprised at the last remarks of my colleague opposite for whom I have a great ; deal of respect, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), who for a good many years has been sitting here in this i House, except to say that when he says that the use of closure I is an insult to democracy, an attack on the members' rights, Mr. Speaker, such remarks do not sound true to my ears. I am a little surprised at such a statement when we are told that while we have high interest rates, high inflation, a postal strike, there are now problems to be solved and closure is being applied as a means of closing a debate.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the debate on the adjournment motion started a week ago, on Friday. Bill C-48 was reintroduced at the report stage, the opposition put an amendment forward and there has been endless talk. One after the other, opposition members have discussed the amendment. I submit they did not
July 17, 1981

accomplish much, and after sitting here for a whole week I do not think that many problems have been solved because the opposition insisted on remaining here.
This in no way means, M r. Speaker, that 1 would like to deny opposition members the right to speak. I myself chair a committee, and I see here my hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who sits on the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where we were examining the access to information bill. I tried as chairman to give people every opportunity to express their views and put questions. But faced with this whole situation here with so much talk and empty words, I would say as an experienced member of the legal profession that when we have to proceed in court and make a case either for the plaintiff or the defendant, at some point the judge says enough, and that is that. I feel unfortunately that our Standing Orders are really antiquated.
There is something that is unbelievable. I have no intention, of course, of denying the opposition their basic right to speak. Under the Latin maxim audi alteram partem, used in the courts of justice, the other side has to be heard. That is important. But there comes a point when enough is enough, and I feel that faced with that whole problem, we ought to make some change. On this side of the House, there are 146 or 148 members, we have a majority, and there is the opposition, but something is amazing. This government or rather the House can easily be opened under an order from the Speaker, but it cannot be closed without the use of a section of what I could call the code of procedure. It cannot be closed without consent.
Some ministers who used to be House leaders used to say that the House of Commons only works with consent, and it is my experience over a year and half that indeed the House does not work without consent. House leaders, both from the government, the official opposition and the New Democratic Party, meet and discuss the various bills that are to be called in order to know if they are to go through or not. There must be consent. Without consent, the bill cannot go through, and without consent the House cannot adjourn. This is a vicious circle, Mr. Speaker. What should we do? The House can be opened but cannot be closed without invoking a standing order, Standing Order 33, and the other side says this is an insult to democracy, an infringement of the right to speak! 1 understand that my hon. colleague from Nepean-Carleton and my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre, have been sitting, along with the hon. member from Drummond (Mr. Pinard), on a committee dealing with parliamentary reform.
As far as I know, everyone was agreeable to cutting down on the time members would be allowed to speak. Their right to speak would not be infringed upon but we were going to cut it down in order to update this institution. In fact, it would have to be done because the present situation is quite extraordinary.
Summer Recess
While respecting the right to speak of every member how can we explain that after one week of debate on different subjects, and mainly on the motion of adjournment, that we are now forced to resort to this procedure, that is Standing Order 33? I think this is an abuse. Can we say, that as a result of being here for the past week there has been some progress in the postal strike situation? Has there been a settlement? Has something happened in that respect? Nothing has been done. A mediator was appointed. Is it because the opposition as well as the government were sitting in the House that the matter got settled? I have said that the House can be recalled quickly, that it only takes a telegram from the Speaker requesting the calling of the House as has happened last fall when we reconvened on October 6 instead of the 14th or the 15th of October as scheduled. The House could have quite easily gone on summer recess last Friday and it could have been recalled if necessary by the Chair to continue with the debate.
Mr. Speaker, all this points out to the fact that our rules are quite out of date and that they should definitely be changed. Let us give members the right to speak, I agree. But, nothing in our little green book of Standing Orders denies honourable members of this House the right to ask questions or to participate in a debate. Mr. Speaker, if, during question period, the Chair had to recognize as many government members as opposition members, honourable members opposite would feel discriminated against and denied the right to speak. But in fact, it is in the Standing Orders that members of the government have as much right as members of the opposition to ask questions.
But what has happened? A custom developed as a result of which opposition members ask more questions than members of the party in power. However, the traditional right, under Standing Orders of the House for any member to ask questions, is the same for everyone. If the rules were applied to the letter, every time a member of the opposition would get up, a member of government should get up also if we were to follow the rules and the floor should be given to a member on the left and on the right and on the far right, thus we would draw a circle and as many members from this side could speak. But, members across the floor would complain that they are being denied the right to speak. However, that is the rule! Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I think it is about time we bring improvements to the standing rules and orders of this House. But if I am referring to the present situation, it is to point out that although some of those orders may appear outmoded, they did not preclude 65 bills from reaching the third reading stage and royal assent since April 1980. These include Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Bill C-36, an Act respecting the national anthem of Canada and several other bills which were adopted.
Regarding the bill to change the Post Office into a Crown corporation, I remember that when the bill reached the third reading stage, in this House, hon. members from the other side


Mr. Paproski:: After the next election you will be able to ask all the questions you want, you will be in opposition.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Do you think so, my friend? It has been just about 17 years that you have been in opposition.


Walter David Baker: -the justice committee.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Don't talk about the justice committee. You are a member and very often not there.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as far as the Post Office is concerned, I think that everyone is hoping that after September 1, the situation will greatly improve, an improvement which all Canadians would very much like to see. It is one of the bills which have been adopted, and I think this House has every right to be proud of this achievement which will make many if not all Canadians very happy.


An hon. Member:: What about the Italians?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Italians are Canadians as well. However, we must also remember that many bills which should have passed did not. 1 am referring to Bill C-37 to amend the Holidays Act. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is a situation most Canadians expected, and I was very disappointed to read in the Hansard of June 29 that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, for whom 1 have great respect had proposed that this three-line bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, whereas since-


An hon. Member:: What about Justice?


Mr. Crosby:: It is your fault.


Jean-Guy Dubois: It is your fault, my friend.

-1966, Mr. Speaker, concerning the name of Canada's birthday, 22 private bills have been introduced to substitute the word Canada for the word Dominion. Again in Hansard for June 29, 1981 I read the remarks made by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) when he was saying something about various newspaper articles, as recorded on page 11045, I quote:
On June 30, 1970 .. .
... in Le Devoir under the title Next Year, Canada Day .. .
And one week later the subject came up in the July 6 issue of the Gazette. Here we are in 1981 and it has yet to be done. What surprises me is that the day after, on the other side, on July 2, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) asked a question and said this, as recorded on page 11130, and I quote:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday we had Canada's birthday-
Well, one day the opposition members say that we must keep the expression Dominion Day and on July 2 the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, who was a minister in the former government, talks about Canada's birthday. So where does that party stand?
It will be recalled that very recently in Quebec the Progressive Conservatives tried a new approach, saying that the Progressive Conservatives wanted closer ties with the ethnic groups. I have here a letter, or rather a telegram which was sent by the president of the Quebec Federation of Ethnic Groups, and I will read it, Mr. Speaker:
Right Hon. Joe Clark Leader of the Official Opposition House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario
Dear Mr. Clark:
At a time when Canada is marshalling all its forces to free itself from the remnants of colonialism and recuperate all the privileges and prerogatives of a sovereign state, we had the unpleasant surprise to learn through the media that the Progressive Conservative Party which you lead has conducted a filibuster in the Commons to delay or, perhaps, to block the adoption of a bill introduced by the Hon. Francis Fox, the Secretary of State, to replace Dominion Day by Canada Day. Is that not an anachronistic intervention within the antiquated context of the past era of the Dominion which casts a shadow on our pride as Canadians?
We would have liked that law to be proclaimed on the 114th anniversary of Confederation, to the great satisfaction of all Canadians of every allegiance from coast to coast, but unfortunately you blocked the adoption of that bill. We are disappointed about that.
On behalf of the Quebec Federation of Ethnic Groups Inc. and in my name, we hope that you will change your attitude and we thank you sincerely.
Dr. Kevork Baghdjian, M.C.
President of the Quebec Federation of Ethnic Groups
So we responded to the ethnic groups in Quebec. We replied to this letter, this telegram by saying that this was a bill respecting Canadians, that we are proud of Canada, that we were proud that the bill provided for a holiday called Canada Day, but that unfortunately it had to be referred to committee because some believed that this issue had not been discussed long enough.
July 17, 1981


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On a point of order, please. I have been listening with a great deal of attention to the comments made by the hon. member. However, he claimed that on July 2 the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) rose to ask a question. 1 would read the English of the version.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Donald W. Munro: Excuse me. "Yesterday we had Canada's birthday"-
[ Translation]
-Canada's birthday, that is a mistranslation. Yes, but he said it in English, precisely!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Despite the comments to my right, it is interesting enough that the hon. member has pointed out a fault in translation in Hansard, and that is perfectly within the rules of a point of order.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Hansard for July 2, the French translation does indeed say "fete du Canada", I know that my hon. colleague-who by the way speaks excellent French-was present that day and that he would prefer it to be Dominion Day still, that is obvious from what he is saying tonight. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the turn of events. Some suggested that this was a hasty bill, yet it had been tabled in June, 1980. I wonder if one can still talk of haste after a year.
Mr. Speaker, despite all these pieces of legislation which were or were not introduced, I would like to speak of certain policies put forth. Why do we not speak of the Farm Prices Stabilization Board for example? I know our hog producers got a lot of help from the federal government, but 1 do not think we can say as much about the Quebec government. What was extremely important also for my riding was the new textile and clothing policy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians and Quebecers were waiting for this policy, which was well received both by management and by labour and which will enable our textile and clothing industry, which represents many jobs for Canadians, to keep up with the times, to become truly competitive and to give us a really Canadian product while maintaining and increasing the present level of employment. Mr. Speaker, I shall go on to something else, and I believe-


Howard Edward Crosby: Tell us about the freedom of information, first.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Yes, we will talk about the freedom of information.
Business of the House

With regard to freedom of information legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the fault of the party in power, but rather that of the opposition if it has not yet been passed. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in view of the attitude of the members opposite, the government was certainly right in using the provisions of Standing Order 33, and this is why it will certainly be very happy to see its members go back to their constituency this evening.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill C-43, the freedom of information bill, I wish that the hon. gentleman would correct the record with respect to the matter of which party was at fault, because we have not reached that.


An hon. Member:: You both are!


Walter David Baker: I think it is quite important that he do so, in view of the undertaking which I gave to the hon. gentleman, as chairman of the committee, with respect to the willingness of our party to carry this matter on.


An hon. Member:: Don't mislead the House. You have already done it once.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I realize that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) might like the opportunity to reply, but that was not really a point of order. It was a point of debate. Unless there is unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -because the hon. member's time has expired, I cannot recognize him. Is there unanimous consent to hear the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for giving me the opportunity to reply to his question. As concerns the freedom of information bill, at a certain time during the proceedings, a member of the New Democratic Party, who is unfortunately not here now, asked many questions, and later, before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, he moved that the debate be limited to 10 hours. Before that, it had seemed to me that the official opposition was willing to agree to the bill. When the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) mentioned this limit of 10 hours, the official opposition stated that it was not ready to agree to the bill. Then, let the House be the judge: Is it the official opposition or the second opposition party which did not allow passage of that bill? One thing is certain, consideration of that bill stopped right there.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in this House at any time, although


I 1692 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
I think this evening it is a sad occasion when we are speaking against a time limit, when we know the ability of elected members of this House to speak will cease, and they will be silenced, not because of the fact that they want to go home but because of the fact that they are being forced to go back to their constituencies, by this government. All of us would agree that we have been here a long time. In fact some of us would welcome the opportunity to go home. I think I would include myself as one of them. However, there are many pressing matters with which Parliament could be dealing if, in fact, the government chose to deal with them.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) when he led off the debate on this adjournment motion this afternoon. I noticed that he referred to many-
An hon. Member:: Don't forget this. This is your last day.


Charles James Mayer: I have not even started to speak, and hon. members opposite are getting excited. When the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs led off this debate he used many phrases to which I would like to refer. He said that a democratically elected majority should be able to govern. I do not know why he should talk about that. That is what parliamentary democracy is all about, and a democratically elected majority should be able to govern. By implication he is saying that the opposition should not oppose, and that it should simply lay down and let the government roll over us.
Surely one of the most basic things about any democratic system is how one treats the minority once the majority has assumed power. In some countries people are beheaded, and in other countries everything possible is done to silence the opposition. Some countries do not have closure. As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said earlier this afternoon, closure is just as ominous to us, in terms of cutting off debate and our ability to speak in this institution, as a physical guillotine is to some other countries less fortunate than ours, as far as democratic principles are concerned.
The hon. minister also talked about the excessive abuse of parliamentary procedure. I think that was, by inference, an insult to the Chair. The Chair is here, on behalf of all hon. members, to see that rules are evenly applied. I think that it is more than a direct insult to the Chair when a minister of the Crown talks about abuse of parliamentary procedures. Anything that the opposition has done has been done in strict accordance with the rules and practices of this House. The Chair has been there to observe them, and I think that what we witnessed at eight o'clock last night bears this out.
If there was an excessive abuse of parliamentary procedure, it was attempted at eight o'clock last night by the party in power. I think that it was a grave error in the minister's judgment when he talked about that earlier on today. He further stated that in the British system, second reading of bills is really approval in principle and for those who know anything about it, second reading is given in one day. We would be more than happy to give second reading approval in one day if we could discuss bills that were simple and straightforward. However, in many cases what we have had are so-called omnibus bills which contain several clauses and refer to many subjects. For example, Bill C-57, which has not been passed yet, contained 123 clauses in 122 pages. I do not know how a minister can expect a bill of that size to receive second reading in one day. It defies my sense of fair play and logic. It would not be at all responsible of the opposition to allow the government to get away with passing a bill of that size in one day.
The Bank Act, Bill C-6, has 468 pages. It looks like a telephone book. We did not pass that in one day, of course. Members of the agricultural committee and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) will remember that we gave Bill C-46 second reading in one day. It was a straightforward bill so the opposition co-operated in getting it through without a lot of debate. That is what happens with straightforward bills.
If the minister wanted to be fair and not to talk nonsense, he would see that some of his criticisms of the opposition are not fair. Bill C-46 is important to cattle producers in this country and we have been trying to get this legislation for four or five years. Now, however, if the House adjourns until October 14 there is a danger that if we move into the second session of this Parliament, without Bill C-46 receiving third reading, we will lose the bill. That would mean that we would have to go through exactly the same procedure again. Yet we gave that bill second reading in one day, but it took some prodding of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to get it on the Order Paper. For the first four months at the beginning of the year nothing was referred to the agriculture committee. We would have dearly loved to have had Bill C-46 and, had the government been interested or organized, the bill could be law by now.
The minister also said that there is contempt and erosion of the privileges of the members of the House of Commons. I think we saw that erosion take place in this precedent-setting closure motion which was pushed through by this government in order to pass the adjournment motion.
We could deal with many things if we stayed, Mr. Speaker, and one of them is interest rates. A lot of people in the country regard the subject of interest rates as a time bomb. The longer we go without considering their effect on the small businessman, on householders, on families, on people trying to make mortgage payments, the greater trouble we get into.
1 should like to put on record some figures that refer to the cattle industry. The average price of a pound of beef over the counter is $2.75 to the consumer. Of that $2.75, approximately 70 cents is attributable to interest charges. 1 refer to meat for two reasons. First, it is a major component in the diet of most people and, second, it is a product with which I am familiar and for which I am able to get figures. I suspect that the situation is the same for other foods. We need to reflect on these figures, Mr. Speaker.
We have often been accused by the government of simply opposing and not making suggestions. But many suggestions
July 17, 1981

have been made by members of both parties in opposition, Mr. Speaker. They may not be earth-shattering suggestions but they are sensible suggestions on how to hold down interest rates yet the government has chosen not to adopt them.
Recently the Canadian Cattlemen's Association ordered a study from a consulting firm to show what American farmers pay in interest charges. It was found that in many cases they were paying five to six percentage points less for operating capital than farmers in this country. When one considers that a quarter of the cost of one pound of beef is attributable to interest charges, it would seem to me that in order to bring down food costs the government should be willing to consider some of our suggestions, yet it has chosen not to do so.
In the United States there are production credit associations which have been in existence for a long time. There is also what is called bankers' acceptance finance and local banks. The Americans have a unit system of banking whereas we have a branch banking system. Their small banks operate as individual banks and that is what is meant by local banks. They also have federal land banks. The Americans make use of all these things. We do not necessarily want to copy them, but it would seem to me that we should consider the vehicles that they find work for them, but the government has not even done this. This would not only help the producer but also the consumer.
Today, figures show that inflation is very close to 13 per cent. A major factor in that is food. I do not understand why we should want to close Parliament down when there are things that could be done to help the producer and the consumer.
I have some additional figures that pertain to the cattle industry, Mr. Speaker. When a producer sells an animal, about 30 per cent of the money received is attributable to interest costs. That is a very large factor and in most cases is larger than the winter feed bill for the animal. The value of the average cow, which is the basic production unit in the beef business, is $600. At today's interest rates, the cost of carrying that cow for a year is $120. In some areas of western Canada that $120 would represent more than the cost of producing feed for the animal for all winter. That gives us an idea of the magnitude of the interest charges in the beef industry.
In many cases, because interest charges are high and unpredictable, producers are choosing not to produce at all, and that means increased prices about a year and half from now because of reduced production.
I have dealt with farming because I am familiar with it and because I am sure that many small businesses, hardware stores, grocery stores, machinery businesses, small contractors and clothing stores, all have the same problems and could attribute roughly the same percentage of their costs to interest charges. If some of our suggestions would work for the agricultural industry, I do not see why they would not be useful tools for other sectors of the economy as well.
Summer Recess
We have made suggestions in this session of Parliament that the finance committee look at the whole question of interest rates. On the first day of Parliament under the Clark government a motion was accepted under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to refer the whole subject of interest rates as a special topic to the finance committee. At that time interest rates were between 13 per cent and 14 per cent. But this government is not willing to do that.
As far as interest rates are concerned, there are many things we should be considering. In my view, money should no longer be considered only a medium of exchange. If we are basing our monetary policy and some of the government's fiscal policy on that kind of a concept, it is, in many cases, outdated. Money now has to be considered as an input and we have to look at the problems we cause as far as total costs are concerned when we raise the cost of that input. The cost associated with money when it is considered as input is interest. Simply to base our monetary policy on old concepts which need rethinking and to consider that money is simply a medium of exchange misses the boat in terms of the effectiveness of some of the policies that we have designed to deal with the interest rate problem.
Another way to judge the performance of a government is by way of a report card, which the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned. I will now quote briefly from the Speech from the Throne where it touches on agriculture. Under the heading "Developing our Economic Potential", the third paragraph on that page reads:
Food and agriculture are going to be increasingly important to the Canadian economy in the 1980s.
I agree with that statement completely. The paragraph continues:
To further strengthen the industry, my Government plans to create a Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation to expand markets for Canadian producers.
We have not even seen the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation, called Canagrex, even referred to the agricultural committee, which is one of the least partisan committees in this House. This proposal could have received second reading, and I am sure if the committee had sat during the period January to April we could have examined some of the ideas the government had with respect to the establishing of Canagrex.
The paragraph continues:
A Meat Import Act will be introduced to protect both consumers and producers.
We have not seen the meat import bill come to third reading. I am sure the government will not give much priority to Bill C-46 when we come back in the fall. If that is so, then we are in danger of losing that bill. If that happens as I said previously, we will have to go through the whole procedure again. That would be a shame and it would send a signal to the beef industry in this country, which is a very important industry, that the government does not care about Canadian beef producers.
11694

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
The following paragraph in the Speech from the Throne reads:
Transportation is a vital part of industrial strategy. My Government will ensure that the Canadian transportation system has the capacity to meet the economic challenges of the 1980s. My Government regards the production, transportation, handling, and marketing of Prairie grain as a national priority. Rail facilities will be upgraded, and port facilities improved. You will also be asked to consider, on an urgent basis, legislation concerning the transportation of dangerous goods.
I would like to give the government a bouquet in this instance because we did pass the transportation of dangerous goods bill. We have a very good transport committee and we were very pleased to get that bill passed. It was passed quickly because the Clark government had done a considerable amount of work on the bill, and it was non-partisan.
As far as other things to do with transportation are concerned, nothing has happened. We saw a delay in the construction time-frame for a new grain terminal at the port of Prince Rupert. If we are to meet our export targets for grain, Prince Rupert will have to come on stream. Those facilities have been delayed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) because he tried to renege on some of the agreements that had been signed by the previous minister of transport. It is now under way but it is probably a year behind what would have been the schedule had the hon. member for Vegreville remained as minister of transport.
The situation with respect to the Crow rate is also in sad shape. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) washed his hands of the issue and said that unless prairie producers could come to some unanimous agreement on the Crow rate, the government would not do anything about it. It is fine for the Prime Minister to be unilateral as far as the Constitution is concerned, which I think we agree is fundamentally more important than the Crow rate, but when it does come to something that is controversial and requires some leadership, the government either does not have a feel for it or does not care, because the government has no members from that part of the country. Yet the Prime Minister expects the producers who are affected by the Crow rate to come to a unanimous decision.
There are many other things that could be talked about, that should be priorities-why Parliament should be sitting and why the government should be looking at some of the positive suggestions which the opposition has put forward. It is a sad day for Parliament that when we are responsible as opposition and put forward sensible suggestions, we have to face closure sending us home on an adjournment motion. As I said, it is a sad day for Parliament, and I hope hon. members opposite know the kind of sad precedent they are setting for this honourable institution.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow a federal fellow colleague from Manitoba. I am pleased to provide some response to the comments made by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). I am particularly pleased that he seems to be so enthusiastic about continuing
Parliament. I want to welcome him back to Parliament after his extended and well-versed tour of Germany. I am sorry that others of us were unable to share in that opportunity to gain some respite from our parliamentary duties. I am sure that now he is back with us this gives him some reason for his new found enthusiasm for staying here over the summer.
Several members have referred to the fact that this adjournment debate gives us the time to reflect on past events and accomplishments of this Parliament. That is a very useful exercise. It is not often during the drumbeat of daily discussion that we have a moment to step back and ask ourselves what we have produced in our labours. There have been some suggestions that the report card we present to the public might have a few emissions coming from it, but as the hon. member for Portage-Marquette said, there might even be some errors of omission.
On the other hand, we have to be judged by the standards we set for ourselves and which the people of Canada set for us when they elected this government, at least 15 months ago.


Mr. Wilson:: It was 16 months ago.


Lloyd Axworthy: The people of Canada wanted a government that was prepared to tackle the tough issues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The people of Canada wanted a government which was not going to change its mind on the road to Jerusalem-


Donald W. Munro: You have never even seen Jerusalem.


Lloyd Axworthy: Here we have the anvil chorus going again with its loud litany of vituperation and paranoia. I am hoping that for a moment they might listen to a song other than the one they sing, because they have been out of tune for the entire parliamentary session. If the prime member of that anvil chorus wants to take a lead role, I am sure he will have an opportunity to do that when I am finished. He can get on his feet and perhaps sing solo for a change, instead of hiding in the back benches.
The people decided in that election that they wanted a government that would make decisions about tough issues. The tough ones are obviously those which create a sense of division and strong emotion. But there must be decisions made, and we have to make tough decisions.


David Kilgour: What decisions?


Lloyd Axworthy: If the hon. member in the anvil chorus wants to give me a chance, I will be glad to supply them. When this government came into power there was one dominant issue facing Canadians, and that was the unity of the country. There was a separatist government in Quebec that was using every single ounce of resource and propaganda to break this country apart. It was through the efforts of this government and the members here that we were able to fight against that act of
July 17, 1981

separation, and we were able to make a commitment to the people of that province and the people of Canada that a new constitutional framework would be put into place, and they would never have to suffer the kind of threats of separation that we had before. How many generations have had the opportunity to create a new legal framework, to put into place a foundation that will supply, for countless generations in the future, the opportunity to develop a brand new country? It is this Parliament and this government which took that tough decision. We did not back away from it. We put in place not only a new legal framework but a charter of human rights that will defend the rights of ethnic minorities and all kinds of people who have suffered from discrimination.
We know that members opposite are obviously not in favour of those kinds of measures. They sort of camouflaged their opposition. They say they like a charter of rights but they do not like the way we are going to do it. The argument was very clear and plain. They, who are so mired in their deep reactionary position of not wanting to make a decision that would change the status quo one whit, were afraid to move to a charter of rights that would provide this country with the kind of guaranteed protection of civil liberties that we have long needed, and that would provide a framework for an expansion of freedom in the future. That happens to be a major accomplishment. Every member on this side of the House is proud to have been part of that accomplishment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell us what you have done for women.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will come to that. The hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) has never talked about women's rights in his life. Maybe he will give me a chance.
We came here at a time when there was a very serious and difficult issue with the energy programs and policies, or lack of them because the other government which we followed was not able to reach a decision. They could not arrive at a consensus on development. They did not have a made-in-Canada energy policy. They were simply following the dictates of their corporate friends in Calgary and elsewhere in Alberta. We know where their energy policy was made. It was made in the boardrooms of the oil patch. Even then, when it was reflective of that particular corporate interest, they still could not get an agreement with their fellow colleague, the Conservative premier in the province of Alberta.


David Kilgour: What about southern Saskatchewan?


Lloyd Axworthy: That paragon of paranoia over in the corner could not convince his premier of Alberta to come to an energy agreement. I suggest that he redirect his efforts westward, because that is where they really belong.
We now have in place an energy policy that is for the benefit of Canadians. It is designed to restore the ownership of our resources to Canadians, to make sure that the development and control and management of our resources will be done by Canadians. That is an accomplishment of which I am proud.
Summer Recess


David Kilgour: How many jobs in western Canada have been lost with your policy?


Lloyd Axworthy: If I may be allowed just one small digression for the hon. member of paranoia over there, I will point out to him that the last employment figures in the province of Alberta show a decrease in the level of unemployment over the year for the month before, and the month before that. It is the lowest record of unemployment in the province of Alberta in the month of June. I know it is difficult for the hon. member to read figures, but I suggest he go back and look at what is really happening to the economy there.
The problem in the west is not lack of work. It is making sure that we can supply enough workers for all the jobs that will be there. That is the real issue. That comes back to the other kind of tough decision that had to be made. It was to put in place a series of programs and policies that would amount to a major attack upon the problems of industrial economic development in this country.
The hon. member for Portage-Marquette asked about transport. Let me remind him that there is a new harbour policy in place. It will provide for full scale management of our new harbours, for a change. We are now establishing a new air policy in this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about VIA Rail?


Lloyd Axworthy: In terms of VIA Rail, how many members on the other side of the House have preached for years about the need for an efficient use of resources and how we must capitalize our railway to get far better performance? That is what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has put into place. The reason is because we have a Minister of Transport who is prepared to make tough decisions, not to back away, not to hide his head in the sand, not to get himself confused in a web of paranoia and fear, and simply allowing himself to be yelling into a rain barrel, but to make tough decision, because that is what we were elected to do.
If there has been any problem with bankruptcy in this country, it has been the bankruptcy of ideas, commitment, or anything positive by the members opposite. The only answer that they have is to engage in character assassination. We have here, as a final tribute to their contribution to the debate and discussion of political issues in Canada, the great issue of the uranium cartel. We have listened now for two solid weeks to all the innuendo, allegation and picking in the garbage can members opposite trying to dredge up something to hit what they think to be a Liberal.
What they refuse to recognize is that the steps that have been followed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let) have been prescribed by law, and the common law of this country. It is to investigate any suspicion, to develop a report, to have that report referred to the Minister of Justice, and to take it to court. Members opposite appear to have lost their respect for the law and due process of the law. If that is the case, then we are in a sorry state of opposition in this country.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
We have heard very often about the need to refer matters to the courts. One of the great principles we have heard from the Conservative party is, "Let's go to court." We heard that week after week in the constitutional debate. They said it was the only institution we could trust with objectivity. They wanted to go to the courts because they were the only ones we could trust. What happens when we get to the uranium cartel and take the issue to court? They say, "Don't trust the courts." Well, they cannot have it both ways.
The same kind of gross political expendiency has been displayed once again in their great act of statesmanship in the postal dispute. 1 read some of the statements of their once or future leader. He says, "We must broaden our base, appeal to the working people of this country, and respect the whole question of labour."
Here we have an industrial dispute, one that was carried out under the proper arrangements of the law of this land. They are a public service union. We may not like it, we may not in any way advocate their stand, but the union has the right to strike. But the first moment that it strikes, what is the call from the other side? Get them back to work!" The problem is that they did not even allow the proper due process of industrial bargaining and relations to even show what it was prepared to do. Instead, they stuck their big feet and big nose into it and prevented us from getting the kind of settlement that we needed when we could have got it. As a result they used Parliament as a battering ram to forge themselves and their own political objectives, and forgot about the public interest, which was to get that dispute resolved and settled. If there are people in this country who are responsible for holding up the resolution of the postal dispute, I am looking at them right now. Their erstwhile leader, who is so anxious to stay in Parliament, has not managed to stay around for the debate in the final moments of his glory. We are sorry he is not here to share in these final moments of quiet reflection about the past record.
It is a sad day for politics in this country when one man, for his own political expediency and his own political future, is allowed to disrupt the public interest of this nation. The hon. member for Portage-Marquette said that majorities must be careful about their privileges and powers. That is true, but equally so must minorities. There is no minority in this country which should be allowed to blackmail the rest of the country to serve its expedient political purposes.
Who in the House will ever forget the spectacle of Conservative members of Parliament yelling and screaming and shaking their fists in the centre of this chamber? They talk about respect for Parliament and respect for the rules. Who will ever forget how little respect was shown that night when they stormed the Chair, surrounded the Table, shook their fists, and yelled at the top of their lungs because they could not have their way? That is the party which does not respect Parliament.
Hon. members opposite showed that evening that their respect for Parliament goes only so far as their interests are served. It is difficult for us to accept their cries and pleas about respect for the propriety of Parliament when we see the flagrant and abusive way they are prepared to trample the rights of Parliament into the carpet in the centre of this chamber.


An hon. Member:: Take another 20 minutes and we will all go home.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are running out of time.


Some hon. Members:: More!


Lloyd Axworthy: It will continue only if I have the unanimous consent of the House.
There is no question that we are dealing with difficult and turbulent times. All the countries whose leaders are gathering here this weekend for a Summit are facing major problems of inflation and problems of trying to find responsible management of their economies. However, the one requirement in each of those cases is to make tough decisions. This government is prepared to do just that, but we are prepared to do it with a sense of compassion and understanding. We should not simply tighten the belt, and kill the patient while doing so, but that is what the previous government was prepared to do.
While hon. members opposite are whiling away their summer hours beside a lake listening to the loons, which I know the hon. member from Edmonton does a lot, I ask them to reflect on how often they have held up as an example the programs and policies of Margaret Thatcher. During the debate on the budget we were asked by them to look overseas at the example being shown to us by the government of the United Kingdom in the way it was cutting back, restraining, cutting back employment programs and cutting back job creation. They said that is the way to run a country. This last week we have seen what the price of that has been. Short-term gain for long-term pain has been the policy of that government, but we are not prepared to follow those false prophets into that kind of program. That would force this country into the same turbulence the United Kingdom is now facing. We are proud that we have tried to stand up against the false cries we heard from hon. members opposite in the budget debate.
We have tough decisions to make. We recognize that those tough decisions will at times result in cries of alarm. They will result in emotional outcries, and create deep divisions with respect to approach, but we are prepared to make them.
I would like to close by saying to hon. members opposite that we now have a time in which all of us can do some reflecting. I hope when we come back for the next session of Parliament hon. members will show the spirit of co-operation, dedication and willingness to make tough decisions that this government has shown in this session of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 17, 1981


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister one question. He said he would answer. What exactly has he done for women in 1981?


Mr. Rossi:: Something you couldn't do.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to answer that question, but it would take me at least another 20 minutes even to begin to provide the answer. If the hon. member and the House are prepared to give me the time, I would be quite prepared to have another full round and respond to that question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just tell me one thing you have done.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister would tell us about the arrangements he made for Mr. Calamusa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Setting aside the possibility that hon. members may wish the minister to take a second round, his time has expired, and I think I should recognize the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson).


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to a great big silence for the last 20 minutes on what the minister responsible for the status of women has done for the women of this country. The greatest thing the minister could do for women would be to go to Spadina, work for Laura Sabia and bring her up to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister is responsible for minorities in this country. One of those minorities is the Liberals in western Canada. I want to remind the minister that there are 21 Liberals representing eight provinces and two territories. I think hon. members opposite should recognize the tremendous responsibility the minister responsible for Liberals in western Canada and the status of women has, and that he should treat them with a little more respect than he does. Hon. members opposite should build them up in their party. It is important to the rest of the country.
A minute ago the minister said that it is a sad day for politics in this country. Today this House is witnessing a government in great distress. It is a sad day for politics in this country because never before has a government in the British Commonwealth invoked closure on a motion to adjourn, but that is what we have today. Why is it that the government has seen fit to padlock Parliament?


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: It is the quality of the opposition.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will tell you the reasons, Groucho Marx. The reasons are the high cost of food, the high cost of energy, high interest rates, the postal strike, and the uranium cartel which has been the subject of such debate. The government cannot stand the heat. That is why we see such a row of green. We have seen empty chairs over the last two days because minis-
Summer Recess
ters cannot come in and face the music. I see a whole row of green. Hon. members opposite cannot face the music; that is why we have closure today-that and the energy failures in this country. The only reason the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has given us for invoking closure today is that members of Parliament need a vacation. Hon. members on this side of the House do not want a vacation. We want to sit here and watch hon. ministers opposite stew in their juices and feel the heat resulting from their failures of the last 16 months. That is what we want to do for the next few weeks.
Last night we saw one of the greatest examples of trickery as hon. members opposite sneaked into the House and tried to force an issue. You, Mr. Speaker, were an unwitting, unindicted co-conspirator in that trickery.
My party has brought the important issues of this session of Parliament before the government. Hopefully hon. members opposite will take these issues home with them, think about them over the next three months, and come back with some new approaches to solving the problems of the country. The last 16 months have been a total failure, and there must be a change.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a lot of noise from hon. members opposite who cannot stand to hear the truth. Hopefully they will come back with some new ideas to reverse their sorry record.
I should like to talk about some of the things which constitute that sorry record. For example, I refer to the uranium cartel. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) had to say about our comments. He missed the point entirely. He said that we were casting aspersions and using innuendoes to cast a cloud over some of the people involved in the matter. That is not the point. We are being stonewalled regularly day after day.
Hon. members opposite will not accept the political responsibility of coming forward and telling us what happened during the years from 1972 to 1975. This is what we are attempting to obtain. Two senior public servants have been named as unindicted co-conspirators, but it is essential to know who authorized this. Was it a deputy minister, a minister, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? We are asking for those documents to be made available, so that we and the people of Canada can make that judgment. We are not finding out that information. Day after day we are getting the fifth amendment from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The deputy minister is on the record as stating that he clearly knew the impact upon domestic prices. Back in 1974 there was a Gulf Canada memorandum which indicated that the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources recognized that Canadian utilities had to be prepared to pay export prices. What did the government do about

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
it? What did it do to protect Canadians from the impact upon their prices?
1 am glad the hon. member for Lincoln is present in the chamber this evening. I hope he will respond to anything I say which is out of order; I am sure he will. The department was aware of what was going on and that there could be an impact. What steps did it take to reduce the impact of the international cartel forced upon Canadian companies?
Also we want to know what the government did in response to the legal opinion of Mr. David Henry, now Mr. Justice Henry, to the effect that the cartel could later become illegal if orders had to be declined by Canadian producers as a result of the arrangement. Clearly we are looking at a case of supply and price. What did the government do to satisfy the needs and interests of consumers? What did Canadian producers do to achieve appropriate balances between supply and price, in the face of the cartel forced upon them by the government?
We do not want to send people to jail. We want to know where the political responsibility lay at that time. The matter of prices is a very important issue, especially when we consider the high prices with which people are faced today.
Today it was announced that the consumer price index is at its highest level, on a year-over-year basis, since 1948, at 12.8 per cent. The startling figure which leaps off the page of that report on prices over the last few months is the price of gasoline which has risen 42.7 per cent over the last 12 months. I asked hon. members opposite why they imposed closure. This is a good enough reason for imposing closure. Hon. members opposite, and particularly the sea of green, the ministers, cannot answer questions as to why there was a 42.7 per cent increase in the price of gasoline. What have we received for it?
During the 1980 election the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said, "Vote Liberal and we will keep prices down." I do not think anyone who voted Liberal expected to see gasoline prices increase by 42.7 per cent. It is the most deceitful outcome of the 1980 election. The voters of the country were tricked, they thought prices would stay down, but there was almost a 50 per cent increase. The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) should get out his slide rule. He has not graduated to using one of these new electronic pushbutton calculators. If he uses his slide rule, he will see that the increase works out to 60 cents per gallon.
What have we received for the 60-cent increase? There is a deadlock with the province of Alberta, imports are increasing, and 40 per cent of the drilling rigs which are at the heart of employment in the oil and gas industry in western Canada will have left the country by the end of the summer. Approximately 170 have already left, and there has been a cancellation, which the minister likes to call a suspension, of the Cold Lake heavy oil project. What else is to come from the national energy policy? I am waiting for hon. members opposite to yell across what we are receiving. I hear a dead silence, not a word. Canadians might be prepared to pay that 60 cent increase if they thought they were receiving more.
There is little prospect that we will receive any relief from high prices. The government is doing absolutely nothing to solve the problem. The high interest rate policy is directly related to the national energy policy. We have an unprecedented outflow of capital from the country, amounting to $8 billion to $10 billion over a 12-month period. This can be related to capital moving to other countries in the world from Canadian-owned companies which were supposed to be helped by the National Energy Program. Capital which used to come to Canada from Germany is now being redirected to the United States.
Companies are sending money down to the Williston Basin, Denver, Colorado, West Texas and Australia. The Canadiani-zation of our oil and gas industry is really the Canadianization of the Williston Basin, Denver, Colorado, West Texas and Australia. This is what Canadianization means to the companies in western Canada. This is why the National Energy Program is such a bitter pill for these companies to accept. Some members opposite have asked me, "What do you mean by saying that the National Energy Program is causing high interest rates in this country? How does that work? I don't understand."


Some hon. Members:: We never asked you that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I can tell hon. members opposite that I have been asked by some of their colleagues about this. They are starting to wonder what is going on. They are wondering what is going on in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. They want to know what is causing this drop in the value of the Canadian dollar which is causing the high interest rates. This outflow of capital which we have seen over the last few months, and which will continue over the next few months, is putting downward pressure on the Canadian dollar.
If members opposite will read why the Governor of the Bank of Canada is putting so much upward pressure on interest rates, they will see that he believes we must maintain the level of the Canadian dollar. He says that if the Canadian dollar falls further there will be more inflation in our country. Thus, the Minister of Finance, who I saw just a little while ago sitting in the back benches, which is probably a good spot for him, wrings his hands and says that he cannot do anything about the situation because those people in the United States are forcing interest rates up.
If the minister were following an inflation policy with a broad program to fight inflation, plus an energy program which would solve our energy problems rather than confronting every element of the energy industry and the provinces involved, we would see the dollar higher by 3 per cent to 5 per cent. As a result of that the Bank of Canada could allow interest rates to settle at a much lower level, probably in the order of 3 per cent or 4 per cent less. That is what I mean when I say the National Energy Program is having a negative effect on the whole country, not just little Alberta, or little Saskatchewan, but the whole country. Everyone in the country is feeling the impact of high interest rates, which is why we
July 17, 1981

must have some changes in our energy policies. I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance will come back to this House with a few ideas on how to effect these changes.
I would like briefly to refer to the economic record of this government. In terms of inflation we rank second. The only country which has a higher inflation rate than Canada over the last 12 months is Italy. In terms of unemployment we have the third highest rate at 7.3 per cent. We are not leading in economic growth either; we are down at the bottom. We are number five at 0 per cent growth over the last 12 months.
Those are the economic problems which this country is facing, problems which must be solved over the next three months. This is what ministers opposite must go home and think about. They must consult with their experts. Hopefully, they will consult with people in the private sector who have some understanding of what is happening in the real world today. We can only hope that they will come back with some new ideas and fresh solutions to the problems we now face.
I would like to refer to a document which I have in front of me. It says, "The National Energy Program will work." That is a bit of a joke. It says, "Oil and gas supply will be enhanced". Let me ask members opposite how oil and gas supply will be enhanced by the suspension of the Cold Lake project, the possible suspension of the Alsands project over the next few months, plus the marginal wells which are being shut down by the production tax. How will that enhance supply?
I wish to refer to another comment in this document. It says that the oil and gas industry will continue to be the envy of every other major industry in Canada with its rapid growth rate and high rates of return. That is nonsense. That is why investors are looking elsewhere to spend their money. This is why U.S. companies are selling out and moving their capital outside the country.


Mr. Peterson:: Oh, come on!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am sure the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) will be able to tell his former clients how envious companies are of the Cold Lake project and how people in Imperial Oil are having to shut down that project because of the lack of agreement between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the minister of energy in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: After 16 months we have had nothing but total failure in terms of our energy policy in this country. I would like to talk about that failure. We have had 16 months without agreements being reached with Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Alberta. We have had 16 months in which 40 per cent of our rigs will have left the country by the end of August. We have had 16 months of inaction on the part of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who tells us that he is negotiating. Yet we all know that is a charade. He does not want to reach an agreement; he wants to impose, impose,
Summer Recess
impose, as he did last October. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he will do it again. We have had 16 months of failure to come to grips with the over-reliance on oil supply from the Middle East. The biggest failure in that 16 months came just two weeks ago. I was absolutely shocked by the attitude of the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the adjournment debate at this point. The postal matter is in the hands of the mediator. The uranium cartel matter is in the hands of the courts. Therefore, the best course to follow is to leave them alone for now. Let us get the members of Parliament back to their ridings to meet their constituents to find out what positions we should take on various matters when we come back in the fall.
I have before me the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution. It is an excellent report compiled by the members of all parties who served on that committee. I am extremely proud of each and every one of them. By showing members the report tonight I hope they will take it home with them and read it during the summer recess, if they have not already had the opportunity to do so. I hope the public will ask their members for copies of the report, regardless of which party their members belong to.
I want to make particular reference to two members of that committee. They were not Liberal members. The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), who was in the House a few minutes ago, lent to the committee his considerable experience in science.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Allister MacBain: The chairman, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), was very proud of him and all members of the committee. The other member of the committee who I wish to mention is the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). When I came to the committee I came as a supply man and not as a conservation or demand man. From my experience I thought we could almost do anything in Canada, and in the world, not only in energy but anything we really set our minds to. But from the very beginning the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody, in his eloquent manner and in a very considered way, made our chairman and all the members of the committee aware of the importance of conservation and demand to the energy scenario in this country and the world.
Tonight I wish to give my overview of the world energy situation without getting into detail, since at this hour of the night, as we near the time of adjournment, I know hon. members do not want to get into detail. However, let me say that I think we can all agree that energy is the life blood of a modern society.
I say to every hon. member of this House, regardless of party, that if there is an energy shortage in this country at any

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
time, our people will blame the national government. They will not look to the provincial governments. I say in all sincerity to all members of the House that we should be wary of this. There is a responsibility on the government of this country to provide an abundance of energy at an affordable price. Having said that, I again reiterate the great importance of conservation, which was one of the main recommendations of our committee.
We learned, on the committee, after about a year of study throughout the world, of the relationship between energy and such elements as the economy, population, conservation, food production, the North-South dialogue and the environment. In particular, we learned of the effect of the supply of energy and its use on the environment, which is very detrimental in many instances.
Early man lived in peace with his environment by fishing and hunting and foraging for food. For thousands of years, mankind on earth saw literally no environmental damage. He lived only by his own energy and that of his helpers in the group. The dawn of agriculture, in the history of mankind, was what Alvin Toffler, in The Third Wave, called the First Wave. In this era, one saw mankind live still in comparative harmony with nature. Energy sources, in addition to manual, were water, horses and oxen, forests, some coal for heating, and wind in some areas. Energy sources were such that the environmental damage was minimal.
Some considerable destruction took place over wide areas of the old world during the agricultural era. While the era extended over a period of several thousands of years, varying by area, it was only a glimpse when compared with the length of the previous era of which I spoke. For the first time, the agricultural era saw man experience the feeling that he had to conquer nature, that mankind was against nature. This idea was born in the agricultural era. Certainly mankind found itself in an uphill battle with nature and his environment.
The next era, which we call the industrial revolution, or the Second Wave, as Toffler referred to it, lasted less than 500 years; some would say 300 or just slightly over. The era was ushered in by the steam engine, and the history of this period, the industrial revolution, is well known to every one of us. We know that for energy during this period man turned to the steam engine, to electricity from water and later from coal, and hydrocarbons and uranium. Later during this period the internal combustion engine was the big user of hydrocarbons.
During the latter part of the industrial revolution, we had the use of nuclear fission. These energy sources, particularly hydrocarbons and nuclear fission, put our land, our water and our air at risk. The long-term effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere gives many people grave concern. The supply of hydrocarbons is diminishing. However, it is very important to note that many think the use of hydrocarbons will come to an end, not because of supply but because of the damage to our environment. That is why the recommendations with respect to this matter are found in this report to which I earlier referred.
The report, as basic recommendations, brings forth the idea for discussion of an economy based on electricity and on
hydrogen. We also see conservation as an important part of our energy picture in the short, medium and the long term. Electricity and hydrogen are energy currencies, not fuels in themselves. We see electricity and hydrogen from the water- hydroelectricity from Niagara Falls, for example. We see conventional hydroelectricity from conventional sources like that. However, we also see it from my former province of Nova Scotia, by the way, in tidal power. We see the use of wind in the future, photovoltaics, the continuation of nuclear fission. We see fuel cells, and in the long term we see nuclear fusion. 1 will have something to say about that later.
At this point, I want to say only this: I know that there are those who fear nuclear fusion. I understand and appreciate their concern. I think all of us do, from the standpoint of what will be done with the waste and the danger from the operation of the fusion reactors. However, I just want to caution all hon. members that the use of hydrocarbons has been very detrimental to the environment, and we must be able to give nuclear fusion an honest appraisal and not just close our eyes to what has happened from using hydrocarbons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Honest appraisal. We like that!


Arthur Allister MacBain: The energy mix of the future will consist of a great number of fuels and technologies. To a considerable extent, and hopefully more and more as the years go by, the reliance will be on renewables; for example, alcohol, methanol or ethynol. As I stated, we are hoping, in the long run, that fusion will bring an abundance of safe energy. It will not be inexpensive.
Our report suggests that the hydrocarbons, so far as is possible, be reserved for the feedstock for the petrochemical industry. However, our report and our committee were wise enough to appreciate that it will be a considerable length of time before the use of hydrocarbons can be brought to an end or to anything like that. The consensus of the committee was that the environment cannot take or tolerate the use of hydrocarbons until they are consumed in full, even if such were advisable, which would not be the case.
The committee asks our citizens and our fellow members of Parliament, especially the ministers of the government, to take a careful look at where we have been and where we are going from an energy standpoint. We made 65 recommendations in the report, and of course some are more important than others. For example, we suggested that there be a minister of state for alternative energy and conservation. All hon. members appreciate, especially those who are more senior than myself, that this is a recommendation which comes directly within the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but the committee hopes there will be serious consideration given to a ministry of state for alternative energy and conservation who would serve under the minister of energy.
July 17, 1981

We also suggested a commission to be known as Hydrogen Canada to look after the research and development, demonstration, commercialization and utilization of hydrogen. That is an obvious need, since our report puts such importance on hydrogen as the energy currency for the future. It is pretty obvious that the world is moving to the use of hydrogen. We made that point in our report and I think this will become more obvious as the months go by.
Canada now leads the world in the technology necessary to produce hydrogen. As with other nations, we have not done the research and development, demonstration and pilot projects that are necessary in order to make the expansion of hydrogen plants viable.
The committee has asked the government to consider making sufficient contributions to nuclear fusion research to at least permit this country to sit at the international scientific table on fusion. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) has indicated that this advice will be followed. We must now ask what is the position of nuclear fusion in the future. I say unequivocally, Mr. Speaker, that my personal position is that the answer to an abundance of energy in the future will be fusion.
There is no scientific reason why we cannot have fusion and there is no engineering reason why we cannot have it. I hope the money will be found for the research and development necessary for the commercialization of fusion. Although I feel, as do members of the committee, that conservation is important and will always be important in the area of energy, when you consider that the world's population will increase from over four billion to 11 billion in just over 50 years, even with conservation and the other renewables that I have mentioned, important as they are, having regard to the supply of hydrocarbons and the danger in their use, it seems obvious that we must consider fusion for the long term.
I take the position that we in the North have a burden that we must carry to supply energy for people of the South. I do not see how we can make available to the billions of people in the South the energy they will require in the future to bring their quality of life to anything near that which we enjoy, unless we can offer fusion. I know that fusion is expensive. We are perhaps $200 billion away from the first commercial reactor. It will, however, give us an abundance of energy without the dangers of nuclear fission.
When hon. members and ministers are speaking in their ridings, I would remind them that it is very easy to forget about hydrocarbons and worry about the dangers of nuclear fusion. I would like to see balanced thinking in the future and I am sure we will achieve this.
I appreciate the opportunity to put forward a brief overview of the energy picture in the world as I see it. Where I have gone beyond the report-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina West.
Summer Recess


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. About 7:30 this evening the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) raised a point of order and demanded that I tell him the exact date and hour when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was speaking in the House and over 100 Liberals were missing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with modesty and enthusiasm to take part in this debate. I have not had a chance to do this for several months so I find it somewhat ironic now. Usually governments want to keep us here to pass legislation and opposition parties vote against that. The government recites a long list of items on the Order Paper that it feels are important and should be dealt with. On this occasion, however, the official opposition started the fracas, saying they would not leave until the postal strike is settled, so we sat here this past week.
My hon. friend and colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) today moved the adjournment of the House. The government voted against adjourning the House and so did the official opposition. It is no wonder the voters are confused by what has been going on in the past day or two. The performance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) at ten minutes to ten last night caused-and this would take some doing-my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to talk about reconsidering our position on recessing this Parliament. That performance last night was less than worthy of the minister, the Liberal party and the government.
We did reconsider and my colleague moved a motion today to adjourn the House. Those who want this Parliament to sit this week and the week after, or however long it takes, had only to remain in their offices until four o'clock this afternoon and Parliament would have been sitting next week. But who folded? Who was the bowl full of jelly? The Tories. They were going to keep us here "till hell freezes over", as I think one of them said. They were going to keep us here until the Post Office strike was settled, they said.
I would like to see us sit for another two or three weeks or however long it would take to get a lot of other issues debated. But who caved in, who cut and ran at 1300 hours today? It was those members who wanted us to sit until the Post Office strike is settled. They chickened out. I do not want to hear from any more Tory speakers in this debate tonight, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, and I agree with him, that because of what the Postmaster General tried to pull off at ten minutes to ten last night, and again because of what he said today, puts us on the side of the official opposition. We get on the side of the official opposition and we look around at one o'clock this afternoon, but they are all gone, heading for the hills.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess


An hon. Member:: You should have known better.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You guys had them sized up better than we had. It was all bluff and fluff in the first place.
Now, let me get you fellows.


Jack Wendele Shields: You are in bed with them. What are you talking about?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Post Office strike is nothing more than a symptom of disease. I predict, and I hope I am wrong, that we will be back here in August or September on back-to-work legislation, on matters relating to the Seaway workers, on matters relating to the seamen's union and, the grain handlers. You name it; there will be a list as long as your arm. Those are the reasons the Conservatives should be keeping this Parliament sitting.
The postal strike is only a symptom of disease. We will have half a dozen more symptoms the rest of this summer, this summer of discontent. This discontent has to do with things like tax reform, interest rates, housing, bankruptcies, the fair prices commission, energy policies, and another little one that happens to be a pet of mine, and that is VIA Rail. Everyone is in the act.
I raised the matter on June 29 and I am extremely pleased and proud of my colleagues from all parties who have been raising hell about that matter since June 29. I tried to be courteous by sending material that I had from a secret-type source and I even spread it around among Conservative and Liberal members of this place. Those are the things that we need to be here for next week.
If the boys from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick want to get up and ask about Atlantic Limited, they cannot do it if they cave in tonight. They caved in this afternoon. They gave up. I would like to tell some of my colleagues on the government side from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) wants you out of here when he makes his announcement next week or the week after about VIA Rail cancellations. Hon. members will not be able to raise the matter in their own caucus, let alone the House of Commons.


Mr. Corbin:: We have.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But what did you get? You got kicked in the head, and you will get kicked in the head some more.
It is not just the postal strike, VIA Rail or a number of other matters, it is asking Parliament to sit for the rest of the summer if necessary to deal with matters which will require in some cases a 180 degree turn in present government policies. Governments of all political stripes have had to do that now and again. Governments have had to face up to making about turns. And, by the way, if they did have the guts to do that, they could get some credit for it.
You cannot continue to have the kind of performance we have had in Parliament in the past week, with big talk from the official opposition that they will keep us here until Christmas, and then they fold and quit. They are the first ones to fold up.
I happen to disagree with my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre. I thought from day one that we should keep Parliament here for reasons other than the Post Office strike. But the government after its performance last night and today has a lot of nerve moving closure on a rule which has not been used since 1913. How desperate can the government get? the government wants us out of here. The government does not want anyone asking questions. The government does not want even its own caucus members around to fight and raise a little bit of heck.


Mr. Gimaiel:: Look around you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me get on to why I think Parliament should sit next week. I could mention the herd maintenance program. My colleague the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has been trying to get something out of the government on that, as have some members of the official opposition. That is one reason to have Parliament sit next week.
Members from all three parties have been trying, either in this House or in their own caucuses, to get something done about interest rates. That is another good reason to stay here next week.
Then there is the matter of bankruptcies. I have had phone calls from businessmen in the last couple of weeks. That would be a good reason to stay here next week. What are we going to do about that situation?
Then there is the fair prices commission. That might be a good reason to sit here next week.
Those are reasons why my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre moved his motion to adjourn the House today. But the Tories chickened out. They cut and run. They were big talkers over the past week.
The problem is not only the Post Office dispute. You cannot put the state of the economy of the nation on the backs of the postal workers. There are many other things equally or more serious than the Post Office. Such as energy and transportation.
I come now to my main point. Here sits a government with a bunch of Liberal members from various parts of central and Atlantic Canada who are in the process of raising the cost of transportation and ignoring the energy issue. This government is abandoning 16 rail passenger routes and is reducing the frequency of five more. I am pleased that both Liberal and Conservative members from Atlantic and central Canada have been on their feet and saying things in public. I hope that gets a message to the Minister of Transport. But this government does not want us to sit here and talk about those matters.
The Canadian Transport Commission has already ruled that 15 of those 21 routes on which they have held hearings should be retained. Liberal members from Atlantic Canada and Tory members from western Canada agree with that. I think I can safely assume that is a topic we could discuss next week. But
July 17, 1981

the Liberals want out of here and the Tories have caved in after all their big talk about the Supercontinental through Saskatoon and Edmonton. And now they want to go home. Members from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have moved motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning these matters. Would it not be nice if we could sit here next week and discuss those matters with the Minister of Transport?
A creature of this government, a child begotten by this government supported by the official opposition, by my party as a last desperate resort to bail out the CPR and CNR from hauling people around Canada was something we supported. Three years later, where are the people who supported it? They are all worried about the route to their own constituency. They are not worried about transportation in Canada as a whole. Everyone wants to go home this weekend for the rest of the summer. The Tories have chickened out. The greatest victory the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) could have won is if he and all his colleagues had stayed in their offices until four o'clock this afternoon and Parliament would be meeting on Monday. But they chickened out.
I do not want to hear any more words from government members, some of whom have phoned me and asked me where I got this argument about my railway line. We should continue to sit for the larger reasons of interest rates, transportation, energy, housing, you name it. If the NDP is nothing else, it is well organized. There will be a third of us here tonight, a third here next week and a third the week after. When the crunch comes, we will be here. I wonder about those who ask where the NDP will be. The guys who said that Parliament has to keep sitting, where the hell are they? Less than half of them were here today. They are ones who were going to make Parliament sit until the postal strike was settled. They blew it this afternoon. They just emptied their big bowl of jelly and they blew it. I do not want to hear another word from any Tory about what should be done by this Parliament starting next week. They caved in this afternoon at one o'clock.


Mr. Kempling:: Where were the NDP?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I remind the whip of the Conservative party that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved a motion to help the official opposition keep this House sitting next week. What did they do? They voted with the Liberals. They ran for cover. They had a dog fight in the lobby here at one o'clock this afternoon, ran for cover and then voted with the Liberals. That is something they have been wanting to do all week.
My colleague had the courage to say that, as a result of the idiotic things the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) said last night, we would reconsider our position. He had the courage to move a motion, but where were the Tories?


Mr. Blenkarn:: How are you going to vote tonight?


William James Kempling: Where's Broadhead?
Summer Recess


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It might be interesting for the Chair to hear what the hon. member for Regina West has to say. I invite hon. members to listen to that hon. member for his remaining three minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to inform my colleagues and friends to the right-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Are you voting with the Grits tonight?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As a result of what the government did last night and today, we have been reconsidering our position. I ask the hon. member to wait for the vote. However, I am prepared to give him odds that we will vote against adjourning the House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You don't know how to vote. You are waiting for Stanley to tell you how to vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If a political party, whether it be in government, the official opposition, or the third or fourth party in this House, decides on a cause and makes it plain it is going to fight that issue on a matter of principle, unless it sticks to that and sees it through, even if it should lose, that denigrates not only the House of Commons but our political system, which happens to be our party system of government. All parties have problems internally. There is no denying that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would ask the parliamentary secretary why he was so angry tonight when one of his colleagues decided to change places with me. I personally believe there are good grounds and cause for this Parliament to sit for the rest of July and into August. It is not the issues which cause the postal workers and a lot of others to go out in strike and continue to strike for the rest of the summer. I resent this playing of games, this bluff and fluff, this bowl of jelly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How are you voting?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I ask my colleague to wait until 0100 hours. However, I will meet any one of them behind the curtain for a bet or a punch in the mouth, which that hon. gentleman is going to get.
Surely the whole exercise over the past week requires this Parliament to continue to sit. When a government decides that in spite of all the legislation on the Order Paper that it would like to have passed, it wants out of here, and the official opposition wants to leave, there is something wrong.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow the huff and fluff member opposite. I have the highest respect for every member sitting in this House. Whether that member be a backbencher, minister, member of the Conservative party or the NDP, I hold respect for that person. I respect especially the more senior members such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who reminded us

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
today that we should not abuse our parliamentary immunity and should not accuse someone before that person has been charged and proved guilty.
I lose some of my respect for members when I see a deliberate obstruction of Parliament, when I see Parliament being hijacked, valuable time being wasted and other members being held here as hostages. Last night we experienced an episode where the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was protecting the rights of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). That was very praiseworthy. It took a whole hour. Today two hours were wasted on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. That is three hours in which we could have passed very important legislation through this House. However, that time was wasted. That is when I become disappointed and start losing some of the respect I hope I will continue to hold.
I was very disappointed when the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton tried to deny members on this side the right to speak. The hon. member said, "I was trying to save the House the trouble of listening to the Postmaster General". The House leader of the official opposition preaches about the right of every member to be heard and then stands up in his place and attempts to deny a minister the right to speak. I suggest it is not the role of the opposition to hold members of this Parliament hostage. I suggest it is not the role of the opposition to waste time deliberately, to hijack Parliament and to delay deliberately the passage of important bills.
I do not mind sitting here all summer. I can sit through July, through August and through September if the opposition has something constructive to contribute. But what have we heard from the opposition? We have heard no constructive or worth-while suggestions. Have they made one worth-while suggestion respecting inflation?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes.


Jesse Philip Flis: About now to reduce interest rates?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes.


Jesse Philip Flis: About how to bring down the deficit?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: yes.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on the tricky business behind the curtain.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I lose respect for hon. members who do not even know what a point of order is.
We heard from the other side that, yes, they have made concrete suggestions about reducing the deficit, but what do we hear every day in the question period? The expense of carrying out every request they make would drive this country to bankruptcy.
I would like to make another point. Some hon. members have made it already, but I would like to reinforce it. When the House rises, that does not mean all members go on holidays. As the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) reminded us, we have a duty to our constituents. I owe it to my constituents to spend a certain percentage of my time with them. Because of the deliberate delaying tactics we have experienced during the Constitution debate and so forth, I could not do justice to hearing the concerns of my constituents since I would make an appointment and then have to dash back to Ottawa because there was a vote. At least give me some time over the summer break to work in my constituency so that I can hear the concerns of those Canadians and bring the concerns here on October 14.
I feel I have a duty to my family too. There is work around the house to be done. I think we have to do our jobs as fathers and mothers. I think I owe it to my family and to myself, but I owe it to Canada to spend a proportionate amount of time in the House and in my constituency with the people who sent me to this House.
As members of Parliament I think we should be setting an example for other Canadians in our political roles, either on the government side or in the opposition, as well as in our private lives. I do not have statistics to quote, but I would hazard a guess that members of Parliament probably have the highest rate of marriage break-ups. Why? Because if the opposition had its way, it would reduce us human beings to things. When we are reduced to things, we cannot think creatively or constructively. We cannot play our roles as fathers or mothers in our families. We cannot work with our constituents. I for one refuse to be reduced to a thing. I am a human being. I am an elected member of this House of Commons and I refuse to be reduced to a thing. I am a human being and I want to be respected for that.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) who preceded me said that hon. members on his side of the House do not need a vacation. That is true; they do not. They have been on vacation all year. That is why they do not need a vacation.
I mentioned that I respect all individual members in this House. I would also like to pay tribute to and show my respect for the two opposition parties in the House because I lived in a country where there was no official opposition for a full year. There was opposition to government but no official opposition. I think this is what makes the democratic system so strong. I will always hold a very high respect for members who play a constructive role on the opposition side.
However, I think the public would have a greater respect for the two opposition parties if they would show some co-operation and some trust in the government. On Wednesday the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) said, "I do not trust the government." That is recorded in Hansard at page 1 1583. I think hon. members in the official opposition do not trust the government because they have not learned to trust themselves. They have not learned to trust their party. They have not learned to trust their leader and,
July 17, 1981

because they cannot trust their leader, their party and themselves, it is no wonder they have lost trust in Canada and any government which would be ruling it.
Hon. members in the official opposition should start regaining trust in their own leader, their own party and themselves. Just because they have lost that trust, for God's sake they should not take it out on us. Why are they taking it out on us? They should put their own house in order. They should not bring their lack of trust out here, but that is what appears to be happening.
In any debate I think the debaters should make recommendations. I recommend that the official opposition change its attitude because that is important to Canadian unity and to the development of our country.
The official opposition appears to be obstructing any policy or bill which is good for the country. I do not know why it is doing this. Let me give just one example. In the Speech from the Throne of October 9, 1979, the then prime minister of Canada, the present Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), said, "My government is committed to making Canada self-sufficient in energy by 1990." Yet today the official opposition is doing everything it can so that the National Energy Program of the government does not meet its objective. Why? It is one of the same objectives of the previous government. The process of meeting that objective may differ, but surely there must be some co-operation in meeting this objective since both governments felt that was an objective which was good for Canada and all Canadians.
In debating Bill C-48 hon. members opposite were telling us all week to disband our energy policy. The Conservative party ran in 1980 on the platform of disbanding some of the energy policy. Hon. members opposite said they were running on the platform of disbanding Petro-Canada. The people spoke. The people told them what they wanted. They wanted Petro-Canada. They wanted this National Energy Program. However, somehow that did not sink in; the message did not get through. I hope the official opposition will change its attitude.
My concern is that this type of destructive attitude is creeping into the parliamentary committee process. I had the privilege of chairing the special parliamentary committee on a national trading corporation. This was one of the special parliamentary task forces represented by all parties, the Liberals, the Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party. 1 think this is what added strength to the committee.
All year it was a pleasure to chair this committee because partisanship was put aside. We were given a problem to solve. We went out, tried to identify the problem and then tried to come up with a solution to that problem. As I say, it was a pleasure to chair such a committee because partisan politics were almost non-existent. We heard from 450 witnesses, had 270 meetings and travelled across Canada coast to coast, and Canadians told us that this was an excellent process because finally parliamentarians were listening to grassroots Canadians. It was their testimony which helped the committee come up with the recommendations it made.
Summer Recess
The problem identified was that in Canada, as large as it is, we do not have a corporation or a consortium large enough to bid on huge capital projects funded by the World Bank or the Asian Bank. I am speaking of capital projects worth $50 million and up. The largest companies in Canada admitted to the committee that they cannot afford to take the risks involved in exporting such huge capital projects.
All three parties agreed that this was a problem. Another problem which the committee identified was that some assistance had to be provided to small and medium-sized business in order for them to get into the export trade business. This was also agreed to by all three parties. The committee came up with many recommendations such as improving more financing for EDC, and providing an export training school. One major recommendation was that Canada needed a trading corporation. The witnesses told the committee that the private sector could not do this alone and that they did not want the government doing it. Thus, we had no alternative but to come forward with a recommendation that it should be a joint co-operative effort and that such a corporation should be formed, funded by the private sector and the government. The more the private sector funds the corporation, the less the government will have to fund it.
Two Conservative members agreeing with the problem did not agree with one major recommendation. As chairman of the committee I suggested to them that they should provide the committee with alternative solutions or suggestions and that we would try to work them into the report. We went to the final stages of the report, and the two Conservative members did not provide any alternative solutions. But they employed various delaying tactics such as the ones they used in the House. Their deliberate delaying tactics which hamper the work of Parliament concerned me because they were creeping into the work of the committee. I was sorry to see that happen. Alternative recommendations never came forth, until the report was tabled in the House. At that time these two Conservative members issued a press release to the media, not to the committee or the House, indicating their position and why they dissociated themselves from the report. How low can one stoop in the parliamentary process? It was a cheap shot. I hope hon. members of the official opposition will change their attitude and return on October 14 in a more co-operative spirit.
In closing, I remind hon. members and Canadians that the fact that Parliament rises for the summer does not mean that all members are going on holiday. Some of the minds of hon. members of the official opposition have already gone on holiday; this is why we are not receiving any constructive suggestions. Many of us will be working in our constituencies, many of us will be taking French or English immersion classes. I owe it to my constituents and to Canada as a whole to spend a portion of the time in my riding as well as here.
The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) said this afternoon that the government was attempt-

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
ing to gag Parliament. How can we gag someone who has nothing to say? Also he quoted the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) as saying that it is time to go on holidays. That is not what the Postmaster General said. He said what I have been saying this evening, that is, how important it is for us to work in our constituencies.
1 should like to take this occasion to recommend one more thing. When Parliament rises, I recommend that its break coincides with the school break which is normally in July and August. My recommendation would be that that is when the House should rise. We do not need three months; two months would suffice. At least we would be assured of that time to spend with our families. We would show the example that we should show as fathers and mothers, and we would be more effective when we returned.
When we all return on October 14, hopefully we will all have done some soul searching. Perhaps I will have to change my attitude. If so, I certainly will. We should all come back with more positive attitudes so that we can work more effectively and constructively. One group of people will benefit if we do that, that is all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in this adjournment debate which reflect upon how the last nine months are viewed by my constituents, by myself and, more generally, by the western prairies, especially southern Alberta which reacted as we did to the federal political scene of the last nine months. I suggest there are two interlocking issues which have dominated the scene, not only in Parliament but all across Canada. 1 am referring to the Constitution and the energy issues. It is appropriate that I make some remarks about these two issues and their impact upon my constituency and, in general, upon southern Alberta. Then I should like to relate them to the approximately 100-year history of southern Alberta and generally of western Canada.
Most of us remember 1967 when we celebrated with almost a spontaneous enthusiasm our one hundredth anniversary as a nation; it was our centennial. I am sure some hon. members and their children went to Montreal for that special birthday party, Expo '67. I was privileged and pleased to do so. As a nation we were on an enormously great high and possibly more united than ever before in our history.
A decade later we all lived through and survived the trauma which ensued when one of our ten provinces, Quebec, proposed to separate, and our remaining nine provinces and especially the federal government went to great lengths to try to convince Quebec people to remain in confederation. But today, just after our one hundred and fourteenth anniversary as a nation, we are more divided than at any time in our history. Why? How could we go from the 1967 high to the critical and even desperate state of affairs today? I think it is a fair question which we should all ask each other. It is not easy to explain because there are a number of complex and historical factors involved.
For instance, the three prairie provinces were created in 1905 without the legal right of ownership of our lands, including natural resources. During the first 25 years we were so busy keeping out of debt that we never even missed the ownership right, at least until the dirty thirties came along and out of sheer desperation those rights were returned to us. It is ironic that the same natural resources of oil, gas, coal and, most important, our fertile soil and fresh water, add to the complexity because of an incredible national preoccupation with energy and the economic crisis today.
Suffice it to say, the three prairie provinces have experienced a dramatic change. They have evolved from have not to have provinces. Central Canada, Ontario and Quebec have difficulty accepting this readjustment in Canadian history. The politics of this readjustment hit home with a resounding shock wave at 8 p.m. on election night, February 18, 1980, when we switched on our radios and televisions in western Canada to hear that the political decisions had already been decided by just two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, before our western votes had even begun to be counted. We will never forget that moment.
I should like to refer to the constitutional issue. Last October 1980, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced his intention to have the government patriate the Constitution in a very specific and new approach. This subject was not an election issue or campaign promise of any party. In those early weeks there was an indication of broad public support to bring home our own Constitution, the British North America Act. Most of us need to be reminded that the BNA Act was formulated here in Canada, by Canadians, under the leadership of Sir John A. Macdonald and it was kept, by our choice, by the British Imperial Parliament. It was kept there to be amended from time to time at our direction. While there is widespread public support to bring it home, we are clearly divided on the proposed process to bring it here. Most of us are deeply concerned about the indecent haste to have our Constitution amended before it leaves Britain and about the unilateral aspects of the patriation, specifically that none of our provinces should be consulted or should be allowed to participate in the process. The only explanation which this Parliament and this nation have ever been offered for this haste was to carry out the Prime Minister's promise to Quebec during the referendum campaign.
In my opinion it is a combination of the Constitution and energy issues which appear to be dividing our nation today, certainly in western Canada. Certainly, 20 per cent interest rates and record inflation which show no sign of abatement will not help solve our troubles.
I suggest there is another aspect which should be mentioned and not overlooked, especially by us in western Canada. I ask hon. members to reflect on the make-up of our population in western Canada today. I want the House to consider that over 100 years have elapsed since the west began to be settled. Essentially the make-up of the west is the end result of three
July 17, 1981

sources over that 100-year history. First, there were the pioneers who came west prior to 1900, many of them prior to the coming of the steel in 1885. The second group were the homesteaders who probably came to the west from 1900 to 1920. Third, there is the present-day movement of new Canadians, and a significant number of Canadian-born younger people who have migrated from the central and Atlantic provinces. All three groups, in their respective times, shared a common philosophy and need. All were prepared to leave their homes and, very often, their country of birth to come west and begin a new life. The first two groups in particular endured incredible hardships over many years and several generations in this re-establishing process. All three groups shared a common goal and desire to be part of a new country with that visible and tangible evidence of owning their own home or farm and contributing as individuals to a new way of life.
This is why the property rights issue is so important to all of us in the west. It was almost an obsession with us when the indication was so apparent that the reference to God and property rights were to be left out of the Constitution. We have not forgotten that. I am confident we will emerge from this political crisis essentially because of the history, the circumstances and make-up of our peoples. I am referring, of course, to western Canada, which has much to be proud of and much to work for as we approach our second century in the west.
We must not settle for a unitary style of federal government in a country so vast in physical scale and so rich in resources in all its parts and in its peoples. Above all else, we must develop not only a new desire for, but a new way to make our Canada truly a confederation of its parts, its regions and its provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: After the last two days of debate we should remind ourselves often of this bigger and more important picture.
I would like to make a few specific comments about the agricultural sector. Members of this1 House will be aware of my genuine concerns over the many years about drought in western Canada. I have spoken on this subject on numerous occasions over the last eight and a half years, and as recently as this spring. I have much pleasure tonight in describing an incredible turnaround in moisture and growth conditions throughout most of western Canada. Grass conditions in the short grass ranching parts of the southern prairies, which covers all of southern Alberta and most of the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan, are the best I have seen since 1953- that is 28 years. Grain crops are equally favourable with harvest only a few months away. This wonderful turnaround has given us all immense satisfaction and has restored our confidence in the ability of the prairies to come back and produce perhaps our largest total farm crop in history.
There is still one unfinished item from the 1980 and early 1981 drought which I hope will be attended to. I understand that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) is now to be responsible for the herd maintenance
Summer Recess
program. I am sure he is aware that there are still some unsatisfied claims left from the drought program for last year and this spring.
I urge the minister to consider once again the excellent priorizing of the new disbanded review committee. They went to a great deal of trouble and much labour to categorize four categories, and category one and two were of the highest priority which now total about 2,500 producers. I suggest most sincerely that they should be received by the minister and assessed since there are many in that group worthy of receiving some attention under that herd maintenance program. This number includes a small number of cattlemen on the Alberta side of the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, on the south slopes of the Cypress Hills going right down to the Montana border. The only possible explanation which may exist for this omission-and I regret having to say this-is that they are all in the Province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I think that's a tragedy.
All Canadian cattle producers are disappointed that the meat import measure, Bill C-46, has not cleared the standing committee. There are only three witnesses still to be heard. Surely they could have been scheduled for hearing over the last two or three weeks. Surely that could have been arranged. There was lots of time when we were not sitting as a committee. The committee just seems to have folded, and this started about three weeks ago for no apparent reason.
It would be reassuring and helpful if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would make a positive statement as soon as possible with respect to Bill C-46 that the committee work will continue in the next session without any repetition. I once again remind the Minister of Agriculture about the serious reservations expressed by many of the witnesses about Bill C-46-expressed during the committee sessions-about the GATT agreements, the related items of guaranteed minimum access, those levels of imports of beef as determined by that guaranteed minimum access through GATT and the human population growth factor, that condition which Canada was evidently forced to agree to but no other country, especially the United States, had even to consider.
Both of these items must surely be renegotiated. The Minister of Agriculture has been in Alberta all of this week attending the annual meeting of provincial ministers. Of course, with him were the ministers of agriculture from all our provinces. They do this every summer. I sincerely hope that they discuss, in some detail, such timely topics as one or two items 1 want to mention now. 1 would point out that it is still apparently too early to even hear some of the subjects which were discussed. However, these are very important meetings and I hope that they had some serious discussion about the harmonization of the increasing number of provincial stabilization and subsidy programs for both hogs and beef cattle. It must now be obvious to all of us that the increasing trend to balkanization

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
by various provincial programs could very well invite American border restrictions or even closures of that border for hogs and pork and for beef and cattle. That would be a tragedy.
I hope the ministers seriously considered the cattlemen's carefully developed plan for what we now know is a deferred income-averaging trust concept that would essentially provide an individual stabilization program for cattle producers. The funds from such trust accounts could very well be used to supplement the Farm Credit Corporation which is now so short of capital funds.
Finally, I hope the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-I am sorry he is not here-will not give up on the Crow freight rate issue. I appreciate his genuine interest in this very touchy subject, especially last fall, when he made a determined effort to travel around the country making some comments on it and occasionally speaking in the House on it. He knows the concerns of some of us on this very special issue, and I appreciate his genuine interest. All I can say is that the Crow issue must be resolved. The two major agricultural groups are close to a compromise right now. These two, of course, are the western agricultural conference and the commodity coalition group. I urge the transport minister to once again renew his interest in this fundamentally important issue and encourage a final compromise by the farmers of western Canada themselves. I thank Your Honour and hon. members for this opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted of course to take part in this debate. However, at the same time I feel somewhat distressed in view of the fact that for the past week we have been rehashing the same subjects and making the same futile and totally useless remarks in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to describe this debate as a demagogic marathon. In fact it is almost embarrassing to have to take the floor here tonight and to repeat once more what has been said a million times. Yes, Mr. Speaker, a million times. The speeches I have listened to for nearly a week could all be summarized in one single speech.
It seems now that honourable members opposite have just made a discovery. It seems that all our domestic problems and perhaps even all international problems should be settled before the adjournment of this House. It makes one wonder whether the provincial legislatures and all the legislative assemblies of other countries settle all those problems before adjourning. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe so.
Therefore, I shall be very brief because, as I have just mentioned, we have already listened to this kind of speech a million times. But what have we also heard Mr. Speaker for the past week? Let us try briefly to analyse the situation. First, the opposition makes me think somewhat of a family with children some of whom are learning to walk and others
who already know how to walk. The opposition makes me think a little of the former who are unable to follow their big brothers attempting to run. The opposition tacks on to the government somewhat in the same way, trying to run behind their big brothers and sisters but they trip and fall. Their only alternative then is to cry, to get angry and to hang on. This is somewhat the situation which occurs in this House at the present time with an opposition which is tagging along with the government.
What have we done over the last week? To begin with we talked about the postal strike. Imagine! The House had to sit. The government had to stay in the House to legislate the postal workers back to work. Big deal. Although the normal negotiation process was going on. Of course, we would all like to see this dispute settled but there is never a strike which has not been harmful to someone. It is quite clear that strikes are no joke but it is not the duty of the government as we have said on many occasions, to rush in every time a strike occurs somewhere and to attempt to settle it in all sorts of ways especially through legislation.
Then, all of a sudden they realize the weakness of their argument and they gradually shifted to the issue of the uranium cartel. 1 could tell honourable members opposite that they too represent a cartel, the demagogy cartel. When we were dealing with the constitution, they attempted by all sorts of innuendos to tarnish some reputations-


Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi):: A Conservative specialty!


Henri Tousignant: A specialty indeed of making innuendos against this one or that one.


Marcel Dionne: Wrecking reputations!


Henri Tousignant: Giving people a bad name!
For a while, the opposition has been demonstrating its inability, its lack of intellectual power and its real incapacity to act as an efficient opposition in collaborating with a government which is determined to give a good performance.
There have been talks of insults to democracy. Imagine that! I will not linger on that point, I shall merely let the House decide who is showing contempt for democracy. Today is already July 17, and I shall add 1981, because 1 have the feeling that some people around here have lost all sense of time and of the value of time. Today being July 17, 1981, we ought to be in our constituencies working, as tomorrow is not a holiday. The members opposite are in no hurry to adjourn as many of them are on a holiday all year around. When a government has a majority of only 12 members it stands to reason that they must be in the House everyday, from Monday to Friday. Canadians must understand that. Of course, I admit there are hard working and dedicated people in the opposition, and I can see some right now for whom I have a high respect, but there are also quite a few who are away and that makes
July 17, 1981

strictly no difference to the working of Parliament. Those members have no fear to be overthrown, they are already. But on this side of the House, with a majority of only 12 seats, we are duty bound to be here on a Monday to Friday basis. Ministers must leave to represent the government somewhere. I had said 12 members but I had included Madam Speaker, so it is more like 11. As 1 said, ministers have duties outside the House and must absolutely absent themselves to represent the government. Therefore if we do not want to find ourselves under the threat of an election, we have to be here. Meanwhile what is happening? We are away from our ridings to do our job as law makers in this House but we also have the responsibility of working as representatives of our constituents.
How can this be done? We leave on Fridays and rush to our constituencies where we work over the weekend. Many people are not aware of the fact that MPs, particularly government MPs have a very tough job-


Marcel Dionne: Seven days a week.


Henri Tousignant: Yes, as my colleague from Chicoutimi has said, it is seven days a week. For my part, I can say that I have been a member of Parliament for two years and that 1 have still not taken any holidays. That is a fact. 1 must also say that before being elected, Mr. Speaker, I had a house in the South and I have had to sell it because I cannot get away. That is true for most people here. We work from 15 to 16 hours a day. Members of the government have to be on the Hill at 8 in the morning for meetings, and every day, we stay here until 10, 10.30, 11 or midnight. Since the beginning of the session, we have not been idle, and in addition, we go back to our constituencies, not to rest but to work, and not simply to meet individual voters, but also various social groups, individuals, municipal bodies, and so on, to learn about their problems. If we really want to govern this country properly, we have to start by seeing what is going on in our own regions, at the grass roots, and by talking with the people to determine how their problems can be rectified.
The opposition is holding us hostage. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the hijacking of airplanes, but for me, what is going on here is political hijacking. For heaven's sake, today is July 17, the days are beginning to get shorter, and still no thought has been given to the fact that those who work for the House should be able to take some time off. As for us, as I said earlier, our work does not stop here. In spite of all this, we have to try to see something of our family, our children, who no longer know us when we go back home, and also to see people and learn about their problems.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as we must be philosophical when faced with such situations, we have to tell ourselves that there must certainly be a positive aspect to all this.
I hope that if there is to be a positive side to the current situation it will be, as this has been said so often this evening, the opportunity to get rid of this antiquated system under
Summer Recess
which Parliament operates, and to go ahead as early as next fall with some type of parliamentary reform that will make this Parliament more effective, without palavering and loss of precious time.
Mr. Speaker, based on the yearly cost of operating this House, each day costs some $360,000. But who cares about that? If we chose to, we could reach a much higher level of efficiency by using very simple means, if we took the trouble next fall, under parliamentary reform, to address those problems, to ensure that we do not fall back into that same masochistic ghetto. We tolerate this situation, it goes on and on, and we see no improvement over the years. Every time a new member first arrives here, he hopes that things will improve, but over the years everything remains almost static.
To conclude, I would express the hope that next fall, hon. members from both sides of the House will work together on in-depth reform. We are here 282 MPs elected by the citizens of this country. It seems to me that we would be in a position to manage the country if we gave ourselves the tools to do so. But we entrench ourselves in what I called that ghetto that literally impedes our operations. Therefore it is useless to go on much longer, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat bitter that we still are forced to make speeches here tonight and repeat the same comments for the nth time.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in military manoeuvres if you want to deceive the other side and not let them know what you are doing, you set up a smoke screen. Tonight we have seen the masters of setting up smoke screens in regard to public affairs. We saw it first of all in the speech of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who had a lot to say. He told us that he would gladly have gone home a week ago had this party not held Parliament here. Mr. Speaker, few members of that party have been in the House during this entire week. The financial critic has not been here nor has the energy critic, yet the hon. member talked as if he wanted to stay here all the time. Today his party moved a motion to adjourn the House, using it as a smoke screen, pretending that they did not want to go home, when it is obvious that they have been trying to go home since last week.
This party voted against the motion because we are opposed to an adjournment. We did not want to waste this last day, neither do we want to adjourn now but it is being forced upon us.
Just a few moments ago the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) also set up a smoke screen, pretending that everything is well but that this party had caused difficulties in committee. Mr. Speaker, we had people come from the province of Alberta to that committee. They spent a lot of money to come here and plead with the finance committee to give them a few more days so that they would not have to borrow money or at least would enable them to extend their bills for a few days. The chairman did not even mention that in his
11710

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
report. Now we have the hypocrisy of hon. members saying that they want to stay on. They have the hypocrisy today to say that they want to stay. We would have been gone a whole week ago if this party under its leader had not insisted we stay. During that week we saw prog'ress made. We saw a mediator appointed. Before that the government negotiator and the Post Office negotiator were not even speaking. They would not even get together. We had one at one end of the city and one at the other. Now we have a mediator and we hope that this matter will come to a settlement. People of Canada deserve to have their mail delivered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: We are prepared to stay here longer if necessary. But now for the first time in the history of Canada the government brings in closure. Maybe we should not be surprised because this government is becoming more dictatorial all the time. As a matter of fact, why should we be surprised because this government has a dictator as a leader?
Let us look at some of the things which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been doing. He lays his hands on Jim Coutts and annoints him as the candidate for Spadina. He tells the people they have to have him as a candidate. Is that democracy?
Let us look at the difference in our party. Eight hundred to 1,000 people gathered and named a candidate in a democratic way. The leader of the Liberal Party would not fight against totalitarianism, communism or facism. He pretended that he was going to be a priest while his comrades fought overseas for his country. Many of them died overseas. He rode a motorcycle and had a gay old time while his comrades were fighting for Canada. The Canadian people should not forget that. We have a dictator for our leader. And the fact that the clones around him say "Yes, yes, and oui, oui" to everything he says does not reduce that dictatorial attitude one bit. They may set up a smokescreen.
Look at what happened with respect to the Constitution. Again we saw a dictatorial attitude and unilateral action. That was the very opposite to what this country has been used to. We have ten governments and two territories, but we have one man who says "I will do it. I will tell you what to do". What if the territories and the governments did not come to an agreement over a few years? That is not the point. We have a system of government in this country set up under the BNA Act with ten governments, and every government should have had a fair say on the Constitution.
I hope the Supreme Court will throw out the Constitution. But whatever the court says, even if the matter is legally right, it is morally wrong and it is contrary to everything we have ever had in this country. Again, that is a dictatorial attitude.
The Prime Minister would not even meet or talk with our premiers. But he goes to Cuba and talks to Castro. He wouldn't talk to our premiers or try to solve the problems of Canada. He is trying to solve the problems of the world. The
country which is his responsibility is full of problems but he does not have time for those. He wants to help world government. He wants world government. He would like to be the dictator of the world. He talks about an international police force.
1 do not believe in world government. I believe in the sovereignty of every nation. I will fight world government to the very last ditch. We do not want that in this country. We do not want anything to do with it. I say to hon. members over there that they can tell their Prime Minister that.
What about the gun control he brought in? Does he not want us to have any guns? There may be some reasons for that, but there is none to deny people the use of rifles and guns in this country.
The Prime Minister has a don't care attitude. Do hon. members over there realize that he will not sign certificates or golden wedding anniversaries any more? A couple in my constituency requested a certificate signed by the Prime Minister of Canada for their golden anniversary. What happened? A certificate was sent out without the Prime Minister's signature. The couple showed it to me. I told them that the Prime Minister was a busy man and perhaps it had slipped his mind. I asked them to give me the certificate to take to Ottawa. I sent the certificate over to his office. The Prime Minister's staff sent it back and told me that he did not have the time to sign these certificates any more.
What a difference there is between our leader and the dictator on the other side. Our leader tells us that he will send all messages for the member to deliver. I asked for a letter from the Prime Minister the other day for a couple who wanted a letter of congratulations for their golden anniversary. His secretary told me that that could not be done. We gave the Prime Minister a month's notice, but we were told it takes three months to have one of these letters made up and then certificates are sent without signatures. The Prime Minister does not care. That is his attitude. That is not the attitude of our leader. Our leader is trying to reflect the thinking of our people. I am glad to be a supporter of the leader of this party. I am not ashamed of that. I am proud of that.
The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park said that we wasted three hours today. That is again a Liberal smokescreen. However, what he said was partly true. We did waste three hours. But the other part of what he said is not true at all. We could have been studying bills. The government did not have any bills to study, not one. We did not want to waste time either. We want to stay here until the business is done.
Our inflation is the highest since 1948 at 12.8 per cent. Hon. members over there wonder why. But the very way this government is tackling inflation is causing inflation. The first component is the 20 per cent interest rate. The stores have to add 20 per cent on to the cost of their goods and people have to pay 20 per cent more. That is inflation. Everyone wonders why inflation keeps going up and up. Hon. members over there wonder why we are not telling them what to do. But we have told them what to do a dozen times. If they resigned, that would help. We have also told the government to get the small
July 17, 1981

industries working, the small businessmen and the farmers. More production would beat inflation. We have told the government that. Raising interest rates up and up will not beat inflation. What we have to do is to get the hundreds and thousands of entrepreneurs producing in the country. We have to increase our net worth. If all these things are done, we will see inflation go down. This government wonders why we have more and more inflation, but the very things this government does produces inflation. The government asks why our businesses go bankrupt. Businesses are going bankrupt because of high interest rates and the policies this government follows.
This government talks about energy. The province of Alberta has no reason to be in this mess with energy. We have no hope of being self-sustaining by 1990 now. That opportunity has passed. The Premier of Alberta offered the Prime Minister of Canada on July 25 last year a deal that would have given us a good program in Canada. The government talks about sharing. We were prepared to share under the offer made by Premier Lougheed to Prime Minister Trudeau. The Prime Minister turned down that offer. That offer would have provided $24,000 to the rest of Canada from every Albertan. That amounted to more than $48 billion, but Trudeau turned it down.


An hon. Member:: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It would have provided a pipeline-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member should refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Okay, the Right Hon. Prime Minister. But he turned it down. We would have had the Q and M Pipeline underway by this time. We would have had $2 billion for western transportation. But the Right Hon. Prime Minister turned the offer down. He did not want to accept it. That would not be in line with his plan for disunity in this country. He wants disunity in Canada, and that is the way he is doing it.
What about the cost of living today which is going up and up and up? Heating oil is up 52 per cent more than it was a year ago. Gas is up 42.7 per cent and fresh vegetables up 37.6 per cent over a year ago. The cost of living is going higher. Every time we talk about the poverty of many of our people, all we hear is what the government did a year ago when it increased the amount for senior citizens. Sure it did, but what has it done lately? Does it expect the old age pensioners to live with that increase forever? The members here could not live on what they were getting. Let us show these people the same consideration we showed ourselves.
Then there was the smokescreen of the cartel. I listened with interest today to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mack-asey). He said that Senator Austin is innocent. I hope he is. If so, why not produce the documents? What is the government
Summer Recess
afraid of? Clear him of suspicion. What is there to hide? Why not let the documents come out? That is what those on this side are asking for. Come clean if you have nothing to hide.
I have been trying to ask a question in this House for a few days. Last Monday there was a sign on the entrance gates to Banff National Park which read "20 per cent interest on American money". That is more than the banks are paying. I was told the people there had never seen so many American $100 bills. I can understand that we need hard currency for the Third World countries, but the United States does not happen to be a Third World country.
Why is the government being so generous with the taxpayers' money. It pays higher interest than the banks. There is not another business in Banff that pays more than 18 per cent, and certainly not more than 19 per cent. The banks were paying 19 per cent. However, the government of Canada is paying 20 per cent, using the taxpayers' money.
We have a $14 billion deficit and an $80 billion debt. Nothing is being done to help small businesses. Sure the small business development bond was brought in, but those who need it most cannot get it. You have to be incorporated in order to get the bond. The government will not let them use it on their inventory. They deny that use. Then the government uses that bond as an example of what it is doing to help small business. All it is doing is helping to send small business into bankruptcy. Just look at the number of businesses going bankrupt.
The government talks about its energy policy and the uranium cartel. This afternoon the minister of mines said it had saved a lot of jobs in her city. The coalminers in my town have had to go without government help. They lost their jobs when coal was no longer competitive. They have watched the Ontario government bring in coal from the United States, something it is still doing.
What about the acid rain problem? We bring in high sulphur coal from the United States when in this country we have coal that is almost acid free. Why not reduce acid rain and at the same time create jobs for our coalminers?
There is tremendous potential in this country. This is a wonderful country stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the 49th parallel to the Arctic. However, we need policies that will encourage development and investment. Stop sending all the oil rigs to the United States. Stop cutting off the desire to invest in this country. Remove the energy policy which is causing so much hardship. The energy minister said the National Energy Program is needed to advance Canada's economy. Look at the results. What good has it been? We are paying a lot more for our gas.
We bought Petrofina. Petro-Canada does not act like a private corporation. Why did it not buy Petrofina and charge it to its profits? No. The price at the pumps was increased in order to pay for Petrofina. What good is it to the people of western Canada? No good at all. What good is it to the people of eastern Canada? No good at all. Why not put that money toward producing more oil and thus reaching toward self-sufficiency?

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
An export tax was added. We talked until we were blue in the face about what this was doing to production. It made no difference to this government. It just does not care.
The government would not consider our amendment to the excise tax bill. The government thought up this tax and it is going to get its pound of flesh, even if it destroys life in this country. The government says how well it manages this country. All it does is to spend money.


An hon. Member:: Like a drunken sailor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A drunken sailor spends his own money but this government spends the people's money and is not giving value for it. When is it going to get our industries working? There is a lot of potential in this country. There would be co-operation if the government brought in a bill to develop this potential. I was in the legislature for almost 40 years. Never once in that time was closure brought in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Mr. W. Bennett Campbell (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, this being the first occasion that I have had an opportunity to address this House, 1 want to say that it is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to serve the people of Cardigan in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W. Bennett Campbell: Before I address the subject at hand, I want to pay tribute to a great Islander who preceded me as Cardigan's representative in the House of Commons. All of us who counted Dan MacDonald as a friend considered ourselves richer for having known him. There are many in this chamber and on Parliament Hill who share that experience and understand the special place that he had in the hearts of Islanders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W. Bennett Campbell: It was impossible to spend five minutes with Dan MacDonald without feeling that your life was touched in a rather unique way. He will always be remembered as an example of a high degree of courage and devotion. We will remember him for his sense of humour and his genuine concern for others, especially those with disabilities or those who were victims of misfortune. He will also be remembered for never believing he himself was handicapped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W. Bennett Campbell: 1 am very honoured to represent Cardigan, and I will certainly endeavour to uphold the example of excellence set by Dan MacDonald during his years in this House.
My remarks will be influenced to some extent by the fact that I recently fought a byelection during what was the most intense period of the constitutional debate. Conventional
wisdom would suggest that the electorate would use byelections to show its displeasure with the party in power. Indeed, in all three of the recent campaigns the opposition used the slogan "Send Trudeau a message". They did!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


W. Bennett Campbell: That message was loud and clear. In all three cases, in three out of three byelections, victories in different parts of the country demonstrated the frailty of the opposition arguments.
During the byelection a number of major issues arose which related directly or indirectly to matters before this House. The people of Cardigan-indeed, the people of Prince Edward Island-were concerned about economic conditions which affect their daily lives. They were concerned about paying the highest energy costs in the country. They were concerned about the major effects these costs would have on production and marketing. They were concerned about their electrical and home heating costs as a result of changes in oil prices, which affect each and every one of us.
In addition, there was a critical need in Prince Edward Island for a greater degree of economic growth to make our province more productive and more self-reliant, and to provide more employment and investment opportunities for its people. Over and over again the need for more jobs was raised during the recent byelection campaign. The people of my constituency share the desire of all Islanders for secure and meaningful employment in their own province, and surely that must be an objective for this nation of ours in order that we can ensure that economic opportunities are realized in all parts of the country to make each of them better places in which to live and work.
I was a member of the government of Prince Edward Island during most of the 1970s. We were committed to achieving a higher standard of living through the development of our resources and other opportunities for economic growth. We entered into various cost-sharing agreements with the federal government which related directly to our social and economic objectives.
The inability at the moment of our present provincial government to maintain a harmonious relationship with Ottawa indicates an unwillingness on its part to co-operate. In my opinion, the government of P.E.l. does nothing to enhance employment opportunities in my province. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the government of my province has reneged on its responsibility for job creation and has left this void to be filled through federal initiatives.
In fact I sat in the gallery in the legislature during the last provincial session to hear the minister of labour of our province say he had no direct obligation, or his government had no direct obligation, for job creation in P.E.l.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


W. Bennett Campbell: The particular needs of P.E.l. are not met by each and every federal program, but collectively
July 17, 1981

they have been successful in meeting the needs not just of Islanders but of all Canadians. We are full partners in Confederation. As Canadians we want to realize our social and economic objectives, whether we are talking about energy, the need for job creation, the need to strengthen and develop our resources or the need to have our rights protected and the need for guarantees in that respect. We share those needs with other Canadians.
The people of my riding are resourceful people. We make our living on farms, in fishing boats, in tourist establishments, and in the small business enterprises which exist throughout my constituency. During the recent byelection campaign I made a commitment to the people of Cardigan, and I repeat that commitment here today. It is a commitment to represent their needs and interests as best I can, and to ensure that federal policies and programs recognize and respond to their needs and interests.
As a former provincial politician I would not be here today if I did not believe that there are opportunities to reflect our goals at the federal level as well as at the provincial level. The people of Cardigan, like the later member who represented them so well, recognize and meet their responsibilities as Canadians. My goal as a member of Parliament is to ensure that the people of my constituency are provided opportunities, not through charity or the largesse of a remote federal government but by a government in which they are full participants.
Since becoming a member of this House, and as a former legislator in the provincial legislature for a few years, I have always been an admirer of the parliamentary system and particularly an admirer of what I call the Mother of Parliaments in Canada, the House of Commons. In the short time since my becoming a member of this House I have followed attentively the performance and the actions in the House of more senior and experienced members on both sides in the hope that I might use some of them as models, learn by the mistakes of others and, in essence, do the best job possible on behalf of the constituents I represent. However, over the past month there have been events in this House which have left me wondering somewhat about the parliamentary process. Just a couple of weeks ago there seemed to be a very clear indication that this House would adjourn on or about July 10.


Walter David Baker: My God, you just got here.


W. Bennett Campbell: Yes, I realize that, but that is not my fault. We arrived at the date of Friday, July 10, only to be advised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that the House would not be allowed to adjourn until the mail was travelling again. I wondered why the Leader of the Opposition took that position. Since that time I have found out that he was pressured into that position by some of his backbench members.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


W. Bennett Campbell: As a result the Leader of the Opposition took the position that this House should not adjourn until the issue of the mail service in our country was
Summer Recess
resolved, as if to suggest to members of the House and to all Canadians that to adjourn the House would in some way seriously impair the ability of the Government of Canada and this House to address the issue if it was not resolved through regular means.
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but I am sure a man of his experience knows the difference between the word "adjourn" and the word "prorogue". He knows that if it is necessary to recall the House after adjournment it is a very simple matter, but he suggested that the House should continue in session until the mediator had an opportunity to attempt to bring the two parties together and to resolve the dispute by normal means. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition interpreting the word "adjourn" in a much longer time-frame than most hon. members. One need only return to 1979 when the same Leader of the Opposition was elected Prime Minister of the country in May, and took almost five months to call the House into session on October 9. That is an indication of his interpretation of the word "adjourn".
In the meantime, I sat back and listened to the debate of the last week and a half. I sympathized with the Leader of the Opposition for the impossible situation in which his members placed him. The hon. member who spoke prior to myself talked about a smokescreen. I suggest to him that the smokescreen is not on this side; it is over there.
After being pressed into a position of initiating a filibuster on the postal strike, the Leader of the Opposition found himself with his knees kicked out from under him, so to speak, because progress was made with the appointment of a mediator. Then he was forced to find another issue to delay the House. Thus came the great cover up, or what has been discussed over the last week as the uranium cartel! As time proceeded, the motion to adjourn was placed before the House for debate. The motion was put a few days ago. The Leader of the Opposition found himself completely boxed in, because he had made a commitment to Canadians to keep the House going until the postal issue was settled. He knew full well that Canadians understood that a motion to adjourn would merely close the House until such time as it was necessary to recall Parliament to take whatever action necesary for the matter to be resolved.
I followed the debate very closely, but this morning I was completely baffled because the Leader of the Opposition, who all this week indicated opposition to the motion to adjourn, suddenly found himself with the majority of his members interested in going home. Thus, he had to find an out.
When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) introduced a motion to adjourn this morning, the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party, if they were really interested in coming back next week, would have stood up and supported it. All members knew that the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that the House should adjourn today and come back on Monday. If

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
they did not want to associate with that motion, they could have very easily stayed out of the House until four o'clock, at which time the Speaker would have called private members' hour and the matter would not have gone to a vote.
Instead, the Leader of the Opposition and his members voted against the motion to adjourn, knowing that they would have their out and they would be able to tell Canadians that their right to speak was choked off by a closure motion introduced by the government. Thus they were able to save their leader and to have their justification, but I say to hon. members opposite that in history and in due course the people of Canada will judge their actions of the last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Campbell) on having delivered his maiden speech. I say to him that I understand why he dwelt so frequently on the term "Leader of the Opposition". Knowing him as I have from a previous political incarnation when he had many trials and tribulations in this particular position in Prince Edward Island, I would tell him that it has been my privilege and honour to have known all the members who have represented Cardigan since 1957. I know he will try to emulate the very high standard they have set, each and every one of them, over the years since 1957.
We are engaged in the final moments of a closure debate. There are a great many issues that those of us who have an opportunity to speak in the dying moments of this debate want to bring forward. I want to deal particularly with the latest news today which Canadians have had thrown to them in a dramatic fashion with regard to the cost of living. It is the highest cost of living the country has known since 1948. For anyone on the other side who doubts what those headlines mean, they mean trauma, suffering, and hardship for hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. This is what the headlines mean.
Last December 18, just as the House was to adjourn for the Christmas recess, Madam Speaker granted the right to hold an emergency debate in the chamber. What was the emergency at that time? I might recall to the House the words of Madam Speaker on that occasion. As reported at page 5888 of Hansard she said:
In this case both hon. members have drawn my attention to the juxtaposition of circumstances of rising interest rates, the rising cost of living index, the rising rate of inflation, and the decline in the dollar.
The hon. member for Oshawa pointed out, moreover, that because of the Christmas adjournment there will be no opportunity to debate any of these matters for a period of three weeks.
On that occasion in that debate member after member stressed the need for the government to respond to what was termed a very serious economic crisis. Central to the critical economic situation which existed at the time was the fact that the cost of living had risen 11.2 per cent, the highest level then since 1975, while interest rates stood at 17.36 per cent. Because the House would not be in session for a three-week
period, Madam Speaker felt that it was enough of an emergency to grant an extraordinary debate. Members felt there was enough of an emergency to demand immediate government action to ease the hardships which people were feeling from one coast to another. Mr. Speaker, compare the situation of last December 18 with what confronts Canadians today. If what we had in December was an emergency or crisis, then what exists today is nothing short of an economic disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yesterday the Bank of Canada interest rates were reported at 19.04 per cent, and today the increase in the cost of living index reached 12.8 per cent, the highest year over year rate since 1948. Last December's figures, which were considerably below those of today, triggered an emergency debate because the House would be recessed for three weeks. Today the Liberal government has moved to cut off debate and shut down Parliament for the next three months. It does that in the face of the figures with which we were presented yesterday and today. It has used the ultimate weapon of closure at a time when Canadians from coast to coast are asking for some measure of relief from the hardships which the government's ill-fated and ill-considered policies have induced. Obviously the government would much rather not hear about the difficulties which Canadians are facing.
No doubt cabinet ministers suffer from the delusion that if only they can get rid of members of Parliament and avoid their bothersome questions, if only they are not reminded that their policies are not working, then somehow all the country's problems would go away. Things just do not work that way, Mr. Speaker. The problems remain and, what is worse, they are becoming more deeply imbedded and ingrained in the country's economic psyche with every passing day. Shutting down Parliament will not resolve anything. The axe of closure is not able to chop away at the high cost of living.
I sometimes wonder, as I listen in frustration to the responses to questions which cabinet ministers provide, if they have any sense or any idea of how bad things are for a number of Canadians-not everyone, to be sure. I do not place everyone in that bracket. But for people who live on fixed incomes, or for those who are striving to break even-the working poor-the situation gets more desperate day by day. Therefore, I must ask, do not government members, Liberal backbenchers, ever hear from any of these people? Is that the reason they can ignore them? Indeed, is that the reason they can close up shop here in Ottawa and go home without responding to any of their problems? Earlier this evening the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) had the effrontery to complain that he was being held hostage here because people were trying to deal with the problems of Canadians.
If government members do not hear from their constituents about the high cost of living and high interest rates, I do. I not only hear from my own constituents about what a mess the government is making of the economy, but 1 hear from people living in constituencies elsewhere in the country. I wish to read
July 17, 1981

a couple of letters into the record which 1 received recently from constituents in the riding of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)-while the mails were still operating. The first one says:
I wrote to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister ... and to the head of Canada Mortgage and Housing in Halifax with no answer from any of them, so I decided to write to you.


Charles Joseph Clark: And they didn't even answer?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, they did not even answer.
My mortgage has gone up from $183 to $408, a month. I am the mother of eight children, five children in junior and high school, two in vocational school and one at home. My grocery order a week is $160. My oil is $135 every four weeks, house payments $408, not counting gas, lights, water, car payment and other bills. We are finding it very hard to make ends meet. We only signed our mortgage renewal for only one year and when it comes up we will be looking at another big jump. We signed the mortgage renewal with no other choice. We signed or be put out on the street with no concern for the children. Where can you find a place to rent for ten people? My husband's take-home pay is $230-$240 per week after taxes. It does not leave much for clothes for the children after everything is paid. I don't know what the government expects of miners. Everything is going up but the take-home pay... The going is rough with eight children and I know they are going without to make the house payment.
That letter comes from a Mrs. Campbell who lives in the riding of the Minister of Finance.
I have another letter in front of me from someone else in the minister's riding. It says:
I have written to so many people in government concerning my financial problems that I am fed up with them all... and no one can lift a hand to change matters, I end up with the same old answers. They try to run our country but they couldn't run a dog show.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The letter goes on:
I am a widow woman with four children to try and look after on a pension of $480 per month social assistance. I am nearly crazy trying to make ends meet. I have a 20-year-old son who has tried everywhere for work but can't find a job. I have a daughter 18 who is graduating in June and she has gone everywhere she can think of for a job and she ends up baby-sitting for $45 a week. Then my 14-year-old son is trying to get any small jobs, mowing lawns or cleaning yards or whatever he gets in the way of an odd job. My little girl, 11, is here with no shoes for her feet and I just cannot afford to get her any ...
Four years ago we were getting $425 a month and I could buy a 3-lb jar of peanut butter for $1.89. Now I get $480 a month and the same jar of peanut butter is $5.30 and that's no lie. My fuel bill four years ago was around $40 a month, now its over $100. A family of five should have at least $100 a week for food alone, not to mention your fuel, lights, clothes, bills and other necessities ...
Its not living when you are worried every minute where your next meal is coming from.
That letter was from Mrs. MacMullen from the minister's riding. The letters I have referred to, Mr. Speaker, reached me in June while we still had postal service. Their writers, who voiced despair at the situation a month ago, now must contend with the highest increase in the cost of living in our peacetime history. What can you say to a mother with a number of children when you know she cannot afford the increase in the cost of milk, fresh fruit and vegetables for her children? These people do not write letters to members of Parliament because they are looking for penpals. They write because they are hoping and praying that someone will listen to their cries of
Summer Recess
distress. It is no good for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to shake her head at me-these are the kinds of things people write about.
Cabinet ministers have not listened through these last long months. They are confronted with this situation again and again, and still they do not listen. They have sat in their seats in stony silence, or they have risen to their feet to intone that Canadians have never had it so good. Small comfort, that, to a woman with a family of young children for whom she must provide.
If cabinet ministers have not listened to the pleas of the less fortunate while the House has been in session, if they have not listened in this last number of months, who will force them to listen to anything in the next three months when we are not here? They relish the chance to get rid of the opposition confronting them with their shortcomings. They do not like to be confronted with these shortcomings, and they jump at every opportunity to get rid of them. However, during this debate today one does not hear from any of the Liberal backbenchers getting up on their feet to demand, from their Liberal cabinet ministers, some countermeasure to the high cost of living about which we have heard today. We have not heard a single word from any Liberal backbencher about it. Instead, like the cabinet, they have ceased to listen, and that is the trouble.
In the past year the government has made a mess of constitutional reform, it has made a mess of the economy, and it has made a mess of the Post Office. I just want to plead with the government: for God's sake, please do not touch anything else, because your incompetence is ruining the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I say to Your Honour that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a great opportunity in these next few days. He has an opportunity to listen and to learn from the leaders of other industrialized countries. He might ask them how they are handling inflation, how they are handling the cost of living in their countries, and what their record has been over the past year. This is what he would hear from them. He would hear that in Italy the cost of living has gone down from a year ago, when it was 20.8 per cent, to 20.6 per cent. In France it has gone down from 13.7 per cent to 12.7 per cent. In Britain it has gone down from 21.9 per cent to 11.7 per cent. In the United States it has gone down from 14.4 per cent to 9.8 per cent. In West Germany it has gone down from 6 per cent to 5.6 per cent. In Japan it has gone down from 8.2 per cent to 5.4 per cent. In Canada it has gone up from 9.4 per cent to 12.8 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what the Prime Minister has to bring to the economic Summit. Canada is the only country at the economic Summit to show an increase in the cost of living over the past year. All the other countries have reversed the trend. The Minister of Finance and his Minister of State for

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
Finance (Mr. Bussieres) lay great emphasis on the gradualist approach that they are adopting, on the gradual way in which they are attacking the country's economy. The only result they are having is to make the economy and times in Canada gradually worse and worse for more and more people of this country. It is worse now than it was in May, when the minister reluctantly forecast an appreciable drop in the over-all inflation rate; and it was worse in May than it was in February, when the Minister of Finance sat there and smiled or smirked about the questions which were put to him. My fear, given the record of this government, given its inertia, given its lack of political will, given its lacklustre performance, is that during the next three months, when the House will no longer be in session, the cost of living will soar beyond the wildest estimates.
This is a very difficult time for a good many people in this country; 1981 has not been kind to them. Some are out of jobs because of the government's fiasco of an energy policy. It is driving people out of business, and business out of oil rigs, and out of the energy future of this country, and some people are out of jobs because of the bungling of the government's handling of the Post Office situation. Small business after small business, collection Firms and magazine outlets, are having to close because of the government's bungling of the negotiations. Some people are out of their homes because of the runaway mortgage rates in the country. They look to government to provide leadership through difficult times, and the government hits them with a double whammy of a record high cost of living rate and record high interest rates. Is it any wonder that Canadians are becoming fractious, cynical, and angry? Government policies are not only adversely affecting their livelihood, but they are also sapping the strength, the vitality, the energy and the spirit of Canadians. The country deserves better than this. Certainly, it deserves a better government than this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I mentioned that Canadians were getting cynical. Is it any wonder that they are getting cynical when they remember what the Liberal party promised in response to a Financial Post questionnaire on February 16, 1980? The Liberal party said this about the cost of living and inflation:
Inflation is the key problem. If it can be reduced, the problem of high interest rates will be lessened. To deal with inflation, we must deal with expectations. While the Liberal party remains committed to gradual reduction in the growth of money supply and government expenditure restraint, more important, it will not contribute to a buildup in expectations through inflationary tax hikes or excessive oil price increases.
That, from the party that 13 times, since it has come to office, has increased energy prices in this country! That is what it has done. Is it any wonder that Canadians are cynical about things which are said to them before an election, and then the opposite is done by a government in power after the election? I suppose that it would be too much to expect any cabinet minister to have entered this closure debate today with some positive suggestions as to how our cost of living could go down for a change instead of always going up; but surely it is not too
much to ask, to demand that, when this threadbare bankrupt government meets the House again this autumn, it do so with a budget designed to stimulate the Canadian economy rather than suck from it the last vestige of vigour and strength that it possesses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, during this adjournment debate it seems it is not only desirable for us, but probably our duty, to carry out an assessment of the past, to identify our problems and to seek solutions, so that we can learn not only from our successes but also from our mistakes, and also try to improve the future. It seems to me to be a tragic but indelible part of our political mythology to act as if our own party never makes a mistake and that the other party can do no good. It seems to me that if that is our approach, one can never learn or grow, nor, for that matter, can one gain the trust of others with such an obviously simplistic point of view.
Some of my constituents have said to me that when they see me on television, either speaking or seated in the House, that I look serious and sombre. I look serious and sombre. They wonder why that is the case. Perhaps it is because that is the way I look but I think it is mainly because that is the way I feel.
Each of us when we ran for Parliament had our own hopes. When we ran for Parliament we had our own expectations for our work as an MP and also for what we hoped to find in the House of Commons. Certainly I can say I had hoped there would be more room and scope for dialogue and much less confrontation. I hoped we would be evolving from the sterile systems of the past that played up to extremism, extreme statements and scapegoating, and that instead we would be moving forward with the introduction of television, because people would be watching us, to a system that would be more sincere, more adaptable, productive and useful, as we move toward the twenty-first century.
But no, Mr. Speaker; our ears are daily assaulted with loud accusations or venomous attacks directed against hon. members. If not that, then insinuations of guilt by association such as, unfortunately, we have endured for the last several days in remarks directed against Senator Austin and people who cannot defend themselves because they are not here but in another place.
There have been attacks against civil servants who are not here and cannot defend themselves. It is an irony that Parliament should hold people guilty until they are proved innocent.
This is hardly the place then, to come for reasoned or logical argument. There is very little genuine communication taking place here in this chamber.
As we look back over the session so far, each of us may have his or her own personal opinions about it. Old timers may compare it with former sessions and rate this session, on the
July 17, 1981

basis of their broad perspective, as being either better or worse in this area or that area than previous sessions.
Newcomers, some of us who have been here for only a few sessions, may be less objective and more impatient. Perhaps we are comparing it, not with what has been but with what it could be or should be. Each member, then, has his or her own personal value system by which he or she assesses what Parliament should be. What I am about to say, then, is certainly a personal reaction as I keep in mind the constituents whom I try to represent. I do not pretend they are the views of other members or of the government or of my Liberal party.
My assessment of what has happened in this session so far to date is that we have worked very hard and very long; that we have met a host of very urgent and pressing problems; and that the government has launched on a courageous effort to deal with many major and long-range issues. I also observe that the existing parliamentary process suffers from many outmoded, antiquated procedures that were meant for a totally different era and situation, and that this system of schedules and rules and attitudes is becoming less and less capable of dealing with matters of state in the 1980s.
To put it gently, our present parliamentary system engenders hostility, invites abuse and misuse, and in the eyes of the public is increasingly earning disappointment, if not cynicism.
Perhaps those who have worked with the system for a long time or have learned how to manipulate its rules may derive ample satisfaction. Perhaps they know how to use the system, but in the view of many in the public who watch television I am afraid I hear that business is not done here, it is blocked here. We remember the scenes from the constitutional debate. We recall the extent to which members would go to try to inhibit debate or progress in the affairs of this Parliament.
I said that in this session we had successfully addressed ourselves to many fundamental issues. We have hardly been toying with superficial matters or tinkering or fine tuning. To the discomfort of many, we have bitten the bullet and come to grips with such issues as the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all that that entails. We have had a budget debate. We have insisted on the right of Canadians to claim their fair share and control of their own natural resources, oil and gas. We have seen the development of a national energy policy that embraces all phases of the energy issue, including exploration, diversification, energy alternatives and conservation, for decades to come. This Parliament has sought to adjust our economy to changing market conditions, including priority on research and development. We have undertaken risks to address global issues that impinge upon us as threats to our survival and that of billions of other people, whether they include environmental pollution, demographic explosion, the suffering of millions of refugees, the horrors of violence and terrorism, or the entire story summed up by the words "North-South relations".
Yes, this Parliament has tackled a very large package of issues in a fast moving world that will not wait. Whether or not one is satisfied with what the federal government is doing in each or any of these areas is another question. Indeed, it is
Summer Recess
the task of the opposition and the media and every one of us to analyse and criticize, and if we can to suggest profound, alternate solutions.
Personally, I have not been stimulated by the opposition, which from where I sit seems to have been more preoccupied with fishing expeditions to find scandals, and to scramble to get "onside", with public opinion polls, than it has been to generate rationally the challenges and the debate that these enormously complex issues that I have mentioned deserve.
But whether the government or the opposition has done well or poorly is obviously a matter of opinion. I have expressed mine; to that I am entitled. But my point and major concern here is not to play that game. Rather, it is that our parliamentary system has not lived up to our present day needs. If we do not pay attention to this we are inviting disillusionment in our political system, and nothing could be more tragic.
Like children, nations, parties and politicians play games. But the games we play are games with our own future. Sometimes they are games of bluff, of posturing and pretence. They are dangerous games. Today we need to move away from political games and move toward political management. We need to move toward communication, toward reason, co-oper-tion and, above all, toward dialogue. If we do not take the steps to reform our system, we will lose out to the extremists and the violent who will offer quick answers to those who are becoming impatient with our ponderous and obsolete game playing.
The reforms of which I speak are really not my ideas; these reforms of Parliament are not new ideas. They come from the opposition, they come from the New Democratic Party, they come from our benches, they come from committees that have met year after year. For some reason, however, we have not taken the step to bring about parliamentary reform.
Perhaps we need to challenge those guardians of the past who cling to a system which has long passed us by. When we ask what the suggestions are that have been made on all sides of the House to reform this Parliament and make it more effective, what we have heard over and over again is, let us work for ways to increase participation and involvement; let us encourage the excellent experiments of all-party task forces which have just begun; let us try to be more effective and better organized in our parliamentary committee; let us give more members an opportunity for debate; let us adjust the rules; let us consider more free votes in the House and fewer motions of confidence; let us question the archaic system of bells and surprise votes. In short, let us treat one another with greater respect, as adults, with a schedule which will permit sound management and organization.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell that one to your leader.


Roland de Corneille: I suggest that these are things on which all parties can work and which would find all-party agreement. Perhaps some of the venom and the vitriolic accusations we have heard in the past week would not be made and would not be obstructing our parliamentary procedure.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
My second area of concern is that we are not making the urgent and necessary efforts needed to avert the same disaster of confrontation and violence in this country that is raging like a conflagration in the rest of the world. I do not think we take enough pride and satisfaction that we have thus far avoided violence, assassinations, bloodshed and political extremism which have poisoned all the other nations of the world, including France, Britain and the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence has the floor.


Roland de Corneille: What makes us think that we can so easily escape the ravages of frustration, racism and moral decay that is consuming other western nations whose positions of democracy are older and more established than our own?


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hesitant to rise because I have never experienced anything like this in the almost nine years I have been in Parliament. Maybe it is because I am a woman and the first to sit in this House from the province of Quebec. Not only am I a French Canadian but 1 am an immigrant to this country, and I resent all forms of discrimination. I do not particularly like the joke which the Tories are playing on our colleague right now. Whatever status or job in life-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Monique Bégin: -of someone, one is not supposed to play tricks like that, and I consider it an attack on a member's privilege.


An hon. Member:: Talk to your own caucus; they were having just as much fun.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Everyone was laughing.


John Horton McDermid: You are laughing as hard as anyone, Mr. Bockstael.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members are conscious of the need to maintain the dignity of the chamber. The hon. member for Eglington-Lawrence has the floor.


Roland de Corneille: One could hardly find a better illustration of the point I was talking about than what has just transpired on the other side. I hardly think it befits the dignity of the whip of the opposition party to pass around a plate as if for a collection, which is a mocking of the church or a mocking of the Christian faith. I do not find that amusing. I do not think it should be amusing to members in this House. I do not mind something that is a good joke, I think I can take that; but I think it is particularly out of taste when I was talking about the tragic need for dignity and solemnity in this House of Commons.
I was trying to point out how grave is the need for the people who watch us on television to have respect for this House of Commons. When members continue to make a mockery of it, it cannot elicit in the people who watch us a sense of confidence in our political system.
As I was saying, we should realize that our House of Commons is in great peril.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Roland de Corneille: It is in peril when members mock it, deride it and do not have sufficient respect that they can give their ears to their hon. colleagues.
What are we here for if that is the behaviour we show?


An hon. Member:: Closure. That is what.


Roland de Corneille: I am sorry if that is how it behooves members of the opposition. They do not mock me. They are mocking themselves and Parliament.


John Horton McDermid: Look who is mocking Parliament.


An hon. Member:: You are closing Parliament so you can go on holidays.


Roland de Corneille: We should be proud of this country and of the peace and tranquility we have. We should not mock it. How dare we mock the system. How dare we drag it into the dust.
Tragically, in this country we have seen altogether too many politicians fanning the flames of separatism and regionalism, stonewalling instead of talking and negotiating.


John Horton McDermid: Stonewalling. Look who is talking about that. That is the pot calling the kettle black.


Roland de Corneille: In the 1950s I worked on programs to bring about dialogue between people of different churches. In the 1960s I worked on programs to bring about dialogue between Christians and Jews. In the 1970s I worked to try to bring about dialogue between Canadians of different cultures. In 1969 I went to the Harrison Hot Springs conference to discuss ways to apply the principles of dialogue to our national scene, to seek participatory democracy to reduce confrontation. I ran for Parliament ten years later to pursue those same goals, to look for unity and to find ways to bring people at least into dialogue, if not agreement.
I am trying to challenge all members of this House. I implore members of the opposition to hear what I am saying. We should try to seek dialogue, to seek to talk together and to listen to one another. People ask me why I look so serious. They may ask me when I will stop looking so serious on television. That will be when we stop playing the game of politics and engage in political science; when we stop the game of scoring points and conduct the affairs of state; and when we sit across the table as well as across the aisle.
I am proud of what we have been able to do this session. But I suggest it is long overdue for this Parliament and our system
July 17, 1981

to be made more dialogical so that we can better represent and better serve our people. I hope that parliamentary reform will be at the top of the list of all parties in the fall and, of equal importance, that we give priority to bringing about more dialogue and less confrontation.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in this adjournment debate-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of my colleague who is speaking, may I ask his permission to put a question to the hon. member who has just finished speaking?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time of the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) has expired. The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox-Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet) has been recognized.


George Albert Proud: I will return to it later then, Mr. Speaker.


William John Vankoughnet: The all too frequent motion of closure is used with abandon by the government whenever it attempts to get its own way at the expense of Parliament and the Canadian people. The serious state of our economy which the government is disregarding is hard to understand when this country has so much potential.
I understand this is the First time in the history of the Commonwealth that closure has been used on an adjournment debate. It is just another milestone for the present government as it goes on its misguided way. We saw this same government use closure on the constitutional issue in an effort to ram its proposals through, and now we see it rear its head once more.
The government could use its majority in constructive ways to address positively the many problems facing Canada and Canadians today. Instead, it uses its majority to usurp the traditional functioning of Parliament by again bringing in a closure motion at a time when there are serious issues with which to deal. We have in Canada serious problems facing home owners, businessmen and the everyday citizen which the present government seems to ignore, such as inflation, high interest rates, unemployment and an ill-conceived energy policy. We hear of such issues as the uranium cartel which the government does not seem too anxious to discuss in a Parliament which represents the people of Canada.
I am sorry to say that many Canadians no longer look upon the Post Office with the same degree of admiration they once did. Rural mailmen, however, still deserve that past reputation for excellent service. These people do deserve an increase in the allowable limit for their contracts. When compared to the generous increases urban workers have received in the past, rural carriers deserve adequate compensation for a job well done. I hope that the government can address some of these problems and improve our mail service and ensure fewer interruptions in the future for this vital necessity.
Summer Recess
Our country is at a turning point in its history. The issues facing us are complex and interrelated. They are accompanied by a deep sense of urgency and concern. I believe that we must confront them head on, but we must also approach them cautiously.
The most serious issue facing us is our economy. Our economic situation should be our main priority. The production of goods and services in Canada must grow, not continue to decline. The present government continues to accumulate a deficit, which is snowballing out of control.
Many people predict prolonged, double digit inflation. Against this background. Is it any wonder that businessmen and unemployed Canadians do not share the present government's one-sided concern towards the Constitution? This will not create more jobs or help those people fortunate enough to be employed cope with the ravages of runaway inflation. There is no question in my mind that the government has used the constitutional issue to divert attention from our dismal economic situation. Canada's economy has to get back on the rails, but this challenge seems to be met by the government railroading Canadians.
Serious problems must be met head on with serious solutions. Long-term problems require long-term plans and solutions, not self-serving hit and miss policies, as the present government sees fit to spread around.
The budget introduced last October is certainly no answer to Canada's serious economic problems. In fact, it does not even measure up to a serious attempt to deal head on, up front with problems faced by Canadians. Real problems demand real solutions, and the first step the government should take is to introduce a budget based on long-term financial planning. It must address the problem of the government debt and take concrete measures to bring this debt under control. It must deal with getting Canadians back to work and getting our industries working at capacity. It must wrestle inflation to the ground and keep it there. The budget must possess the intestinal fortitude to correct the problems facing Canadians today so that we can regain that high standard of living our ancestors worked so hard for us to enjoy.
This is the concept that Canada was built upon. Honesty, hard work, fairness; these are Canadian words reflecting some of the high standards that our heritage was built on and that our future will continue to be built on. We need policies that are honest and fair to work as a sound guiding force for all Canadians. We do not need a crafty, cagey load of doubletalk which is passed off as a budget but which in effect passes for no more than wind.
Canadians get more than a bad taste from this latest closure motion, uranium cartel, postal service, interest rates, National Energy Program, Constitution and much more. Canadians are facing difficult times. They need and deserve responsible and sincere leadership. They need a government which not only is in touch with all Canadians on the real issues facing Canadians, but one that will do something to correct what is wrong.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
The great potential of Canada will only be realized if we regain control of our cost structure and become more productive. The result has been an increase in inflation, which is nothing more than a symptom of our demand versus supply dilemma. Inflation should be our main concern. We can reduce our inflation rate if we increase our productivity.
We have all seen how the present government uses its majority to try unilaterally to impose its ill-conceived policies on Canadians. We are seeing strong public reaction now to the government's energy package, its so-called budget, and the constitutional proposals. Why does this government not see fit to use its majority in a constructive way to address the very real and pressing problems of inflation and unemployment?
The Canadian public is not so easily fooled by this government's way of doing things. The present government has been avoiding the real issues for some time. The business community is one of the most important components in our economy. This is one of the first areas the government should look to to help. New innovative programs to help Canadian business grow and compete in Canada and worldwide are desperately needed.
Interest rates in this country are soaring higher than the government's ego, with the prime lending rate now over 19 per cent. It is hard enough these days in business, with all of the government bureaucracy to face, to have to cope with these crippling interest rates. Bankruptcies are at an alarming rate. Initiative is being stifled. People simply cannot afford to take the risk of borrowing money at such high cost. Empty stores and factories are more and more evident as the government's mismanagement is turning Canada's economy into a wasteland.
As each day passes while the government ignores the very real problems faced by Canadians, businesses are closing down and more Canadians are becoming unemployed. People with ideas, initiative and sound business sense are having a difficult time these days due to the state of our economy, caused largely by the lack of sound, long-term policies from this government. I feel that we must solve the very real problems facing Canada at home in order to reach our potential before we go looking for other causes to follow.
Farming is another important part of the Canadian economy. One out of every four Canadians works in a field related to the food and agriculture industry. A healthy and growing agricultural economy helps contribute to a healthy and growing Canadian economy. With record unemployment and inflation in Canada today, the economy needs all the help it can get.
The last budget put forward by the government virtually ignored agriculture. There was no mention of updating valuation day values and allowing rollovers of the sale of farm lands in a registered retirement savings plan. If farmers are not protected against the peculiar capital gains aspect of their industry, then the selling price of farm land could reflect these high potential capital gains and as a result the high start-up costs could be prohibitive to many who would otherwise enter farming.
What about those already in farming? They are affected as much as or more than anyone by the skyrocketing interest rates. Farming today is big time business. Machinery and land costs are very expensive as it is, but to try to pay for them with interest rates as they are going is not a pleasant thought. Canadians can see what is being done, or should I say what is not being done?
Exploration is slowing down in Canada. Drilling rigs are moving to the United States. The oil industry has a multiplier effect in our economy and when exploration and production slow down, industry looks elsewhere and the whole Canadian economy suffers. The longer the government takes to help the industry achieve self-sufficiency in Canada, the more foreign oil will have to be imported at huge cost to our economy. The government has already run up a huge national debt. Where are we going to get the money to pay for this expensive energy policy? More borrowing on international money markets will add to the amount of money Canada has to pay back.
Energy is a very important aspect of our economy these days. It affects our productivity, our inflation rate, our employment prospects and our real income. We must embark on a major program to increase our domestic supply of oil and alternate energy sources. Unfortunately, our plans to make Canada energy self-sufficient were stymied, at great cost to the energy future of our country.
We are now seeing the disastrous results of the government's energy policy. Canadians are seeing through the packaging of this misguided policy to the harsh reality beneath its surface. Why is it that we are more and more forced to look at what is lurking beneath the surface of government policy? It is because we can no longer trust the government to attack things out front.
Future generations of Canadians will bear the brunt of paying off the huge debt run up by the present government. The government has a responsibility to advocate policies which are in the best interests of Canada and Canadians.
We have a strong blend of heritage and much to be proud of and build for. Our ancestors built this country up with a strong foundation. They suffered hardships and challenges, but they persevered and overcame these various challenges. The present government does our heritage little justice as it turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to our present problems.
The present government does not deal in substance and foundation but, through its shortsighted policies, seems more bent on tearing down this country rather than preserving and building it for the future.
Most parents want to provide better lives for their children than they had for themselves. If a child requires a basic item such as a pair of shoes, they do not substitute a colouring book. The present government tries to give Canadians off-colour policies such as unilateral alterations to our Constitution, against the wishes of most of the provinces and the majority of Canadians, when what Canadians really want are jobs, relief from inflation and high interest rates and a sound energy
July 17, 1981

policy formulated by elected representatives who are free to express the views of their electorate without being silenced.
I feel that the present government is setting a dangerous precedent in its over-use of closure. It seems that every time the government gets embarrassed or frustrated over an issue, regardless of the importance of the issue to the country and the people, we see the increasing use of closure. This is unacceptable and an alarming abuse of Parliament.
We are here to represent Canadians, and the government should respect that fact. The government should also deal with the real concerns and issues facing Canadians in a direct and fair approach.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, as the House grinds finally to a close until the fall, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on a few current issues. As we sit here in Ottawa even in the full bloom of summer, it is not too difficult to recite these issues. We all know them and perhaps see them a little differently. Some are distressing in varying degrees, vexing, troublesome and disturbing. Others, if we take the time and have the capacity to examine them objectively, do give us cause for some hope, even if not full-fledged rejoicing.
On balance, I think we can say that ours is a very favoured and fortunate nation, but is it not rather strange that it never seems very politic to remind our citizens that such is the case? I am not sure why. However, many people say it for themselves, especially those who have had the opportunity or the privilege to travel outside Canada. Upon returning from abroad they say, "It is good to be home; ours is a great country; we are a fortunate people." It seems as if they return to see life around them with fresh eyes.
Nevertheless, it is distressing to be in the midst of yet another postal strike. Small and medium-sized businesses are hurting, and they are hurting badly. These businesses are the economic life blood of this country and, with accounts receivable choked off and facing a serious cash flow problem, these small and medium-sized businesses are in serious trouble.
At current interest rates it is not a very attractive proposal to suggest that they take a trip across the street to visit their friendly neighbourhood banker, even if his door is wide, wide open-and it seems to be these days. I cannot confess I have ever heard them, but I have listened to hear if anybody can come up with strong, counter-arguments against the view that our banks today are the most greedy, grasping institutions in our society. Well, let that be for now; back to the Post Office.
Nearly everyone agrees that the only way to get a decent contract is by way of collective bargaining. It is not always efficient as a method, but it is usually effective. It does seem to me a pity, however, that some union leaders are so quick-so trigger happy-to deploy their ultimate weapon of strike, sometimes even before talks get under way or even before real negotiations have begun in earnest.


Mr. Gamble:: Remove the right.
Summer Recess


B. Keith Penner: My hon. friend says "remove the right". I will come to that in a moment.


David Michael Collenette: Go fight Joe instead.


B. Keith Penner: I do not accept his position at all.
The costs to all concerned of deploying the ultimate weapon too quickly are terribly high and often unnecessarily so.
I am sure there is much within the Post Office which requires urgent attention. In fact, in a recent interview, Mr. Warren, the man who will head the new Canada Post Corporation, referred to some of these problems, and I would like to quote just a little from that interview. He said he is convinced that one of the fundamental problems with the Post Office is a lack of pride and job satisfaction on the part of the postal workers. Often, he said, that mood has been manifest in demands at the negotiating table for unreasonable salary increases and substantial improvements in fringe benefits. Postal workers, he said, might not be as strident or inflexible in their demands if they were happier where they worked. Mr. Warren said one of the things he is considering as part of his corporate strategy is a series of sweeping measures to improve working conditions. He said that when money becomes so centre stage, you have to ask yourself if there are not other things and whether the work environment, the safety environment and other things do not come into it.
The postal workers have the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining under law. A positive step has been taken with the appointment of a mediator. I believe we now should be able to adjourn this House in an optimistic frame of mind, optimistic that a fair and just settlement will be negotiated quickly. That is what the postal workers want, that is what the people of Canada want and that is what the Government of Canada wants.
The postal strike, high interest rates which hurt home owners and small businesses in particular, and the rate of inflation are distressing, troublesome and extremely serious issues. It is illusory, however, to lead people to believe that solutions are either simple or readily available. The British government's hard line on inflation is creating serious social unrest in that country. Great Britain today has more than its share of problems. British members of Parliament have their hands full, more than they can cope with.
Recently at a parliamentary Commonwealth Conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka, the President of the Republic spoke to the delegates quite frankly about some of the problems on his island. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) who is sitting opposite heard the speech. The president referred to violence in the northern part of his island and to the efforts of his government to restore .peace and order. There has been looting, murder, raping, wanton destruction of property, and all that accompanies violence and disorder. President Jayewar-dene noted that a number of British members of Parliament had become deeply concerned about the problems in Sri Lanka. Some of them had even sided with those who were

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
creating the disturbances. President Jayewardene warned those British members of Parliament not to meddle. "Solve your own problems first", he said, "before you cast your eyes elsewhere". Later at a reception I told President Jayewardene that I thought he had tendered good advice and as a Canadian I agreed with him.
1 mentioned high interest rates. We all know that the United States Federal Reserve Board is using this policy to attract capital back into the United States rather than to fight inflation as is sometimes claimed. We in Canada are directly affected by the United States policy. The financial critics of the official opposition know this as well as we do. Others are affected besides those of us in Canada. Even the new socialist president of France has had to succumb to the devastating influence of this made-in-U.S.A. policy. Let us hope that the Economic Summit which is helping to push us out of town will be successful to some extent in modifying the high interest rate policy of the United States.
It is not necessary for pessimism to prevail about everything economic. There are also some very important aspects of Canada's present economic state which are extremely encouraging. I should like to mention three: Economic growth, employment and the deficit. There are signs of growth in the economy.
The spring update of the Economic Council of Canada indicated that the outlook for the Canadian economy is brighter now than it was last fall. The figures relating to the gross national expenditure, the GNE or the economy's total demand for goods and services, are more encouraging now even after taking the inflation rate into consideration. For example, the council now projects that for 1981 the GNE will increase by 2.9 per cent. Its previous projection last fall was only 1.4 per cent. For 1982 the council is talking about a 3 per cent increase, and for 1983 it is talking about a 4 per cent increase. Thus, we can see that a moderate recovery of the Canadian economy is expected over the next three years.
Also the Economic Council of Canada indicated that the productivity growth is likely to recover in the 1981-82 period, with an increase in manufacturing productivity of between 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent per year. In addition to these figures, the first economic forecast of the Conference Board of Canada for 1982 projected a decline in the rate of inflation between now and 1982, as well as some growth in exports and in business investment. In fact, it projects an increase in exports by 4.6 per cent next year, compared with only 1 per cent this year. That is economic growth.
The employment picture is also improving. For example, higher growth in employment is forecast over the first three years of this decade because of higher real economic growth. The economic council study indicated:
From now through 1983, the economy should be able to generate enough new jobs to increase employment by about 3.1 per cent a year instead of the 2.3 per cent projected last fall.
Therefore, the unemployment rate is expected to decrease more rapidly from 7.2 per cent this year to 5.3 per cent by 1985. When we compare Canada's unemployment figures with
those of the other OECD countries, we find that Canada is the only country with a jobless rate which decreased from the first quarter of 1980 to the first quarter of 1981.


An hon. Member:: Now give us the rate of inflation.


B. Keith Penner: Be patient my friend; I will come to that. Britain had an increase in that period of unemployment of 4.7 per cent under a Tory government. The United States had an increase of 1.2 per cent. Only Canada, among all the countries, had an actual decrease in its rate of unemployment.
Finally, I should like to refer to the federal deficit of $14 billion. It is a gross understatement to suggest that this is not a healthy situation. In fact, such a deficit ought to give all of us some sleepless nights. The spring update of the Economic Council of Canada once again provides some encouragement. It indicated that the projections of the federal government's fiscal position have changed dramatically since last fall, principally because of the government's National Energy Program. The Economic Council previously projected a deficit of 4 per cent of GNE in 1981 which would fall gradually to 1.3 per cent of GNE by 1990. In its spring report, the council forecast a deficit of approximately 2.4 per cent of GNE for 1981 instead of 4 per cent, and a surplus position by 1985 instead of a deficit of 2.5 per cent of the GNE. With those projections and figures and that kind of optimism, let us hope that the new budget in the fall will have no large tax increases for Canadians and that there will be no abandonment of the indexation of tax deductions. It is obvious that we do not need them.
It is about time for hon. members of Parliament to return home, to renew relationships with family and friends, to get back to their constituencies, and to enter actively into another aspect of our work-the listening phase. Perhaps if we listen well between now and October and hear what is actually being said rather than what we want to hear, our time here between October and Christmas may be very productive.
In conclusion, I want to express a word of commendation to Madam Speaker. Presiding over the House is seldom an easy task. Madam Speaker has demonstrated the most admirable of all human qualities-the capacity to grow on the job and to respond to the demands of the task. In my opinion, she presides over the House with wit and charm, with intelligence and grace. She is a credit to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, good morning; it is now after midnight. I will not take too long, but I wanted to spend a few minutes to tell the House why we in this party intend to vote against the adjournment motion which was placed on the Order Paper by the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I wish to do that by pointing out that yesterday the House leader of our party made a speech before a few of these events took place. At that time he said as we had instructed him, that our caucus had decided to support the adjournment motion in order to give Judge Gold a chance to get both sides together in the postal dispute and reach a
July 17, 1981

mediated settlement. But our House leader also said during his remarks, as reported at page 11607 of Hansard:
I hope it is in order for me to say that I have been told there will be no closure on this motion, Mr. Speaker, and on that assumption and understanding we had said we would be supporting the government to adjourn the House.
As I said, a number of things have happened since then. First, at eight o'clock last night some 30 odd members of the Liberal Party came very quickly into the House, using some devious trickery and calling for the question to be put. This was very unfair. I think it showed the Liberal Party's lack of respect for Parliament and parliamentary traditions, something we did not expect. More important, last night at 9.45 p.m. we heard a Minister of the Crown introduce a motion for closure. For the first time in the history of Parliament we are seeing adjournment by closure. Because of that our House leader has recommended, and our caucus has supported voting against the adjournment motion at one o'clock this morning.


An hon. Member:: You have only three members here.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell from the interjections and heckling, that the Liberals have not learned to treat this institution with the respect it deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A few years ago their leader said that once members of Parliament leave this place they become nobodies. The Liberals do not respect this institution.
We will have to reform Parliament to make it a more democratic institution in which members from all parties can have some real input into legislation. By bringing in closure the government slaps the face of this institution which is so important to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Because of the government's action there is no way we can support adjourning the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, once again, I am called upon to rise before this hon. assembly, and 1 am always very happy to do so, especially since it is extremely important for the representatives of the Canadian people to be able to express their views in this place. Unfortunately, I am doing so under strange circumstances since, if my watch is right, today is July 18, 1981, and all the provincial legislatures have recessed and we should now be in our own constituencies speaking to our voters and meeting the people who elected us to learn about their needs and where we are going. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is always easy to try to get attention for all sorts of reasons. What I find most surprising in Parliament, where I have been for about 15 months, is that in addition to getting increasingly familiar with the system, because we learn
Summer Recess
as the months go by, I am now starting to know human nature somewhat better. And the more I know about those on the other side, the more questions I have to ask myself.
When a political party defines its ideas clearly, puts them forward, follows a policy and represents the people who elected it, one may say that democracy is being respected. One may say that politicians are true politicians. I can hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) laughing. I shall get to him, Mr. Speaker, I shall get to the right hon. member for Yellowhead because I am very concerned about him at this time. I would like the hon. Leader of the Opposition to note-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The "Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition".
t Mr. Gimai'el: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who is the successor of the Right Hon. John A. Macdonald, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker and many others.

Many others, from a long line of individuals who had a sense of what they owed to their country, who led a political party to help Canadians build a country, who wanted to give individual rights to Canadians, who came here with ideas and who fought for them. I had always thought that those were the men who were chosen as leaders of national parties. But unfortunately, this evening, I must admit that the most recent choice of the Progressive Conservative Party is not from this line, and 1 say so after 15 months of work, with no second thought, no malice and in all honesty. Why do I say so? To try to wake some people up. Certain tactics have been used in this House which I cannot accept as a member of Parliament representing 80,000 people in the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean.
1 have witnessed a boycott aimed simply at harming an institution which is sacred throughout the country, namely the House of Commons of Canada, which is the foundation of our democracy. No attempt was made to defend ideas when it was time to speak about the Canadian Constitution. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition simply blocked the proceedings by points of order, questions of privilege and all sorts of tricks that had nothing to do with the future of the Canadian people and nothing to do with our country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Why don't you put the question to the people of Lac-Saint-Jean?


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Now that we are having a debate, now that we shall be going back to our constituencies to see to the needs of our people, what is happening? Once again, from his lofty height, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition tells us: Let us obstruct for all kinds of reasons! Now it is for a strike, later it will be for something else. It is simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, for the leader of a national party to behave in this way. It is intolerable that a man who was Prime Minister of Canada during nine months should act in such a way. We are

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
now told that we should stay here to work. Name me, Mr. Speaker, one government who has done as much as we have done during the past 15 months. I only have to mention the Bank Act, the Canadian Constitution, the development of the prebuild, the purchase of F-18 planes, the manufacture of trucks, the complete re-equipment of the army, the consideration of Bill C-48 in committee. Those 15 months were well filled. What was the record of the previous government after 9 months in power?
It was a highly visible record that had consequences lately. Everything connected with Canada was affected. Loto-Canada was destroyed. Petro-Canada was going to be sold. They are against Canada Day, what they want is Dominion Day or Steinberg day. Well really, it is unthinkable. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his position and his views. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to act as a juvenile, to play that mindless game without any planning or thought for the future, he should resign. I know some Progressive Conservative backbenchers who are deep thinkers and would make a major contribution to their country.
If he wants to carry on in the same way, I ask his colleagues to open their eyes. A country is not built in a day, Mr. Speaker, with party leaders who do not work for the future of their fellow-citizens, but merely to get some publicity out of major events occurring in this country. That is not the way to work. And if that two-third leader is not capable of making the Progressive Conservative Party regain its former strength at a time when its leaders came here to put forward ideas, then let him retire! There are backbenchers in that party who know where they are going. I could name a few, but I do not want to create problems. And if he does not have the guts to do so, let the Progressive Conservative members do their jobs. They were elected in their constituencies to give the people who elected them the leader they deserve. It is as simple as that.
I would not like to forget my friends from the Non Development Party and No Decision Party, I do not know how to call them. We had another nice experience today, yesterday or today, we do not know what time it is exactly, everything goes so fast, so many things happened after a fantastic job done, the honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) decided to introduce an adjournment motion in order apparently to force us to come back next week. This is unbelievable. I asked myself, as a young politician, what can motivate a party to bring such a ridiculous idea when we know that everybody needs us in our constituencies. Just like that, at the last moment. I looked for an answer, and I found one I will share with you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure it is the right one. Because the newspapers gave somewhat more attention to the Progressive Conservative Party because, as I said, of some type of hijacking, they decided to join in that same hijacking in order to get some publicity too. But there must be an end somewhere. I appreciate that the Leader of the New Democratic Party spends his time travelling between El Salvador
and Canada, but at some point we will have to call him a bull rather than by his name. At some point we have to look at what is going on in this country. Canadian people have needs. I have some work to do. In fact, the 80,000 people I represent are my direct responsibility. I must go and visit 22 municipalities, meet their leaders.


An hon. Member:: What a responsibility!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: That being so, if I am kept here simply because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. leader of the second party of the opposition have decided that the House will sit longer, I feel that up to a point it is unfair towards the people, because if I lived here all year round as they do, if I did not go back to my riding frequently like them, then I would understand. I would tell myself, "they see my face often enough on TV, they see me often in the newspapers, I shall be re-elected anyway; it really does not matter." We can stay around longer and keep on talking; it is quite pleasant before the cameras; all's well, the cameras are there. But the truth of the matter is very different, because some hon. members in this House have to go back home every weekend, and work there, find out what their people think, find out what their needs are, and come back here and fight for those needs, to do their work and forge ahead.
In the last few months, the opposition parties, and specially the Progressive Conservative Party have gained some kind of momentum. If I dared, I would call it a type of constipation, in that every time we are about to achieve results with a bill, there is a hijacking or a filibuster akin to the juvenile reaction that moves pupils to take pleasure in disturbing the teacher in school when he is writing on the blackboard. The idea is about the same. No logic, no basic principles, no lofty ideas are put forward. Just a bit of BS. All that so they can say later on; We have done very well; we have managed to slow down the government. I say such actions are childish, immature.


An hon. Member:: How true!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Canadians deserve a better opposition than that.
It will have to be done one of these days because, if we do not find a solution, Canadians will open their eyes and realize that when an opposition party does not do its job in the House of Commons, in their ridings and elsewhere, the whole society pays for it. 1 now return to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the former Prime Minister. True enough it is not interesting to become Leader of the Opposition again after having been the head of the country. But the fact remains that something very important is attached to that position and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will draw some inspiration from the long line of men who preceded him. I saw that same leader visit my riding in Chicoutimi and sign a petition sponsored by the Parti Quebecois in support of sovereignty-association, against what was going on here in Ottawa. It is
July 17, 1981

unacceptable that a party leader who claims to be a Canadian-


An hon. Member:: A federalist.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: -signed a petition like that one, just as it is inadmissible that the leader of a Canadian party cannot accept that July 1 be called Canada Day, just as it is inadmissible that the leader of a Canadian party cannot accept Petro-Canada. It is unbelievable that the leader of a Canadian party put the axe to Loto Canada.


An hon. Member:: It is true!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: The Leader of the Opposition can laugh, he can laugh, but I want to point out to him that he is beginning to saddle his colleagues with his own defeatist and negative approach. There is one member in the House for whom I have always felt much admiration and respect, and that is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Something happened yesterday which greatly disappointed me. I heard that same member say earlier today that we would have to sit between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. because some members still had not had a chance to speak. It was enough to discourage me because at 8.20 p.m. last night that same House leader was not in his seat in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Quite true!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: He was not here, Mr. Speaker, he was not here!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, we cannot hear him well, could he speak a little louder?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor.


David Kilgour: Louder, Pierre!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that last night, he spoke very loudly.


An hon. Member:: He was alone, by the way.
Summer Recess


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I was saying that I am sorry that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said to us in this House tonight that he would like to sit between 6 and 8 p.m., instead of letting everybody out for dinner, as yesterday this same leader did not return until 8.20 and consequently the debate had to be postponed for 45 minutes. I think one should not go too far in pretending that everybody is cheated as far as the right to speak is concerned in this House. Let us not exaggerate. I feel I ought to emphasize that during the work of the committee, those poor Liberal members have to put up for long hours with the silly rethoric of the opposition parties, and after that they claim they are not given the opportunity to speak in this honourable House. Therefore, I think it is about time we become serious. Now if the government has decided that it is time for members to go home to their ridings, it is because their constituents have needs and this is a fact the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should be aware of, as well as members of the New Democratic Party. The best advice I can now give Progressive Conservative members is to return to their constituencies and ask people what they think of the present leadership of their party. What do they think of what they are doing in the House at this time? Do they think they are doing anything constructive to develop their country? They will soon realize that apart from destroying a few ideas, from boycotting in a very childish and disorderly way, this way of abusing the openness of the parliamentary system of the English-speaking world, only stems from a lack of leadership which is rubbing off on the members who are supposed to work for the people.
As a representative of one particular region, I cannot accept that. I want to say something. The day I have reached that point I want my colleagues and my constituents to say to me: Pierre, stay home, we do not need you to go and cry in Ottawa.
1 came here with the purpose of building not destroying and, especially not to waste the time of those who want to work.
One thing I hope, Mr. Speaker, is that the light of understanding shine on everyone. This applies also to the New Democratic Party. Listen, gentlemen of the No Decision Party, there is a limit to going from left to right, from one side to another, to changing one's mind from one day to the other. That can do for a while, but then it becomes hijacking because we do not know what the party line is, if one indeed remains. At one point, one did not know whether the NDP was more concerned about-I was going to say El Salvador, not Labrador, that is too close to us, they are not concerned about those kinds of things-about El Salvador than the economy of our country. Other times, other issues, they change their minds almost every day.
Beside, it is of the utmost importance that this party should establish a party line because it means a lot to all the Canadian people; this is what makes a healthy democracy and it has never been anything else but that. And how can you explain that this government, the government of the Liberal Party of Canada has been in power for such a long time in this

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess
country? It is because this party has based all its policies on one premise, that is individual rights and freedoms and free access of the riches of this country to every Canadian, not just' one class of Canadian, not just one generation of Canadians, not just one kind of Canadian but to all Canadians. But they will never understand that, that is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, when a party leader or when members are just the messengers of provincial premiers, where is that political party going if it is not to total destruction and this is forthcoming. And I say to my Progressive Conservative colleagues: Wake up because tomorrow you will be divided into ten parties with ten premiers to guide you. And you will then be facing a great and strong Liberal Party with a strong leader who is now going to lead the seven most powerful nations of the world into discussions with a view to achieving the security of the riches of this world so that everyone on this earth could share in them. Whatever those foot draggers may think, whatever the members of the Permanently Constipated Party may think-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, whatever the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai-el) has been smoking, I think he should pass it around the House.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member, after reflection, would like to withdraw those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to withdraw those remarks. This is the most enthusiasm I have seen in the Liberal party in a year and a half, and I congratulate the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: This has been an interesting session; a session when there has been tragedy in this country. The tragedy is that gas prices have risen from $1.07 to $1.60 when, in the last campaign, it was promised that they would be kept down. Interest rates have gone from 14 per cent to 20 per cent. Inflation has risen from 9.5 per cent to 12.8 per cent, which is the highest in modern times, and the dollar has fallen from 86 cents to 83 cents and below, as compared with the American dollar.
Probably the most positive thing that has happened in this session is that the Attorney General was awarded an honorary doctorate of law. That is about the most positive thing we can say about this entire session.
As a relatively new member of the House of Commons, I am very disappointed that the government keeps bringing in closure on important issues. It invoked closure on the Constitution. As the member for Brampton-Georgetown, I was unable to speak on that bill because of closure. Then it brought in closure on energy issues and now it has brought in closure because it wants to go on holidays. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) and I listened to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean and others telling me that that they have to go back to their ridings to listen to the people. I do not know where they have been for the last year and a half but when they get back to their ridings, they are going to get an earful. I have been going back to my riding every weekend to listen to what the people have to say.
That party over there is in a lot of trouble. If I belonged to it, I would not go back to my riding; I would stay in Ottawa.
I get great enjoyment from some of the pontifications and lectures from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Today we heard about how we opposed everything. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We have supported good legislation. 1 have seen many bills get three readings in this House in a matter of an hour because it was good legislation and we were able to support it.
We oppose those things that are wrong for this country and we amend those bills that we feel we can make better. That arrogant government opposite does not listen but rams things through. If things do not go its way, then it wants to close the House down.
Yesterday, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan) announced that there was to be mediation in the postal strike. I am glad of that and all of us in this House are glad of that. We hope it works and that they reach a negotiated settlement. I see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is present tonight and I am sure he would like to see a negotiated settlement so that he may enjoy a few days' rest.
But the Minister of Labour said that they cannot operate in mediation when we are looking over their shoulders. Mr. Speaker, every time this government goes to mediation, does that mean we have to close the House? Can we not operate and discuss other important bills? Just the other day the government House leader was telling everyone that there are 25 important pieces of legislation to be passed. We are prepared to discuss those while the mediation talks go on, but the government wants to get away. Hon. members opposite want to go on holidays. They got their pay raise, as we all did, but we are willing to stay here and work for it while they want to go off for the summer.
I see the chairman of the Quebec caucus hollering and hooting over there. I never see him on his feet. He always speaks from the seat of his pants. He does not have enough nerve to stand up. He is sitting on his best part.
I heard the Liberals say today that they cannot get the work of the House done. I have attended many committees, Mr. Speaker, where Liberals did not show up and it was not possible to have a quorum and carry on the meetings. I know why. All those guys on the back bench were putting pressure
July 17, 1981

on the cabinet for a number of things, one of which was a summer holiday. They finally won. They fought the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and the government House leader (Mr. Pinard) into closing the place down for the summer. That is a shame and it is disgusting.
We do not have postal service in this country, inflation is running rampant, energy prices are going up and people are suffering under the detrimental effects of a non-caring government and a cabinet that has hardly been here the last couple of weeks. They have been on holidays already.


An hon. Member:: What has Jack Austin got on you guys?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, listen to hon. members over there. It is now three minutes past one. I get my full 20 minutes but they are calling for the vote now. They are in a real rush to get out of here. I am going to use my full 20 minutes. Let us take a look at the increased cost of energy. Since this government has been in power, it has raised the price of gasoline 13 times. In the province of Ontario it costs around SI.60 per gallon. I have listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) tell me they want another small piece of the pie. That is all they want. Right now, out of $1.60 per gallon the federal government gets 58 cents which is about 33 per cent. Now the federal government wants more. It is sad that most of the government's 33 per cent take is shipped out of the country to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico.


Mr. Smith:: And Brampton.


John Horton McDermid: I wish it were shipped to Brampton, we could use it in Brampton. We could use mail delivery in Brampton, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Not only mail delivery when the Post Office is supposedly working, but some of those new subdivisions that have not had mail delivery for two years. They deserve it as well. What does the Postmaster General say? He tells people not to worry because when the Post Office becomes a Crown corporation, it will take care of them. I hope he is right because he has been telling that to everyone over here. He has been saying that the Crown corporation will solve all the problems of the Post Office. He has been putting a great deal of pressure on Michael Warren. I hope the Postmaster General is right, although I doubt it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you want to stay next week?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown has the floor.
Summer Recess


John Horton McDermid: We will sit next week. Hon. members opposite are the ones who are closing the place down. You want to stop the work of the House.
I want to get back to the price of energy because I think this government has been hoodwinking the peopie of Canada. I want the Prime Minister who is not here and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is not here, to explain to the Canadian people why they want more and more of the energy pie. This government already takes 33 per cent. How much more does the government want?


An hon. Member:: All of it.


John Horton McDermid: That is right.
The Prime Minister likes to call all the backbenchers nobodies. The reason he does that is that he does not give them an opportunity to speak. Nobody can speak in this House. Any time there is an important issue, the Prime Minister invokes closure. I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is as embarrassed as anyone over there by the closures which have been brought in on at least two very important issues. This issue is as important as the Constitution and the energy discussions. What does this cynical government do? It appoints a backbencher to the Senate who has served in this House for a relatively short period of time. Then that cute little cherub from the Prime Minister's office is parachuted into Spadina because he could not get elected in Alberta, the province from where he comes.


Walter David Baker: He won't get elected in Spadina either.


John Horton McDermid: I tell you now we are going to put the boots to Coutts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I see them all laughing over there. They think the great annointed from the Prime Minister's office, the laying on of the hands, is going to walk right in. Now I hear leather lungs from Newfoundland hollering. This is bothering them. They know this was a bad move. First, members over there are very upset at the Senate appointment. I see a hundred people over there who deserve it more than the one who got it-maybe not a hundred.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At least the Liberals will have somebody with sex appeal now.


John Horton McDermid: We are going to win Spadina. We have a terrific candidate in the person of Laura Sabia. You can all smirk over there but wait until August 17.


An hon. Member:: She will finish third.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Coutts will be back here. One of you lucky guys may get him as an assistant.


An hon. Member:: Maybe even a secretary.

July 17, 1981
Summer Recess


John Horton McDermid: I shouldn't tell you that because it will probably encourage you to work to get him elected.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


John Horton McDermid: Through the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we are going to put the boots to Coutts.
To sum up, we on this side are very disappointed. We have had a session where we have seen closure brought in three times on three of the major issues facing this country today. The small businessmen in my community, many of them whose cash flow has been cut to under 50 per cent, who are carrying stock at 22 per cent at the bank who cannot afford any more loans to pay their staff and are laying them off while this government says "go away, do not worry about it, if we need you, we will call you back. There is no emergency now."
There is an emergency in this country. It is a very serious one. It is called a postal strike and we have to solve it and solve it quickly.
We are prepared to sit here and discuss all the government business. Bring on the bills. I say to the government House leader, bring on the 25 government bills and we will debate them while mediation goes on. We want to stay here to be assured that the postal strike is solved this summer.
The little pink rump to my left is nattering away. We know that the government has a majority and that it is going to put the padlock on this place until October 14. It really does not care about what is going on in this country. It wants to get away from here because the heat is too much. They are getting out of the kitchen. They do not like the heat of the uranium cartel. There are too many things that are bothering them.
The government doesn't like the pressure with regard to VIA Rail. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) should be ashamed with what is going on with VIA Rail. It is disgusting. The government does not like to see interest rates around 20 to 22 per cent. It does not like questions about what it is going to do about it. The government does not like questions about what it is going to do about people living in AHOP developments who are being kicked out because they cannot go from an 8 per cent mortgage to an 18 per cent first, plus a second mortgage to pay back the loan that the government so graciously made to them in the first place.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 33, it is my duty to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As we are breaking now for a long period of time I wonder if it might be appropriate if I express, on behalf of all members of the House, our thanks to all members of the staff-security, pages, officers at the table, the Hansard staff, and all of those who have served us so well and so faithfully and who have done their best to make our life here as comfortable as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I join the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton in the expression of good will which he
Summer Recess
has conveyed? 1 should like to add to those whom he has mentioned others who have served us-the press, who cover us in one way of another-


Some hon. Members:: Boo!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I referred to the press who have covered us in one way or another.
Finally, special greetings to Your Honour.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, besides those who have been mentioned by my colleagues from Nepean Carleton (Mr. Baker) and my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I should like to thank our pages who acquired quite an exceptional experience and who have been very useful to us. I wish to pay them tribute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: On behalf of the government, we should also like to thank all the press people who have to adjust their schedule to ours, as well as the families of all parliamentarians and all those whose work is related to that of the House, for their patience and understanding in the circumstances.


Madam Speaker:: May I wish everyone a very happy holiday. I rejoice in the thought that their families will recuperate them. They must have thought they had lost them for all summer.
1 also want to say goodbye to our pages who are just as sad to leave us as we are to see them go.

Have a nice holiday and may God be with you.
At 1.44 a.m. the House adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981 at 2 p.m.


END OF VOLUME X