1981-07-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise in regard to the apparent flagrant misuse of parliamentary members' franking privileges by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, namely, the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) in regard to a letter, a copy of which I have here, sent out by Jomac Canada Incorporated of Beebe, Quebec, in which that company has used the parliamentary frank of the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead for purposes of advocating its opinions on problems facing the Canadian glove industry, such letters as this one being mailed free of charge by use of the frank through the House of Commons post office. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That a complete investigation be made of the abuse of parliamentary free mailing privileges through the House of Commons post office by Jomac Canada Incorporated of Beebe, Quebec, and specifically by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, and that such investigation be made by the Speaker and by the Management and Members' Services Committee of the House of Commons with a view to taking whatever action is deemed necessary.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of press reports this morning indicating that CBC reporters have been refused admission to the New Democratic Party national policy convention being held in Vancouver; and while recognizing the
rights of individual members of the NDP to refuse to talk to CBC reporters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House affirms the democratic principle of freedom of the press, denounces any interference with such a basic freedom, and expresses the hope that the New Democratic Party will reconsider its decision and permit access by CBC reporters to its convention in order that this basic freedom so vital to the survival of a democratic society will continue uninhibited.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TERRY FOX MARATHON OF HOPE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is not partisan but is of urgent and pressing necessity.
Canadians are today paying their final respects to Terry Fox, an exceptional young man whose courage and determination inspired the nation. At this time many people are proud to honour his memory by pledging donations to the Terry Fox Marathon of Hope. In view of the current postal strike, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That the government do everything possible to make arrangements with the chartered banks and trust companies for the receipt and disbursement of donations made to the Marathon of Hope in memory of Terry Fox.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), I move:
That this House calls on the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications to recognize that the people of Canada do not want the CBC to be destroyed by a long and unnecessary strike, that they want the early return of

July 2, 1981
normal radio and television programming, and therefore the minister is urged to advise the CBC that NABET's position, in the view of this House, is a reasonable one and that a settlement of the current dispute should be achieved without further delay, certainly in advance of the convening of the Ottawa Summit Conference.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent matter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has shown us that he still has some concern when he announced the inclusion of unincorporated small businesses and farms for small business development bond qualification. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) says "No, they must incorporate first." The Minister of Finance is again showing us his great grasp of understanding for small business and agriculture, some of which we obviously gained by not attending the O.F.A. meeting in Toronto. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and the Minister of Agriculture take the Minister of Finance away for a weekend of fishing and clue him in to the problems facing small business and agriculture in order to gain acceptance for the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the President of the Republic of Korea, His Excellency Chun Doo Hwan, has requested a meeting with the President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, President Kim II Sung, in order to initiate dialogue between the two leaders for the reunification of Korea. President Kim has refused all overtures on the part of President Chun. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the House supports President Chun in his efforts to negotiate a peaceful reunification of his country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE OF GASOLINE IN CALGARY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last Saturday in Calgary the Petro-Canada service station on the McLeod Trail was advertising regular gasoline for 27.8 cents per litre while the Gulf station on Centre Street was selling the same product for 27.4 cents per litre. The government's window on the oil industry has apparently become muddied because of the arrogance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), because the purchase of Petrofina is costing all car owners four cents extra on every litre of gasoline they buy, etc. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government wash its window by cleaning up its act in western Canada prior to taking full operational responsibility for Petrofina in eastern Canada and thus set an example for the industry and give all Canadian consumers the best and lowest possible price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs review the recent court decision in the United States involving General Motors and 14,000 purchasers of 1977 Oldsmobiles equipped with Chevrolet engines to determine why Canadian owners received only $200 from General Motors while U.S. owners received $550, and take whatever action is necessary to give protection to Canadian consumers similar to the protection being received by U.S. consumers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 2, 1981


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some urgency under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It is my understanding that during this postal strike, as in those previous, there is a number of members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers across the country who have remained on the job, particularly in rural areas. Those who chose this course of action in the past were disciplined, lost their union privileges, and were denied a vote on whether to strike this time. With all due respect to the union, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds-Gren-ville (Mr. Cossitt):
That the Postmaster General use his good office to ensure that those members of CUPW who have chosen to remain on the job will not be discriminated against by senior officials of that union.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR INTRODUCTION OF BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the refusal of CUPW to negotiate its current dispute with the Treasury Board and the irreparable harm done throughout Canada by the withdrawal of the services of inside postal workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House directs the government to prepare and introduce legislation forthwith obliging striking postal employees to return to work immediately pending the settlement of outstanding labour disputes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and it centres on the bank rate today which has been announced as being relatively static compared with last week, which means that Canada has the
Oral Questions
highest bank rate of any of the seven large industrial nations which will be meeting in Ottawa later this month. Would the Prime Minister indicate how he intends to explain to the other six leaders at the conference why Canada should have the highest interest rate structure in the free western world at a time when many of those leaders have indicated they would like to see a lower interest rate structure rather than the consistently high rate such as that in which Canada has been the leader?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is concerned about explanations given to himself, I would point out the Minister of Finance has given them several times. However, he phrases his question in terms of how I would explain this to the other leaders. I can assure him they understand this. They themselves are complaining about the effects on their economies of the very high interest rates in the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But you are higher.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They understand, apparently better than the hon. member does, that in Canada, being in such close proximity and so interlinked to the United States, our money markets are much more influenced than others not so closely interlinked. They understand this perfectly well. I think the hon. member should read what is being said and the opinions being voiced in those countries and he will know I will not have to explain that. He should have somebody explain that to him, perhaps a professor of economics in A-l.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, obviously the Prime Minister has lost touch with what is happening in North America. His interest rates are substantially above those in the United States. If he wants to follow the American rates, why did he not follow them down?


PRESSURE ON CANADIAN DOLLAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary is for the Minister of Finance. As it is generally accepted among economists that the dollar is the key reason why the minister has been maintaining such a high interest rate structure, we note that only last week it was announced that the line of credit the government arranged to sustain the dollar has been increased from $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion. Would the Minister of Finance indicate if that extra billion is in anticipation of continuing pressure on the dollar over the coming months and years, and, if so, would he confirm that will mean not only will we have a dollar under pressure but that the high interest rate structure we now have will likely have to be maintained if some basic changes are not made?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the answer is clearly no, that is not the intention of increasing the stand-by credit. The credit has been in existence for some considerable time. It

July 2, 1981
Oral Questions
was increased in the normal way and does not reflect an expectation that there will be any particular pressure on the Canadian dollar.
The Canadian dollar in recent days and weeks has been above 83 cents. Some people in the country are urging that it be permitted to decline below 83 cents. Because of the state of the Canadian dollar at well above 83 cents, I can assure the hon. member any fears he may have in his mind should be removed.


BANKRUPTCY AND FORECLOSURE STATISTICS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind we now have a rising personal and corporate bankruptcy rate, and a rising number of foreclosures, would the minister indicate whether he is aware of the fact that he has now allowed real interest rates in this country to be at the highest level since the beginning of the great depression, a real rate of over 5 per cent after inflation is eliminated, compared to the 1979 period when the real rate was 1.2 per cent during the Clark government? If he is aware of that real rate being charged to Canadian consumers, farmers and businessmen, would he indicate when he is going to start showing a little compassion in what he is doing to the average Canadian with his ridiculous policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have a number of points to make. It would be impossible to deal with all the preamble the hon. member has put into his question because of time limitation, but he talked about rising personal bankruptcies and rising foreclosures. It so happens that last Thursday, I believe it was, I had a meeting with representatives of the mortgage companies in which we explored the mortgage situation, the interest rate situation and the rate of foreclosures. They informed me, based on the statistics they had before them, that the rate of foreclosures on home mortgages this year was lower than last year. So much for rising foreclosures!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about powers of sale?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the hon. member talks about real interest rates and relates his question to the former question about Europe, does he know, for example, that the real interest rate in Germany at the present time is the highest ever experienced by that economy? He ought to put that in his pipe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know ours is the highest. Do you agree?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not agree with anything the hon. member puts forward unless I have examined it with binoculars and microscopes, because most of the time it is inaccurate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister knows more about Germany than Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member forgets that a very substantial part of the pressure on interest rates in Canada arises from the strength of the Canadian economy. The great demand for bank loans is still a very substantial pressure on interest rates. If the hon. member wants interest rates to go down a bit, he will ask inflation to come down; that is what will bring it about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Approximately a year ago the minister said, as reported at page 2176 of Hansard, that the government "would not attempt to solve the economic problems of the country or the fiscal requirements of the government on the backs of the low-income people of this country".
My question concerns the 41,000 Canadians who are by the government's own definition low-income Canadians. They are owners of homes under the Assisted Home Ownership Program. Their mortgages are now up for renewal. The five-year roll-over is due now. Their mortgages were taken out at anywhere from 6 per cent to 8 per cent, and they will be renewed at anywhere from 18 per cent to 19 per cent. In my opinion this represents a tragedy of national dimensions because of the shattered dreams and hopes of people who have to walk away from their homes and write off their investment. The minister has some control over this situation. What action does he propose to take to assist these 41,000 Canadians who must renew mortgages at usurious rates and run the risk of losing their homes and investment?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in response to the question, the hon. member is about 12 months behind the times. It was at this time last year that the government moved in response to those people who would experience the problems he has indicated. We said to those people who would have to pay a disproportionate amount of their incomes to meet new interest rates, or whatever new charges, those people who would have to pay more than 30 per cent of their income toward shelter costs, that we would continue the subsidies. That program was reintroduced this year for a further 12 months. We have responded to the people who are most in need. We have shown a response to those people. We have used an equitable standard to address that problem.
July 2, 1981


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSIST AHOP HOME OWNERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister is the one who is a year behind because there are 500,000 mortgages up for renewal this year. Included in that 500,000 are these 41,000 AHOP mortgages. I doubt there is a member in the House who has not had the experience of an AHOP owner who cannot afford to meet the new mortgage payments.
Because the minister can control the situation, does he intend to take any action whatsoever to change the financing arrangements for these AHOP owners so that they can continue to occupy and to own their homes, rather than walk away from them and hand the keys over to the minister? He knows what is happening, and he can do something about it.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I indicated that last year the government, in response to the first year of that program, moved to assist those people whose mortgages were rolling over after the end of the first five-year period by using the 30 per cent rule, which I think everyone in the industry accepts as an equitable standard for payment toward shelter needs. After we introduced that, there were relatively few people with the roll-over problem who took advantage of that 30 per cent rule. Further, the number of people in difficulty under that program has reduced this year compared to last year. With respect, Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is really 12 months behind the times.


POST OFFICE
Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, with that kind of an ovation I should be asking the Prime Minister a question. However, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Given that anyone who understands collective bargaining realizes that a settlement cannot be achieved unless you are at the negotiating table; and given that the open-line radio programs have already started their poison, as they do every time there is a dispute in the public service, undermining the credibility of the entire operation, what is it that the government requires? What conditions has the government set for a return to the negotiating table forthwith?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member has raised that question. The negotiating table is there and we are prepared to sit down this afternoon. I wish the hon. member would encourage the postal union to behave the same way. We have been trying to get the postal union to the
Oral Questions
negotiating table since last Friday. We stipulated no conditional precedents to negotiations.


ITEMS CONTAINED IN JASMIN REPORT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, can the minister then explain to me what it is that is contained in the Jasmin report which the government does not feel it could implement immediately?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have answered that question in this House concerning the Jasmin report with respect to the government's position on a variety of issues which have been raised in the report. I have also indicated our willingness to discuss certain areas of that report. I would very much appreciate it if the hon. gentleman would encourage his friends in CUPW to return to the negotiating table so that we can explore fully their respective demands and our own.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON JASMIN REPORT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, am I then to understand that every matter contained in the Jasmin report would be acceptable to the government under certain conditions? If that is the case can I then assume that all of the matters that were on the bargaining table prior to the breakdown in negotiations are subject to further negotiation, and that the government is prepared to sit down this afternoon in an attempt to find a resolution to this dispute?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have indicated in the past that the government cannot return to the bargaining table under an ultimatum that it will only return if it accepts everything in the Jasmin report. That has been made clear on numerous occasions. It is not the responsibility of members of this House to negotiate a collective agreement here on the floor of this House. I have also made that point, Madam Speaker. However, I would encourage the hon. member to use his good offices and get CUPW back to the negotiating table this afternoon.


GOVERNMENT PLANS TO RESOLVE DISPUTE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Reviewing reports in the press today, the postal workers have regrettably not accepted the call for mediation nor the appointment of a mediator. The proposal is unacceptable to them and the two sides remain deadlocked. There appears, at least on the face of things, that there will not be an early end to this dispute. I ask the minister what plans does the government have to bring this matter to a head so that there can be a return to normal postal service in Canada?

July 2, 1981
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the employees, members of CUPW, are exercising their legal right to strike. I hope this matter will be brought to an end at the negotiation table. That is the natural process. That is the process contemplated by the law. They have the right to strike, and they are exercising it.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF BACK TO WORK LEGISLATION
Walter David Baker: Another question follows from that answer, Madam Speaker. Is it the policy of this government that it is going to wait for a settlement at the bargaining table, or is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation? If so, how long would one have to wait for that legislation? I ask that question as the minister knows and as I know that Parliament will be adjourning by July 10.1 think it is a fair question to put to the President of the Treasury Board now, and I would appreciate an answer with respect to the timing of the government's consideration.


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of the government that there is not an intention to introduce back to work legislation at this time.


FINANCE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister will be well aware, as we all are, of the millions of Canadians who have paid and wish to pay further tribute to the memory of Terry Fox. Many of these, as the minister will know, wish to express their very deep feeling by way of contributions to the Canadian Cancer Society. Tragically and unhappily the Canadian postal service situation has deterred many of these Canadians from expressing their feelings in terms of contributions to the society.
I wonder if the minister would consider asking the Canadian chartered banks and other federally incorporated lending institutions to accept donations on behalf of the society, and to permit them to issue temporary receipts until the postal situation permits the Canadian Cancer Society to issue the regular tax receipts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made a very worth-while suggestion. I will be happy to follow it up to see whether his objective can be realized, or maybe it has already been realized.


William Herbert Jarvis: I thank the hon. minister, because steps have been taken in that direction; but I think it needs a push from the minister to satisfy the requirements of the society.


USE OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING FUNDS TO PROMOTE TERRY FOX CANCER FIGHTING CAMPAIGN
William Herbert Jarvis: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who is responsible for government advertising. He will be aware that several millions of dollars were allocated for a government advertising program for the Constitution, which program now, for obvious reasons, has been postponed. Will the minister consider using a very small portion of these allocated funds to inform Canadians that they may make their contributions to honour Terry Fox to Canadian financial institutions? I hope the minister would agree that he would be hard-pressed to find a more worth-while advertising program for the government and, frankly, hard-pressed to Find one which is more in the interests of national unity.


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to bring that request to the attention of the Minister of Justice. As the minister responsible for advertising I do not have any direct control over expenditures by particular departments. That is determined by individual ministers in conjunction with ongoing Treasury Board rules. I just have my own budget in multiculturalism, for instance. However, 1 will bring that to the attention of the Minister of Justice.


NEGOTIATION OF PRICING AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday we had Canada's birthday, and the only present Canadians received was another increase-


Some hon. Members:: Dominion!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -another increase in the price of oil by a dollar a barrel. Negotiations which have been going on for some 16 months now, between the Minister and the minister of energy in Alberta appeared to reach a more negative conclusion on Monday than had been the case with the previous meeting. Therefore I say that the minister's well known negotiating talents have again met failure in these negotiations with Alberta.
Since so much is hanging in the balance through not achieving a resolution of this deadlock, can the minister tell the House when he expects there will be some resolution achieved in the negotiations? To put it simply, has he set himself a deadline by which time he must reach an agreement with the province of Alberta?
July 2, 1981


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am happy that the hon. member has associated himself with the other Canadians who celebrated Canada Day yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the increase of $1 per barrel of oil is concerned, he knows this increase, of course, was announced in the budget last year. It will be effective at the pump in early September. It is the amount of $1 which the opposition has found inadequate and has been asking us to put at a higher level.
The negotiations are taking place. I met with my colleague last week. We have not set each other a deadline, but we are working and striving to reach an agreement soon, but how soon I cannot tell the hon. member.


Miss MacDonald:: Sixteen months.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT AGREEMENT WILL BE REACHED
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, what we on this side of the House have been pressing the government for is some resolution in the deadlock which is causing so many things to be stalled in this country, such as the megaprojects. We have seen huge increases in the cost of imported oil in this country. Something must be done to solve this matter. It is the minister's failure to negotiate which has caused this deadlock for 16 months.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Last week when a group of the Conservative members were in Alberta discussing the problems that this deadlock has caused, we were told by members of the oil service and oil drilling industry that a full 40 per cent of the drilling rigs in this country will have left by the end of the summer if no progress is shown in the negotiations over and above what has happened to date. Is the minister in any position today to give this industry, or the sponsors of the megaprojects, any assurances that progress will be made to reach an agreement by the end of this summer so that the rigs will not leave the country and so that we will get the megaprojects on track, and will solve the self-sufficiency problem in this country which will be such an important problem as we move into the eighties?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, may I suggest to the opposition that they come clean with their statement when they say they favour a resolution? They should add that they know one of the problems in achieving a resolution of this issue is that the government of Alberta wants a higher price. The opposition should come out, quite clearly, and say that they want higher prices, and not just express the pious hope that they want a resolution.
Oral Questions
As far as the issue raised by the hon. member is concerned, Mr. Leitch and I are working at arriving at a resolution of the present difficulties. We have made progress in our first meeting, we have made progress in our second meeting, and in our third meeting, too, which was the meeting last week. There are still very difficult issues to resolve. I cannot give any particular timetable to my hon. friend, but it is interesting to note that the people behind the megaprojects seem to have shown more optimism than he has shown with regard to the resolution of the current dispute.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that the people of Canada feel that the CBC belongs to them, in view of the fact that if the CBC is damaged or destroyed by long and unnecessary strike it is the people of Canada who will be the losers, and in view of NABET's reasonable position on jurisdiction, will the minister not meet again with the CBC and urge CBC management to settle this dispute without further delay?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting with CBC management following the meeting with NABET last Friday. Since that time my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has appointed two mediators to meet with the parties. Having met with both parties, I believe that the issues at stake are, indeed, issues which must be settled at the negotiating table.


TELEVISION COVERAGE OF SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I urge that the broadcasting to the world of the Ottawa Summit conference be included in these discussions? In view of the fact that CTV has bowed out, so that the job has been tossed back to the CBC, will that be used as a particular lever for getting a settlement before that conference convenes?


Mr. Nielsen:: And what about the NDP convention?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We refuse to cross NABET's picketline.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, it is in the interests of the country as a whole to see the broadcasting of the Summit take place. The CBC has endeavoured to obtain assurances from NABET that the televising could take place. I know that members of NABET are most interested in participating in this very important event. In hope that negotiations can proceed and that the mediators will be successful in bringing the

July 2, 1981
Oral Questions
parties together and ironing out a settlement which is acceptable to both sides.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, today and for the past few days we have been honoured in Canada with the presence of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. Hartling, a former Prime Minister of Denmark.
I should like to put my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last night again both national networks highlighted the problems being faced by people leaving Poland because they are concerned about what is happening there, or what might very well happen there. Is the minister in a position to tell us what action might be taken by his department to help people in this particular area to be classed as designated people, given the fact that our quota in that area has almost run out?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when he raised a similar question last week the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that additional resources would be established in Austria to deal with the substantially increased flow of refugees coming out of eastern European countries. At the present moment we are also looking at the possibility of raising the level of intake to this country by drawing upon our contingency reserves established under the immigration blueprint of last fall. I hope to meet with Mr. Hartling this afternoon to determine a better assessment from him of the exact nature of conditions. After making that assessment we will make an announcement to the House about whether we will increase the level or not.


POST OFFICE
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General who will recall that at the time of the committee's consideration of the Provisions of the Canada Post Corporation Act he expressed the great expectation that, with the passage of the act, there would be a greater chance for labour peace in the postal service in Canada. Royal assent was given to the act on April 23 and now, a little over two months later, we have our first strike.
Will the Postmaster General now recognize that some of the representations made to him at committee with respect to the inclusion in that act of provisions that would preclude the right to strike in the postal service have considerable merit and should be considered?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I should like to correct the words of the hon. member. The act has not yet been proclaimed. It is true that the act was passed by Parliament but it is not yet proclaimed and therefore the corporation has not yet been established. It is too early to see how the union will behave under a Crown corporation because it is not yet under a Crown corporation. It is hoped that will come soon and that labour relations will then be better.
As to the question of whether the union should have the right to strike, I would remind the hon. member, as I did at the time, that there are more illegal strikes in Canada than legal strikes. Just to take away the right to strike of employees does not necessarily avoid strikes. Those who believe very strongly in certain points will not hesitate to use the means at their disposal to register their point, and that could probably be by illegal strikes.


POSSIBLE DURATION OF STRIKE
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, I am aware that the act has not been proclaimed. I indicated that it had received Royal Assent on April 23. In any event, what the Postmaster General has indicated is that he has no general faith in a provision in the act itself precluding the right to strike. His colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has indicated that the government has no intention now of introducing special legislation which would oblige members of the postal service to return to work. How long is the country to wait for the necessary service provided by the Post Office, before the government takes it upon itself to discharge its responsibility to Canada?


André Ouellet: As long as the two parties take to reach a settlement, Madam Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. France now has four cabinet ministers from the communist party. Presumably the French minister of defence will feel obliged to confide in his cabinet colleagues. Could the minister tell us what policy the Canadian government is following concerning exchanges of military information with the French government?
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the matter of secret information or information regarding NATO will be discussed at the next meeting of NATO ministers, in order to determine how to deal with that problem. Nevertheless, the recent state-
July 2, 1981

ments made by the French minister of defence concerning NATO were reassuring, in my view. Indeed he publicly stated he was one hundred per cent behind NATO and would cooperate in the best possible way.


PARTICIPATION OF FRENCH PARLIAMENTARIANS IN TOUR OF DEFENCE INSTALLATIONS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I am rather curious. In all these statements the minister has not said whether France is considering coming back to a full role in NATO which it left some 16 years ago. There is a North Atlantic Assembly Parliamentarians Association group coming to Canada to tour our defence installations in August. Could the minister tell the House if the Government of Canada is ready to welcome communist members of the French National Assembly on this tour through our defence installations in August?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, Canada being an eminently free society open to all ideas, I believe that the French delegates will be welcome as all other democratically elected ministers or members of parliament in that country. It is not up to us to tell the French whom they should be sending to represent NATO. I think their judgment should be trusted.
Oral Questions
a delay in the implementation of these restrictions. My department feels that if we go on as we have been going, then we might cause a danger which would be greater than the one that could be caused by the restrictive measures taken now. In other words the controllers might have to work extra hours under stress and then danger might be greater. The general problem of training controllers is one with which my hon. friend is familiar. I can only say that progress is being made.


SHORTAGE OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, on checking, the minister might realize that close to 20 traffic movements take place on a daily basis during that period, and that is only commercial flights. The minister has failed to address the real critical problem of the chronic shortage of air traffic controllers. There is a severe and critical shortage in Toronto, there is a severe and critical shortage in Vancouver, and as a matter of fact controllers are working far beyond what is considered normal overtime. There is now this critical shortage in Calgary. Surely it is the obligation and responsibility of the government to see to it that adequate human and financial resources are provided to ensure that the air traffic control system remains intact. What specific action is the minister taking now, as a result of this serious problem which is cropping up all over, to bring on more air traffic controllers so that we can ensure that air traffic control systems will be safe and effective?
* *


AVIATION SAFETY
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport which arises out of the serious cutbacks in air traffic control services at the Calgary International Airport, scheduled to go into effect on July 4. After that time air traffic control services between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. will not be in effect. This will seriously curtail the movement of traffic, will impair safety, and could very well violate the ICAO standards.
In view of the fact that there appears to be a manpower shortage, would the minister be prepared to defer such curtailment of services until he has had a chance to discuss fully all the implications with the Calgary Transportation Authority and perhaps seek a solution in a consultative way?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's information is quite exact, so I will not repeat it. The inconvenience may not be as great as he seems to imply. I understand that there are only two or three movements per hour during the night.
On the subject of consultation, particularly with the Calgary Transportation Authority, I am informed that extensive consultations have taken place in the past. There has already been


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the description given. I am sure when my hon. friend was minister of transport that he worked quite hard on the matter. In any event, the present training system produces 50 to 60 controllers per year. A number of changes have been made which would be too long to describe in detail. It is expected that, beginning in September, the training system will produce between 120 and 150 a year, which will be a substantial improvement over the present situation.
* *
*


COAST GUARD
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister should be aware that the Canadian Coast Guard apparently is planning to convert the manned Port Burwell radio station on the north shore of Lake Erie to an unmanned repeater station connected to Sarnia. I am sure he is also aware of the tremendous increase of surface travel in that area of the lake, with commercial fishermen, sport fishermen, pleasure craft, lake drilling rigs and support vessels, as well as shipping in and out of the new Stelco complex and Ontario Hydro at Nanticoke. Will the minister ensure the safety of the

July 2, 1981
Oral Questions
sea on the north shore of Lake Erie and instruct his department to scrub any such plans of consolidation of Coast Guard radio station services in the Port Burwell area?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As you
know, Madam Speaker, I do not lie easily. No, indeed, I am not aware. I will get on to it immediately. I assure my hon. friend that his objective will be met.


REQUEST FOR HOLDING OF PUBLIC HEARING
T.A. Bud Bradley: While I have the minister in an agreeable mood I want to point out to him that the loss of safety features to boaters in the area will definitely be greater than any economic savings. Although I am not against economic cuts I would sooner see them in other places than where lives are at stake. Will the minister consider holding a hearing in the Port Burwell-Port Dover area with the concerned fishermen and boaters before any further action is taken on the site?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was afraid the hon, member was also going to be extremely truthful and suggest that he does not mind cuts as long as they take place in constituencies other than his own, which would have been the moment of truth in the House this afternoon. I will pursue the matter as the hon. member has requested.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the plans to build a huge thermogenerating station in Hat Creek, British Columbia, which will result in a tremendous increase in acid precipitation, will the minister promise this House that he will make sure that B.C. Hydro guarantees to the federal government that there will be no acid rain precipitation as a result of that very huge megawatt thermogenerating project?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the member such a guarantee because basically the decision is in the hands of the British Columbia government. The federal government recently issued guidelines in relation to emissions from such plants as Hat Creek. It is my very earnest hope that the British Columbia government will make sure that the proposal does fall within those acceptable guidelines.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the uranium cartel and the report that is in the minister's possession from the combines investigation branch, and the independent legal opinion which the government sought because it was afraid that since it was the government itself that was being investigated there might be a conflict of interest in relying simply upon the government. The Minister of Justice has had these reports for some time. Can he tell us when he expects a decision will be taken as to whether charges will be laid? More particularly, will he tell us whether that decision will be announced before the House recesses, or does the government intend to wait until Parliament is gone before it announces its decision on charges that might arise in relation to the uranium cartel?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have not finished the work on that. I have some outside lawyers looking into the file. I will wait for their report and then make my decision. If I receive the report quickly and the House is in session, I will be delighted to make the announcement. However, I do not have all the facts in my possession at this time and therefore cannot state when I will be able to make a decision.


SOURCE OF LEGAL ADVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there has already been one group of outside lawyers brought into this matter. The minister has a report from one group of outside lawyers. He has a report from the director of combines which he has so far refused to make public. Is the minister telling us that the government is now consulting a second group of outside lawyers on the question as to whether charges will be laid, perhaps against ministers of the government or a number of people associated with the government? Is this a new group of lawyers? If so, why is the government following this extraordinary procedure in the uranium cartel case, or is there some other reason for delay?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we are indeed consulting the same lawyers retained by Mr. Bertrand and have not yet received their report, which we will have to consider if legal proceedings are to be taken.
July 2, 1981


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour in charge of fitness and amateur sport. Two or three weeks ago the minister approved $1.2 million for the Canadian Olympic Association, the COA. Will the minister please advise the House exactly what the Canadian Olympic Association is going to do with that money?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of the question and get a detailed indication from the Canadian Olympic Association of any plans that they have. The $1.2 million was calculated to compensate the COA for funds they lost as a consequence of the boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. As we calculate, it puts them in the position they would have been in had they been allowed or had they chosen to participate in the Moscow Olympics.


ASSOCIATION'S PROGRAMS AND LOCATION OF OFFICE
Steve Eugene Paproski: The COA was
to have two or three different programs. One was the Young Olympians and the other was the Junior Olympics. They have not done this in the last two or three years. Will the minister see that they carry out their jurisdiction over these two programs which are very important as far as preparing for the next Olympic Games? If they really want to take an active part in Canada, if they would move their office from Montreal to Ottawa they might be able to know what is going on in the world of sports.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is certainly open to make representations to the COA as to where he feels they should have their office. I do not think it is appropriate for government to interfere with the autonomy of amateur sport by attempting to dictate to them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are doing that when you give them $1.2 million.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I recognize that the hon. member has never been as enthusiastic a supporter of the COA as myself. I will be happy to make inquiries along the line he has indicated to see what information I can obtain for him with reference to their plans for the programs that he mentioned.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary for the Minister of the Environment. In
Business of the House
his answer to me he brought to light the most important aspect of controlling acid rain in Canada. The federal government presently does not have jurisdiction over transboundary air pollution. When can we expect legislation in this House which will give jurisdictional control over transboundary air pollution to the federal government? At the present time under provincial control it is totally inadequate.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's representation. I hope he is speaking as the spokesman of his party in expressing that view. I will take very seriously the recommendations he has made.


VACANCY
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation:
of Peter Allan Stollery, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Spadina, by reason of summons to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: I apologize, Madam Speaker. The announcement you just made caused me to stand up rather slowly. I will not make any further comment.
I would like to direct a question to the government House leader. Could he inform the House of the business for the balance of today and tomorrow and into next week. I think we would all be interested in knowing what the intention is.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, today we will be dealing with Bills C-70, C-71 and C-74. Tomorrow we will go on with C-73 and C-72. Those are the bills relating to the estimates and your ruling, Madam Speaker. We have an agreement, as you well know, to have one speaker from each party for all stages with speeches to be limited to 30 minutes. Those five bills should require all the time today and tomorrow.
In so far as Monday is concerned, we will resume debate at the second reading stage of the following bills: C-58, S-6 and C-12.

July 2, 1981
Business of the House
[ Translation]
This evening, there will be a memorial service on Parliament Hill at 7.30 for Terry Fox. Under these circumstances, Madam Speaker, I have consulted my colleagues of both opposition parties and we have agreed that there will not be any private members' hour today and that the House will adjourn at seven o'clock this evening. Therefore, I have a motion which will receive unanimous consent and that I shall read in a few moments. But first, regarding the business of the House for next week, apart from the three bills I have just mentioned, namely Bills C-58, S-6 and C-12, which will be considered on Monday, I have submitted a list of bills to my colleagues and we shall be in a position Monday to choose from this list a series of bills with which we can proceed in the next few days and which can probably go through all stages before we adjourn next week or the following week, depending on the circumstances.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the private members' hour this afternoon be suspended; that the House continue to sit today until 7 p.m. on Government Orders, and that it adjourn at 7 p.m. today until 11 tomorrow morning.


Walter David Baker: I want to thank the hon. gentleman for consulting with respect to this matter. I am very proud to second the motion and my party will be very proud to support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we too feel that this is an appropriate order and we are very happy to agree to it.
I have a question I should like to put, but perhaps you would like to put that motion first.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House then agree to the motion presented by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed to and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, last Thursday for the umpteenth time I asked the minister about a bill to correct an oversight in last summer's Bill C-40 having to do with widows of disabled veterans. His answer to me last Thursday was in these very precise words:
-I want to assure him the cabinet is studying the question very seriously and at the end of next week at the latest, I hope to be in a position to give notice of our intention to introduce such a bill in the House before the summer recess.
The deadline he set for himself is either today or tomorrow. Is he now in a position to tell us when a bill to amend Bill C-40 will be introduced?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as usual I told the truth to the hon. member. The weekend begins tomorrow at five in so far as the House of Commons is concerned, and I think the hon.
member will have good news before five o'clock tomorrow; if not, it might be some time next week.


VACANCY
Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just had the announcement of a byelection to fill a seat which has become vacant by the elevation of its incumbent to the Senate.
There was no announcement of a byelection date for the seat of Joliette. Certainly we, on this side of the House, are very anxious to allow the electors of Joliette to be represented in this House as quickly as possible. I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to us why a priority was given to moving forward with the Spadina byelection while the electors of Joliette are left without the opportunity of being represented? Will there be an announcement very soon on a byelection date for the constituency of Joliette?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, no priority has been given to any constituency. All that has been announced by the Speaker of the House is that the seat is now vacant. No election date for the constituency of Spadina has been set as far as I know. 1 therefore believe that the objection raised by the Leader of the Opposition is unfounded. No date has been set for an election in Spadina, and I wonder how he can say that we would rather have an election in Spadina than in Joliette. No decision has been made and there has been no announcement as to the date of the election in Joliette or Spadina. As for the suggestions made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, we shall take note of them and give them all the consideration they deserve.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I missed part of the statements made by the President of the Privy Council, but I would like to know whether a date can be announced for the byelections in the constituencies of Joliette and Spadina as soon as possible. In the case of Joliette, the people have been without a representative for quite some time. I believe it is essential that elections be called as soon as possible, and I hope that this will be done before the summer recess.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if my good friend Roch La Salle had resigned earlier maybe we would have known the date earlier. In any case, as I just told my hon. colleague, we will take his suggestion into very serious consideration. In so far as the dates of the byelections are concerned, the date for Spadina was not announced and therefore Spadina is not privileged as compared with Joliette.
July 2, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth Report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Gauthier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations with all parties in the House and I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for me to move the following motion without the usual notice:
That the sub-committee on import policy of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and members of the sub-committee, accompanied by the necessary staff, be empowered to adjourn from place to place or to travel inside and outside Canada during the period when the House stands adjourned, provided that the estimated expenses for such travel and the locations to be visited are defined in advance.
If the House should adopt this motion I would request that the motion standing in my name for concurrence in the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be withdrawn.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to waive the usual notice?


Walter David Baker: There have been consultations and we are in agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House then agrees to the two motions; one to waive notice, the second to allow the committee to travel, and the request to withdraw the motion for concurrence?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
June 19, 1981-Mr. Cullen (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs).
That the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House on Friday, June 19, 1981, be concurred in.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, I would ask that this notice of motion be withdrawn.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed?
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Notice of motion withdrawn.


PETITIONS
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations on all sides of the House and I should like to move the following motion, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster):
That, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 99, the petitions to revive Ontario News Company Limited, G. A. Barber and Sons Limited and Eastern Diversified Company Ltd., filed after the time limit specified under Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, together with the fifty-fourth, fifty-fifth and fifty-sixth reports of the Clerk of Petitions thereon, presented to the House on Friday, June 26, 1981, for any recommendations the committee deems advisable.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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. 983, 2,276, 2,357, 2,358, 2,401, 2,437, 2,438, 2,478, 2,483, 2,484, 2,485, 2,493 and 2,595.


Mr. MacKay: For the fiscal year (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 (c) 1977-78 (d) 1978-79 (e) 1979-80, by province and territory, what were the research and development expenditures (natural sciences) to industry by the (i) Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (ii) Department of National Defence (iii) Ministry of State for Science and Technology?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Defence and Ministry of State for Science and Technology as follows:

July 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions (i) and (ii) See lists below.
(iii) Ministry of State for Science and Technology (MOSST) is a policy ministry without
operational responsibilities; consequently, it does not provide support for R & D in natural sciences to industry.
(i)	Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Payments to Industry
for R & D in the Natural Sciences by Province and Territory
Fiscal Year
Province	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80	TotalsNewfoundland	$ 208,391	$ 234,244	$ 212,653	$	$ 110,178	$ 765,466New Brunswick	184,760	654,455	108,559	37,364	128,967	1,114,105Nova Scotia	571,855	415,340	729,971	26,958	265,571	2,009,695P.E.I.	744	3,770	9,016	104,480	135,917	253,927Quebec	19,786,999	23,201,509	21,021,900	14,377,275	20,941,897	99,329,580Ontario	56,911,703	68,187,951	48,082,709	35,345,365	37,382,129	245,909.857Manitoba	631,935	374,596	303,337	165,683	377,730	1,853,281Saskatchewan	257,756	265,781	450,163	160,504	297,942	1,432,146Alberta	6,482,730	8,872,213	3,236,392	583,696	1,519,295	20,694,326B.C.	5,774,795	6,284,584	4,956,998	1,582,838	3,646,644	22,245,859Yukon	Northwest Territories	Totals	$90,811,668	$108,494,443	$79,111,698	$52,384,163	$64,806,270	$395,608,242(ii)	DND-	-Research and Development (Natural Sciences)	($000)	1975-76	1976-77	1977-78	1978-79	1979-80industrial	Industrial	Industrial	Industrial	IndustrialContracts	GrantsO)	Contracts	Contracts	Contracts	ContractsNewfoundland	7.2	Nova Scotia	395.3	549.9	340.7	597.9	New Brunswick	32.9	121.6	P.E.I.	Quebec	749.0	540.0	972.7	1,292.1	2,825.0	Ontario	5,686.4	1,020.9	8,032.6	6,658.5	9,134.8	Manitoba	1,499.8	679.7	349.4	178.7	Saskatchewan	18.1	Alberta	218.9	10.4	469.7	84.7	197.5	B.C.	126.7	141.7	374.4	490.0	550.1	N.W.T.	14.5	Total	8,690.6	1,713.0	11,079.0	9,266.4	13,612.8	23,100.0(2>
(l)The Defence Industrial Research Program terminated FY 1975-76. Estimate only-returns not yet complete.


Mir. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by Adams Investment Company at the time of approval by FIRA?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the Company live up to all public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: I. The investment proposal was allowed on April 29, 1980; the annual review of undertakings commences on or about April 29, 1981, and is not yet completed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Deans: 1.	Did the Foreign Investment Review Agency conduct a yearly review to determine the fulfilment of all short-term and long-term commitments made by BBC Brown Bovcri Canada Inc. at the time of approval by FIRA?
2.	For each year since the approval, did the company live up to all public commitments and, if not, what (a) commitments were not lived up to (b) action was taken by FIRA to insist that the original commitments be fulfilled by the company?
3.	Were new commitments agreed to by FIRA and, if so, what were they and were they kept?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1. The investment proposal was allowed on May 9, 1980; the annual review of undertakings commences on or about May 8, 1981, and is not yet completed.
2. Not applicable.
July 2, 1981

3. Not applicable.
REMUNERATION-PUBLIC SECTOR/PRIVATE SECTOR


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government aware of a working paper prepared by the Centre for Industrial Relations of the University of Toronto which states that public sector remuneration is six to eight per cent higher than in the private sector?
2.	(a) Have the wages of public sector employees, in recent years, exceeded those of their private sector counterparts by five to fifteen per cent (b) has the wage advantage been larger for females than for males (c) do high-level occupations in the public sector not pay the competitive wage and, if there is an acknowledged differential, does the President of the Treasury Board intend to bring Public Service salaries into line with the private sector?


Donald James Johnston: 1. The hon. member probably refers to the work of Mr. Morley Gunderson who published a number of papers and articles in professional journals on the subject of public sector compensation.
2. Generally, Mr. Gunderson's studies do not differentiate between employees at the federal, provincial and municipal levels and some of the major conclusions are based on 1971 census data. However, in the discussion of the results, Mr. Gunderson mentions that "the largest wage advantage is at the provincial and local levels, with little or no advantage at the federal level" (Industrial Relations Vol. 19, Number 3, Fall 1980, p. 268) or "Federal wage increases appear to have been the most 'orderly' and 'in line' with private sector wages." He also concludes that the fact the public sector advantage for females is greater than that for males "presumably reflects the lower degree of sex discrimination in the public sector." In addition, he mentions that it "may be a result of a more egalitarian wage policy that is also responsible for the greater wage advantage in low-wage occupations in the public sector" (Industrial Relations, Vol. 19, Number 3, Fall 1980, p. 269).
In concluding that the public sector results do not apply to the federal government, Mr. Gunderson's analysis is consistent with the findings of a recent study by the Conference Board in Canada which, based on more up to date data, indicated that "There is no substantive evidence that suggests rates of pay in the Federal government consistently exceed the rates of pay for comparable jobs in the private sector as of mid-1978" (M. J. Daniel and W. E. A. Robinson, "Compensation in Canada: A Study of the Public and Private Sectors", the Conference Board in Canada, Ottawa, April 1980).
The policy followed by the government as employer in compensating federal employees is comparability with the private sector up to and including the first level of the executive officer category. Above this level, salaries for increased responsibilities are not based on market comparability. They adhere to a system of differentials in recognition of job accountability.
Order Paper Questions HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES IN QUEBEC


Mr. Corbett: What amount did the government spend in the province of Quebec on the development of highways between 1970 and 1980?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned: $13,608,103.27 was spent on the development of the Trans-Canada Highway in the province of Quebec in 1970/71. This amount does not include costs of maintenance and construction of interprovincial bridges.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
DREE Expenditures and Commitments for Highway Construction in Quebec Between 1970 and 1980
Description	Amount
Former Programs Special Areas (Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Sept-Iles and Port-Cartier): Grants: Loans Sub-Total	$ 36,297,000 $ 9,653,000 $ 45,950,000
New Montreal International Airport (NMIA) (Special Area) Grants: Loans: Sub-Total	$ 53,810,336 $ 10,245,000 $ 64,055,336
Fund for Rural and Economic Development Act (FRED) Mining roads Tourist highways Regional highways: Sub-Total	$ 5,958,555 $ 4,800,000 $ 27,300,000 $ 38,058,555
Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA) Mining roads: Forestry roads: Tourist highways: Sub-Total	$ 2,288,182 $ 1,253,997 $ 258,760 $ 3,800,939
Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA) Indians Access roads to reserves: Total	$ 950,692 $152,815,522*
Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreements	
Subsidiary Agreement on Mineral Development: Permanent roads: Access roads for exploration: Sub-Total	$ 2,934,000 $ 4,900,000 $ 7,834,000
Subsidiary Agreement on Forest Development: Forestry roads:	$102,120,000
Subsidiary Agreement on Key Highway Networks:	$205,505,000
Total Grand Total	$315,459,000 $468,274,522*
*$19,898,000 of which is in the form of a loan.


Mr. Mazankowski: Since the inception of the Urban Transportation Assistance Program (UTAP) (a) what amount of money (b) what per cent of the total approved cost was applied to (i) projects under the Railway Grade Crossing Fund (ii) transporta-

July 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
tion projects to assist the handicapped and disabled (iii) all other urban transportation projects?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a) Funds approved	(i) [DOT]RRCA Projects	(ii) Handicapped T ransport Projects	(iii) Other Urban Projects	Totalto date (b) Percentage of total funds	$97,556,000	$201,000	$47,181,000	$144,938,000approved to date	67.31	0.14	32.55	100
* Contributions are calculated in accordance with the provisions of the "Railway Relocation and Crossing Act" (RRCA) and are paid for out of the Urban Transportation Assistance Program (UTAP) rather than from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund, which is administered by the Canadian Transport Commission and is now only used to pay for protective devices at level crossings.


Mr. Herbert: Did the government contribute $3.8 million to the Dale Corporation Convention Centre in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) what will be the total cost of the project (b) who is to finance the balance of the cost, if any (c) what were the conditions under which the funds were provided?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: yes, under the Federal Assistance to the Construction of Convention Centre Program.
1. (a) The total cost of the project is estimated at $16 million.
(b)	The federal government will contribute $3.8 million, the provincial government $3.8 million and the remainder will be provided by the Dale Corporation.
(c)	Terms and Conditions:
(1)	Federal assistance to be limited to the capital costs, including land, of trade and convention centres, and in no case will the federal assistance be used to cover the operating costs of the centres;
(2)	the federal contribution under this program for any one centre not to exceed 25 per cent of the total estimated capital cost, including land, or the contribution of the provincial government concerned, whichever is less;
(3)	in any one year, total federal assistance under this program limited to a maximum of $15 million, including land;
(4)	this federal government initiative not to cover any cost overruns; and
(5)	federal support limited to those centres which have been shown to be economically viable. Selection of qualifying trade and convention centres will reflect the priorities of regional requirements and opportunities.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government of Ontario provide the Department of External Affairs with a complete list of all motor vehicles licenced in 1979 to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. or to employees thereof and, if so, in each case(a) who was the owner(b) what was the licence plate, colour, make of the vehicle and the vehicle year?


Hon. Mark MacGaigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. However, the information requested by the hon. member cannot be provided since its public disclosure could jeopardize the personal security of members of the Soviet Embassy who continue to use the same vehicles which were registered to the Soviet Embassy in 1979. In the view of the department such disclosure would be inconsistent with Canada's obligations under the Vienna Convention to take all appropriate steps to prevent any disturbance to the peace of a diplomatic mission or the impairment of its dignity.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government of Ontario provide the Department of External Affairs with a complete list of all motor vehicles licenced in 1980 to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. or to employees thereof and, if so, in each case (a) who was the owner (b) what was the licence plate, colour, make of the vehicle and the vehicle year?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes. See question No. 2,483 answered today.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government of Ontario provide the Department of External Affairs with a complete list of all motor vehicles licenced in 1981 to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. or to employees thereof and, if so, in each case (a) who is the owner (b) what is the licence plate, colour, make of the vehicle and the vehicle year?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes. See question No. 2,483 answered today.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What was the cost to the government of dredging the St. Lawrence River and other waterways which can be attributed to maintaining shipping service to the Golden Eagle Refinery at St. Romuald, Quebec, in each year since the refinery was constructed?
2.	Does the government intend to recover any of the costs of dredging through user charges and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The cost of dredging the St. Lawrence River attributable to maintaining shipping service to the Golden Eagle Refinery at St. Romuald, Quebec, cannot be segregated from the total cost of dredging from which other shipping, such as grain traffic, also benefits. This total dredging cost in the North Traverse Reach of the St. Lawrence River in each year since the refinery was constructed was:
July 2, 1981

1971-74 (during construction
of the refinery) 1975-76
1978
1980
$19.2 million Nil
1.1	million 1.6 million
1.4	million
1.5	million
2. The administrative and economic feasibility of recovering the costs of channel dredging in Canada is under active consideration by Transport Canada.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Transport commission Albery, Pullerits, Dickson and Associates, Don Mills, to prepare a $137,000 feasibility study on converting natural gas into methanol or gasoline in the Arctic and transporting the fuel to eastern Canada and, if so, what were the findings or recommendations of the study?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract on behalf of Transport Canada for $137,000 to Albery, Pullerits, Dickson and Associates to study the feasibility of converting natural gas into methanol or gasoline in the Arctic and transporting the fuel to eastern Canada. As the contract requires the contractor to deliver the final report on November 16, 1981, its findings or recommendations cannot be provided at this time.
* *
*


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,276 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	(a) From 1979 to date, by year and by province, what amount was spent by the government and/or its agencies on programs to educate Canadians on the dangers of (i) drug (ii) alcohol abuse (b) for each year, what was the total expenditure per capital
2.	(a) For the same period, by year and by province, what amount was spent by the government and/or its agencies on medical and other research into the causes and effects of (i) drug (ii) alcohol abuse (b) for each year, what was the total expenditure per capital
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to ask about two questions, question No. 30 and question No. 136. Question No. 30 has now been on the order paper for five years and 22 days. Over those five years, I have
Order Paper Questions
raised this matter at least six or seven times or more, and every time I have raised it either the present parliamentary secretary or his predecessors has said he would look into the matter and the question would be answered soon. That has gone on now for five years and 22 days, which I think is a pretty ridiculous situation.
The question merely asks for the names of the members of the Canadian Transport Commission who have Air Canada passes or any of its employees who have Air Canada passes, and if any of the wives of members of the Canadian Transport Commission have Air Canada passes. This is a very simple matter, and yet for five years and 22 days the government has failed to answer. This can only lead to the obvious conclusion that there are people who have passes and that they do not want to let the public know about it.
I think that is shameful. Something should be done by this government to get off its behind. Perhaps hon. members opposite should borrow a bunch of hearing aids so that they can hear what is being raised by the opposition in this House by way of points of order and they can do something about them.
Question No. 136 is the other question. It has been on the order paper for about two years. It concerns the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada chartered a DC-8 from Air Canada in the 1979 election campaign and never paid the bill. By the time of the election a year later the bill had still not been paid, yet Air Canada gave the Liberal party another aircraft. I would like to know what is going on.
I am told that eventually the bill was paid. How much was paid? The Liberal party argued it was being overcharged, whereas the Conservative party paid its bills as they were rendered without disputing them. It is obvious there is a charge. If there is an indebtedness, it should be paid. It is taxpayers' money. Hon. members opposite have never answered that, and I do not understand why they want to hide this matter. An official of Air Canada told my office six months ago that the answer to this question was prepared and in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
Why are the answers to question No. 30 and question No. 136 being held back to the extent of five years and 22 days and two years?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has asked this question a number of times, and I have pointed out on many occasions that his questions are frequently answered in the House. Three of the 12 answered today are questions by the hon. member.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Get to the point.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member referred to two specific questions. He talked about sources he has within Air Canada or some other government agency. I can assure Your Honour that it is not my duty or job to hold any questions back. As I have said before, the government has never refused to answer any question. It may very well be that the question to which

July 2, 1981
Animal Diseases
the hon. member is referring is much more complex to answer than the hon. member thinks. I ask him to be patient.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. Would the parliamentary secretary undertake to contact personally the Minister of Transport who is, I presume, responsible for the production in the House of the answers to both these questions, and to ask him why something has been in his office for six months and not forwarded on to the Privy Council Office? Will the parliamentary secretary ask the minister why for five years and 22 days information requested about the Canadian Transport Commission should be refused?
I think it is the duty of the parliamentary secretary, if things are stalled like this, not to tell the House it is not his problem, other than to produce answers when furnished to him. I think it is his duty to go after those who do not furnish answers and to ask them what is going on. The parliamentary secretary should indicate that he is being asked about certain questions in the House and should say, "Give me the answer." Giving statistics about the fact that the government answered three of my questions today or that it will answer four tomorrow, or other questions coming up, is no answer at all. Facts, figures and percentages are what we have been getting from the parliamentary secretary and the Privy Council Office for months and months. Could we have some production and not words?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is very thoughtful of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville to remind me of my responsibilities. I should inform him that I do regularly talk to ministers and departments to obtain answers to questions, especially when they are raised-as the hon. member has done-in the House not just once but on a number of occasions. Without accepting the assertion by the hon. member that the answer he seeks is in the hands of the Minister of Transport, I shall certainly talk to the minister personally.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 30, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-70, to amend the Animal Disease and Protection Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a few minutes. 1 know the minister will be following me. There was an agreement last Tuesday that I speak before him.
I made some remarks dealing with the future price of cattle, and as I read the speech this morning, 1 found that the arithmetic does not work out very well. I think the minister will understand that I was referring to the fact that with the number of young farmers getting out of producing beef because of the price of grain, we will be faced with a very high price for beef in the next year or two. If 1 used the figure of $1.25 or $1.50, I should have said it will be over $2 a pound.
1 hope that when the minister makes his speech he will have read my speech, and that he will deal with that subject.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are dealing with today is a small but quite important amendment to the Animal Disease and Protection Act.
To state it simply, this amendment means that owners of livestock will be compensated when animals, which would have been ordered destroyed under the act, die before that order can be carried out. It also provides compensation for the owner of an animal injured while being tested under the act and therefore has to be destroyed. These changes are long overdue.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) raised some interesting arguments about compensation for livestock, but 1 should first point out that the bill we are dealing with does not deal with rates of compensation. It merely closes two loopholes so that farmers, operating under the provisions of the act and complying with its intent, do not lose out when animals die before the process is completed. I am sure the hon. member will agree with the justice in that amendment.
There is a very good reason also for providing a different type of compensation for brucellosis and tuberculosis than for the other diseases named in the act. Brucellosis and tuberculosis are endemic diseases in Canada, and the livestock industry has a certain responsibility to see that its herds are not infected. They are both under eradication programs which, I should point out, have the full support of the livestock producers of this country.
Back in the early 1970s we amended the bill so that farmers would not be locked into statutory compensation rates that require legislation to change. They are now subject to regulation. Those regulations are under constant review by my department and are amended as livestock values change. When animal prices rise to the levels the hon. member suggests, the levels of compensation can be amended. Full market value is paid when the animal is destroyed by an exotic disease because that can in no way be controlled by the producer. By setting a maximum level for animals destroyed under the eradication programs, we place some responsibility on the producer to manage his or her herd in such a way as to keep it
July 2, 1981

free from disease. Animals sold at auctions must show proof of freedom from diseases, so a producer need not introduce diseased animals into the herd.
The program has been successful. Less than 90 herds are now quarantined for brucellosis. That is down from 1,500 herds in 1977. Tuberculosis probably exists in about 10 herds and we expect it will be totally eradicated in the next two or three years.
When producers have high priced animals, Mr. Speaker, we feel they have a responsibility to insure them and such insurance is available. We do not think the taxpayer should have to bear that burden. There is insurance and they should take it, as practically all good breeders do. A good farmer knows that disease is costly. If he allows disease to exist in his herd, he is losing far more money than he will lose by having the diseased animals destroyed and using the compensation to replace them.
We have worked hard to keep our programs up with the times. The hon. member talks about situations as they were in the past. They are very different now, including the pay for veterinarians. Vets in the government service recently negotiated a new two-year contract and I think you will find they have a level of income that relates very well to the income of vets in private practice. That is long overdue and the new contract, in most instances, brings them up to a comparable level. I totally agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on this. For the education they have, the number of years it takes to be properly trained, many are underpaid because they happen to be a veterinarian working for the Department of Agriculture, whereas someone in another department with less education is paid more because they are working for a department that is considered probably more sophisticated than agriculture. We hope to bring them all in line, whether they be veterinarians, technicians or whatever. There has been a philosophy in the past that says that if you work with food you should take a lesser income. For too long it has been thought that people who work with food are peasants or associates of peasants.
Canada enjoys a very high standard of animal health and this pays dividends not just to the livestock producer but to all Canadians through strong export sales of Canadians animals. Exports of live animals and poultry brought in more than $230 million last year. That is only possible because the Canadian livestock industry has developed a high level of animal hygiene. Our animals are sought out by foreign buyers because they know they are getting healthy, disease-free stock. We claim to have the most disease-free stock in the world and we want to improve on that. It did not come about just by chance, Mr. Speaker. It came about through close co-operation among the federal and provincial agriculture departments, the veterinarians, the livestock producers and the animal and poultry breeding associations all across the country.
In the eradication of disease, it often becomes necessary to destroy livestock. The Animal Disease and Protection Act gives us the authority to do that. But if you are to destroy a farmer's livestock, you have to compensate him for the loss.
Animal Diseases
The levels of compensation paid for animals ordered destroyed in disease-control programs has been increased from time to time to reflect rising livestock prices, the latest being last December when maximums for purebred dairy and beef cattle were raised to $1,800 and $1,500 respectively. Last year my department paid out a little more than $5 million in compensation to livestock producers.
When we talk about the importance of livestock producers to the over-all economy, we would do well to remind ourselves just how important it is. Farm cash income from cattle and calves last year was $3.8 billion or about 25 per cent of total farm cash income. Income from hog production was $1.4 billion, or 9 per cent of farm cash receipts. Add in poultry and dairy products and it comes to $8.3 billion or 54 per cent of farm income. In our society we hear so often that grain is the largest source of farm income. Mr. Speaker, it is not. The livestock and poultry industry are, as I said, 54 per cent of total farm income. Then you have the horticultural crops, the fruits and vegetables, which are quite large and ever expanding. So we see a change in livestock production but 1 do not think we should ever underestimate the value of that industry to our society.
We also know how much it means to the feed industry. Canadian feed manufacturers' figures show they sell approximately $1.8 billion worth of feed to the livestock producers in Canada. They are huge users of feed grains in Canada.
As I said before, the bill before the House today, Mr. Speaker, brings into the act two situations under which owners may lose out on compensation payments even though coverage of these losses falls within the intent of the act. As the act is now written, if an animal is inspected by a veterinarian and found infected, but dies before it can be destroyed, then the owner is not eligible for compensation. Similarly, an owner loses out if his animal is injured while being tested for an infectious or contagious disease and must be destroyed. This may sound strange to some people but some animals not in close contact with humans are under tremendous stress when they are put in pens, etc., and some become frightened and die. Under the old act there was no way properly to compensate the farmers for that. We think that is unfair. It rarely happens but it is a tremendous loss when it does. Surely those owners are entitled to the compensation they would have received if their animals had completed the testing process and been destroyed under the act.
The amendments the House is being asked to approve today, Mr. Speaker, will legalize the payments of compensation to those qwners. It is not a big item in terms of the money require^. The compensation for animals destroyed under these situations represents less than 2 per cent of the value of compensation currently being paid. Some people say I have been right and I have been wrong: I have been right in making these payments but I was wrong because I did not have the propej^gislation to do it. I have said one can never get into difficulty when they are right in making a payment, no matter what it complies with.

July 2, 1981
Animal Diseases
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members will be quick to approve these short, but important changes in an act that has been such a benefit to all Canadians.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I do not now have any farmers in my constituency, although I have had in years gone by, so it is very difficult to speak on behalf of the people I represent. However, I do want to say a word or two about the bill.
My understanding of it is now quite clear, having listened to the minister. I appreciate the fact that he spoke ahead of me because I did not want to misinterpret him. At one stage, while reading the bill I frankly misinterpreted one of the sections. As I understand it, this bill is more or less a response to a series of situations which have arisen over the last few years as to whether or not compensation could or could not be paid under the act. The act as it existed did not take into account very grey, fringe areas where animals died prior to action being taken by Department of Agriculture officials to determine the health of the animal. 1 was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. member the night before last. He talked about the problems of price maintenance in a number of different areas.
Recently I had occasion to tour the farming community in my area. A discussion took place concerning a young man who had undertaken some two years ago to establish a hog farming operation. I raise this matter only as an aside; it is related indirectly. The young man went to the bank and borrowed funds in order to get his hog farm under way. He had a fairly substantial and well-run operation. He is a dedicated young farmer whose background is in farming. Now he is in considerable debt. If he were less dedicated, I wonder what care and maintenance his animals would receive. The rate of return on his farming endeavour is not sufficient at this point to cover his outlay. This situation could quite easily lead a less dedicated individual to care in a much more cursory manner for the health of his animals.
Also my colleague in the Conservative party referred to a matter which closely ties in with the health of animals. If farmers are unable to receive a reasonable return for the sale of animals-in this case pigs and hogs-they must become more part time and less full time farmers; they spend more and more of their time working at other things. I am referring to a fairly small operation. Then the level of care and the investment of time are dramatically reduced. If I read the situation correctly, the end result could lead to animal diseases not being detected early. Therefore this could add to the problem of the need to dispose of more diseased animals than would otherwise be necessary. I realize this is somewhat a branch-off in terms of the present discussion, but we must look at this as part of a total package.
If farmers, particularly animal farmers, are to be primarily responsible for early identification of diseased animals, we cannot continue to allow an erosion of the price structure to the point at which farmers cannot devote full time to their
farms. This is in support of much of what the minister has said concerning price maintenance. Farmers should be able to receive a return for their time, effort, financial commitment, investment and bank borrowing charges. These items are rolled into one large investment. Farmers should receive an amount which is sufficient to pay back their loans, to recover their operating costs and to maintain a level of income. If not, they are forced to become part time farmers. Then they will not be present on the premises all the time to care for their animals, particularly the ones which are penned as opposed to those which are roaming, grazing, etc. The minister indicated the millions of dollars he has paid out in the last year. If we consider the last number of years, it may well rise in relationship to the decrease in the amount of care farmers are able to give. I see the minister shaking his head, but let me tell him that I visited two or three farms. I had represented the area for the better part of 13 years.


Eugene Whelan: Provincially?


Ian Deans: Yes, provincially. In my tour I noticed with interest that as farmers are less able to recover sufficiently from their involvement and as they are forced to do other than farm for a living, the level of care of animals definitely decreases. There is no doubt in my mind that this is happening. The minister should take a quick tour of some of the smaller operations. I am not talking about large farms with hired help; I am talking about the smallers ones in which this problem arises primarily. There is a definite decrease in the level of care of animals in that farmers are not present and working full time at their operations.
As we look at the legislation before us, we must take into account the problems which have arisen over the last while. I suggest that between now and five years from now, if we allow the price structure to continue below a fair rate of return, more and more farmers will be put in the position of not being able to maintain their operations at the level to which they are committed. Therefore more and more animals will receive less care than they otherwise would have received. The end result of this situation could well be a requirement on the part of the government through this legislation to expend considerably larger sums of money than are currently being expended in order to deal with the problem of diseased animals.
I am trying to extrapolate what I have seen in a very small area into a much larger concern. I would not rule it out because it is not an exact comparison. If one looked at the effect of abandoned orchards on the orchards which are still operating, one would quickly recognize that the problem of diseased trees had a very serious effect upon neighbouring orchards. The farmers in the Niagara Peninsula-and I suspect those in Essex County-found it virtually impossible to continue their orchard operations given the prices they received for the product they produced. The end result was that they backed away from their fruit farms. They did not walk away one day; they gradually harvested less and less. As they gradually produced less and less, they received fewer and fewer dollars and put less into pesticides and other treatments
July 2, 1981

necessary to maintain the health of the trees. Little by little the erosion took place. 1 am not a farmer, but I have some experience in that area. I am concerned that if smaller farmers are not able to recover sufficient income from their products, they will similarly be unable to maintain their business operations. They will not be able to put the time, the effort or, for that matter, the concern into farming. Although we will not have to amend this act any more because the payment is no longer statutory, I suspect that over the course of time we will find considerably larger and larger sums of money allocated for the eradication of disease which was brought on simply by an inadequate price structure in the first place.
I support the minister in some of what he has said in the past, but we have to find a way to do one of two things, or perhaps a combination of two things. We have to find a way to make it possible for the smaller family farm wanting to maintain its operation and take its produce to market to do so. First, we have to find a way to guarantee that there will be a reasonable price paid to farmers for the time and the effort they spend on their operation. Second, we have to find a way to reduce the numbers of dollars farmers must hand out to banks and the like, if I may say, for the money they must ultimately borrow to maintain their operations in a way that will be satisfactory both to them and to the marketplace.
I readily admit that the bill deals quite specifically with one change in a series of different sections. I can see that unless we go much further, unless we do something about the economics of farming, not only will we be dealing with diseased livestock eradication problems, but I suspect we will be dealing, at least in some parts of this country, with diseased grain and other problems since farmers will not be able to put the time, the money or the effort into the protection necessary to safeguard their very livelihood. Knowing the minister's interest in this, I thought I might tie the two together so that he can get back to his colleagues and argue for a better system.
If I may return to the young man I spoke about earlier, here was a young fellow who went to the bank on his own. He went through agricultural college and graduated. He then decided that he would go into hog farming in a reasonable way. He got himself a barn, cleaned it up and put in new pens. He borrowed $20,000. That may not seem like a lot of money to the minister, I do not know, but it seems a lot to me. The young man began carefully, single-handedly, nurturing and building his herd. The problem is the young man has no place for his herd now because he cannot get his money back in the marketplace. I must stress that it is his personal dedication only that keeps him on the land and keeps him trying to make his undertaking a viable one.
1 think it would be useful if the House of Commons would spend a little more time, as I have said on a number of other issues, in dealing with that problem. The problem does not confront the larger farms. In many instances large farms are able to self-finance because of their size. But it certainly confronts the young, eager farmers who are trying to make a
International Development Association go of it and maintain our food supplies. Maybe we could find a way to accommodate their concerns. In the long run money would be saved under this legislation in the marketplace.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-71, to amend the International Development Association Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present to the House a proposed amendment to the International Development Association Act to authorize a payment of $164,600,000 to the International Development Association. As hon. members know, the acronym IDA is commonly used to refer to that association. The payment of that amount will be made as a partial settlement of Canada's commitment in respect of the sixth replenishment of the resources of the association. Support for the International Development Association is one of the main channels through which Canada promotes the development of Third World countries.
As an agency of the World Bank responsible for granting preferential loans, the association has made a name for itself as being one of the most efficient international development multilateral instruments. Indeed, since its creation in 1960, this organization has put up over $20 billion in American funds to carry out various projects, be they related to technical studies or medical research. Seeing how successful the association has been in marshalling resources from the four corners of the world, and especially in profitably investing those resources in the world's least advanced countries, Canada ranked it high in its over-all development assistance program.
All the other major donor countries followed in Canada's footsteps and it is imperative that Canada and the other countries continue to support the International Development Association if we want to maintain the economic growth of underprivileged nations. Although 121 countries belong to the association, the main beneficiaries of the loans made by the

July 2, 1981
International Development Association association are the least developed and very poor countries, namely the few countries where the per capita income is below $625 in 1978 American dollars. The International Development Association is in a position to contribute effectively to the growth of those countries for two reasons. First, it does benefit from the wide experience of the World Bank staff. Second, thanks to its considerable resources, it can develop and implement projects of a scope that no other preferential loan organization could match. The resources of the International Development Association come mostly from the member countries of the OECD, which have provided approximately 95 per cent of its total funds for many years. The loans granted by the World Bank to support these funds for the implementation of projects are usually interest free. Repayment is over 50 years and can start only 10 years after the loan is granted.
Since the Bank exhausts the resources of the IDA by granting such loans, it must regularly replenish the funds of the International Development Association. The total amount needed to replenish these funds as well as the proportional contribution of each country are determined by international negotiations. Afterwards, the respective governments of the member countries are asked to approve the amounts negotiated. This is the sixth current replenishment of the resources since the creation of the International Development Association. In the last few years, the funds of the IDA have been replenished every three years; the sixth replenishment was negotiated in 1979, it will occur in phases from the middle of 1980 until the middle of 1983 and the total amount for that replenishment has been set at $12 billion in U.S. funds.
During the negotiations, Canada decided to set its share at 4.3 per cent of the total replenishment or $601.8 million Canadian. For all previous reconstitutions, Canada's share was just over $1 billion U.S., or 5.3 per cent of the total resources of the International Development Association. The amendment to the International Development Association Act now being considered in this House aims at authorizing the second payment to be made as a partial settlement of Canada's commitment in respect of the sixth replenishment of the resources I have been referring to. Last year, Canada made a first payment of $177.1 million to the Association.
I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that these payments are made in the form of non-interest bearing demand notes which the International Development Association usually cashes over a period of 10 years as it actually implements its projects. The International Development Association does not need the contribution of Canada immediately, but it asks that we make the unconditional commitment to pay these funds by issuing noninterest bearing demand notes to be able to make loan agreements with the receiving countries.
The payment by Canada would normally become due on July 1. However, the United States has been late in ratifying the sixth replenishment. To enable the IDA to continue its loan program, Canada and many other donor countries have
made their first payment in respect of the sixth replenishment last year, as provided by the negotiated resolution and as I have just indicated. This year, donor countries have decided to wait for the United States to duly approve their share of the sixth replenishment before making their second payment. The American administration expects Congress to approve its contribution this fall, at which time other donor countries should make their second payment. Until such time as the United States has obtained legislative approval of its commitment to the Association, Canada will be under no obligation to make its second payment, for which authority is now being asked, to the House of Commons. I wish to thank hon. members and the House leaders of the opposition parties for having agreed to limit their speaking time in order to pass this bill, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience in listening to me.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to reply briefly on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with respect to this bill. Before I begin my short remarks on the subject, I would like to say that it would be beneficial for us to read at some point the report on the House of Commons by the Auditor General for the fiscal period ending March 31, 1979. In it he wrote rather emphatically and eloquently about the necessity for Parliament having some control over the expenditures of government. We should remind ourselves that the reason we are involved in this series of bills under the arrangements which have been made is not that there is any disagreement in the House of Commons with the kinds of programs which are covered in these bills, as extensive and wide-ranging as they are, but that there was another great disagreement in the House.
It is a credit to the everlasting good name of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that the government has been brought to the point where it can no longer use dollar items in the estimates. I know the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) will remember what I am saying. The government can no longer use dollar items in the estimates, or authorize expenditure of money, virtually without parliamentary approval. We are engaged in this practice, with respect to this bill to amend the International Development Association Act, because of the necessity to generally observe the requirements of the Auditor General. We want to ensure that Parliament has some control and that the process is right-not just that the ends are justified, but that the means to get to those ends are justified. It is in that spirit that I am very pleased to clearly indicate our support for the bill itself.
Your Honour and I had an opportunity during a parliamentary recess to speak with the minister of education for Somalia at a luncheon. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bock-stael) was there as well. The minister told us of the great difficulties which some countries were facing, and particularly his country, with the influx of people across their borders in a horde, which is hard for us to imagine. I gathered these
July 2, 1981

refugees were from Ethiopia. The economy of his country was supporting, according to the figures and the proportions, the equivalent of an influx into Canada of about eight million people within one year.
I have never forgotten that statistic nor that luncheon. That had a profound effect upon me with respect to the importance of Canada's place in the world and Canada's responsibility as a world nation and as a part of the brotherhood of man. That luncheon and those statistics have been emblazoned on my mind. We were looking into the face of a minister of a small country who was telling us of the enormity of the problem. Could we imagine what would happen in Canada if we had that, burden to bear, just financially, with an economy as strong as ours in comparative terms? It is no wonder that Somalia and other countries are the beneficiaries of what I think is a first-rate offshoot of the World Bank, which is a gathering of nations of the world to help each other.
The International Development Association is a new affiliate of the bank. It was established to meet the situation of a growing number of less-developed nations, those countries in which need for and ability to make use of outside capital is greater than their ability to service conventional loans.
Consequently, the terms of the IDA's development methods are designed so that they will impose less burden on the balance of payments of borrowing countries and of conventional lenders. If we do not have this kind of thing, then loans would be meaningless to some of the countries to which they are addressed.
The association has been described somewhere as a "soft-loan window" used by the World Bank group to lend funds to the poorest developing countries for development purposes at highly concessional rates-a three-quarters of 1 per cent carrying charge, with a 50-year term and [DOT] ten years of grace, is quite an advantage. It is an advantage which I am sure is absorbed and offset by the state of the donor countries. By June 30, 1980, Canada had advanced a total of U.S. $1,027,351,000 to IDA. That represents 5.27 per cent of total donor advances. This bill will allow that to continue.
When preparing for this short debate, Mr. Speaker, I did some reading about something which arose out of a process which is relatively new. I am proud to say that it was initiated in Parliament when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister. I refer to the select committees which the government has now chosen to call parliamentary task forces.
In the third report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations, stress was laid on the need for a fresh approach to development. It is interesting that the parliamentarians involved, members of the Liberal Party of Canada, members of the Progressive Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party, attacked the conundrums facing the nations of the world in an intellectual way as they involve the North-South dialogue.
International Development Association
In that third report, the mixture of members of this House made some recommendations which were unanimous and which other members of this House ought to consider very carefully. They asked for a new approach to development. They asked the House and the country to consider that the image of a world divided between a powerful north and weak and dependent south is outdated and that the country reconsider its position. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has come to this rather late in his public life but it is to be noted that Parliament supported those recommendations.
Some of the key recommendations ought to be remembered and the report ought not to lie fallow in the desks, in the filing drawers and on the shelves of some department of government. The problem with the select committee provisions, when this party was the government, and with the parliamentary task force provisions now, is that there is no way that members of the committee and Parliament can ask the government to respond to the reports adopted by the House within a short period of time. That failure cannot be laid to the Minister of State for Finance; it is the fault of the system.
When we consider parliamentary reform, then, as well as giving Parliament a greater right to hold government financially accountable, I think we ought to give Parliament an opportunity to hold government accountable in the sense that it should respond to and comment upon, in a public way, reports presented to the House. This applies particularly to special reports commissioned as the result of a reference from the government.
The first key recommendation was that Canada should raise its ODA target to .7 per cent of GNP by 1990 and achieve the level of .57 per cent by 1985. It now stands at .46 per cent. If the report were approved and adopted it would increase the current aid budget of $1.2 billion to about $3 billion by 1985. That is a tremendous adjustment but it is an indication of the magnitude of the problem that a committee of Parliament found. It would mean the expenditure of $350 million more than the government envisages at the present time.
The report made a second and very important recommendation, that Canada should concentrate its aid on the poorest countries, giving its highest priority to basic education and improving women's skills. This is something which is needed in every country but particularly in the poorest countries. It is the message that the minister of education of Somalia left with us, aside from the basic needs message that he brought. We now support 89 countries. The thrust of the report is that we should concentrate on fewer countries.
There is also a recommendation that more of the ODA should go to non-governmental organization activities, notably to smaller rural projects operated by NGOs on CIDA's behalf.
It recommended that CIDA should decide where to buy goods and services favouring Canadian sources, but free of any percentage rule such as is in place at the moment. It proposed that short-term commercial objectives should not be permitted to undermine the developmental objectives of aid. There is a

July 2, 1981
International Development Association
sense of humanity running through all that, the thrust of it being that there would be a long-term benefit to Canada.
Food aid should only be used to fill the gap between a country's food needs and its food production. Canada should buy food for needy nations from neighbouring poor countries having surplus food.
The report went on to say that there should be a major public inquiry to pin-point industries unable to withstand competition from cheap imports from the Third World. Canada's declining industries ought to be replaced by new, promising enterprises, thereby strengthening Canada's economy and allowing easier entry of developing nations' products. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, that is something that we are going to have to consider. When I hear members of the government say that we are going to consider an industrial strategy, I wonder what the thrust of it is going to be and how the government will come to terms with that very significant recommendation, which is a difficult one for this country at this time.
The report gave some credence to the importance of the price of energy and the supply of energy. It recommended that we should support the creation of a new energy-related lending agency as proposed by the World Bank. I think that is important in view of the cost of energy and its effect on the economies of developing countries.
The unanimous report pointed out that we are on the threshold of a new world. Since the report was unanimous, I think it cannot be ignored when considering our external affairs policies, external aid policies, the direction of CIDA, our energy policy. If it means anything at all, then the report must be taken into account by government.
When considering an industrial "policy" and an industrial "strategy"-which I think are two of the most overworked words in Canadian public life-I think it is important to know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is examining that recommendation. If it were adopted, the impact on Canadian manufacturing and industry would be imperative, difficult and swift. I do not know to what extent that will happen, but since Parliament has spoken on the matter, it is important that someone respond. We should know what the position of the government is in the short term and in the long term.
The bill is worthy of support, Mr. Speaker. Except for the process, it was worthy of support even when it was a dollar item, but the process got in its way. As a result, we have agreed with respect to this series of legislation to put these bills through quickly. This is one of them. The impact that the plight of some underdeveloped countries can have on anyone, even the most hardshelled, is difficult to express. This bill and the program is designed to permit Canada to do its reasonable share as a citizen of the world.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his explanation. He certainly made it very clear. I say to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton
(Mr. Baker) that it was a very interesting series of observations which he made and certainly well worth supporting.
In thinking back over the last few years, we have come a long way in Canada in raising the level of public awareness of the value of aid. Thinking back 15 years, I remember the numerous times that I received communications from irate citizens who wanted to know why we were taxing them so heavily and then handing out the money. Over the course of the last few years we have been able to more easily get the message through to people about the tremendous amount of value that we receive from the few dollars we actually ever send outside of the country.
A number of things have happened. Even yet there is still a level of misunderstanding with which we must deal. We really ought to spend more time with the public making them aware of the kinds of conditions that exist in those countries of the world which qualify for aid under this program and a number of others.
I do not think people are aware of the economic conditions and personal hardships faced by so many of their fellow mortals in other parts of the world. The more recent opportunities for travel have tended to broaden the knowledge of Canadians and to soften the hardened attitudes that were evident some years ago. Nevertheless, we still have a lot to do.
In spite of the fact that our economic conditions are not all they might be, I do not think the people of Canada fully understand the very serious economic deprivation which exists in many other parts of the world. When we think of economic hardship, we tend to talk about it in the context of the Canadian experience. We tend to think of economic hardship along the lines of the hardship we might come into contact with on a day-to-day basis. It is only when you go outside the country and travel in other parts of the world that you begin to fully understand the personal problems that exist and what little we do-and it is little compared to what we could do-to try and assist in ameliorating these conditions in other parts of the world. It is money well spent.
If there was a way for the House of Commons to actually pass judgment on the individual expenditures that are put before us, I do not doubt for a moment that there would be a move by a lot of Canadians, and I think the majority, to increase Canada's involvement in areas such as are affected by the IDA fund.
There are some things we have to try to understand. We have to try to get Canadians to appreciate that in giving assistance, we must not attempt to infringe on the distinctiveness of the people's culture, the way in which they develop. We must not attempt to make them like us. It is not a process of trying to make everyone the same, but of trying to assist in the most basic, human way, trying to provide the wherewithal for self-sufficiency in the most basic areas. It is trying to assist in the level of skilled development, trying to improve, as my colleague said, the educational process for people in many other parts of the world so that they can develop a self-sufficiency.
July 2, 1981

It is not a matter of turning them into Canadians in a different part of the world. It is matter of allowing them to be what they are, assisting them to develop that process so that they will be self-sufficient. Surely it is an attempt to assist them in reducing the amount of health hazard and the problems which continue to exist in their countries, possibly because of bad water supplies or inadequate or immediate access to emergency health care.
I hope Canadians will support this attempt when they see it in the proper context to ensure that those things that we take and have taken for granted for years are available to people in other parts of the world.
We have to guard against the tendency of allowing the assistance we give to be used for exploitation. That tendency is there. No matter how carefully we might speak against allowing that to happen, I have seen evidence of it. I am sure other members of this House of Commons have seen evidence of it as they travelled throughout the world.
Recently I made a visit to an area that might qualify under this aid program. Actually it is not an aid program but could be an aid program. It is subject to repayment. It may take a while, but it is subject to repayment over the long haul.
I was in St. Lucia about eight months ago where I had occasion to meet with the minister there. He took us around the island to show us some of the devastation that had occurred as the result of a hurricane. Living in Canada where hurricanes are an infrequent occurrence, it is hard to imagine how an area can be devastated and how much can be done with a small amount of money.
I recall seeing homes that by Canadian standards were certainly not the most substantial, not the type seen here. Nevertheless they were the homes of the people. These homes had been blown off the face of the earth by this hurricane. I saw banana plantations where considerable sums of money had been spent over the last few years so that the export of bananas could be developed as their main source of income. One fell swoop and away went their income source for at least a year, and probably for two or three years to come.
As I spoke with the prime minister there and the members of his government, I thought of how much we could have done to help relieve the terrible burden those people will have to carry. Instead of devoting quite as much money to advertising in order to praise ourselves for our great efforts, it would be nice if some was spent in bringing to the attention of Canadians those conditions we are attempting to help resolve with what, on balance, are very small sums of money being contributed by each and every Canadian.
I think if we could do that we would find that Canadians would, rather than asking that we reconsider because they are afraid we are spending too much, ask us to reconsider because we are spending too little. I think if they had the facts firmly before them that might be the case.
International Development Association
I want to add a cautionary note. If for no other reason than that it is in our own self-interest to attempt to raise the economic levels of those people, because that will have a spin-off beneficial effect to Canada in years to come if they become "have" rather than "have-not" parts of the world and their consumer purchasing power is increased-if that were the only reason why we were doing it, and I would hope, God, that that is not the only reason, but even for the most mercenary reasons when individuals are looking at the expenditure of some hundreds of millions of dollars over the next period of time, it would be worthwhile.
I want to say to the minister that we are, of course, happy to support this bill. We think that come next year, with no constitutional debate, no oil policy problems, no interest rate problems-I assume all of these things will be behind us-


An hon. Member:: That is utopia!


Ian Deans: The hon. member laughs. Thank God I can make somebody laugh! My constituents are crying. Maybe by next year we will have those things behind us and we will be able to spend a little more time talking about the level of Canadian involvement in the Third World, the level of Canadian involvement not in the North-South dialogue, because dialogue really means nothing, but the process of the North helping to develop the South in a way that will be sustaining. Then maybe come the fall or next spring this minister, together with his colleagues, will be able to spend a bit of time in this House so we can devote a day or two to a real discussion about Canada's role, about what we can afford to do and what the benefits will be both to the receiving nations and also to Canada. I am sure if we could do that you would find, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian public would be most eager to see us raise the level involved.


An hon. Member:: What about an east-west dialogue?


Ian Deans: My colleague from Edmonton says an east-west dialogue might be good. That may be true too, but I would like to think that on this matter the east and west are one, at least in Canada; that there is no argument between east and west as to whether we should be involved in North-South development programs. I do not think we would get any argument here or, if this debate were to take place in western Canada, that there would be any difference of opinion. I think we would all be prepared to commit more to try to create a better place for the people who frankly, right now, if one were to look at the situation, have very little in the way of joy in their lives.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
11150
[Stage Direction]
July 2, 1981
International Financial Assistance

Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-74, to authorize financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a bill entitled "An act to authorize financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions", authorizing various payments to international development institutions often known as international financial institutions or, in some cases, regional development banks. The ruling brought down by Madam Speaker on June 12 following a point of order concerning the procedural acceptability of certain items contained in the Main Estimates for 1981-82 obliges us to table this bill. Madam Speaker did indeed rule Items L45 and L60 for External Affairs contrary to our rules and regulations. [English]
Section 2 of the act would provide authority to make two types of payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. First, payments in cash of an amount not exceeding $4 million. In fact, the intention is to make only one such payment in fiscal year 1981-82 to the United Nations Common Fund for Commodities. This tranche of $4 million would be the first of three equal payments for the period 1981-82 to 1983-84. The purpose is to support the common fund's second window which will finance measures other than stocking in the field of commodities. The vast majority of benefits from the operations of the fund's second window will flow to the developing countries.
The second type of payment to be authorized under this act involves the issuance, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, of non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes to international financial institutions. The form of these demand notes would be determined by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in line with the Financial Administration Act. It is a long-standing practice to make payments to the regional development banks by way of demand notes since they do not require all of the cash at the time of payment. Rather, the cash is needed over a period of up to ten years as the banks make project commitments and actual expenditures are incurred in developing countries. It is with this in mind that encashment schedules for these notes are drawn up and agreed between the international financial institutions and Canada.
As the House will note, clause 2 of this legislation envisages in fiscal year 1981-82 the issuance of non-negotiable demand notes not exceeding in the aggregate $121.2 million. This consists of the following components: first, an amount of $3.5
million for the Caribbean Development Bank's special development fund. This is the last of three tranches to fulfil a Canadian commitment of $10.5 million for the period 1979-80 to 1981-82. Second, a payment of $30 million to the African Development Fund. This is the third and last instalment totalling $85 million over the period 1979-80 to 1981-82. Third, a payment of $56.7 million to the Asian Development Fund. This is the third of four instalments which total $193.4 million for 1979-80 to 1982-83. Fourth, a payment of $17 million to the fund for special operations of the Inter-American Development Bank. This is the third of four payments toward a commitment of $58.1 million in U.S. funds over the years 1979-80 to 1982-83. Fifth, an amount of $14 million for the International Fund for Agricultural Development as the first of three instalments totalling $42 million.
The third clause of this bill deals with the matter of the previously issued non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes referred to earlier. The issuance of these notes in previous years would be ratified and confirmed by this bill. The encashment schedules for the various international financial institutions indicate that an amount of some $19.3 million would be drawn down in the course of fiscal year 1981-82. [Translation]
Clause 4 of the bill would authorize Canada to make an initial subscription for shares of the African Development Bank. Though we have been financing, for some years already, the African Development Fund, its preferential aid mechanism, the Bank decided recently that the considerable development needs of the continent would require a far greater contribution in resources. Accordingly, the African Development Bank will accept in its ranks not only the countries of the area but also countries such as Canada and other donors of the OECD. In view of our active role with both anglophone and francophone countries in Africa, I shall be particularly happy to see Canada sit as a member of the African Development Bank.

Our share in the African Development Bank will be 3.2 per cent of the expanded capital stock. This legislation provides for the purchase of 4,200 paid-in shares over five years as well as 12,600 callable shares. These shares are valued in aggregate at 168 million units of account, for approximately $240 million Canadian. Of this amount only 25 per cent will be paid in; that is approximately $60 million over five years. We will be utilizing the usual method for payments to the African Development Bank.
The fifth and last clause of this legislation conveys authority to issue to the bank this year non-negotiable demand notes equivalent in aggregate to 8.4 million units of account, which equals approximately $12 million Canadian.
In conclusion, for the information of hon. members I would like to add that in fiscal year 1981-82 the sum of $31.3 million will be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the encashment of notes previously issued. Authority exists under
July 2, 1981

section 45 of the Financial Administration Act for these payments.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-74, to authorize financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions, but in doing so I wish to point out one of the incongruities which exists as far as this bill is concerned and as far as the previous bill, Bill C-71, which we were debating, is concerned. That bill, which was to amend the International Development Association Act, and this one, which authorizes financial assistance to certain international financial institutions, both deal with the funding available from Canadian public funds to international financial institutions.
This certainly was an issue I tried to tackle during the time I held the office of Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it is one which I hope the present minister is trying to regularize in trying to bring these two advances through international financial institutions under the aegis of the Department of External Affairs where they both belong. Then the amount of foreign aid and foreign developmental assistance-it goes beyond aid to include developmental assistance as well-will be channelled through one agency or department and not fractionalized between two departments, so that a true and concise picture of our over-all program is given in what we are doing in the field of financial assistance through international institutions to countries of the Third World.
I see the minister is nodding. I hope he is carrying on that effort to try to bring the International Development Association Act, IDAA, under the jurisdiction of his department. In fact, when we get into Committee of the Whole on this bill, I would like to put that question to the minister, and I will welcome any comment he has to make about it. I am reminded by my House leader that the minister also has the opportunity to comment on this when he closes the debate.
This bill has been placed before us, not primarily because of the initiative the government has taken in this regard, but because it came about through my party's prompting through the efforts of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the ruling of the Chair on June 12. If neither of those two actions had been taken, these items in Bill C-74 might have slipped by the House under the guise of votes L45 and L60 of the Department of External Affairs.
The thought that that might very well have happened if Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had not been on its toes has very serious implications for the parliamentary system, for it touches on what Michael Valpy of The Globe and Mail last week called, and I quote: "the heart of parliamentary democracy, the central issue of how much scrutiny Parliament should have over what government does".
It is not by chance that there are procedural differences between approving estimates on the one hand and enacting legislation on the other. The first action funds the status quo, while the second action changes it. The difference is a very fundamental one. To confuse the difference by bypassing one
International Financial Assistance
process through using another, quicker method surely only serves to undermine parliamentary responsibility.
This is what we are returning to by debating these bills today. We are giving authority to enact changes in legislation, which is Parliament's responsibility, and I am glad to see this being carried out. To bring in what should be statutory change by the process set up for fund appropriation allows government to step into programs and enter new areas without the proper debate such government initiatives warrant.
Two such initiatives were votes L-45 and L-60 of the external affairs estimates. These are now transferred to Bill C-74. In Madam Speaker's words found on page 10546 of Hansard, what those votes sought to achieve was:
-to finance international development by the use of issuing demand notes to the credit of the various named banks or institutions upon which they may draw in the Bank of Canada, or to purchase shares in the listed banks.
Those votes did not seek merely the simple appropriation of funds, but sought the legislative authority to incur Crown debts without parliamentary approval. The process we are now involved in corrects that major oversight.
Having said this, I want to indicate my party's support for the measure before us. Bill C-74 initially represents $137 million in Canadian investments and advances to financial institutions for international development. It means that the Caribbean Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development can now draw on Canadian government funds for additional contributions totalling some $121 million.
All these contributions are in the nature of advances and are thus repayable after a specified period of time. All items involve non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes to be encashed at a later date. It is appropriate that Canadian contributions should be made through the regional development banks of the areas concerned. I want to re-emphasize that point, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian contributions should be made through the regional development banks of the areas concerned. The regional development bank is an institution which has been developing in the last number of years and has been carrying out a tremendous amount of good work, empowered as it is by funds from the wealthier countries of the world. That, sir, is as it should be.
However, in addition to the $121 million to be put into these regional development banks, some $12 million will go to buying shares in the African Development Bank. This is quite a new procedure. The African Development Bank, like the other regional development banks, is a significant force in the development activities of Africa. It was set up in 1964 by the United Nations Commission for Africa. Since it first began its operations in 1966 it has had significant success, and those who have followed its development will see what it has meant to countries throughout Africa, particularly the poorest parts. With an authorized capital of $1,052 million U.S., subscribed capital of $930 million, and paid-up capital of $295 million, it

July 2, 1981
International Financial Assistance
has been able to assist needy African countries with readily obtainable loans for development projects.
Until 1978 capital stock in that bank could only be held by African countries. This policy is being changed and the $12 million requested in Bill C-74 is in anticipation of that change being completed this year. Non-African countries will then be able to buy into the capital stock of the bank. This is the reason why one cannot find this expenditure in last year's estimates and why this item has been considered by the Speaker as governmental action and not simple fund appropriation. The government is authorizing the investment of money where it has never invested before. It is moving into an area where it has never taken action before.
If this item had gone through under the estimates then it would have set a precedent, in that all future investments in the African Development Bank would be votable items. Parliamentary authority would clearly have been circumvented in that case.
Bill C-74 represents $137 million in advances and investments by the Canadian government towards international development. That, sir, is 89 per cent of total CIDA contributions to international financial institutions for 1981-82. That is not 89 per cent of total CIDA contributions, but 89 per cent of the contributions which CIDA makes through international financial institutions.
Now, Sir, this is the kind of massive commitment that deserves the attention of the House, not necessarily to find fault with it because this specific financial disbursement indeed has merit. Rather, the House needs to consider this kind of massive investment and commitment so that Parliament and Canada can have a clearer idea of the direction the government is taking in international development.
We are now without an aid strategy. The 1975-1980 strategy paper has had no successor. It expired last year and there has been nothing to take its place. How are we supposed to determine what the long-term and comprehensive implication of the government's aid initiatives are if we cannot debate and scrutinize such issues, if they are not brought before the House as they should be through legislation?
Bill C-74, as the minister has explained and as I have mentioned, deals with financial commitments to certain international development banks and funds. As such it affects the division between multilateral and bilateral assistance. This is a very important aspect of our overall aid program: What weight will be given to multilateral programs and what weight will be given to bilateral programs? This determination should not be made in an ad hoc fashion. Rather, it should be part of a concrete, long-term program, one that is comprehensive, well thought out and will place our aid where it is most needed. In other words, where it will do the most good.
Such a comprehensive program was offered by the North-South task force report, the broad thrust of which the government has accepted. However, broad approval is not enough and I have brought that to the minister's attention in the House. What we need is a detailed strategy similar to the
1975-1980 strategy for international development. We could then at least measure the government's progress in this critical field.
Such a strategy should be based upon the recommendations of the North-South task force report and I think should rely on two fundamental beliefs. The first is the need for continuing and direct assistance to the very poorest countries in the world through Canadian developmental funds to countries which are becoming progressively poorer because of escalating oil costs and world-wide inflation. This should be the initial basis upon which we base our oil strategy.
The second basis on which to plan our development assistance to other nations is the need to enter into modern trading and financial relationships with the newly industrialized countries of the Third World so that they can consolidate the hard-won gains they have already achieved.
The bill before us today provides for certain borrowing by regional development banks of Canadian funds. I have said that my party approves of this measure, but I say to the minister how much more we would welcome the presentation by the government of a comprehensive developmental aid strategy for the decade of the 1980s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has pointed out, Bill C-74 is in effect a companion piece to Bill C-71. Just as we supported Bill C-71 we shall also support Bill C-74.
I should like to refer again to a remark made by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands by saying that we also agree that these developmental programs, in which Canada, we hope, will become more increasingly involved, ought to be within the confines of one department instead of fractionalized as they are at the present time. I realize that what happened is that some time ago the International Development Association Act was enacted. Therefore, any money that is sought under that legislation has to come by way of amendment to that act. But when it comes to international development assistance, since we do not already have an act of that description it is possible for the government to bring in a new one and to put it where it belongs, under the aegis of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). Things that are under the aegis of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) have a tougher time than they do when they are under the responsibility of a minister interested in the subject itself.
I should also like to comment, as others have, on the reason we are dealing with these bills, which goes back to the ruling made by Madam Speaker regarding certain items in the estimates. If the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will forgive me, I should like to make a slight correction in the way they described these matters. They both referred to them as dollar items which the Speaker ruled out. In some cases they
July 2, 1981

are dollar items, but in some cases they are items of quite substantial sums. In fact, one of the items before us right now is for $4 million. That is a lot more than a dollar. In other words, Madam Speaker in her ruling, in response to the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), said that it is not only improper to try to legislate by dollar items, but that it was also improper to try to arrange for the spending of large sums of money on conditions set out in an item in the estimates, which is, in effect, an attempt to use the estimates for the legislative process. I pay my respects to the hon. member for Calgary Centre for having raised these issues two or three times and having obtained the decision of Madam Speaker in this session.
I trust the concerned department will not make it necessary for us to go through this again in another session. I hope they will realize by amendments to existing acts or by the bringing in of new acts. We welcome the fact that we are doing it properly now, and just as the Official Opposition has said, we take the same position, that it is not our desire to drag out the discussion on these matters. We are glad to have the opportunity to deal with them in the right way. Mind you, it is easier for us to say that when it is something we really support.
That is the position in which we find ourselves with respect to both Bill C-71 and Bill C-74. We are strongly and wholly in favour of Canada enlarging her role in aid to the other parts of the world, but it is more than that, in playing our part in helping to bring about a better world right around the globe.
We have all been told thousands of times about the remark of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the effect that the twentieth century would belong to Canada. I think the time has come for us to realize that the twenty-first century had better belong to humanity as a whole, or else there might not be a twenty-second century.
We can no longer go on with a world in which a quarter or a third of its people go to bed hungry every night. These are facts we have come to realize, and there has been some tremendous rhetoric about this right here in the House of Commons in this session. There was no better speech on the need for our being concerned in the North about the South, or in the better-off parts of the world for the other parts, than the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few weeks ago. But the point we are trying to make from this side of the House this afternoon is that rhetoric is not enough.
We are happy to support the proposals in Bill C-71 and Bill C-74. We think that Canada's financial contribution, whether it is through developmental loans or outright aid and outright gifts, should be increased. But we think we must go a great deal further than that. In other words, we think we have to start planning our industrial strategy-another pair of words that gets thrown around a fair deal. We have to start planning our economy, not just with the thought of what it does for ourselves, for housing, health, education and so on in our country, but the part that it plays in bringing about improved living conditions around the world.
I have already indulged in quoting a few of the stock quotations there are around, but there is another one which
International Financial Assistance
comes to my mind, namely, that if you find a hungry man and you give him a fish, you provide a meal for him; but if you teach him how to fish, you provide meals down the road. Our industrial strategy, our economy, our trade, all our arrangements, at some point have to be made with the whole world in mind. We must start thinking in those terms.
Of course, we are quite interested in the Ottawa Summit Conference which will take place here in this city in a couple of weeks. We applaud the efforts of the Prime Minister to get some of the other heads of government who will be at that conference to show some real interest in North-South problems. We urge that he put everything he can into that effort. These conferences always end up with communiques of some sort. They sound good or make it appear as though they did something, but it really is something which has gone beyond the stage of speech-making or rhetoric. If we are to have a world that enjoys the twenty-first century, we must start thinking in terms of industrial strategy, trade, finance, economics and the rest of it, with a view to bringing about a really better world.
I notice it is five o'clock here in Ottawa and that means it is two o'clock in British Columbia. Out there this afternoon a funeral service is taking place about which Canadians right across this land are thinking. I was pleased when I noticed that the heading put on the tributes paid the other day to Terry Fox read "Tributes to a Magnificent Canadian". I suggest one of the reasons that Canadians are so anxious to pay the deepest respect and the deepest tribute they can to the memory of Terry Fox is that it tells us our young people really have got something. Terry Fox showed us that.
But I remind the House there are others. I think of the countless numbers of young Canadians who respond to the call of CUSO and who have gone out to other parts of the world to try to help bring about better conditions in Southeast Asia, Africa, South America and in various other countries. I think of other kinds of organizations under church auspices and under the auspices of non-governmental organizations, and so on. These attract our young people, who are sometimes described as belonging to the "me" generation. They have got pretty good stuff in them.
I think we should recognize that there is no longer any need to say that charity has to begin at home or to ask why do we tax people to help those abroad? I believe the young people today who will be taking charge of things in Canada not many years hence want to play their part in building that better world. In my younger days that was expressed by joining the various missionary movements and in going to different parts of the world. For a time it was to go as propagandists for a particular faith. That soon grew into the provision of teachers and agricultural experts, engineers and doctors, most of whom two or three generations ago went out to other parts of the world under religious auspices; but the feeling we are our brother's keeper was there in those days and it is there now.

July 2, 1981
International Financial Assistance
I am satisfied that just as we are honouring the memory of a magnificent Canadian out in Port Coquitlam this afternoon so too can we count on our young people today wanting us to play our part in changing the whole world from a place where millions go to bed hungry every night to a place where there are opportunities for development and a decent life in terms of jobs, education, health and security. We can do it. That is what we are talking about this afternoon.
That is why we are prepared to support these two bills. But we call upon the government in the not too distant future to come back before us with something much more expansive and imaginative. For indeed, just as the twentieth century did provide a lot for us in Canada, so the twenty-first must bring about a better world for all our people, and we Canadians want to play a real and effective part in that role.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I might say a few words in response to those said by speakers for the other parties, both of whom I thank for supporting this bill.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) spoke at the beginning of her remarks about the question of jurisdiction over international financial institutions. I might say that the sentiments she expressed are very similar to my own, and I think I can say that I am meeting equal success within the government in implementing them.
I think I should add that it is not essential by any means for the success of our international aid program that it all be centralized through one agency. For instance, Petro-Canada International agency, which is being set up, will be jointly under the sponsorship of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and myself. I anticipate no difficulty in arranging the details of that with him. I think there is a lot to be said for involving more people, not only more of our fellow citizens but even more ministers, in the administration of these programs.
Both speakers opposite have raised questions about our development strategy for the 1980s which in part has been revealed. There is more to come and we hope to have it available in a few months.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-73, to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have some rather good notes and I will try to put them on the record for whoever in Canada is interested in this matter and for students of freight rates in particular.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Aren't you interested?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, I am deeply interested.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act, referred to from now on as the MFRA, and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, to which I will refer as the ARFAA, together provide for a program of transportation subsidies in the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe peninsula. Total expenditures under this program amounted to about $62.6 million in 1980-81. The MFRA has been in existence since 1927 and applies only to rail traffic. The ARFAA was passed in 1969 and extends the subsidy program to truckers.
To complicate matters a little bit, the ARFAA also contains features which link the two acts and are designed to control those features and the level of subsidy expenditures. For one, the rail subsidy on certain commodities can be reduced or eliminated. As a matter of fact, it has been reduced, for example, from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. There can be a reduction of the rate of subsidy. That is one feature. Another one is that the amount of subsidy paid annually to truckers cannot exceed the amount saved by reducing or eliminating the rail subsidy. The ceiling is established under section 6(2) of the act. That ceiling is the subject for today.
However, after the ARFAA came into effect, I repeat in 1969, the rail subsidy was not reduced as much as planned. Things did not turn out exactly as they were meant to turn out. The number of truckers eligible for subsidy under the ARFAA grew dramatically. Just to give Your Honour an illustration, in 1969 there were 450 truckers in the area. In 1980, we had 3,800. Obviously, because of the highway strengthening programs and other factors, the number of shippers using trucks in the area multiplied extraordinarily. The result was that, if the ceiling were applied, truckers would get proportionately less than the railways, creating an inequity between two modes, which the ARFAA was designed, in principle, to redress.
I might add that somewhere in the meantime, in 1967, we had the National Transportation Act, which specifically says that there should not be discrimination between different modes of transportation.
In some ways, that ceiling on trucking subsidies, related to the subsidy reduction on railways, was discrimination against
July 2, 1981

the truckers in favour of the railways. I am saying all that to try somehow to justify why the practice to ignore the ceiling was established. It therefore became the practice from 197172 to include an item in the estimates which, in fact, removed that ceiling. It is included in the old estimates in the following words:
-and to provide that subsection 6(2) of the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act shall not apply in the case of the payment of assistance in the current fiscal year to truckers pursuant to subsection 6(1) of that Act.
These were the words tagged at the end of that estimate which had the effect of removing the ceiling for practical purposes.
It is estimated that in 1981-82 the savings from the reduction in the rail subsidy will be about $14 million. This is the saving which establishes a relationship between the truckers and the railways. I repeat that it will be about $14 million. The amount which would be paid to truckers without the ceiling is about $43 million. So there is a potential $29 million shortfall in the amount of subsidies paid if the ceiling is enforced. In other words, it costs $29 million not to enforce the ceiling.
As I have already indicated, it was the practice to remove the statutory ceiling through the estimates, and that practice was ruled out by the Speaker recently. Bill C-73, which is in front of us now, has the effect of removing the ceiling by proper statutory means so that the trucking subsidy can continue to be paid in full. Recipients who have invested on the basis of a continued subsidy could reasonably argue that its abrupt termination without advance notice of a change in policy would be unduly harsh.
This bill notwithstanding, the program as a whole is under review. I am quite sure the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) also looked at it. Some people wonder if there would not be savings to be made there without damaging the economy of the region covered by these two acts. Officials are now carefully studying the possibility of further selective reductions in order to reduce expenditures without detracting, as I said, from the purpose of the program, which is to assist the transportation of goods in the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe peninsula. At present, the program as a whole is believed to be beneficial to the area, and any substantial change would, of course, be preceded by full consultation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the hon. minister for giving us an explanation of the details of this bill I suppose that that is certainly one positive element to this process, getting an explanation and some historic background to the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
We on this side have no fundamental objection to this piece of legislation. However, what we do object to is the procedure which has become the practice of this government in terms of dealing with a matter which should be properly dealt with in legislation in the first place.
Atlantic Region Freight Assistance
As the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) indicated, the purpose of this bill and the purpose of vote 110 was to remove the ceiling which would allow the truckers to get sufficient subsidy to provide equality in treatment to the two competing modes of transportation. I know that there are people in this House who would object to a provision which would provide for unfair treatment between two respective modes of transport; and they are competing modes.
However, it brings me to the over-all thrust of the debate on these pieces of legislation, the series of bills with which we are dealing as a result of the work and the scrutiny of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). It is really a classic demonstration of how this government continues, in a very blatant way, to erode the rights, the privileges and the powers of Parliament. This is not the first time that this government has been caught using methods which are less than legitimate. It has really become almost a chronic rule-breaker when it comes to avoiding and circumventing the parliamentary process.
I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will allude to this in more detail than I; but the rights and privileges of members of Parliament have been eroded. Indeed, the institution of Parliament has been undermined over the years in its ability to control public expenditures. By the way in which we handle our estimates, it seems to have become nothing more than a rubber stamp. At this time it is necessary to build confidence and trust in our Canadian institutions, particularly our political and parliamentary institutions. It certainly bothers me to see a government move continuously and incessantly along the road toward that undermining process. I think that it is fundamentally repugnant to the principle of parliamentary democracy. Once again, I think that we, as members of this House, and certainly as members of the Canadian electorate who support the continued strength of the parliamentary process, owe a great deal of debt and gratitude to the hon. member for Calgary Centre.
Not too long ago a former auditor general stated in one of his annual reports that Parliament had lost or was close to losing control of the public purse. In view of these backhanded strategies, it is little wonder that he made that remark. Indeed, it is little wonder that Canadians, by and large, are suspicious of the way we deal with taxpayers' money. We are really trustees of their money. We are the guardians of the public purse.
I welcome this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I welcome the fact that equality of treatment is maintained. We are not opposed to the expenditure but, I repeat, we are fundamentally opposed to the process. It is the duty of Parliament to pass laws; Parliament is responsible for the authorization of expenditure and for the collection of moneys.
We see in Madam Speaker's ruling that vote 110 sought an amendment to existing legislation, which was clearly out of order. We have other examples of that when we look at what is going on with respect to the establishment of VIA Rail. That is

July 2, 1981
Atlantic Region Freight Assistance
a question that must come up for debate in due course in this House.
1 am very interested in the exchange that has been going on between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the co-chairmen of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
I hope that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is listening because, as he pointed out quite correctly, what we are dealing with here are not dollar items but items that were included in the Main Estimates. VIA Rail, which has become the instrument for the operation and maintenance and supply of rail passenger service in this country, was established through the process of a one-dollar vote in the House of Commons. In the Votes and Proceedings for June 15, 1981 this is dealt with at page 2464.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am deviating somewhat from the thrust of the bill but we are dealing with the fundamental parliamentary principle that this House should consider legislation, expenditures and the collection of revenue in a proper and just manner.
The committee had four objections to the way in which VIA Rail was established. The committee reported, at page 2464, of Votes and Proceedings, as follows:
VIA Rail Canada Inc. has been established and set up in business-and in consequence almost all the railway passenger services of the country have been brought into government ownership, control and funding-pursuant to an involved use of subordinate powers, a dollar vote in an Appropriation Act and the three slim regulations under report. At no time has Parliament had the opportunity to debate and to settle what are very significant matters.
I am directing this criticism to the government, Mr. Speaker, and not to the Minister of Transport because he was not a member of cabinet at that time. Knowing the integrity and honour of the minister, I am sure that if he had been minister at that time he would not have circumvented the parliamentary process. At page 2465 of Votes and Proceedings there appears the following:
The whole authority for public funding of the VIA Rail operation and its takeover of railway passenger services provided by railway companies rests in the dollar vote, vote 52d, Department of Transport, Appropriation Act No. 1, 1977, which reads as follows:
Then it basically describes the manner in which the company is to be set up under the provision of a one dollar vote. Then there appears the following passage:
Upon this foundation hangs now all the law and the administration of almost all railway passenger services in Canada.
What a devious way to create a Crown corporation which is all-encompassing! The committee report goes on at page 2467 as follows:
In your committee's judgment, the settling of the legal regime to govern the now publicly owned, controlled and funded railway passenger service is too important a matter to be left to the corporate policy, and virtually unlimited corporate powers, of VIA Rail Canada Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the Crown, and to skeletal regulations made under a dollar vote which in the nature of procedure in the House of Commons cannot have been subjected to significant debate. Parliament should have been, and still should be, given the opportunity to debate the future and structure of railway passenger services in Canada and the manner of their management and control; and your committee is inclined to believe that this should include the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the
Canadian Transport Commission over VIA Rail Canada. As things stand now, even if a bill to regulate railway passenger services and VIA Rail Canada Inc. were to be introduced, many important matters have been effectively foreclosed from Parliament's debate and disposition by the extensive and pre-emptive executive action that has already been taken. It is objectionable in principle that relationships between the new public railway passenger authority and the railway commpanies, and the take-over of services, should have been settled without parliamentary involvement.
Those are very profound words, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that the minister, who is now attempting to reduce the level of subsidy, is really choosing the course to which this committee takes very serious objection. The government is now attempting to circumvent the regulatory party, the CTC, by deciding, through cabinet deliberations, which lines will provide service and which will be abandoned. That is fundamentally repugnant to the principle of parliamentary democracy.
The committee then quoted from the proceedings of an earlier committee, reported at page 2467 as follows:
"In the review of statutory instruments the Committee has been struck by the number of instances of the use of Votes in Appropriation Acts as vehicles for the conferring of subordinate law-making powers, usually upon the governor in council. From 1st January 1972 to 30th June 1976 at least one hundred and four items of delegated legislation have to the knowledge of the Committee, been made pursuant to Votes. (The task of adding up the number is not easy since spent regulations are removed from the Index to Part II of The Canada Gazette at the end of each calendar year in which their effect became spent.) The committee fears that many, many more examples exist which have not been classed by the Crown's legal advisers as statutory instruments and of the existence of which the committee has neither knowledge nor the means of knowledge."
There follows a very damning indictment of the process that has been used by this government to circumvent parliamentary control.
Now I come to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. There has been a continuing exchange of correspondence between the co-chairmen of the committee and the minister, beginning in June, 1980. The co-chairmen asked the minister to bring in a bill to provide for the incorporation of VIA Rail. In August, 1980 the minister responded that he anticipated a cabinet decision on the issue would be available by the end of September, 1980. In November, 1980 a letter was addressed to the minister asking what progress had been made. I quote in part from the letter, which appears at page 2470 as follows:
We were instructed to ask whether the Cabinet decision to which you referred has been taken and when you will respond to the committee's position on the need for the introduction of a VIA Rail Canada bill.
On January 12, 1981, the minister replied in part, as follows:
I expect the matter to be discussed early in the new year. Once a decision has been reached, I will advise your Committee on the requirement for a VIA Rail Canada bill.
It was dated January 12, 1981. Then we have further correspondence. The final letter reported here indicates that a decision is not available and furthermore it is considered that the VIA Rail act is not needed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has no objection to the hon. member's reference to the process
July 2, 1981

of dollar items and so on and so forth. However, there is difficulty for any occupant of the Chair in judging whether the subject matter becomes the process or the subject matter, which in this case is the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. I think it is reasonable to ask the hon. member, having said he is perfectly entitled to pursue the matter of process, and estimates and so forth, to consider the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. The issue I am dealing with is fundamental from the parliamentary point of view. The crux of this matter has been brought about by the government's decision to circumvent the proper parliamentary process. I simply want to point out there are other examples.
As I said at the outset, we on this side have no objection to the contents of this bill. We appreciate the fact that we have had an opportunity to have a short debate and a review of the subject matter of the bill. However, I must warn the minister.
I am pleased that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is here. I am sure that he too will want to take cognizance of the contents of the report of the Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. I believe he wants to see the business of this House proceed in a proper, orderly and legal fashion.
I could go on to cite the other example, the anticipated abandonment of certain rail lines, which appears to be proceeding in the same manner as the process to which we are taking exception here. At a time when our parliamentary institutions are under attack, it is incumbent upon the government to ensure that it proceeds in a proper parliamentary fashion.
With regard to the matter of expenditure of funds, whether it is for legitimate and good purpose or provokes some questions in debate, it is important that the adjudication of those issues be left to members of Parliament. The power should be transferred back to the elected representatives, the members of Parliament, so that they can properly debate the issues.
The debate this afternoon has provided information. It gives members an opportunity to review and assess the effectiveness of a given program. If we have done nothing further, we have had the opportunity to assess and analyse one program that has been in effect since 1927 and another since 1969. Had the minister realized he was going to have to bring in legislation to deal with that issue, he may have seen fit to broaden the legislation so that we could have had a debate on the pros and cons and determined ways and means by which the program may be instituted more effectively, in other words transforming the impact of that program to meet the needs and challenges of the 1980s rather than the 1920s.
I appreciate your tolerance, Mr. Speaker. I realize I have transcended the rules of relevance to some extent. Nevertheless, I feel very strongly about this issue. It is very fundamental and important. If nothing else, I hope that the series of debates that have been created as a result of the deliberations on these very important bills will give us the opportunity to
Atlantic Region Freight Assistance
look at some reform in the legislative process and the whole process of dealing with legislation. We could do it in such a way that the programs that are in effect can be applied to modern day realities and perhaps be more relevant and effective. In the process, the role and the power of the elected representatives will be strengthened.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: How could I get by without him? I have the whole caucus in front of me.
I will be very brief. I join with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in saying how important the debates have been this afternoon from an educational point of view. If more members had been here, they would perhaps better understand what some of us have been complaining about over the course of the last few months in terms of the process that we go through from time to time. For example, one evening not quite a month ago when dealing with another piece of legislation, I raised the matter of the lack of control which the House of Commons now has over the expenditures of government. The process has so changed since the day Parliament was established that it is now virtually impossible for the average member outside of cabinet to have any real input into the determination of government expenditure.
For that reason alone what we have been doing this afternoon is of considerable value. Maybe for the first time in some years the government, as it is made up of cabinet members, understands there is an additional responsibility to come before the House of Commons and adequately explain the reasons for and the methods to be used in distributing taxpayers' dollars which are often raised over the anguish and sometimes the screams of the taxpayers.
I thank the minister for his explanation of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to do properly what we have been doing quite improperly for some years. It is to put in proper form what was being done without proper legislative authority having been passed by the House of Commons. If we were to sit down at some point in time with the Chair and others and look at the procedures we follow in the House of Commons, that is what we would find.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I indicated earlier to the hon. member for Vegreville that the Chair had a great deal of sympathy for the proposition that the process of legislation, whether it be in terms of the estimates or the normal process of legislation, seems to be in order. I respect the fact that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain appears to want to continue the discussion on the process. I have to say to him the same as I said to the hon. member for Vegreville. It is a legitimate consideration procedurally for the hon. member to consider that subject, but he does need, under the terms of the requirement of relevance, to tie it to the act to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. If I may, I should like to ask him to consider that.

July 2, 1981
National Housing Act


Ian Deans: Thank you very much. I appreciate that intervention, mainly because I was just about to end in any event. I was going to end up by saying that I think, having gone through this process, having had the explanation from the minister and having obtained a much clearer understanding of the purpose of the section within the estimates that authorize, at least in the mind of the government, these expenditures in excess of what was approved, many of us will want to take a much closer look in future at the exact wording of what is placed before us. It may well be, I say in closing, that someday we will have the opportunity to take a look at the way in which legislation is put before the House of Commons; this kind of legislation as well as other legislation. Perhaps we will take a look at the processes and procedures to be used and we might even be able to modernize them. We have done a lot of work this afternoon because there has been a great deal of co-operation. It may well be that with a little more openness and understanding, we can get this co-operation more frequently and do a lot more work here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-72, to amend the National Housing Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are two clauses to the bill. They are very brief and touch upon two operations of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and also implement two very important programs of the National Housing Act. I might say, they are well received in Canada from coast to coast.
The two sections of the National Housing Act involved are Section 34.14(2) which concerns the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, referred to as RRAP, and Section 40(5) which has to do with the production of low rental housing and the acquisition and development of land for housing purposes under federal-provincial agreements. Those are in essence the two clauses: clause 1 dealing with the RRAP program and clause 2 dealing with assisted rental.
Dealing with the first clause, the legislation now provides that the total amount of loans made by the corporation for the purposes of RRAP may not exceed SI00 million unless authorized by Parliament. As rehabilitation costs and loan limits have increased over the years, and greater numbers of people have participated, the corporation has had to increase its borrowing in order to continue to finance the program on the government's behalf.
The borrowing limit has been increased over the years by a vote under this estimates. Increases authorized in this way have raised the limit from $100 million to $170 million. Vote L70 in the 1981-82 estimates would have increased the limit by another $59.8 million to a total of $230.5 million, which is the figure in clause 1 of Bill C-72 before us.
In generally describing the program and the increase, I should like to say that scarcely does a day go by that I do not have a request from a member of this House, whether from the government side or from parties opposite. The program is popular and obviously serves a need in the community, as witnessed by the demand. It addresses an aspect of housing which, I think, will take on more significance in the future, that is the repair, maintenance and upkeep of existing stock rather than the direction of new starts in housing which we have witnessed at quite a remarkable strength through the last 20 or 30 years.
The situation regarding Section 40(5), and that relates to the second clause, is similar. The National Housing Act imposes a limit of $150 million on advances obtained by the corporation for meeting its share of the capital cost of federal-provincial housing projects. Over the years, by means of a vote under estimates, this limit has been increased from $150 million to almost $1.4 billion. I think that figure illustrates the need met by such a program under agreements, in co-operation and in conjunction with provincial governments.
I think I should suggest to those people who complain that this government does not have a commitment to assist Canadians with housing that they should well consider that this program is one of the most worth-while programs, although, needless to say, it is very expensive at the rate of $1.4 billion. Although the public housing program is no longer active in all provinces, the section of the act is applied to supporting rural and native housing programs and servicing of lands held by the federal-provincial partnership prior to their sale. Mainly for these reasons the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation sought in the 1981-82 estimates to increase the limits on its borrowings by a further $112.5 million to a total of just over $1.5 billion. Clause 2(a) of Bill C-72 before us specifies the amount of $1,504,500,000.
In conclusion I would like to say, as I began, that these are two very important programs of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. They illustrate and demonstrate the commitment of the government to continued responsibility in housing, and I know that the programs are supported by all members in this House. Otherwise we would not be asking for the increases I have referred to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address a few remarks to the bill. I will endeavour to make my remarks relevant. I am sure Your Honour will appreciate that in supporting the bill and in making reference to the increase asked for, some of my remarks and suggestions may tend to be a little irrelevant.
July 2, 1981

However, I want to explain to the House why we are supporting the bill.
The bill is divided into two main parts. The first deals with the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the second with public housing.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the minister. He made reference to requests from all sides of the House for assistance to the public with respect to housing. I appreciate that the requests from his side of the House must be as numerous and worthwhile as those from this side, and I appreciate that the government is paying lip service, in any event, by raising ceilings to a commitment to public housing. However, I would like to say to the minister that the raising of a ceiling does not indicate commitment. What matters is what is done, within the limits this House approves-with the programs the government will bring forward in addition to the current very worth-while programs, to substantiate the spending of money. It is not exactly raising the ceiling but what is supporting the ceiling that hon. members on this side of the House are interested in.
I and others in this House have been very critical of the government with respect to the chaos in the housing sector today. In terms of housing starts, which are technically up but literally down, in April the pre-sales contractors across Canada had translated the housing starts into a boom-on paper-but we know they will flatten out in the latter months of the summer because builders are just not building "spec" houses any more. As a result, emphasis on residential rehabilitation is very important, and for that reason our party is pleased to support this bill.
We also have problems, which the Liberal interest rate policy is causing throughout the country, with respect to mortgage interest rates. The rate is now at a record Liberal high of 18.5 per cent. People are just not buying new homes any more. They are forced to stay where they are, and the maintenance of rental housing is becoming all important to Canada. I point out that we are talking about rehabilitating housing and about vacancy rates; this government has created a real crisis with respect to apartment vacancy rates.
In April, 1979 the vacancy rate in Canada was 3.6 per cent. The acceptable average across Canada is 3 per cent. In April, 1981, by dint of indifference and by a real and determined effort at nothing at all, this government has brought the vacancy rate down to 1.8 per cent. In areas such as metro Toronto, which the minister represents, it is 0.4 per cent. People across Canada are having a difficult time finding places to live. It is no longer a question of adequate and decent shelter; it is a question of finding a place to live. For that reason we are certainly prepared to support this program.
We know that older housing requires extensive renovation. We have reviewed the very excellent report prepared for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation entitled "An evaluation of RRAP," which is the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. I have looked with interest at some of the recommendations in the report. I note, for example, that the eligibility under RRAP has changed. It is interesting to me as
National Housing Act
the spokesman for housing on this side of the House that the number one recommendation on page 121 has been adopted by the government, and I commend the government for that. It is also interesting to note that the income limit for family homes has been increased from $6,000 to $9,000. It is very unfortunate that AHOP owners who were led down the garden path in 1976 have found that this very same government-there has been a 50 per cent increase-has decided, instead of using 25 per cent of family income as the upper limit for AHOP eligibility, to raise that limit to 30 per cent. On behalf of the thousands of Canadian home owners who are renewing their mortgages under AHOP I suggest to the government that it would do very well to go back to the standard of 25 per cent on the basis of which these people were inveigled into buying homes and to go back to its original principles and take a hard look at the funding which is provided within this ceiling.
The minister referred to co-operation between federal and provincial levels. We do not want to see the same thing happen to this program that happened to the community services contribution program, under which muncipalities across Canada entered into three-phase programs with the understanding that the Government of Canada would stand behind its commitment to the cities, towns and villages of Canada to provide services. The government pulled out of the program and left municipalities across Canada high and dry looking for funding for two and three-phase programs in which they had become involved at the exhortation of the government. Many municipalities involved in this program have gone to a considerable amount of effort to set up their procedures, and I suggest that the government consider seriously the termination of these programs, if they are terminated, on a very orderly basis.
As far as the public housing part of the bill is concerned, we are supportive of anything this government does to help Canadians find decent, affordable housing in sound community environments. We on this side know that the shelter allowance has been the favourite trial balloon of this government. Shelter allowances have been created and hiked prior to national housing conferences only to have the balloon deflated two weeks later when the conferences were over and all the delegates had gone home. I hope this government under this increased ceiling will take a hard look at shelter allowances, their impact on the municipalities of Canada, just what sort of public funding they have put into place and what sort of co-operation will be required on the part of provincial governments.
We think there is a lot of merit in a shelter allowance program. We want to see the details which will be brought forward, and I hope when we are approving an increase in funding from $150 million to $1,504,500,000 this money will be spent wisely. I can assure the government we will be very interested not only in the ceiling but also in the supports holding up the ceiling in the future. I thank the House for allowing me to address it on this matter.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly about this matter and to address its two main

July 2, 1981
National Housing Act
elements. One thing which always concerns me about rehabilitation programs is the way they are apportioned. In the main, given current economic conditions, I think the future will be even more difficult for people.
Let me go back a minute. Generally speaking, rehabilitation programs are undertaken after the sale of a house. Someone purchases a house and decides to modernize it or do some work in it before moving into it. Unless there is a dramatic downturn in interest rates and a new and more innovative way of providing mortgage funds, and unless people are able to assume mortgages at or about 25 per cent of their income, I suspect we will find that a large number of people moving into homes which could qualify under this rehabilitation program will not be able to afford them. I suspect what will happen then is that this will become another program for those ever so slightly more affluent than the average, although I hope that is not so. For those people in the city core because it is the only place they can live, for those in older homes because it is the best they can afford, given the current economic conditions in housing even a program such as this does not provide them with an opportunity for access.
As I said in another debate, I think at some point it might be useful to do a further evaluation of the socio-economic group which is able to take advantage of this rehabilitation program funding to determine whether people on a limited income but who want to own a home of their own can gain access to a program such as this for the purpose of upgrading, improving and thereby stabilizing some of the core areas of our larger cities. I am sure my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) can think of such areas in his own riding, as I can in mine, where rehabilitation programs would be very worthwhile. We would want to encourage people to undertake the kind of rehabilitation that will keep the houses in a good state of repair so that they are an asset to the owner and the community. The unfortunate part, as I am sure my colleague will agree with me, is that for a large number of people living in those areas the thought of assuming yet another financial burden is impossible. They just cannot do it.
So while we support the program and understand that additional funding is a necessity given the changing times, I say to the minister we think a serious look should be taken at who is able to take advantage of it and at the ways it can be better utilized, and then perhaps we should consider setting down some additional guidelines for that portion of this expenditure and for public housing in general.
I want to talk about that for a moment because I think it is a vital area of concern. Given the economic conditions I have just spoken about, I suspect that unless we see some very dramatic changes in house prices and mortgage interest rates, there will be an overwhelming growth in the need for public housing. Large numbers of people who have never considered public housing will be put in a position of having to make that choice. I do not think that is necessarily a bad choice, but they will have to do it despite their own preference. I say to the
minister that this $1.5 billion, though it is a substantial sum, will pale into insignificance over the course of the next decade when measured against the dollars needed to provide the public housing units required to meet the rapidly increasing demand which will result from the other more general government policies directly affecting housing.
I think housing, like health, education and food, has to be given priority by the government. It cannot be dealt with in a frivolous or thoughtless way. It cannot just be allowed to happen by some mystic means. We cannot leave it up to the private sector to grapple with the ever-increasing costs of providing housing. We know full well we are not keeping pace with what the demand is undoubtedly going to be. I think every member of this House believes, Mr. Speaker, that owning a home is part of the Canadian heritage, if you will. Those people who were able to move from public housing into their own home will not be able to do that in the future. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that the future will require that we look seriously at new and innovative ways of developing a housing bank, if you will, which will provide an opportunity for people to buy a home at a price they can afford and in an area where they would like to live.
I can see the changes taking place now, as I am sure every member of this House can, changes in the metropolitan areas owing to the fact there is a money crunch and there are fewer and fewer rental accommodations being built and fewer and fewer people able to enter the housing market because of the problem of trying to meet their commitments in the face of the tremendous costs being levied against home ownership.
I hope we will have from the minister in the near future some exciting new and innovative housing policies. I say to him that MURBs do not really count in this. That program does not even begin to address the problems because the people I speak about will just not be able to move into even that kind of housing. While this change appears to be very significant on the surface, when you look at it in comparison to the expenditures of last year and the year before, it is not as dramatic a change as you might think. I suspect it will do little more than enable the housing corporation to keep pace with inflation and do something marginal in terms of meeting the ever-increasing demand.
We must rethink our entire policy as it relates to housing for people. What we have before us met the needs of another era. It met the needs of an era when 25 per cent of an individual's income was enough to purchase a home. Nowadays 25 per cent of a single income would hardly get one into an apartment, let alone allow one to buy a home. Since we are part of the problem, we have an obligation to make an effort to become part of the solution.
The over-all economic conditions may well ameliorate over time. Perhaps things will improve, but I suspect the improvement will be gradual and that it will not enable a large number of people to attain for themselves what we would all like to see for every Canadian family, that is, not that they necessarily
July 2, 1981

purchase homes for themselves but at least that they have the opportunity to do so.
This program will be under serious pressure. The minister should devote a great deal of his time between now and next fall to preparing for the onslaught. I am certain there will be a major debate in the House next fall. At least there will be a debate among the public of Canada who cannot find places to stay at prices they can afford. There will be major debate on why the government has allowed housing to become a luxury rather than a necessity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the hon. Minister of Public Works if the House gives its unanimous consent, because under the House order there is no opportunity for the minister to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall the minister be granted the opportunity to speak?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was part of the order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I take it there is consent.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and hon. members opposite who have spoken on this housing bill. In particular I thank them for their support for the increase identified under the two programs respecting residential rehabilitation and public housing. I believe both speakers who preceded me identified the demand and the need. There has been recognition that the cumulative costs from year to year represent a significant undertaking by the government.
Generally I should like to speak to an issue which was raised by both speakers, that is, the role of the provinces. Recently in Ottawa I had an opportunity to meet with my counterparts, the provincial ministers responsible for housing. I drew to their attention the fact that the government had made some moves by increasing budgets and taking new steps in response to difficult times. I asked where was the provincial response, for example, to the MURB or to the government moving toward increasing its commitment under AHOP and ARP. Admittedly it is not sufficient by the calculation of some hon. members, but nonetheless it is an increase by the government. I made an observation concerning the provincial response to the difficult time we are experiencing in housing. If all provinces responded in the same way to the situation, if the unevenness in the provincial response were eliminated, they would be addressing regional pressures brought about by the movement of people from one province to another.
As I have indicated, rehabilitation offers a very important potential for the future housing industry. It is for that reason that CMHC reports monthly on statistics showing starts and activities in new housing. They will be reporting this month for the first time, and quarterly thereafter, on the experience across the country regarding residential rehabilitation.
Business of the House
I should like to offer some comfort to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Although he is fearful that people at all income levels are not taking advantage of the residential rehabilitation potential, if he compared the first quarter of this year with the first quarter of last year he would find that there has been threefold increase in activity nationally. In conclusion, I know there has been criticism about the MURB provision reintroduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget, that it did not encompass people with modest incomes. It was not designed to cover that group. For example, the move to increase the number of housing starts under section 56(1) was a tailor-made response of the government to that area. I thank the House for its indulgence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the House knows, the government House leader moved an order with respect to House business, which was seconded by myself and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to accommodate hon. members who wished to attend the interdenominational service for the late Terry Fox. We have made amazing progress today. As a matter of fact we have considered two of the matters we expected to deal with tomorrow. Would it not now be appropriate for the House to adjourn so that members could prepare for the event later this evening?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support that suggestion. In fact, it occurs to me that since we have done two days of work in one, we might even adjourn until Monday so that the two or three of us who are present could attend the NDP convention in Vancouver. In any case, perhaps the minister could respond by either agreeing or telling us what we will do tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I intended to give notice of a very important bill for consideration tomorrow related to the widows of veterans.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall stay, we shall stay!


Yvon Pinard: But under the circumstances I will agree to the suggestion made by my hon. colleague from Nepean-Carleton. For the time being, let us call it seven o'clock, and I will take into serious consideration the offer just made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We might be in a

July 2, 1981
11162____________________________________
Business of the House position to make a decision on that later on tonight or tomorrow morning.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the event we are back tomorrow, I do not know how one will communicate a decision, but in any event I anticipate the business will be Bill C-58, Bill S-12 and Bill C-12, in that order. Is my anticipation correct?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: We cannot hide anything from my hon. colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair understands that pursuant to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the House will adjourn until Monday. That is subject to correction. It may be the Chair is instructed to see the clock as seven o'clock. Is that more accurate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: It being seven o'clock, I do now leave the chair until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m.
At 6.22 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Friday, July 3, 1981