1981-06-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of a recent decision by the Canadian Labour Relations Board which once again denies 243 Air Canada technicians the right to form their own collective bargaining unit, independent of the International Union of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the biased, improper and indefensible reasons given for the CLRB ruling, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Labour shall overrule and reverse the unacceptable decision of the CLRB which denies Canadian airline technicians the right to free association, as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights, and instead binds them to membership in a large international trade union.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METHODS OF APPOINTMENT TO AND WITHIN ADMINISTRATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, in view of reported changes in the administration chart of the House of Commons without apparent approval of the Members' Services Committee or the bureau of internal economy, and in view of reported House of Commons appointments and promotions without competition, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That members of the House of Commons affirm most strongly that they are masters of their own House by the evolution of the parliamentary system, and we respectfully request Madam Speaker that no additional changes in administration and senior appointments in the House of Commons will be made, such as the very recent appointment of Robert Desramaux as director of support services, without competition and without sanction of the Members' Services
committee, and that particularly no such changes be made while the House is in summer recess by sneaking them in through the back door.


Madam Speaker:: I am at a loss to know what to do with this motion. I think I can assure the House that some of the facts are not well founded. However, does the House agree to such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the new PWA jet service into western Manitoba, provided under the Mazankowski amendment, has been a great success and in spite of this the government is still displaying a lack of confidence in the service by delaying the upgrading of infrastructure until the service has proved itself over a two-year period, and because of the threat to safety inherent in this delay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the government proceed immediately with its promise to upgrade services at the Brandon air terminal to ensure flight safety and the quality of service essential to meeting the air transportation needs of western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the clamour of right wing economists in the Conservative party and more recently the Economic Council of Canada, in pressing for excessive government deregulation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
10690_________________________
That this House supports an activist government that will intervene in the economy in the best interests of Canadian industry and Canadian jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to present a motion for which I hope there will be unanimous consent. In view of the fact that contract negotiations between shipowners and workers have broken off on the Great Lakes and the Seaway because of unresolved safety issues, and since the federal government could resolve this dispute by making safety equipment and procedures mandatory, for example by requiring ships to supply survival suits for the crews and requiring bilingual safety information, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
Recognizing that 11 seafarers have lost their lives since the signing of the last contract, this House calls upon the government to make safety equipment and procedures mandatory and to extend Part IV of the Canada Labour Code to marine workers so they have the same right as other Canadian workers to refuse dangerous working conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter causing deep-seated anger and resentment among a group of Canadians who feel abused by the very government they seek to serve. In view of the very wide disparity in the expenses incurred in the course of carrying out their duties by rural as opposed to city census takers, a disparity not adequately recognized in the contractual pay scale, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the government, in consultation with a broad representation of rural census takers, undertake a complete reassessment of the formula used in determining the remuneration of rural census takers, particularly as applied to expenses such as car mileage reimbursement, telephone and other expenses not now adequately recognized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


MANPOWER
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated in March that he "has given high priority to Outreach community service projects which service women". As this high priority has resulted in women's Outreach receiving a mere 12.8 per cent of total Outreach expenditures in the past year, an increase of 1 per cent since 1977-78, and as all four Ontario women's Outreach projects have now been forced to sign three-month contracts and have had no budget increases since April 1, 1980, and since today there are indications that all non-government Outreach projects will lose their funding by the end of the summer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to live up to his commitments to women, not only by increasing the proportion of Outreach expenditures to women's projects, but also by extending their contracts so that effective long-term planning can be done.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, this is a very non-controversial Standing Order 43 motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: The International Whaling Commission meets in England next month. In 1979 Canada abstained from voting on a U.S. proposed ban on commercial whaling, and in 1980, even worse, Canada was the only non-whaling nation to vote against a similar U.S. proposal. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That, since several species of great whales are on the verge of extinction due to overfishing by whaling nations and pirates alike, this House urge Canada's representative on the International Whaling Commission to vote for a total moratorium on commercial whaling until stocks have increased to the point where the future of great whales is no longer uncertain.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



June 17, 1981


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CALL FOR APPOINTMENT OF FULL-TIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Federal-provincial co-operative relations have reached a new low resulting in a significant impasse in co-operation and accord between the two levels of government in Canada. The next few years will require intensive federal-provincial discussions, negotiations, co-operation and accord in regard to economic, fiscal, social, legal and constitutional matters. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), with constitutional and other very heavy responsibilities, is overloaded, overworked, near exhaustion, and needs help, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Prime Minister immediately appoint a full-time minister of federal-provincial relations with senior cabinet responsibilities to provide continuous and intensive leadership and direction to federal-provincial relations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that many Central American states and, as was evident in yesterday's debate, leading spokespersons for both the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties favour a Canadian initiative in mediating a peaceful end to the civil war in El Salvador, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That this House instruct the government to take immediate steps to indicate that the Government of Canada would be willing to play a mediating role to bring about a peaceful solution in El Salvador.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


GREAT SLAVE LAKE FISHING REGULATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas it would appear that neither the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) nor the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) have learned anything at all from recent happenings involving the native Fishery at Restigouche, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That both these ministers be condemned for making the exact same mistakes at Great Slave Lake where, according to a press release dated 15 June, issued by the Minister of Fisheries, local people have been denied entry to the fishery in contravention of long-standing traditions and laws.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister in charge of CMHC I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. There will be about 500,000 mortgages coming due this year, many of them by June 30. For the two million people involved, the mortgage payments will increase to the equivalent of their food budgets. Since they face either forced sales or foreclosures by the banks, what hope does the Prime Minister have for these two million people?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance answered that question last week after his meeting with the bankers themselves, and he indicated that they would be prepared to forbear and not bring on foreclosure in such cases as those to which the hon. member refers.


SUPPORT FOR CO-OP PROJECTS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, since first-time home buyers, most of them young people, do not have the capital required to buy homes at today's prices, especially in the greater Vancouver area, I ask the Prime Minister what additional support is the government proposing for such projects as co-op housing so that young families can afford homes?

June 17, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to see that the hon. member opposite, perhaps alone in his party, is encouraging this government to take an activist and interventionist role in the area of private housing.


BANKS' PROFITS ON PROPERTY TAX COMPONENT OF MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister believes in intervention in relation to the subject of my next question. In relation to the hundreds of thousands of mortgages held by banks, moneys accumulate for the property tax component on which the banks pay 3 per cent compared with 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 17 per cent on savings deposits. The banks are using that SI,000 or $2,000 at 3 per cent and making unconscionable profits. Will the government take action to make sure that the banks will not rip off the mortgagees and that the banks will pay comparable prices for that money, as they do for any other kind of saving?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Finance will be happy to see that he has the support of the hon. member for the representations he made to the banks last week, and I think this added argument will be drawn to their attention.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. On Monday night a three-generation family firm in the heart of my riding, E. R. MacMaster and Sons, went out of business and locked its doors the next day, due directly to the high cost of short-term money. The bank called its loan.
I now ask that the Prime Minister undertake to call the Minister of Finance on his undertaking, to which the Prime Minister referred earlier in answer to my hon. friend, that the banks start to exercise some humane treatment in such situations as the one in my area to which I referred. Sixty-five households are now without breadwinners due to the calling of a bank loan at usurious rates of interest. Is the Prime Minister going to do something about that when the Minister of Finance comes back?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member realizes that the undertaking of the minister was particularly related to the problem of mortgages. The hon. member raises the question of small businesses. He has been reminded many times that there is a special bond available to small businesses which permits them to pay only about half of the going commercial rate of interest.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister begins to talk to the Minister of Finance, wherever he is and whenever he comes back, because the bond to which the Prime Minister refers is for new businesses. I am talking about businesses which are typical of my area and of my province. I am talking about small businesses, many of them family firms which have always been able to operate successfully, but they just cannot carry these usurious, unconscionable interest rates.


REQUEST FOR TRIPARTITE CONFERENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Prime Minister is to ask whether, in view of the government's insane policy of doubledigit inflation and double-digit interest rates, the Prime Minister will consider, when the Minister of Finance comes back, asking the Minister of Finance immediately to convene a meeting with ministers of finance from the provinces and bank officials so that these three components can get together and so that innocent small businessmen, farmers or mortgage holders will not be caught in the squeeze in which they are presently caught because of the fiscal policy of the government?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should read again the provisions concerning the small business development bond in the Income Tax Act. He would see that they apply not only to businesses wanting to expand, but also to those that are hard-pressed. The particular case to which he has referred falls in the latter category and could be considered in that context.
As concerns farmers, the Minister of Agriculture has mentioned on many occasions that the system of farm loans is very generous to the farmers. If there were an especially hard case,
I would be happy to refer it to the banking association for special consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In debate in this House yesterday the minister indicated that the government has confidence that the Duarte government in El Salvador has earned the right, to use his words, to our belief in their intention to carry through with democratic elections. Well, I have a series of photographs which clearly show security forces under the control of that government turning over to the death squad two individuals who were subsequently murdered.
'	: '	;	

 r ./ * -r :
June 17, 1981

Since this evidence was turned over to the Duarte government before Christmas, and since that government has not even begun an investigation into these murders involving its own security forces, what reason at all have we to believe in its commitment to democratic elections?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we are not familiar with those particular photographs, but not only do we not defend atrocities committed by any side in El Salvador, we strongly condemn them. In fact the situation, as the hon. member well knows, is a very difficult one. There is no perfect side or perfect group in that country. All we have said is that there is more hope for democracy in the long run through acceptance of the offer of the government, through President Duarte, for free elections, which he is prepared to negotiate with the opposition parties, than through any other way. One of the sources of our information and support is the Catholic church in El Salvador.


PROPOSAL TO MAKE POLITICAL PARTY PETITIONS MANDATORY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows the government in El Salvador is not prepared to sit down and negotiate a peaceful settlement of that war, or to sit down with the Front to negotiate truly peaceful conditions which would provide a sensible, democratic election. If the minister does not know that, he knows nothing at all about what is going on in that country.
In that context I would like to ask a question concerning one of the ridiculous proposals that the Duarte government is putting forward. One of the government's proposals in El Salvador is a regulation requiring a new party, before it is registered on a ballot, to submit a petition bearing three thousand signatures. Since under current circumstances in El Salvador, signing a petition as a member of an opposition party is equivalent to signing your own death warrant, how can the minister conceivably accept a government which calls this a democratic process?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is not for the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I in the House of Commons of Canada to negotiate over the conditions of elections in El Salvador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: However, 1 will say to him that President Duarte has offered to negotiate with the opposition parties, and he well knows Guillermo Ungo, as does the Leader of the Opposition. He has offered to negotiate with him the condition of the elections. I am surprised that the Leader of the New Democratic Party can so easily dismiss what is considered everywhere in the world to be the foundation of democracy: free elections.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have rarely heard such sophistry. I talked to President Duarte-the minister did not- and he said to me what he said publicly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: What did he tell you?


Mr. Hees:: Tell us about the election in Afghanistan.


John Edward Broadbent: Some people are interested in the truth in this situation. President Duarte at no time, either publicly or privately, said that he wanted to negotiate a peaceful solution with the Front. This is absolutely crucial if they are to have subsequent free elections. I repeat, the minister should know that.


John Edward Broadbent: In asking my last question of the minister I should like to point out that since the debate yesterday, according to news reports this morning 20 additional people have been murdered, decapitated by terrorist squads, and according to police reports it was by right-wing terrorist squads associated with the security forces. If the minister does not want to rely on my judgment-


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member should just be about ready to ask a question.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate your point, Madam Speaker. I will come directly to the question. The bar association of El Salvador has recognized, in the presence of terrorism and in the absence of a free press, that a free election claim is a travesty. For this reason, the lawyers of El Salvador have refused to participate.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering this fact, why does the minister claim to have better knowledge about the conditions for democracy in El Salvador than the lawyers in its bar association?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in his lengthy preamble the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has effectively obscured the issue by talking about negotiation. He is urging what he has urged consistently. What he urged before he went to El Salvador, and what he still urges, is that there be a negotiated settlement in advance of the election, which presumably would bring various parties into the government. This is certainly not what the government of El Salvador is offering. It is offering to negotiate the form and the means of the elections, with observers from the OAS and perhaps from other countries.


Mr. MacKay:: How about Cuba?

June 17, 1981


[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Mark R. MacGuigan: It has offered to negotiate that with the opposition parties. It seems that is a fair offer for free elections.
The hon. member talked about the bar association of El Salvador. What about the church in El Salvador, which is a standing witness to the happenings there-


John Edward Broadbent: I will tell you what the representatives of the churches said. I talked with them.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and the position of the acting archbishop? His position is that the best path to democracy at the present time is to allow free elections to take place as the junta proposes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It returns to the economic policy of the government and the situation in Canada today as a result of high interest rates and of the total economic policy of the government. My question follows on questions directed to the Minister of Finance last week. It relates to the situation of many farmers and small businessmen, as reflected by high rates of bankruptcies and foreclosures. The real point of my question is to see whether or not the Prime Minister knows that within two or three months from now those high rates will be multiplied by a factor of four and that a vital section of our economy will be lost forever.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to examine carefully the figures concerning businesses that go bankrupt in Canada. He is making alarmist comments which will not help to improve the situation. Last week, the Minister of Finance indicated that he and the Minister of State responsible for Small Businesses had had the opportunity to meet with representatives of Canadian banks and ask them, as we have said many times in the House, to give special consideration to some hard cases. This initiative has certainly been effective. As it was noted earlier, the small business development bond is aimed not only at businesses wanting to expand, but also at hard-pressed businesses.
Existing statutes contain provisions to help the farmers to obtain special interest rates as well as provisions to assist homeowners. We are going through a difficult period, but we are constantly reviewing the situation. If the Minister of Finance were to decide to take any further action, he would announce it at the proper time in this House.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. While I respect the efforts of the Minister of State for Finance to explain the situation, I must tell him that the measures available under the bond program now require a company to be almost bankrupt. There is a limit of $500,000, which will not accommodate the problems mentioned by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
There is a young beef producer in Ontario by the name of Marvin Black who identifies the whole issue of the interest rate policy of this government in a way which no one to date has done. I tell you right now, Madam Speaker, that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in spite of what the Minister of Finance has discussed with the banks, is in the process of foreclosure, a foreclosure which will affect several generations and which will leave the father of the family destitute. This whole issue has been focused on a man who can be criticized for his management, along with banks and governments for their policies.
I am asking the Prime Minister to undertake before the end of this session to discuss with the Minister of Finance the options available to open the small business development bond program so that it can be used properly in a way which will accommodate the difficulties faced by major segments of our economy.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a particular case-


Mr. Clark:: For the benefit of inherited wealth!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you ask questions?


Pierre Bussières: If the Leader of the Opposition would take the trouble to listen, Madam Speaker, he could set an example for the members behind him and show some leadership.
The hon. member is referring to a specific case and using it to draw general conclusions. As I have indicated, the Minister of Finance has already stated in the House that he is looking into the situation with the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and that he would take specific action if the situation so required.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who is aware of the serious effects that high interest rates have had on the farming community. He is also aware of the fact that there have been many bankruptcies and many farmers have had to dispose of



SUBJECT OF CABINET DISCUSSIONS

[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
their assets to meet their commitments. I know that the Prime Minister met with his cabinet at a special meeting, which I believe was held at the weekend. He also meets with the cabinet weekly. Can the right hon. gentleman advise this House whether or not he has discussed this serious problem with his cabinet colleagues? Can he also tell us if any plans or programs are being formulated to alleviate this situation, and when will these plans be announced?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member refers to Hansard he will find that the Minister of State for Finance just answered that very question.



AMENDMENT OF FARM CREDIT CORPORATION ACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister, who just gave a nothing answer. Can the Prime Minister advise us whether or not the government has any intention of bringing in amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act? Specifically, would his government consider amending the Farm Credit Corporation Act in order that retiring farmers might be allowed to invest the capital gains portion of their farm sale proceeds in the Farm Credit Corporation at low interest rates, on the condition that capital gains tax and income tax be waived, thus ensuring the Farm Credit Corporation a source of cheap funds which it could lend out to its borrowers at reasonable rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to my answer as being a nothing answer. I point out to him that it was a referral answer. I referred to the lengthy answer given by the minister a moment ago, probably while the hon. member was rehearsing his question. That is the simple answer-it was given to him before he posed his question.
In so far as the second question is concerned, I understand that it is a representation such as the Minister of Finance often receives. He will consider it, as he considers all other representations. I thank the hon. member for his ingenuity.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday an Ontario cattlemen's group charged that supermarkets have tripled their mark-ups on beef over the past five years, keeping consumer prices high even though farm prices have dropped. The minister should be aware of this situation since his own department had been reporting the date in its food price surveys. What action is the minister prepared to take to
Oral Questions
prevent processors and chain stores from continually increasing this rip-off of producers and consumers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the study which Agriculture Canada carries on and the publication of figures concerning food prices. I would even dispute the figures which were reported to have been used by one of the representatives at that meeting. But they are concerned, as are we, and I am at least gratified to see what the farmers want to overcome their problem.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I remind the minister that just from 1979 to 1981 the mark-up figure has doubled, if one looks at the recent publication.



PROGRAM FOR PRODUCERS

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the minister has been a strong advocate of marketing boards over the years. He has argued that marketing boards provide more equal bargaining power to producers and that they can be operated to assure consumers a product at a fair price. Although we have heard about his support over these many years, and in spite of having the full and substantial resources of his department at his command, he has never produced a plan or a proposal for the producers of Canada. Does the minister now have such a program ready? When will he make it public? 1 ask this since he has been the long-term advocate of marketing boards in this government.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the National Farm Products Marketing Board has met from time to time with different producer groups in Canada who have requested information about the options available to them. We in this party do not believe in imposing upon a group any kind of plan or program for marketing products.
I am sure that the hon. member is aware that there are more farmers making those requests now, in the last two or three months, than there has ever been since I have been Minister of Agriculture. This is so since much opposition came from many different sectors of the beef producing industry, in particular the red meat producing industry. That situation is swinging around and changing rapidly because those producers want security and proper compensation for the products they produce. They will receive full co-operation when they come forward with anything.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Now that Contact 81 has been completed, will the minister indicate what steps he will take to ensure that contractors with the Canadian govern-

Oral Questions
ment, both private and public, are subcontracting to Canadian companies who are capable of fulfilling their requirements?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am mindful of the fact that he represents an area wherein there are a large number of Canadian manufacturers. I am pleased that he has brought Contact 81 to the attention of the public, a program which has permitted us to identify close to 4,000 new Canadian sources, new Canadian manufacturers, for some of the major suppliers of the Canadian government. It comes at a very opportune time in view of the joint announcement made by myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about our new source development fund which will again enhance the creation of new Canadian manufacturing capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member from Saskatchewan, although mine is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
It is abundantly clear, certainly to a good many people in this country, that marketing boards for livestock or beef cattle would not be the answer to the problems which the industry faces at the present time. These are problems which have been brought on by high interest rates and this government's inaction.
I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether his department is looking at or will be looking at the charge that supermarkets are making undue profits at the expense basically of the producer and the consumer.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that the officials of my department are now studying all those questions.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I did not quite catch the minister's answer. I will endeavour to get a clearer answer from the minister and maybe one not quite as flippant.



INVESTIGATION OF CHARGES

Jack Burnett Murta: Is the minister's department going to look into the charges that have been echoed in the press in this country that supermarkets in various parts of the
country, and western Canada is a good example, have been making undue profits at the expense of the consumer and the producer of beef in this country?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I replied that my department is looking into all those aspects. If the hon. member has specific accusations to make, he ought to do so rather than ask me an insignificant and meaningless question.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to my questions of yesterday with the Prime Minister respecting some of these older security cases, a knowledge and understanding of which will be essential for the members of this House if we are soon to discuss the future of the security service. Due to what I believe to be inspired and selective leaks from within the government itself, there have been a number of press references lately to ex-Ambassador John Watkins and some of his problems. Knowing, as I think the Prime Minister does-the Solicitor General does in any event-that there are a number of investigative reports and documentations still available within the government, will he agree that it is rather scandalous that the Canadian public have to learn about these events through newspaper articles only? Why in the world can the government not start releasing some of these old files that are at least ten years old when they will obviously serve the public interest and the interests of members of this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt particularly with the question of Ambassador Watkins in an answer he gave a few weeks ago when he stated that the government and the security service had no cause to believe that Mr. Watkins had in any way assisted any foreign power in security matters. This being the belief and knowledge of the government, I fail to see how the public interest is served by allegations about Mr. Watkins' private life when he was an ambassador. Maybe the hon. member opposite has a different view of what the public interest is. I see no advancement to the public or the common weal by this kind of story. It may titillate the hon. member, but surely that is not the purpose of publishing personal data about people.
The point is, and I made it to the former solicitor general, if he has cause to believe the contrary, if he has cause to believe that the minister has been misled in some way, in stating that there is no evidence to incriminate Mr. Watkins, surely he should stand up and make that evidence public or else give it
June 17, 1981

in confidence to the security service. That is the position of this government.



ALLEGATION THAT CANADIAN OFFICIAL WAS RECOMMENDED BY FORMER BRITISH SECURITY AGENT, KIM PHILBY

Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my purpose in attempting to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister, who I am sure is quite aware of some of the problems, is the existence of some of the administrative and procedural problems and lack of standards that still exist within the government and within the Department of External Affairs in respect of the appointment of some of the people to some of our foreign missions, and especially the infiltration of high government offices by people who have a loyalty to a foreign service rather than to our own. That is the nub of the matter.
For example, will the Prime Minister comment on the allegations and rumours that freely abound that one Leslie James Bennett was appointed to the security service of this country, and eventually retired from that security service, because he was highly recommended to the Canadian government by a British security agent named Kim Philby? That is the type of allegation I would like the Prime Minister to clear up.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do believe we have the question.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, in his preamble the hon. member indicated or alleged that there were leaks presently within the security service, the RCMP or somewhere in my ministry. I would challenge him on that. The statements that have been made of a nature implying a knowledge of security service matters have been attributed, in press clippings that I have seen, to the hon. member himself. What I would like to know is whether the leader of his party, the former Prime Minister, has authorized him to make these statements notwithstanding his oath of office as a Privy Councillor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



MANPOWER


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, last week was national hire a student week. I am sure most members of this House have heard the commercials from employment and immigration. If the minister is so dedicated to student employment training on the job for our young Canadians, why did he not hire students to do the commercials?
Oral Questions


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, that is a question I will take up with the public affairs people who prepared the ads.


John Horton McDermid: With respect, I suggest that is another example of the minister saying one thing and doing another.



PAYMENTS MADE TO ACTOR AND ACTRESS

['Hear, hear!']
John Horton McDermid: Will the
Minister of Employment and Immigration table in the House the amount of money Jane Eastwood was paid to do that commercial, one of the highest paid actresses in Canada, and the actor in the commercial, so that we in the House can find out exactly how many jobs were taken away from students in Canada?


Walter Franklin McLean: It is just like he is doing to the women.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, what really is important in the hon. member's question is whether the Canada Student Employment Service provides the very important means of students getting jobs. I wish to inform the hon. member that this year we have the highest record of placements of any year until now, which proves that the program is working even better, perhaps with the help of those ads.



Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Ten days ago the Canadian fishing vessel Sable Mist was illegally stopped and boarded by the U.S. Coast Guard's Storis over ten miles inside Canadian waters. To date there has been no formal statement, either by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any member of the government to the U.S. State Department, or to this House. Since in fact the head of the U.S. command in Alaska has confirmed that the boarding was illegal, will the Prime Minister tell this House why no action has been taken to date regarding this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will have to defer to one of the ministers for a detailed answer, but my understanding is that the Canadian government did protest at the appropriate level, that there were discussions between the two government representatives, and that the Americans undertook not to repeat such action.


James Ross Fulton: I can confirm to the Prime Minister that no formal action has been taken by External Affairs with the U.S. State Department. I think it is important that it be done since that boundary was ratified between Canada and the United States in 1903.

June 17, 1981
Oral Questions


PROTECTION FOR CANADIAN FISHERMEN
James Ross Fulton: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it would seem that the hon. member is really confirming my answer by pretending the contrary when he says that his information is that no action was taken by External Affairs. I said action by appropriate government officials. My understanding is that it was done by authorities responsible for the coastguard or the fisheries.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. As the minister knows, today, June 17, is the proposed deadline for applications for terrestrial distribution of the Cancom television satellite package whereby distributors and municipalities in remote, rural and underserviced areas must apply for licences from the CRTC under the Broadcasting Act, and for Department of Communications technical certificates under the Radio Act.
In view of the fact that small communities have shown a strong interest in being their own distributors and wish to purchase the equipment and the Cancom package directly, would the minister allow an extension of the Department of Communications deadline, and would he ask the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to extend their June 17 deadline for processing the initial applications until no later than June 30 in order to allow small communities and municipalities extra time to discuss this Cancom package with their town councils and taxpayers?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is indeed, a most important question for most Canadians living in remote or underserviced communities. As far as the Department of Communications is concerned, I am more than willing to extend the deadline to June 30 of this year. As far as the CRTC is concerned, I will be pleased to bring the hon. member's recommendation to the attention of the CRTC. I have already done so and I would hope to have an answer for the hon. member sometime tomorrow.


EXTENSION OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO NOVA SCOTIA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have a question on the topic of energy economic development for the Prime Minister and it is with regard to the commitment he made in January, 1980, for a natural gas pipeline to Nova Scotia. He will be aware that there are labour developments in Quebec which are causing the schedule to be disrupted. He will also recall that in the House, in answer to my friend from Halifax, the minister of energy gave a commitment that, if necessary, a bill will be brought into the House as a matter of government policy to make certain this pipeline which he promised would, indeed, be built.
Will the Prime Minister now confirm that this commitment he gave still stands, and will he go one step further as a matter of government or national policy and make a commitment that an LNG site in the Strait of Canso area, which possesses so many attributes for that development, will be selected so that a petrochemical industry, which will provide great economic impetus to Nova Scotia, can be established in that area?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program did provide for the construction of a gas pipeline towards the maritime provinces. We stated that it was a project of national interest and the government is still in favour of seeing this project through. The pipeline construction project in Quebec is behind schedule as a result of a welders' strike, but I hope the government of Quebec will be able to end that strike within a short time. As to the extension of the gas pipeline towards the maritime provinces, my hon. colleague knows that the National Energy Board has completed its hearings on that subject, and we are waiting for its report with respect to the precise conditions concerning the extension of that project towards the maritime provinces.


FULFILMENT OF COMMITMENT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but I want to ask him this. In view of the unanimous support from so many levels of government and from so many public officials who are influenced, I am sure, by the great strategic and natural advantages of the Medford Point site in the Strait of Canso area, will the minister of energy, again pursuant to his commitment as a national policy for energy for eastern Canada and to fulfil the Prime Minister's commitment, go one step further and indicate his support for that particular site, so that Nova Scotia will not just be a keeper of pipelines but can get feedstock for a petrochemical industry which will provide a great deal of economic development for that province? I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Development will agree that this is one area where Nova Scotia has great potential for development.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend surely knows that there are two questions to be answered with regard to the point he raises; one, whether the Arctic pilot project will go ahead and, secondly, if it goes ahead what would be the best site for a liquid natural gas plant. These two questions are before the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board has heard witnesses and will eventually make public its conclusions. At that time the government will consider its report. It would be not only premature but totally improper, either for me or for the government, to act or take a position until the Energy Board has reported on this very important issue.
I would also bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that we are confident natural gas will also become available from off Sable Island. It may well be that there is a possibility of a petrochemical industry in the maritimes on the basis of the natural gas that will come from the Canada lands off Nova Scotia.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance I direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that the Canada Pension Plan was under review. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House what reform is contemplated to ensure proper management and funding of the Canada Pension Plan? Will he indicate to the House also what steps are being taken by his government to ensure that private pension funds are being properly managed?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in response with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, the deputy minister of Finance was before the parliamentary committee last week and pointed out that there will be some changes to the Canada Pension Plan, and he expects that those changes should take place after the year 1985. My understanding is that at the present time there is a committee working with the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts, reviewing this whole area of CPP.


SPECIFICS OF PROPOSED CHANGES
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, will the parliamentary secretary be a little more precise and indicate to the House what specific changes are being contemplated? Is the government looking for more participation by way of funding from individual contributors, or what specifics are we looking at?
Oral Questions


Royce Herbert Frith: Madam Speaker, those changes have not been finalized. I think I replied earlier last fall, with regard to the Canada Pension Plan, that since its inception it was realized there would have to be changes in the contribution rates somewhere in the decade of the 1980s. As a result, this committee was set up in 1977 and it has been reviewing this whole process since that time. I would assume that once negotiations have been completed there will be some answer in the House by the Minister of Finance.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the money available to Indian bands for the construction of new housing has always been short of what has been needed so that many Indian houses have never been completed. Now the department is requiring Indian bands to guarantee that they will be able to finish houses before any funding is released. Did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make a commitment to Treasury Board that Indian bands would be able to complete construction of new housing with the present funding, when this only amounts to about half the money required? If he did not make this commitment, from where did this ridiculous policy come?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware of the situation, that for some time there was a subsidy of approximately $12,500 for each Indian home. That was the situation prior to about a year ago. This government, in terms of trying to be of assistance, upped that subsidy by approximately another $10,000 to an average of $22,500, give or take $100. That is the situation as it applies now to Indian housing across the country. Might I say that this was welcomed generally in the Indian communities across the country, that is, the additional subsidy, and it also meant a fairly substantial additional financial commitment by this government to Indian communities in Canada.


RELEASE OF FUNDS TO INDIAN BANDS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that the estimated cost for even basic housing on Indian reserves is approximately $37,500, and there is no program in place yet for the labour component. The construction season is moving on, and unless funding is released we are going to lose that season and the necessary Indian houses are not going to be built. Will the minister make a commitment to release funding to Indian bands for houses in accordance with the general principles of accountability which he accepted for other funding last summer?


June 17, 1981
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I will have to examine the particulars of what the hon. member is talking about, because certainly in talking to representatives of Indian communities fairly extensively in the last month or so, I have found that there is an acknowledgement that funds are being released in accordance with allocations for the number of homes on each reserve. The Indians are in receipt of the money. The housing is going up. If the hon. member has a particular reference to where this is not the case, I would be more than pleased to examine it with him.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the many squeals and shrieks caused by the shunting of railway cars, which are upsetting the health of the worthy citizens of Edmonton North-I have written the minister a letter in this regard, and I am quite sure he is aware of the matter-can the minister tell us whether he is planning to move the CN hump yard or what he is planning to do about the noise between 87th Street and 97th Street and 127th Avenue?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am aware in detail of, and very much acquainted with, a number of relocations taking place in Canada at this time. There is one in Regina, for example, and there are others elsewhere. I am not very well acquainted with this one. May I beg for a meeting with the hon. member immediately after the question period so that he can give me all the information?


OTTAWA CENTRE FREIGHT TRAINS
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, I have one short supplementary question. Ottawa Centre is not my constituency. Ottawa Centre does not have a hump yard, but freight trains go through the constituency between two o'clock and three o'clock in the morning. I wonder if there is any way by which the minister can see that the trains go through the riding during regular hours, such as between eleven o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we will do our best to accommodate the hon. member's sleep when he is in this area.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-second report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, after consultations with my colleagues on both sides there is an agreement that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or other order of this House, if the government business called on June 18, 1981, is Bill C-57-and at this time it is our intention to call that bill tomorrow-to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas, no private members' business shall be taken up on that day and, at 9 p.m. on that day, proceedings then under consideration shall be interrupted and the yeas and nays shall be called on all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-57, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas; and if any division is demanded on any such question, the bells shall be rung for not more than 15 minutes and shall be dispensed with on any divisions required thereafter.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that this order is there on the basis that it is in fact the intention of the government to call Bill C-57. The government House leader is nodding his agreement, and in that case this is in accordance with our discussion and is in order.


Mr. Knowles:: Yes, Madam Speaker, we also agree.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the proposed order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: So ordered.
June 17, 1981


PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I believe I have a question of privilege today in that during question period a motivation in certain questions I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) respecting the so-called John Watkins case was imputed to me by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
Over the last few months especially there has been a number of press commentaries relating to statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) regarding ex-ambassador Watkins and by ex-commissioner Kelly of the RCMP on at least one nationally televised program in respect of Mr. Watkins, in several articles which have appeared in national newspapers in this country. I made reference in my questioning to the Prime Minister to one particular set of articles which appeared approximately a week ago in the Toronto Star, a two-part newspaper article, I think, which appeared on a Friday and on a Saturday.
In my reference to these particular articles I said that I had reason to believe-and I reaffirm it before Your Honour and the House here today-that that was an inspired and selected leak from government indicating the part played by the RCMP security service in the unfortunate and perhaps tragic death of ex-ambassador Watkins.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I believe the hon. member is continuing to argue the matter he brought up in the question period. If his question of privilege relates to imputing of motives, I might offer to look into the blues again, but it did not occur to me at the time that the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was speaking in the House that he did impute motives to the hon. member, but I will listen to his argument. However, it should be very short, and I ask him not to argue the case and not to continue to give the House his interpretation of some of the facts.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Chair will recognize that to lay properly the groundwork for what I consider an accusation made in the House today that I breached an oath, the facts are required for the proper understanding of the Chair in this matter.
However, as I heard the Solicitor General today-and if he did not mean this, then I am sure he will apologize to me and withdraw the imputation which I clearly heard today-the imputation was that the only references he had read in the popular press were references I had made in respect of exambassador Watkins. First of all, I cannot believe that, if that is what he said today, but, second, he said that in making any reference to ex-ambassador Watkins I was breaching my oath. I am not too sure which of the oaths I have taken the minister indicated I was breaching but, in any event, he indicated I broke an oath-


Mr. Jarvis:: Privy Councillor oath.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -presumably the Privy Councillor's oath- by referring to these matters. I want to assure the Chair and the minister-and I would like him to withdraw that imputation or correct me if my hearing was not right today-that I have broken no oath in that information which came to me as a Privy Councillor has been released by me up until now, nor do I intend to release any information which came to me as a Privy Councillor.
Any information on this matter or related matters has come to me from far different sources than internal Canadian government sources. The prime minister of the day may want me either to put up or shut up. I can say to him very clearly that unless the government starts putting up, I do not intend to shut up on this matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would like to read the "blues" myself because I distinctly recall saying or conceding that a considerable amount of speculation came from other sources. I certainly do concede that, but a great amount of the speculation and statements about what information there is within the possession of the security service or the Ministry of the Solicitor General has come from the hon. member and has been attributed to him in the media.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He is repeating it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Today we had another one. The hon. member indicated he put forward some possible contents of a job application by Mr. Bennett. I have never seen any statement of that in any public place. I have not read the job application of Mr. Bennett-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Neither have I.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -but he has made a statement about who provided a letter of reference for him.
He was for a period of time in charge of these records and could have called for any of them. As I say, I would like to read the "blues" before commenting further on the sources of his information.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, what the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has seen is not in question; what the Solicitor General has said is very much in question. We on this side of the House believe we heard him impute the motives of the former solicitor general of Canada, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), and impute my motives. We believe we heard him accuse the former solicitor general of breach of an oath, and accuse me of the sanctioning of the breach of an oath. We believe that is what we heard.
We, too, want to see the record of the debate in this House and I am sure that if our recollection is correct, the Solicitor General will have the courage and the respect for this place to stand in his place and withdraw those accusations. If he does
10702

June 17, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
not, I serve notice now, Madam Speaker, of my intention to follow this as a matter of privilege after a review of the record.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in my opinion the Leader of the Opposition is too sensitive. The Solicitor General did not accuse anyone, but there is one thing we can see, namely that so far every member who has risen on this question would rather check the blues and see exactly what it is all about. Under the circumstances, I would suggest that it is rather easy to solve the problem. It is very simply a matter of checking the blues and everybody will see that the hon. member is brewing a storm in a teacup.


Madam Speaker:: To clarify things a bit, I do not think we have grounds here for a question of privilege but there is certainly a point of order which has been brought up. Imputing a motive falls under the heading of unparliamentary language. We would have to look at the blues to see whether there was anything unparliamentary in what was uttered in the House in the course of the exchange during question period. 1 will look at them and I am sure that if I find there is something unparliamentary, and if the minister after looking at the blues feels he has been unparliamentary even before I point it out to him, he will do what is necessary under our rules.
There was an accusation of something having been done, the imputing of motives. However, I think we should look at the precise language in order to make up our minds about this.
* V *


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to matters raised under Standing Order 43 in this House. It has been my understanding, and I seek clarification on this point, that the criteria by which such a motion is measured are whether it is of urgent and pressing necessity, whether or not it is couched in unparliamentary language, or things of that nature. However, I was naturally under the impression, as I am sure all members are, that the Chair, who I am sure will agree with this, is neutral on the merits of the motion. It is up to members of the House to decide after the motion is put whether they consent or not.
Now, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask clarification because today, when I moved a motion under Standing Order 43, if I recall correctly, and I admit I am paraphrasing because the blues are not available as yet, you stated something to the effect that although you could vouch for the fact that the contents contained in my standing order were not accurate, nevertheless you would put the motion. It would seem to me, Madam Speaker, if I am paraphrasing you accurately, that whether or not the House had given its consent is irrelevant. It
means in effect they had been told by the Chair that my motion contains incorrect facts which would mean, therefore, that the House was being influenced on how it should vote.
I would like to seek clarification on whether the Chair is in a position to do that. It seems to me you would not want to be in that position in that the Chair was in effect arguing, as a member opposite might do or as a member on my left might do, that I was wrong and thereby entering into debate with a member. Therefore I am seeking clarification as to why that happened, or just what did happen.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I would tell the hon. member that the two of us were wrong. First of all, 1 think the hon. member knows that matters pertaining to the administration of the House which are under the jurisdiction of the Speaker should be dealt with in a different way than matters dealt with in the House precisely because the Speaker cannot enter into debate with any member of the House, or explain or comment on any of the motions put forward by a member. So in this respect I was sort of taken aback by the content of that motion because I knew some of the facts perhaps could be disputed, and I would have preferred to discuss them with the hon. member before entering the House. I think in the future that is the course the hon. member should follow in matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Speaker.
Secondly, I was wrong in making that comment and I do apologize to the House. As soon as I made it I realized I was expressing an opinion, something that I should not do. However, the House dealt with the motion in the usual manner. I apologize to the hon. member for my comment but he can follow his own conscience or directive with regard to the fact that he brought these things up in the House when they should have been brought up in another place.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to give notice now that we are honoured by the presence in our gallery of the Minister of Agriculture for the State of Victoria, Australia, the hon. Thomas Leslie Austin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report (revised) of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke- Lakeshore).
[Stage Direction]
He said: I think I should add, Madam Speaker, that the presentation of a revised seventh report is necessary in order to correct a technical error which appeared in the report originally presented by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), joint chairman of the committee, on Monday, June 15, 1981.

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, if the House agrees, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), that the first report of the Special Committee on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Herb Breau: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and, if the House pleases, I intend to move concurrence later this day.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1981-82
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (B) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
[Stage Direction]
reference to standing committee
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, under the circumstances I would like to move the usual motion under Standing Orders 58(15) and 59, seconded by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston):
That the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1981-1982, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the 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. 251, 2,404, 2,405, 2,408 and 2,468.
[ Text]


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province, what amount in the current fiscal year has been allocated by CMHC for the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program?
2.	Have all the available funds been spent or committed?
3.	Are any applications presently outstanding or have any been refused due to a shortage of funding and, if so, how many?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. See list below.
2.	No.
3.	The budget available under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program does not permit all eligible applications to be processed. Funds are allocated on a priority basis and some applicants may have to wait until next year to receive assistance. Administration of the program is undertaken in most instances by municipalities and CMHC does not have data on the number of applications deferred.
Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) 1981 Budget Allocation
	$000
Newfoundland	10,000
Prince Edward Island	5,200
Nova Scotia	12,700
New Brunswick	10,300
Quebec	58,700
Ontario	11,700

June 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Manitoba	4,100
Saskatchewan	8,600
Alberta	7,300
British Columbia	13,300
Yukon	200
Northwest Territories	300
Total *	142,400
* This total does not include unallocated funds.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the past five years, in total and to the latest date for which the information is available, what was the difference between the cost of acquisition of housing units by the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation and the amount obtained in subsequent sales?
2.	What was the net cost to repair and maintain the units during the period they were held by the corporation?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation portfolio consists of units acquired by the Mortgage Insurance Fund (MIF) and the repossessed units previously financed with uninsured CMHC direct loans. The difference between the cost of acquisition of both the MIF and corporation-owned properties and the amount obtained in subsequent sales is as follows:
Profits or (losses) in $000's:
1980	1979	1978	1977	1976($274,234)	($31,445)	($1,554)	$2,151	$1,907
2. The net costs (in $000's) to repair and maintain the units were as follows:
1980	1979	1978	1977	1976$37,731	$40,486	$20,681	$13,069	$14,317


Mr. Herbert: By province, what is the number of housing units in the possession of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and what number are to be offered for sale within the next year?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation portfolio consists of Mortgage Insurance Fund (MIF) units and of repossessed units previously financed with uninsured CMHC direct loans. As at March 31, 1981, the MIF and corporation-owned inventory, by province, was as shown in the list below.
The anticipated sales for 1981 have been established as follows:
Sales Target
M.I.F.	14,600	unitsCorporation-owned	5,150	unitsTotal	19,750	units
CMHC Housing Unit Portfolio as at March 31, 1981
Province	Number of Units	Total	MIF	Corporation	If)Nfld.	240	159	399	N.S.	117	146	263	P.E.I.	61	3	64	N.B.	233	1,085	1,318	Ontario	9,270	2,516	11,786	Quebec	3,969	1,658	5,627	-f;.Manitoba	1,575	218	1,793	Saskatchewan	80	59	139	Alberta	369	456	825	British Columbia	217	895	1,112	Yukon and N.W.T.	111	214	325	Total	16,242	7,409	23,651


Mr. Herbert: What is the average delay period per housing unit between the initial default of the owner and the final acquisition by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of properties that have insured mortgages financed by the chartered banks?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: with respect to claims paid to chartered banks for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1981, the average time lag from the date a borrower defaults on payment until title is conveyed to CMHC under the terms of the mortgage loan insurance policies, is 414 calendar days.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many applications for pension are currently (a) awaiting hearings by the Canadian Pension Commission (b) filed with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates?
2.	(a) What is the average period of time required to process an application for pension from time of receipt by the bureau until presentation before the commission (b) what is the step-by-step procedure at the commission's head office for the processing of applications from time of receipt from a pensions advocate until presentation before the commission?
3.	How many applications for pension are currently (a) awaiting processing at the commisison's head office (b) awaiting consideration by the commission's medical advisory board?
4.	What is the average period of time required for members of the medical advisory board to review the medical facts of an application for pension?
5.	What is the current strength of the medical advisory board and what are the names of the members of the board?
6.	(a) What schedule of priorities exists in the allocation of hearings for pension applications (b) how and by whom is the schedule determined?
7.	How many appeals from decisions of the commission to assessment boards are currently on file and, in each case, what was the date of the original application and what was the date of the commission's decision?
8.	(a) How many appeals from decisions of the commission to entitlement boards are currently on file (b) what was the date of the original application and what was the date of the commission's decision?
up


June 17, 1981

9.	How many (a) assessment board hearings (b) entitlement board hearings are scheduled for the current year?
10.	How many appeals from decisions of the commission, including assessment and entitlement boards, are (a) currently before the Pension Review Board (b) scheduled for hearings before the Pension Review Board for the fiscal year 1981-82?
11.	(a) What is the average period of time incurred from the receipt of notice of appeal to the hearing of the appeal by the Pension Review Board (b) what schedule of priorities exists in the allocation of hearings of appeals before the board (c) how and by whom is the scheduling determined (d) what is the average period of time incurred from the receipt of notice of appeal to the promulgation of a decision by the board (e) are the board's hearings restricted to the consideration of documentary evidence only or is oral testimony permitted?
12.	From 1979 to 1980, how many decisions of the Canadian Pension Commission were upheld by the Pension Review Board and how many were reversed?
13.	What is the current strength of the Pension Review Board and what are the 1981-82 salaries of its members?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1.	(a) As at March 31, 1981, there were 4,956 applications for pensions currently awaiting hearings by the Canadian Pension Commission. This includes 765 applications for dependants, applications from widows whose spouses had been in receipt of pension at the rate of 48 per cent or more at the time of death, applications for proportionate pension, and applications for funeral and burial grants that were being processed at that date.
(b) As at March 31, 1981-2532.
2.	(a) During the year April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981,
the Bureau of Pensions Advocates submitted 6562 applications for pension, of which 4401 or 67 per cent were submitted within six months of initial contact with the applicants. The others were delayed because of difficulties in obtaining supporting evidence.
(b) (i) The application is date-stamped on receipt because, in the event that the decision is favorable, retroactive pension may be paid to the date of receipt of the application, or three years, whichever is the later.
(ii)	The application is forwarded to the medical-clerical section of the medical advisory branch for examination and review.
(iii)	If a medical diagnosis indicating that a disability exists has accompanied the application, the application is entered into the process control system. The application is then acknowledged by the communications division of the Canadian Pension Commission.
(iv)	If no medical report indicating that indeed a disability does exist has accompanied the application, the application is sent to the appropriate district office of the Canadian Pension Commission (CPC) in order that the applicant may be examined to determine if in fact he does have the disability, and if so, to report on the extent of that disability. When this exami-
Order Paper Questions
nation is complete, the application is returned to the medical-clerical section of the medical advisory branch so that particulars of the application may be entered into the process control system and acknowledgement of the application forwarded.
(v)	After acknowledgement, the veteran's file and application are returned to the medical-clerical section of CPC for preparation of a case precis which involves extensive research of all service records and medical records that can be obtained relating to the veteran's claim.
(vi)	Additional information may be required from medical specialists. If such is the case, this information will be requested from the veteran and his representative, and when received, will be incorporated in the preparation of his case precis.
(vii)	The file and precis are reviewed by a medical adviser who prepares a medical comment.
(viii)	The complete file, together with case precis and medical comment is then passed to a commissioner of CPC, who will review the application, case precis, medical comment, etc., and prepare a proposed commission decision. This proposed decision will be reviewed by two other commissioners of CPC, whose agreement is needed in all respect before it can be approved as a commission decision. If there is disagreement which cannot be resolved by the commissioners concerned, the claim is referred to a larger group of commissioners, who meet regularly for that purpose. When the decision is approved it is signed and passed to the communications division of CPC for promulgation.
(ix)	When promulgated, the veteran is made aware of his rights of appeal if the decision is unfavourable.
(x)	If the decision is favourable, in whole or in part, the appropriate district office of CPC will call the veteran in for a medical examination to report on the degree of disability. In most cases the senior pension medical examiner in the district office will recommend the level of disability assessment in accordance with the instructions contained in the table of disabilities maintained by CPC, as required by the Pension Act.
(xi)	The recommendation for degree of assessment is then forwarded to the head office of CPC, where it is reviewed by a medical adviser to determine that it conforms with the existing medical policy of the Pension Commission, and that similar disabilities are uniformly assessed

June 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions
across Canada in accordance with the table of disabilities.
(xii)	If the medical advisory branch concurs in the recommended assessment of the disability, the file and the recommended assessment are then passed to a commissioner for consideration.
(xiii)	Following approval by a commissioner of the Pension Commission, the file is passed to the communications division for promulgation of the degree of assessment of disability to the veteran.
(xiv)	The fde is then passed to the accounting division of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the necessary financial and pay action.
3.	(a) See 1 (a) above.
(b) The commission does not have a medical advisory board. It is served by a medical advisory branch. There are approximately 4000 applications for pension currently in various stages of preparation by the commission's medical advisory branch.
4.	From the time an application is first received at the head office of CPC, until it is passed by the medical advisory branch to the commission for decision, approximately 9 and one half months elapse.
5.	The current strength of the medical advisory branch is 61. Of this number, 16 are medical doctors. The names of the medical advisers are:
Chief Medical Adviser-Dr. J. Mutch
Deputy Chief Medical Adviser-vacant Dr. J. Carberry	Dr.	E. R. Keirstead	Dr.	D. M. MuirDr. J. F. M. Cullen	Dr.	M. G. Kinghorn	Dr.	J. M. O'BrienDr. J. A. Forrester	Dr.	H. A. J. Lister	Dr.	M. PannetonDr. W. A. Howell	Dr.	F. J. McEwan	Dr.	A. J. PineauDr. R. F. Jackson	Dr. E. Pollonetsky
Dr. N. Kanjilal
6.	(a) The following categories of claims receive the greatest priority in the consideration of applications for pension.
(i)	Applications received from World War 1 veterans.
(ii)	Applications received from widows of veterans.
(iii)	Applications made by veterans who are in severe medical or social distress.
All others are dealt with on a first in, first out basis in the respective medical specialty division.
(b) The schedule of priorities listed above has been determined by the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission.
7.	As at March 31, 1981, there were 922 appeals from decisions of the commission to assessment boards currently on
file waiting to be heard. Of these, 251 cases have been certified by the applicant or his representative, as being ready to be heard, 187 are with the applicant or his representative awaiting certification of readiness to proceed, and 484 are awaiting preparation of the documentation. Because of the volume and the time involved it is not readily possible to identify the date of the original application for an assessment board in each case. Decisions have not yet been rendered on these appeals.
8.	(a) As of March 31, 1981, there were 1,929 appeals
from decisions of the commission to entitlement boards currently on file waiting to be heard. Of these, 647 have been certified by the applicant or his representative as being ready to be heard, 780 are with the applicant or his representative waiting for certification, and 502 are awaiting preparation of the documentation.
(b) Because of the volume and the time involved it is not readily possible to identify the date of the original application for an entitlement board in each case. Decisions have not yet been rendered on these appeals.
9.	(a) 700.
(b) 1,800.
10.	(a) 1,960.
(b) The estimated number of hearings to be held during the current fiscal year is 1,900.
11.	(a) Nineteen months.
(b)	Priority is given to veterans of World War I (CEF), widows, seriously ill veterans, and veterans in serious economic circumstances.
(c)	Under the direct supervision of the chairman of the Pension Review Board in consultation with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, the Royal Canadian Legion, and The War Amputations of Canada.
(d)	Twenty months.
(e)	The Pension Review Board is restricted to the consideration of documentary evidence only.
12.	1979-1980: Confirmed-858 Varied-250.
13.	The board is presently at full strenth. It consists of a chairman remunerated at the SX-2 rate of pay ($41,900- $57,100) and a deputy chairman and five members remunerated at the SX-1 rate of pay ($36,800-$50,600).

[ Translation]


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,516 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
June 17, 1981


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,516 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, job designation or classification, duties and terms of employment etc. of all persons employed or under contract with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who are being paid $40,000 per year or more?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 29 is acceptable to the government.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 29 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

TASK FORCE REPORT ON SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION Motion No. 29-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the task force report on the future of Sydney Steel Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the other notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Corporations and Labour Unions



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: that Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today for the second reading of Bill S-10, which has already been passed in the Senate.

Bill S-10 is an act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, known as CALURA. This act, which was originally passed in 1962, provides for the reporting of financial and other information relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions operating in the country. The information collected under CALURA has been reported annually to Parliament. It has been a valuable and unique reference on the extent and effects of non-resident ownership and control of corporations in Canada, and on the association of Canadians with international labour unions.
During the 18 years the act has been in existence, many changes have taken place in the marketplace. The economy has become much more complex and, as a consequence, policymakers have had to request additional data to keep abreast of developments. The last several years have seen a proliferation of requests for financial data by other government departments which, under the present act, have no access to data of individual corporations collected by CALURA. This has imposed a burden upon respondents, especially smaller enterprises where the resources to cope with this paperwork are severely limited.
[ Translation]
Moreover, since the act covers corporations of a certain size, the number of corporations which must send in a return has greatly increased, even though a great many of them did not originally fall within the purview of the act.
In this time of advanced technology, the administration feels that it urgently needs to keep abreast of technology transfers, even more so since Canada wants to play a role in the ever growing area of technological advances. This need is becoming more acute because of the fact that, more than in any other industrialized economy in the world, corporations in Canada belong to non-residents and are controlled to a large extent by them. In fact, Madam Speaker, there is presently no system which can indicate the level of technological transfers from Canadian corporations to foreign interests or vice versa. Of course, this deficiency will be corrected. With regard to the labour community experience has shown that there are certain deficiencies in the act. Under the terms of the act the defini-

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions tion of a union has been too restricted, as well as the scope of financial data obtained from international unions.

With these problems in mind, the government has made several attempts over the past three years to bring in appropriate amendments to the act. Generally we have had support from both sides of the House. Our long, consultative process with representatives of business and labour indicated to us that they, too, welcomed these proposed changes. Indeed, the proposed amendments were extensively considered by a committee of the House in 1978. The present bill includes further improvements in response to concerns expressed during those proceedings and in recent deliberations in the other place.
I should like to express my appreciation for the very serious deliberations which took place in the other place and for the co-operation we received from both witnesses and members of the other place.
Time was not on our side in these previous attempts to enact these changes, but I hope the bill will now be disposed of in the House. Therefore I am pleased that Bill S-10, which I believe reflects present-day conditions and will streamline our methods of collecting and disseminating business and labour information, has been introduced early in this session of Parliament and has already received passage in the other place.
The prime objective of Bill S-10 is to alleviate present and potential response burden on many firms reporting to the federal government. The amendments will allow us to eliminate duplication of requests for information and to improve the quality and timeliness of the reports to Parliament. They will enhance the government's understanding of the flow of technology into Canada, supply vital data on the extent of foreign ownership and control, and provide a more comprehensive picture of union activity in the country.

CALURA was passed 18 years ago to collect data, financial and otherwise, concerning corporations and unions operating in Canada. The aim was to report to Parliament and the public on the scope and the effect of the ownership and control by non-residents of corporations in Canada. The act provided that any corporation with assets exceeding $250,000 and/or sales amounting to more than $500,000 must file a return. At that time, these were considered large businesses. Since then, inflation among other things has weakened this definition, and throughout the years, over 90,000 additional corporations have fallen within the purview of the act, most of which were small Canadian-owned businesses which were not originally supposed to be covered by the act. Bill S-10 should dispense more than 70,000 such businesses from having to send in a return pursuant to the act by multiplying by 20 the original threshold for a mandatory return, which was, in fact, completely unrealistic.
Businesses with assets of at least $5 million and with minimum sales of at least $10 million will have to file a return. The bill will also require all corporations with a measure of
foreign ownership to file such a return. In order to avoid any duplication and minimize the number of replies, eight existing questionnaires will be combined into one and the returns will have to be consolidated. Bill S-10 provides that the returns should be filed on a modified calendar year basis, March 31 being the filing date. It will thus be possible to provide consistent information and to table annual reports in Parliament within 12 months following the end of the reference period.
At present, only aggregates of financial data collected under the act are available to users. In many instances, this does not satisfy the needs of government policy departments that require data by individual companies to prepare policy recommendations and analyse their effect. As a result, companies continue to be faced with ever increasing information requests by various government departments.
Bill S-10 proposes to re-establish the conditions which existed prior to the 1965 amendment to CALURA when officials of the federal government had access under the act to financial information provided by individual companies. In this way, the growing needs of policy departments in examining critical economic issues will be met without creating new demands upon business.
However, access to identifiable data for both financial and technology transfers proposed in this bill is more restrictive than it was prior to 1965. First, regulatory agencies, or parts of government departments having regulatory or investigative powers, will be excluded from such access.
Further, this access will be tightly controlled. The information will only be available to analysts for policy purposes upon request of a minister and with the approval of the Chief Statistician who will further specify the manner and conditions of such access. In addition, the bill provides severe penalties to both collector and recipient of such identifiable data in case of disclosure to unauthorized persons. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we are alleviating the concerns of the business community whose views were obtained in discussions earlier.
To improve the government's understanding of the flow of technology from abroad-and this is one of the areas of complete novelty-the bill provides for the collection of selected data on technology transfers. Collection of any data in this area will be preceded, of course, by consultation with business. To alleviate business concern, this bill provides that data to be collected will not include any scientific or technical description of any product or process. It was evident that industry was concerned when it made representations to us that the data which would be collected would not be, in effect, such as to impair in any way commercial or technological information which could be useful to a competitor. Therefore, we have eliminated information of that nature from the reports which must be filed. Returns on such transfers will be made available within the federal government for policy analysis but, as with financial data, this access will be tightly regulated.
June 17, 1981

CALURA has given us considerable insight into the area of foreign ownership and control of companies operating in Canada. For instance, from the 1978 CALURA annual report just tabled, we learn that the top 500 non-financial enterprises in Canada account for 53 per cent of sales, 66 per cent of assets, 66 per cent of profits and 70 per cent of equity. Some 274 of the 500 were foreign controlled corporations.
In addition to ownership information collected under the act, we have produced a highly popular directory entitled Inter-Corporate Ownership, which shows who owns and controls business in Canada. This publication has served executives, market managers, investors, journalists and economists by providing detailed information on the corporate structure of the Canadian economy. Those of us who have paid some attention to the relatively recent publication entitled The Canadian Corporate Elite will see a large number of citations within that publication which are owed to CALURA.
Ownership information collected under CALURA is not confidential and is available to the public through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the interests of such public information, Bill S-10 proposes the following improvements: corporations having 50 or fewer shareholders will be required to report to beneficial shareholders. All other reporting corporations may use their share registers to report on shares held. In addition, all corporations will report on options and voting rights held by their directors and the names of any corporations where they have 10 per cent or more of voting rights.
These measures are designed to provide Parliament and the public with accurate and up-to-date information on the ownership and control of corporations. Further, these measures, when integrated with financial information, will achieve a more accurate determination of foreign control and the concentration of corporate power.

Changes affecting labour unions will also lead to significant improvements in the administration of the act, the quality of data and the timeliness of reports. In order to give a more comprehensive image of labour union activity in Canada, the definition of a labour union will be extended to cover any association that has as one of its purposes the regulation of relations between employers and employees. The new definition will include the returns of independent, unaffiliated unions having no premises. In order to give a more comprehensive image of the financial activities of labour unions in Canada, international unions will be required to report all the direct revenues from their Canadian subsidiaries, as well as all expenditures directly related to their Canadian activities. Moreover, financial data pertaining to special funds, such as pension and strike funds, will have to be reported separately from the labour union income and general expenditures. Therefore, actually published financial data will give us a clear picture of the nature of economic and financial activities within labour unions; the quality of the annual report on labour unions will be improved significantly, which will facili-
Corporations and Labour Unions tate the preparation of the comparative analysis provided for in the act.
Further, international unions will be able to file a return, in the form of a note, concerning all the expenditures incurred on behalf of their Canadian members. Such returns will be examined by the CALURA administration with a view to developing an efficient reporting and analysis system for these types of expenditures within two years after the coming into effect of the act. As far as membership is concerned, Bill S-10 will include a number of improvements leading to better information and enhanced usefulness of the data collected. In the first place, unions will be required under the act to submit reports on membership on a calendar year basis. And, finally, data will be immediately made available to federal and provincial departments for the preparation of statistical reports, which will reduce the need for overlapping requests.
Finally, with a view to reducing the time needed to submit the annual report to Parliament, unions will be required to file their returns within 90 days after the year under review. Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to emphasize that Bill S-10 is the outcome of tremendously important studies and discussions. This is an improved bill, reflecting a number of concerns expressed when its predecessor, Bill C-7, was considered by a committee of this House. For instance, the clause providing for a 90-day notice in The Canada Gazette before regulations come into force is another feature of the bill now before us. This measure should reassure to a large extent business and labour, which will now know that consultations will be held on any contentious aspect of the CALURA questionnaire.
As I pointed out earlier, the bill was further improved by an important amendment made in the other place in response to business concerns. It reflects many responsible suggestions expressed along the way. I am confident that Bill S-10 is a sound bill which merits the support of the House.
In conclusion I simply say that we have been well served by an initiative which is now 18 years old but in effect has proved its worth. In Canada we have a particular position, being so close to a major political entity, an economic entity and a union entity, such as the United States. Our correspondence and communications with that country have created specific concerns among Canadians. A large number of these concerns have been alleviated as a result of CALURA in the past, and the substantial improvements we are proposing will improve the system as it exists now.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) will be our first speaker, and I may speak a little later. However, would the minister entertain a question at this time?


Mr. Blais:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister has referred to Bill S-10 as being the fruit of study. He states he has taken into consideration many different factors. Could the minister tell the House whether any evaluation was made during that study of what is the cost of complying under the act for business and for consumers throughout Canada? Is there some estimate as to what it is costing businessmen to comply with the act as it now exists, and can the minister give us any estimate as to what it will cost businessmen to comply with the new act if it is passed in its present form?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we are proposing will remove a large number of the smaller corporations which have perhaps felt that complying with the act or conforming to its exigencies was an expensive proposition. The raising of the threshold to $5 million in assets or $10 million in gross sales and the requirements that are imposed under the act are very slight indeed when you compare them to the total revenues of the companies.
I do not have with me any information in terms of the total cost to any individual company of completing a form on an annual basis. However, I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that it would not appear to have been a concern of any of the companies with whom we have had exchanges.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the soft salesman's tones of the minister responsible for Statistics Canada who has just finished introducing Senate Bill S-10.
This bill is one of the omnibus amendment bills. I was made aware yesterday afternoon, sometime after four o'clock, that it has been selected to become the business of the day. In other words, I guess the House leaders treat these types of bills as Friday bills, and this happens to be a Friday bill which has been inserted on a Wednesday in the hope that it will slip through.
I first became aware of CALURA in the thirtieth Parliament when I was preparing, over a period of nine or ten months, a submission to the Bryce Commission on Corporate Concentration. As most hon. members know, my experience is with small to medium business in Canada and I believe rather strongly that a sense of individualism should survive in the country. Therefore, as I watch us drift closer and closer into a corporate society where we will be collected into larger and larger masses of units, I keep struggling both through my work in the House and with bills, such as this one in the hope that as a result some sense of individualism will survive in our society.
The practice of allowing this type of bill, which is full of amendments, to slip in as a Friday bill in the hope that it will pass through the House in one day and not be noticed, is a very dangerous practice that we are allowing the government to follow. By listening to the minister, as we did today, I came to the conclusion that he really should be a soap salesman. His product is so slippery that it will not even stick to the body. He quietly told us that the bill basically has three parts. It requires corporations to report.
Very lucidly he gave some statistics to show the value of this reporting to society. We have so many corporations in Canada and so many of them are foreign controlled, but never think of thanking foreigners who invest or bring technology to the land. What we want to do today is to punch them out. That seems to be the emphasis.
The minister also told us that the government wants to bring unions under control and it wants to collect information on unions and on union information movements, that is, Canada vis-a-vis the United States. That is all very well and good and I think most of us understand that.
The minister then very quietly introduced the information aspect of the bill. He told us how important it is for us to get some kind of inventory and handle on technological information, intellectual property, trademarks and patents, and so on. If some of us were not aware of what is going on in this country, we might let that slip by us.
I hope the gentlemen behind me on this side of the House will assist me in demanding that there be a full and lengthy debate on the intent of this type of legislation. What we are really dealing with is the beginning of a move to an interventionist, highly structured type of society. We are moving away from the rule of law and away from a respect for property. We have seen that in the constitutional debate. We are moving now into a situation where this is the beginning, the essential element, before the competition act can be brought to this House, when things as important as this are being slipped in through an amending bill which even lawyers cannot read or make any sense out of.
This is an extremely difficult bill. I was belittling myself last night in trying to get through this bill and to understand it. Usually the first thing that happens is that someone over there says, "well, the hon. member hasn't even read the bill." I will put it on the record right now that I have tried to read this bill. I did not understand it. Last night and early this morning I got copies of the Senate debates and Senate committee reports. In all the spare time I had today, I got only that far, but I still have a long way to go. The minister has talked about an important amendment being made in the Senate. With all the deliberation that took place in the Senate, I think the Senate essentially has missed the point and the intent of this bill.
Some members in the other place were suspicious and were asking key questions. However, they did not have the knowledge or the awareness of the grand design and the grand plan which will take us beyond where we are into a highly structured form of government. It is interesting that there is an increasing use of omnibus bills for masses of amendments in which there are some biscuits and cookies, like the minister's little gift, and I believe it was the former president of the Treasury Board who announced it, whereby 50,000 small Canadian corporations will be eliminated from reporting under CALURA.
In the thirtieth Parliament when I was doing work on a view from the street of corporate concentration, what attracted me
June 17, 1981

to CALURA was four or five small businesses in Quebec which had been taken to court and fined under the powers of CALURA. Some of those businesses no longer exist. In fact, I do not know if any of them do. Those little businesses had to pay fines of $700 or $800.
On the other hand, while doing my work on corporate concentration, I found that the holding company for Power Corporation had never filed under CALURA. If Power Corporation or the holding company had been treated in the same manner as these small businesses, which the government likes to talk about protecting and reducing the burden on so much, the holding company for Power Corporation would have been subject to fines of over $3 million. However, they were not taken to court.
CALURA has been on my mind for some time. It is an important piece of legislation that has not been attended to for some time and that needs amending.
Since coming here I have developed a very suspicious nature and my whole personality has changed, but never did I realize that under the guise of Statistics Canada would information be collected which would be the trigger and the key to the sections of the new competition act and competition policy pertaining to intellectual properties and patents. Until this act is passed, the government cannot move to the second phase of their structured society, and bring in the competition act for full and meaningful debate.
As I stand here today, I could speak fast, in emotional, excited terms and conclude in 20, 30, 40 or 50 minutes. However, I am going to take my time because I do not want this bill to be given second reading until members have been awakened to what we are dealing with within this very confused type of legalese.
I find it offensive that more and more often notification of this kind of legislation comes to us late the previous afternoon and is given low priority by the government House leader. He slips it in hoping it will pass. I do not think this bill should pass until members are aware, and use the opportunity to debate the intent of this bill, of just what is going on in this country.
Basically I will direct my remarks to the information sector of the bill because that is where my concern lies. I am reminded by this type of technique of the omnibus bill on metric measurement being slipped through the House back in 1976. Members became emotionally tied up in hectares and tonnes of grain because of all the emotionalism and populism that existed on that subject. There was a sentence in one clause that not one single member of the opposition understood. However, when we started to study metric some two years ago, we found that that clause made Canadian standard measurement illegal.
That is what is going on with legislation in this House. As members, particularly of the opposition, we should stand on guard to expose this type of practice. We should make sure we do not let innocuous sentences, or anything covered with the minister's soft soap, slip by. The hon. member for York-Peel
Corporations and Labour Unions
(Mr. Stevens) advised Your Honour that he will be speaking on this bill. I hope other members will do so as well.
What we are dealing with in terms of type and style is a structured society, which is the whole thrust and design of the present Liberal government and has been for many years. It is a behaviourist type of society where laws are designed to restrict rights, where people are expected to be involved in widely diverse activities and live under the rule of law, and where respect for the rule of law is absolutely essential. They can work within the laws of the land with a degree of freedom, without arbitrary acts and decisions by bureaucrats interfering with that freedom and the desire to be free, energetic and to create wealth.
For the past 15 years we have seen a slow, steady deterioration of that aspect of life in Canada which I was brought up to respect and revere. It was full of faults and flaws, but it evolved from and came out of the Magna Carta. We in Canada are grateful for our freedom. It is the one system that has enabled men living through the ages under a type of parliamentary system to survive the forces of change and still remain free.
As the government moves away from the rule of law and into structure, which this bill starts to do, it loads the breech, putting in the pellets. In my opinion, by doing that, however sincerely, we begin to threaten the very foundation of our freedom.
There are strong moves taking place. Canada has become the laboratory for centralized power and centralized government. We are trying to remove and negate the checks and balances that are at the second level of government in the country, the provincial level. For some of us it is very worrying, even frightening.
The United States has survived because it has had checks and balances built into its system between its federal and state levels of government. I cry out when I see the checks and balances in this country being interfered with, as they are through the constitutional debate and under the guise of a bill of rights in which we are all interested. To me, a bill of rights is protection for minorities and individuals against arbitrary acts on the part of government. That is where it should stop. When we go beyond that, we start to say what our rights are and we start to wipe the blackboard of our common law heritage.
I should like to make it known now as I make my comments at the start of this debate, that I believe in a behavioural type of society. The problem the government is trying to address with its competition law, with its inventory on patents, trade marks, copyrights and all that is contained in Bill S-10, would be unnecessary if we had a strong anti-trust law. Those who stepped outside that strong anti-trust law would be clobbered. In the United States there is a fear of stepping outside their anti-trust laws. The multinational corporations and the large mass of corporations that have almost as much power as the government are terrified of it. That is the way it should be. That is the only way to handle that class of power.

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
What we have here is an inventory of the owners of all the rights. They are extremely interested in all the intellectual property rights that are transferred to Canada. They are not limiting themselves or dealing with the intellectual property rights and areas of only the multinationals and foreigners. They want all the private owners of these rights registered and in their fdes as well. I wonder if we have figured out what is coming down the pipe next? Some of us might be labelled as being very suspicious. I can see, without having to be too intelligent, and I have never posed as that, that we are delivering ourselves at a hell of a rate as we are now going with the Constitution, acting on that, with the attack on property rights within the Constitution, with the national energy policy, which is confiscation, although they say it is Canadianization, which is hogwash.
You can Canadianize in Canada with fiscal policy, to which the people react. All that we talk about having happened can be done with fiscal policy, which allows the people to work, create and have a little more of the results of their sweat for themselves. We put in laws that have made it almost impossible for those few people in Canada who are capable of managing and co-ordinating all the aspects and factors of business life for the creation of jobs and payrolls to continue, and we have done this with high interest rates and the 83-cent dollar. Perhaps that darn thing should be down around 75 cents. It only benefits the resource industry and makes more and more draw and pull out of the wage packet. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that managers and owners of small and medium business enterprises today are working for paper pushers, working for the government, working for landlords, scratching and trying to keep a balance sheet solid, working for payrolls and getting no thanks at all. Labour laws make it almost impossible to remove people who will not pull their fair share of the load. No wonder more and more people who have tried to dedicate a good part of their life to the public service are having to return into that sector in order to handle the pressures there are today.
It would be blind and foolish of me to say these pressures do not exist throughout the world and throughout different western societies, but these pressures are caused by governments which want to distribute more wealth than the system can create. We have gone beyond the point of no return. Sooner or later, somehow, we must have a corrective reaction, but it does not have to be a bust.
The government provides no leadership at all in warning the people or in delivering to them an industrial strategy or plan that will let us understand the problems of human nature within a free society. Therein lies the problem. We all want more than we are prepared to give or to put in. The socialists, with envy-I guess it is envy-continually attack those people who were born, educated or put into circumstances whereby they could put a combination of education and fact together into the bloodstream, risking savings, taking a chance, creating jobs. All of that is static in Canada.
As I have watched the last ten years in Canada, I have almost cried, because every single major project we have has now been put on hold or on stop, and has been attacked by our NDP friends to the left. Every single major project that could create jobs in Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, across the prairies and in B.C., including new transportation systems with new trucks, new steel, new pipes, new communities, new pumping stations and new taxes; every single one of these projects today which could relieve the billion dollars of draw in unemployment insurance on the federal treasury has been stopped or placed on hold. What a tragedy.
We have had two days of debate on North-South relations. There is a great world debate about how much progress the world can stand, for the injustice of progress is that the first world, the western world, the second world and the communist world depend completely on progress, on growth in gross national product for the well-being of their citizens and for the sustenance of the anticipated levels within those respective societies, so 20 per cent of the world's people are drawing and calling on 85 per cent of the world's resources.
Canada is playing a game. We cannot settle our problems internally, we cannot get an industrial strategy that has any forward planning, but we are drawing non-renewable fossilized resources from the other world. These resources could be available to the Third World because we are capable of providing our own energy internally. The greatest single donation we could make to the Third World-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to advise the hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), that this bill is to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, and that act is to provide for the reporting of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities in Canada. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. gentleman's comments and I have still to hear any comment that relates to any of the amendments we are proposing or any of the principles espoused under CALURA.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am the first speaker to reply to the government. I have stated that I am offended by the government trying to sneak this bill through-an omnibus amended bill-an issue as serious and as important as the control and inventory of intellectual property, and that is what this bill is doing. If the minister does not understand that, instead of getting up on his feet maybe he should sit around and listen. He acknowledged and thanked members of the other place for all their work. I have told the minister that they missed the essential issue. Perhaps the minister does not understand the game plan. Maybe if he listened, he would understand. I am not going to rush through and deliver this all in 40 minutes, so he has a bit of listening to do.
I was saying, and all this relates to what I am going to say, that we in Canada can make the largest single donation possible to the Third World by getting our act together at home and withdrawing our demand on the Third World for
June 17, 1981

non-renewable fossilized resources. We are totally capable of doing that internally, except for the fact that the process of doing that is caught up in this revolution, in this structured and interventionist society which this incumbent government is now trying to design and impose on us. This started with the constitutional debate, and the other big hammer was the national energy policy. Now we are starting to get into the nitty-gritty, the sleazy, sticky stuff, sold by the softsoap salesman who just finished introducing the bill. We have a trademark package, right on the line. We have Bill S-10 before us in the House now presented as a private bill so it can slip through so nobody will notice it, and right behind it comes the competition bill.
It is interesting to look at the competition bill and the memoranda which have been leaked out and slipped out. Some major changes have been made in the draft of the competition bill. But they are not going to follow the behaviourist pattern of which I have acknowledged I am in favour, in that we should have strong anti-trust legislation, and we should clobber anyone who does not abide by that legislation. Rather than that principle-and this is the philosophical, political debate which is going on, and that is why the minister does not understand what I am saying-what we are now doing is moving into the grand design, the plan for structure and intervention not only in the multinationals, not only in the large corporations, but also in business of the private owners of intellectual property. What is interesting is that in spite of all the additions, changes, amendments and redrafting of other aspects of the bill, the patents clause in the competition bill is pretty well taken verbatim from Bill C-13, so there has been no change in that area.
Here we are with Bill S-10 as the key to the delivery of the competition bill into the House, and a major thrust of that strategy is going to be in intellectual property. I link that back to the debate on property in the constitutional debate because what they are after in that debate is corporate property and intellectual property.
It is interesting that Bill S-10 comes right in after we have had two days of debate on North-South relationships because the North-South question is very much involved in this whole issue. And here comes Bill S-10 right in behind it.
I remind hon. members of a speech I gave some time ago. I will not repeat it, but I referred in a speech in this Parliament to what I consider to be a very important paper, namely, "The Fate of Empires," by Sir John Glubb. This was originally published in Blackwood magazine in November, 1934, volume 320, and in December, 1976, permission was given to the Canadian Law Society Gazette to reprint it. Sir John Glubb gave us a very interesting analysis of the rise and fall of societies and civilizations from the year 800 B.C. all the way through to the present time. He related the problems of human nature in societies, connected up some ten civilizations and said that these stages of the rise and fall of great nations seemed to be the age of pioneers, that is, the outburst of the
Corporations and Labour Unions
nation when people are pioneering and not heavily in demand of material goods. They are pretty close to the basics of life, and they have that dream and future ahead of them. It is an outburst. That is where the vitality and strength of new nations start. Then there is the age of conquests and the age of commerce, and we have seen all that through Europe. We just have to go back through some ten civilizations to follow this.
Then there is the age of affluence. That is where our trouble starts. That is where the rot of human nature starts in social man. From the age of affluence Sir John Glubb identifies the age of intellect. I wanted to raise that because the designers of the strategy I am putting before the House right now are intellectuals. They are very bright men. They have not wasted their time. They were gifted with good minds and good memories. They studied hard, and they have acquired senior positions in the bureaucracy of this democracy.
We go through the age of intellect in all of these ten civilizations, and then we come to the age of decadence. In each of those ten civilizations, intellect preceded decadence. Then Sir John Glubb went on to say what decadence is marked by and so forth. I put that on the record and into this speech because what we are dealing with is the design of intellects.
We have passed through the age of intellects in Canada- we are still dealing with it-and we are well advanced in this society into the age of decadence. We do not learn from history. Someone said that if we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. I would like to see some of the intellects and some of the brains in this House in all parties apply themselves to the problem of human nature so that we do not have to continue to move into a highly structured interventionist society of which this Bill S-10 represents the pellets in the gun.
There is a linkage. I have talked about the inventory of information which will be demanded. It is a non-voluntary inventory of information. It is going to be mandatory. In the future, after the competition bill is passed that information will be facing foreclosure if it does not meet certain demands. It will be facing revocation because the writings are all in the background literature to all this. It is in aid of Third World countries, and believe me, we have to assist them, but how far do we go in our assistance without having the economic community of the land aware of what the game plan is? That is why I am on my feet taking some time to make a few points here today.
There is a linkage between all of this legislation. There will be Bill S-10 and the information aspects of the CALURA bill. There will be inventory and control. Once they have that, they know where they are, and they have the inventory for the next phase in the competition bill, but there is another bill which is linked with this too, and it relates to FIRA. Mr. Speaker, I know you do not have to read as much as some of us because of your new duties, but you will have to be aware that the FIRA bill is under revision as well, and the drafters of that bill will be linking up Bill S-10, the proposed competition act, FIRA and the new patent law. They are all interrelated. This

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions will deliver the structure and potential for arbitrary rule over the wealth-creating sector of this country. I do not know whether as a member I can do anything about it, other than to use my privilege here in the House to stand and make my colleagues aware of what is happening, but I do not want to live under a structured society.


David Michael Collenette: Anarchist.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Anarchy is so close in this country, my friend, that you cannot see it.


David Michael Collenette: You are an anarchist.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am not. You called me a racist back in December of 1974, and you have been proved wrong. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member tells me I am an anarchist. He does not know what he is talking about.


David Michael Collenette: You do not want structure; you are an anarchist.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I do not want structure. I want laws which spell out behaviour and rules we can live under without the threat of arbitrary intervention in the lives of our citizens and in the lives of the wealth creators of the land. That is what I want.


David Michael Collenette: Dictator.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The hon. member says "dictator". He is so conditioned and inbred in terms of his opinions and in terms of political gains and political strategies that he just cannot let a crack of light in through his eyes to open up his head a little and see if the other guy could possibly be right. That is all I am asking. See if I could possibly be right. Perhaps the hon. member has not done as much reading on this subject as I have, but that is one of the reasons I sit in this House. For many years I have seen the forces of change on society in a country for which I have always carried a very deep love and respect.


David Michael Collenette: What is wrong with change?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There is nothing wrong with change. We are dealing with it every day in our lives, but I do not fully understand why this government is changing a system which has been very successful in protecting liberty and freedom. I do not fully understand why we do not impose change on the flaws and faults in the common law. That is what we should be addressing, not structure and not the threat of arbitrary intervention. We should address the possibility of some fisheries officer saying, "If you do not do as I say, I have a friend in the income tax department".
If other hon. members have not experienced that, I probably have five documented cases of it. I have another case of a civil servant who threatened a supplier with friends in the income tax department. That is the kind of thing I am talking about, not when there is justification for my case whereby I can react under a fiscal policy, an incentive that will allow me or
shareholders or partners to go out and risk money in the hope of putting together an economic unit that will have staying power. Today this government wants us to come in and ask for grants, tax credits and everything else. Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem there is-and again minds like the hon. member opposite will not let a thread of light or knowledge into their heads because only the big guys, the big corporations, the multinationals burying earnings in overhead for their own benefit can afford the staff, the lobbying and the time necessary to deal with the bureaucrats behind the scene-


An hon. Member:: The member is blinded by ambition.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is a serious issue today. I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday but 1 was a little too long in the supplementary and Madam Speaker did not allow me to finish, but on that very issue, Mr. Speaker-I hope it is not my wetness, sir, that is causing you all the trouble in the chair. However, yesterday I noticed that The Globe and Mail editorial picked up on the issue I was raising, the curse of intervention. The hon. member opposite might just think about the contents of that editorial. I know he probably never gets below the three inch print on the front page of a newspaper, but sometimes back in the editorial pages is the heart and core of public concern.
I am using my time here, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate my concern for the threat to my freedom and liberty and that of the people 1 represent when we allow a structuralist and interventionist motivation and thrust by this government to deliver that arbitrary, come-cap-in-hand, yea or nay situation in our lives. That just brings more and more control over individuals. I know full well, because I am standing here saying these things and have said other things in the past, and have the courage to do so if I might say, Mr. Speaker, I know that I cannot go and get a grant, a privilege or a tax credit because I am a bad boy. That is the way it is going to be. They are going to bring us all as individuals to heel starting with Bill S-10, and the constitution and energy bills. We are delivering ourselves to a controlled and structured society and it is time members of this House woke up to that fact. It is time the public out there woke up to that fact. Bills like S-10, with their amendment confusion and their omnibus nature, are intended to hide the type of activity that is carried therein.
They come out and tell us that 70,000 small businesses will not have to report, that we have removed this paper burden. It seems to me that the hon. member for York-Peel said that at the last election, and here we are recycling it. We have moved the threshold, as of course we should, from $250,000 in assets or $500,000 in sales, up to $5 million in assets and $10 million in sales. We have relieved 70,000 corporations from reporting under the act, and that is the big headline, the big issue that the minister shovels out into this House.
However, underneath that camouflage is this other cynicism. I repeat, I am aware that the section requiring reporting of technology transfers into Canada will open up a whole new can of worms. If the minister thinks he is going to have a good
June 17, 1981

time with this, I sincerely hope he is mistaken because I can see that what was missed in the committee proceedings of the other place is being opened up now. I think it is a very sleazy game they are playing.
What they are in fact doing is trying to copy an act already in place in Mexico. I also assume they have had a good strong look at Japan. I think the minister mentioned that in his speech. What Japan does is to take another tack. They want to have an inventory, a register of the intellectual property going in and out of that country. But boy, they are tough. If they are going to receive property and manufacture it, they are going to demand that their manufacture be sold in other markets. I do not see this bunch of great industrialists and businessmen over there ever having the guts to do that. I did not see any trade-offs with Japan in terms of the infrastructure required for northeast coal. I will be one that will support an initiative to trade-off Candu reactors in Japan for the availability of a non-renewable resource like northeast coal, one of the most valuable coal beds in the world. Why should we be selling off our resources when we do not have the maximum value added?
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that you can electrify the city of Vancouver with the exothermic reaction from the coking process? Do you know that coke is worth about twice as much as coal in raw form? We do not want necessarily the coking process because it affects our environment and we have those concerns, so we make these kinds of trade-offs. However, do we really sit down with an industrial strategy and deliver intelligent, forward looking, strong trade-offs when we are dealing with the selling out of our resources? In our greed and selfishness we want it all today and we do not give a tinker's darn about our kids tomorrow.
I have been waiting for this industrial strategy of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) because, boy, if it does not have the guts that this country deserves-he has been talking about it forever. He is the guy who was going to resign, Mr. Speaker-or have you forgotten-when interest rates went up to 14 per cent.
Maybe while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, we should talk about that a little. The structural need in Canada today should not be patterned on the needs of the United States. The history of our needs and growth is different to that of the United States. Why do we not have a debate in this House on what would happen if we lowered interest rates and let the dollar fall? Why not have a standing committee sitting continuously with a hammer and tong draw on all the debate of the economists and others not so formally trained in this country? We cannot continue to go the monetarist route and survive with any semblance of freedom under the rule of law.


Mr. Rae:: Tell that to Crosbie.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Is that perhaps part of the design of the structuralist, interventionist government? The initiatives are there. The tools are available all over the Hill to conduct exciting debates on issues of importance. Do they initiate
Corporations and Labour Unions
them? Do they use them? The answer is no. They talk about an industrial strategy. Where is it?
I am very pleased to see the hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) in the House. I should like to ask him: where is the study on the small business financing review? Is it buried in the industrial strategy? Is there not an hour of need right now for this study which has been ongoing for so long that I think the ink on the first pages has faded? Where is the study? Most of us know the answers which need to be put in place. It is difficult to create any new wealth today out of the earnings of the small businesses sector. It is difficult for small businesses to develop new plants, to remain productive and modern. They cannot accumulate the equity they need. Why is the minister not picking up this hour of need in Canada and coming out with creative and thoughtful initiatives?
The work in this regard was carried out by the previous Liberal government and the Clark government, and now it is being carried out by the present government. If the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism wants an audience, or if he wants to draw on some of the brains and talent in the House and the business community for the final drafting of the report, there is nothing we would be more pleased to do. In the palm of his hand, in his ministerial power, he has one of the best chances to make a donation to the community on top of which he is supposed to be sitting. I am sure he finds the peak of the pyramid sharp and uncomfortable right now.
Why are they delaying that issue, with interests rates running at 21 per cent to 22 per cent and the dollar at 83 cents? Have we debated in the House what a 75-cent dollar would do for awhile? Would it bring down interest rates four or five percentage points? Who would benefit? Who would make windfall profits to offset the other costs? They are drowning initiatives and they are drowning individuals in preparation for a structuralist, interventionist society.
There is a great deal of sincerity in the New Democratic Party. I can relate to much of what members of that party do, but when they continually raise their concern for the small businessman, I become concerned. Will their concerns help us to get to the issue upon which the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is sitting or perhaps sleeping? Will their concerns help us deal with the issues of interest rates and the value of the dollar? We are playing political games with each other and we all know it. We do not do a service to Canadian constituents at large. We are all working away at narrow political points. It is beyond me. Their constituents are the labour unions and the big unions bosses who are expert at grabbing more than their fair share from the system, and all the unorganized can go to hell.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is about the way it is. We are not doing anything in the House about the absolute absence of any discretionary spending for those people who spent their lives working and are now on fixed pensions, but we have destroyed

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
multibillions of dollars of capital by allowing interest rates to rise as they have.
Perhaps we require a debate on how to fill the coffers of an international reserve fund which will stabilize the pressure on the dollar and give us a chance, with a sound industrial strategy, to get back on track. We have ten years of hard, disciplined work to do if we are to avoid a collapse of the system. The hour is upon us. It behooves us all to become involved in the issue, but the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism is sleeping on one of the most valuable and perhaps one of the most important studies to the small and medium enterprise sector. There is a crisis, there is a need right now, but the study is buried in his boss' industrial strategy. They have to complete all the work on intellectual property, on the inventory and on the competition law; they have to get the constitutional law passed. Their priorities are so screwed up it is unbelievable. It discredits the whole system.
I read the speech of the hon. minister on Bill S-10. I understand some of the advantages he described, but I want those points made clear in committee. I want some of the intellectuals behind the drafting of this pyramid of bills, this interconnected triangle of bills and legislation, in committee. I want some of the intellectuals from the community at large to assist hon. members of both opposition parties in preparing debate and questions for those intellectuals. This is where the system fails miserably.
The biggest problem in Canada is the structure of Parliament. We have lost complete control over the power of supply. Our committees system and structure will not let us work on any continuity of thought. We do not have a secretariat behind our committees to match the expertise of the bureaucrats. Therein lies one of our biggest flaws. This is what we should be addressing first. The constitutional issue is not doing that. We are not throughout any of the constitutional debate addressing regionalism, which is the biggest, single, most serious problem in Canada. There is regionalism in metropolitan areas, in provinces and at large in the land. This structure fails to address and link up the regionalism. It wants to destroy regionalism through a central unitary state and it will not work.
I am taking this time because I feel the great debate in Canada can be resolved with an industrial strategy. It can be resolved under the behaviourist philosophy wherein we design laws which tell people what they can do. If they do not obey, we must have the courage and guts to enforce it. If we are to do that, we must address the needed legislation to improve the respect for the rule of law in Canada.
In closing, I should like to talk about the research and development policy.


An hon. Member:: There is not one.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is correct, there is not one. For years we have listened to all corners of the private sector tell us what we need in the way of research and development. Basically we need an incentive in our fiscal policy which will allow the entrepreneurs in the boardrooms of the nation to make decisions and to invest high-risk money in unknown areas and in unknown frontiers of technology, on the chance that there will be a reward down the road.
To offset that decision risk, all they ask for is a 25 per cent credit; in other words, 125 per cent of cost. There is no sense doing this for multinational organizations which are already spending millions of dollars of research money, but we could give them an incentive to increase their activity. We could give them the 125 per cent rate on incremental increases over their respective bases. But no, all energy and talent at large in the land is frustrated. They must come cap-in-hand with polished shoes, make appointments, wait in waiting rooms for some civil servant to process an application. Then they must lobby the whole system, and as the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism knows, the small and medium-sized business sector do not have the time, nor can they afford it, for their businesses would go bankrupt.
Give R and D a chance. Give the brains and talent outside the government in this country a chance to prove that they can get it going. Our dilemma today started with the Benson tax legislation of 1971. That is when we started to move into the interventionist society. That is when our bureaucracy started to build. That is when incentives ceased in any savings process in Canada, other than turning every single Canadian who puts his money into a tax shelter into a future debtor of the state. That is what we have done. We have locked up all our savings in pension funds and RRSP funds and none of it is available to the world of work where the need for that dormant capital exists. The rewards are no longer available in Canada for the managers. The rewards are there for the paper pushers, the landowners and the absentee capitalists, not for the talent which can create jobs and add to the value of goods and services.
I would urge all members to read the editorial which appeared in The Globe and Mail today. It deals with the curse of intervention. We have been hearing this for five, six, seven, or ten years and the government will not allow a glimmer of light into its mind. I stand here and say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the path along which it is leading us will turn out to be one of the most tragic eras in Canadian history. We alone in the western world, the western industrialized nations, have the opportunity to be energy self-sufficient. We have the opportunity to put in place massive transportation systems in the form of pipelines. We have the opportunity to electrify railroads across the mountains and the west; and all that diesel fuel which is consumed by those railroad locomotives can be put back into the bank. All we have to do is give the railroads a tax incentive to convert from a non-renewable fossilized source of energy to a renewable electrical source of energy-I think 150 per cent would have done it. We would have had all of that in the bank. That is where the activity is.
The Cold Lake plant has been backed up, as has the new tar sands plant, as has the transportation system, and as have the pipelines for the flow of energy from the Arctic downward. We
June 17, 1981

will be in trouble with a small pipeline to get the oil from the Mackenzie delta down south. We have sent missionaries out into the field who have created activists in all of the outlying communities. And where a strong centralized state is wanted the government has worked harder to create a fractured state, particularly in the north. All of that was ours.
We were one of the few western nations which really could sustain a 5 per cent or 6 per cent growth in our gross national product without a draw on the Third World. We are one of the few countries in the western world with that gift of nature- and we throw it away. What will this government do when the national energy policy is finally settled? It will release the reins on two, three or four megaprojects. We will not have the skills, the trade, the labour, the steel, the transportation, or the people who are used to working. We will create shortages which will compound strikes. We will just drive up the price of everything. We will never have a secondary manufacturing operation in place with that kind of an industrial strategy.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that he would resign if interest rates went above 14 per cent while he was a member of any government in power. He is still sitting in the House and interest rates are at 21 per cent. He has talked about an industrial strategy ever since I have known him. Now is the time for an industrial strategy. Where is it? Instead of an industrial strategy this government would rather bootleg in bills like Bill S-10, which are a direct attack on intellectual property and on the future freedom of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member for Capilano would entertain a question?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If 1 can answer it.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member can answer it since it refers to the article by Sir John Glubb which he quoted once again. He referred to this article on December 18, 1980, in his speech during the emergency debate on the economy. As the hon. member pointed out at that time, Sir John Glubb lists a series of ages. When he comes to the age of decadence, as reported at page 5919 of Hansard for December 18 he said:
Decadence is marked by:
Defensiveness,
Pessimism,
Materialism,
Frivolity,
An Influx of Foreigners,
The Welfare State,
A weakening of religion.
Can the hon. member tell us if he agrees with that since he quoted the passage once again today? Can he tell us which foreigners are responsible for Canada's decadence?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, earlier I was accusing the NDP of making cheap political shots when there is an opportunity to deal with very serious issues. Sir John Glubb's article is
Corporations and Labour Unions
very valuable, if one reads it in its total context. I was not thinking of any specific type of foreigners. Sir John was pointing out that that has been a fact in ten previous civilization cycles before this one. He was pointing out that it is a fact of history. He says decadence is due to there being too long a period of wealth and power, selfishness, love of money and the loss of a sense of duty, which is the reason civilizations bring in people from outside. They no longer want to do their own work.


Bob Rae: You agree that foreigners contribute to Canada's decadence?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will not answer the hon. member's specific question, because he is simply playing political games with a serious issue.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise to speak on Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. I have quoted the motion since it appeared to me the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was speaking about everything but the bill before us. When he did refer to it he referred to it in a negative way. I remind the hon. member that it was the Conservative government under Mr. Diefenbaker which brought in the original CALURA bill about which he spoke against so adamantly this afternoon.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I was not speaking against his bill, I was speaking against the changes in this one.


Sidney James Parker: As the New Democratic Party critic for labour relations I intend to limit my remarks to those aspects of the bill concerning trade unions. I am sure that other members from my party will quite adequately cover the provisions respecting corporations. My only comment regarding that portion of the bill would be that if CALURA has been as bad at reporting the true financial relationship between Canadian branches of U.S. companies and their parent firms as it has been in reporting the true financial picture respecting international unions, then we are probably completely foolhardy to base any of our economic forecasting or policies on those figures.
I am in a very difficult position in debating this bill. We in the New Democratic Party opposed CALURA from day one because we felt it was structurally designed to present an untrue picture of the way in which international unions operate in Canada. We knew from the first day that the figures from CALURA would be used by those people who would like to destroy the trade union movement in Canada. We knew that because the legislation was designed seriously to overestimate the amount of money leaving Canada while at the same time seriously underestimate the amount of money coming into the country, it would be used as a weapon against organized labour in this country.
My dilemma over the bill which is before us today is very simple. This bill contains provisions which will change

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
CALURA from being a very bad law into just a bad law. If we oppose these amendments then we are put into the position of supporting CALURA as it presently exists, which is completely untenable. However, if we support these amendments, which are only a series of poorly designed half-measures, we will be giving the new legislation credibility which it does not deserve. We will also be voting seriously to increase the workload on volunteer trade union members. Volunteer trade union members have a lot of work on their hands with regard to reporting transfers of membership throughout the various areas. But the reporting provisions in this bill will require that more information be tabled in less time.
We heard the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) ask a question of the minister regarding corporations and the workload they may have. I, too, want to ask that question regarding volunteer people in the many trade unions across Canada, in international trade unions, such as the railway workers. Volunteer people in the unions are not only trying to keep up with the secretarial work and the treasurer's work and the movement of memberships from one place to another, but they will now be requested to get their information into headquarters.
What we on this side of the House would like to see is not a debate over wallpaper amendments, but rather a debate on CALURA itself. We in the New Democratic Party do not oppose the principle that the true financial picture of trade unions should be publicly available. We would be as distressed as any group in this chamber to learn that union dues collected in Canada were being diverted outside of the country. We feel that Canadians have a right to know how their trade union dues are being spent, just as we feel that Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent or how the income generated by companies operating in Canada is being spent. But we are not prepared to support a law which only tells half the story, a law which exaggerates how much money is collected and does not even bother to concern itself with how that money is used.
We also feel very strongly about the autonomy of trade unions in Canada. We have always supported the notion that Canadian workers should be in complete control of their own affairs, that Canadian workers should be able to decide how their union operates. But we reject the very simplistic notion implicit in CALURA that the level of Canadian autonomy in a union is a direct function of how many of its dollars are kept in a bank in Canada, as opposed to a bank somewhere else in the world.
Imagine if we used that very simplistic idea in determining the Canadian level of ownership in a company. Instead of concerning ourselves with how that company makes decisions, with how its board of directors is composed, or with what percentage of its stocks were owned by Canadians, imagine basing our decision on what constitutes a Canadian company solely on the basis of where it invested its earnings.
Would the CPR, which has holdings all over the world, then be viewed as a foreign firm? Would Imperial Oil of Canada, which operates exclusively in Canada, then be viewed as a
Canadian firm? That sounds silly, but that is exactly the logic behind CALURA. We would be saying to the trade unions: "We don't care who makes your decisions, we don't care whether you are controlled by your membership, we don't care whether you are democratic, we don't care whether you have complete autonomy; we just care whether or not you happen to keep some of your money in a bank outside of Canada".
Of course, that is not what any of us would say. But that is not to say that we in the New Democratic Party are not concerned with where the money is kept. Speaking quite frankly, we would like to see as much of that money as possible staying in Canada. We would like to see Canadian pension funds invested in Canada. We would like to see Canadian dues and strike funds invested in Canada so that Canadian workers can borrow that money.
Those are concerns, but those concerns are not our greatest ones. We are most concerned that Canadian unions have the full protection they need to fight the sometimes terrible struggles with which they are confronted. We recognize that when Canadian autoworkers, for instance, are fighting Ford, or General Motors, or Chrysler, they need tremendous financial resources to win those battles. When Canadian workers are fighting the huge multinationals which dominate our economy, they need some pretty huge pools of money. The unfortunate reality is that there are not enough union dues in all of Canada to win some of these battles. That is when we recognize the necessity for international ties between workers.
I often wonder about the position of other parties in this chamber on this question. If I were slightly more cynical, I might feel that other parties here are not really interested in keeping our trade union movement strong. I might conclude that they would be most happy to see a small Canadian union fighting some huge American company. Those people who say that our trade union movement should be completely Canadian, that we should break all links with international unions, fall into two camps. A very small percentage of them are truly concerned with what they feel is foreign domination of our union movement. They are usually not acquainted with the facts. They do not know that Canadian trade unions, for the most part, are completely independent: that they elect their own leadership and make their own decisions. But the rest of the people who would like to break up the international unions have a hidden agenda. They know that in many industries the international union is the only salvation for Canadian workers. They know that when General Motors is bargaining in Canada they are bargaining with an international union with over one million members, not with a Canadian union that barely has 10 per cent of that number.
We in the New Democratic Party will be moving many amendments to this bill when it gets to committee. Frankly, we do not understand why on the one hand the law is going to require unions to file a report on their income, but on the other hand there is only a request that they file their expenditures in Canada. We want the law to require international unions to spell out in very clear language how their money is spent in Canada. We want them to itemize such things as the Canadian
June 17, 1981

share of the costs in running the international headquarters. We want them to itemize the Canadian share of the cost on the depreciation of fixed assets. If they do that, then maybe we will get a true picture of exactly how much money is either flowing into Canada or, in some rare cases, flowing out of Canada.
Finally, we are concerned about the impact that all these extra forms will have on the volunteer staff who must fill them out at the local level. I have often heard my friends to the right complaining about the paper burden which many small businessmen face when having to fill out government forms. I sympathize with those concerns, but I would suggest that in this case the burden is even more overwhelming, since in many cases the forms must be filled out by elected officials at the local level in their own time. I would like to see these officials remunerated in some way for work which they will be doing on behalf of the government.
In conclusion, let me just repeat what 1 said earlier. We in the NDP favour a law which will provide for the fair and accurate reporting of money spent in Canada and of money collected in Canada by the trade union movement. The present law does not come close to doing that. The amendments are an improvement, but even if they are passed in their present form, CALURA will not be providing a fair or an accurate assessment of how unions operate in Canada.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the speeches from all sides of the House. When my colleague for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) referred to legalese, there were some smiles and chuckles from some of the intellectuals in the gallery. This rather interested me. They were sort of looking down upon us in such a way as to indicate, "We will erode your rights, we will take them away slowly but surely. That is our instruction and this is the way we will accomplish it." Eventually, under the plan of this government we will become slaves of the state. Each bill that comes before us slowly but surely takes something away.
There is a continual erosion and we have to put a stop to it. We on this side must do everything in our power to stop the destruction of this country, eliminating the free spirit which created it. People had to walk across this country behind caravans. We must protect them. That is why we are here today.
All that the amendments in Bill S-10 will do is create a great deal of employment for lawyers and accountants. If the assets of a holding corporation are $5 million, they must report. The act will have to be changed when I throw in this one. What is to stop them from changing the corporation into five corporations owned by the original owners of the one corporation? This is what the entrepreneur in this country will have to do. It is an expense. It is an indirect tax. It is an erosion of our wealth and of our rights.
What we have been getting in this House is regulation rather than reform, interference and control by this govern-
Corporations and Labour Unions
ment with regard to the rights of every corporation, every individual, every home. It is taking away the free enterprise system that brought this country to where it was up until 1968. From that point on it has been straight downhill with one goal in mind, the goal of state ownership. The government wants to try in this country what has failed so dreadfully in Sweden and England and is in trouble in Russia. Why does the government impose this on us, taking away our freedoms and our rights?
The government keeps on spending money. That is the politically acceptable thing to do. It is now at the point where it is borrowing capital funds from foreign sources in order to meet its social objectives. Those objectives are important. But when this erodes the private sector of this country, it erodes the entire economy.
This government does not care about the private sector. It wants to get its hands on it. It wants to intrude upon it and erode it. I referred to other countries which tried this. Look at the Swedish model. Anyone who has been to Sweden will confirm that it is not looking well. Look at the British disaster. The present Prime Minister of Britain had great goals of trying to turn it around. I am afraid she is fighting a losing battle. Everything had been taken away from the private sector and given to the government.
It is too late for her, but I do not believe it is too late for the United States. That country is fortunate in having a leader who is communicating with the people, not telling them untruths. He is again giving them a spirit of freedom. The Americans are in the fortunate position that their private sector has not been eroded. They have the opportunity to bring that country back to the original system they were working under.
I cannot say that we should accept any other model. Our country is different. It is half a continent spread over 3,000 miles. It is not a cohesive country for geographic and regional reasons. It is not like France which has Paris as a hub around which its economy revolves. It is not like half of Germany with its hub around Berlin. It cannot be treated like England with its hub around London. The proximity and the thinking of the people is so close to those centres that they can communicate the common purpose. In this country it is different. We have different cultures, different languages and a much more serious problem which this government is not addressing. With its mandate, it has an opportunity to develop an economic system that would be unique to Canada. It must be unique to Canada because we are different from other countries.
The previous speaker talked about the inventory of rights. Our inventory is slowly eroding and washing away. The government is slowly but surely taking it or pushing it away. Look what it is doing with the National Energy Program, Bill C-48 and Bill C-57. It is forcing the wealth out of this country or underground and removing the funds from the private sector. By removing the funds as a result of borrowing at extreme rates, the private sector cannot get its hands on any funds. The government is gobbling up all the capital available to Canada. This government should do an analysis to determine the total

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
debt per person of federal, provincial or municipal debt. That would indicate the rights that individuals have left.
Your Honour seems to be indicating I am getting off the track so I will return to Bill S-10. I cannot believe that any individual or group of individuals would set up a corporation in Canada with assets of $5 million or sales of $10 million. There are too many other places in the world where freedoms have not been eroded, where there are greater benefits without great grandfather looking over their shoulder. This bill destroys the private sector.
Many times in this House we have talked about property rights. Property rights do not only include home ownership but general property, anything a person owns. They are going to be taken away from us.


David Michael Collenette: Absolute nonsense.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The hon. member may think it is rubbish but when he sees the bottom line he will see that is precisely where we are going. They continually say rubbish, but the facts are there. They keep on saying they are right, but papers keep coming out, hobbled by regulation. The Economic Council of Canada, this Government of Canada agency, keeps requesting reform of regulation. This is what these agencies should be doing instead of changing regulations and getting the private sector tied up again.
Just as an aside, when talking about property rights and people losing their businesses, many people are losing their homes. This government is taking their homes away as a result of these inflationary rates. People cannot afford to own homes at 20 per cent interest rates. This is just another confiscation which is taking place, but many Canadians are not aware of this. What the government is doing is getting into our books and checking things out. The government says this applies only to certain people, but it then says Statistics Canada can give the information to any other branch of government. There is no provision for secrecy. The Canadian press will probably have the information next. As soon as you send your report in, the Canadian press will pick it up and report on it. Look at what happened in the thirtieth session when one reporter phoned up and got the income tax returns of several people in this House. There is no secrecy or privacy. This is a total erosion.
The National Energy Program is part of the package the government is putting together. It is nationalization and it states that right in the name "National Energy". It is nationalization; it is socialism in its most disastrous form, as is this bill.
The next bill which will somehow be sneaked into this House, and I will be terrified when that happens, will remove the right to vote. The leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) will probably go along with that in view of his associations with his friends in the south. The government has almost removed our rights in this House. The next thing it will do is take away a person's right to vote. That is what I am afraid of. The
government is removing people's incentive and the rights of Canadians.
Why bother having an industrial strategy? This bill takes care of that. This bill gives the government the right to go into every business's books to check where the money is coming from, how to make money and where it can grab the money. The government is nationalizing the oil industry, and all it will have to do is nationalize the businesses which are really profitable. As I have said before in this House, the government will nationalize and create non-profit organizations. That is what this government does; it buys up corporations-Petrofina is the last one-and immediately turns them into non-profit organizations.


An hon. Member:: Pop Shoppes.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Pop Shoppes; let's not, because we are fighting right now to keep them private. The government is trying to take them back but I would like to keep them private. That is another example of what the government has done through the Canada Development Corporation. The government has seen what they are doing, has seen their returns and now thinks there is lots of money there; but as soon as the government gets its hands on them they will go broke.
Part of the reason for this bill and the adaptation of the bill is that there is no real industry in Canada relative to our size. The government is just looking for another way of grabbing things after looking through the returns. The government has jumped on the resource industry and next it will grab the farms. It will grab the agricultural base of this country, the one constant we have in this country. That time is not very far away and it is coming. As I said before, the government is going to end up with a lot of people's homes unless it does something about the situation.
Really Bill S-10 moves very rapidly into the private sector. It is moving so rapidly it is going to destroy the last remnants of the private enterprise system. That makes me very sad. That has been a very successful system. We have a free country, we have rights, we have freedom of movement, freedom allowing people to come to this country and enjoy it, freedom to work at will, and I regret that this bill will take that away.
I referred before to the potential confiscation that exists in this measure, particularly when it is tied to Bill C-48 and its confiscation of 25 per cent of the rights of oil companies. This frightens me. I just wonder why we are here. I wonder why the government is trying to sneak these things through on us. The government brings these things through in saddening ways through different bills; a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit through the Constitution, a little bit through Bill C-48 and a little bit through Bill C-57.
By Bill C-57 the government is taking away the rights of the provinces. The provinces enjoyed the right of royalty on natural resources. The government is being specific in that regard, but in this measure it is no longer being specific. The government is going to go after all other resources. It will get the statistics and the information. The government will watch growth and will have a chart on each corporation that is
June 17, 1981

growing. As the corporations grow the government will say: "Aha! The nickel industry is looking good this week; let's go after it". I am very concerned.
We have talked about patent rights, and I guess copyrights could be included. What the government is trying to do through a bill is tax a Canadian corporation which has the intelligence, the aggressiveness and the wherewithal to go out and buy rights from somebody else who has done the development. The reason that development takes place somewhere else is that most countries in the world are very aware of research and development. They provide a very strong incentive to encourage research and development in the private sector. This government figures, why should it subsidize the private sector? It feels it should not have to subsidize the private sector. It will go after the companies that buy these rights and bring them back to Canada. It will nail the companies that way and get patents free. From a private point of view I think this is commendable. These are the kinds of things the private sector does through ingenuity. What this government is doing is beyond ingenuity. We in this country have a responsibility to contribute to research and development. We have a responsibility to help people develop new products. We have a responsibility to help the industrial base modernize and to help labour become more productive. We are doing nothing for them.
Japan and Germany are far ahead of us right now in robotizing the auto industry. General Motors in the United States is moving very quickly now. It is doing the reverse of what Japan did before the war. It is stealing ideas from Japan and perfecting them. Once General Motors perfects robotizing of auto production the government will turn right around and collect all that information here in Canada through Bill S-10. That is a parasitic clause in the bill, together with many of the others.
This bill worries me. As I said before, perhaps some ingenious entrepreneurs will find ways to get around this bill. It will create lots of work for lawyers and accountants, but again it is an indirect tax. This bill is a total erosion of the rights of Canadian citizens who are entrepreneurs. It is very similar to leaving property rights out of the Constitution. It is very similar to taking away royalty rights under Bill C-57. It is just a continuation. When we put the whole package together, all we see is a government destined to take away the rights of corporations and individuals.
I plead with the government to read some of the excellent documents being produced by some of its agencies. They are saying, "Remove regulation". I have said before in this House, how about some imaginative plagiarism? Why not steal some ideas from south of the border where they are trying to get the private sector going? Do not continually erode the private sector. It is our spirit. It is our country. I feel very strongly that we will lose what our forefathers created. My grandfather was an Irish immigrant. My other grandfather was a German immigrant. They came over here with nothing. This country
Corporations and Labour Unions gave them opportunity, and will we take it away with bills such as Bill S-10, which removes the right of the Canadian citizen to build even a home and, more particularly, to build wealth?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening attentively to the hon. gentleman. I would like him to identify from where in the bill before the House all these terrible consequences flow. How will we be depriving individuals of their homes and the private sector of the opportunity to make a dollar? The hon. member has not addressed any of the provisions of the bill in order to support his claims. We are either a house of serious debate or this is a place where comments are made without any foundation. I therefore feel that the whole speech of the hon. gentleman is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As he did not do in the
case of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), the minister has now questioned whether the proceedings are orderly. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Capilano, and in view of the fact that this is second reading and the purpose of second reading is to debate the principle of the bill-and that encourages wide consideration-I felt he was perfectly in order.
There has been a bit of difficulty with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), who has perhaps moved away from the principle of the bill. The whole question of relevance at second reading is a difficult one. We might solve the problem by my suggesting to the hon. member for Ontario that he try to approach the bill more closely if he can. However, this is second reading, and the Chair intends to recognize the principle that at second reading debate is on the principle of the bill, and that allows a fair scope for imagination.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to proposed section 4.1 which reads:
Every holding corporation to which this part applies shall, for each reporting period-
I do not need to read them all out, but I refer to proposed sections 4.1(l)(a), and 4.1(2)(a),(b),(c),(d) and (e). I am referring to proposed section 4.2. I am referring to those parts of this bill.


Mr. Evans:: How do they relate?


Thomas Scott Fennell: They relate because they erode the rights of private corporations to exist. Once the government gets hold of this, tied in with the other bills, it gives itself the opportunity to check out what everyone is doing.
As we have seen, the government has taken over the oil industry. Now it will move into the next sector, which might be the nickel sector, the copper sector, the wine sector or whatever. That is the point I am making. This is only part of a total strategy by this government and its leader. I say I am in order. Perhaps I am being general, but I am concerned. I may be terribly emotional about this because I know the people affected. Many of my constituents have small businesses.
One of the reasons for putting the amount up to $5 million in assets and $10 million in sales is very simple. This is the
June 17, 1981

Corporations and Labour Unions
same thing as a corporation of 20 years ago with $500,000 in assets and $1 million in sales. We are referring to small business here. Small business is not $25,000, $100,000 or half a million. Small business is anything up to $25 million. There is no differentiation. In this day the competition between world markets is so severe that you cannot be a mini corporation any more; you must be at least a $25 million corporation. Through this bill this government is removing the rights of Canadians and taking away the opportunity to invest in this country. I refer to proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2.
When this bill gets to committee, I will take a very active part because I would like to fight so that it can be adjusted.
I am absolutely delighted that the government is looking at some of the international unions. I am not critical of the unions of Canada; I am talking about international unions. I am delighted that this government is attempting to nail them down because they do not have assets of $10 million; they have assets of $10 billion. One good thing about the bill is that through it the government is attempting to catch up with them.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. I hope I will have another opportunity after the bill has been to committee and we have made extensive revisions.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill should be considered in the context of freedom of information. I find it contradictory, strange and ironic that the party to my right, which has so strongly espoused the policy of requiring the government to provide greater information to the public-a policy which we have advocated for a great many years-should now appear to be opposed to the principle of the right of citizens to know the nature and structure of those corporations and the nature and structure of those trade unions which exercise such a substantial degree of power in our society.
I find it quite fantastic to hear the tremendous rage-the sincerity of which I do not question and with which I continue to be impressed-expressed with respect to the nature of the corporate world out there and the nature of the trade union world, which I am quite happy to talk about, and to hear the concerns expressed by members of the Conservative party. I think this is a departure from the historic traditions of that party but, nevertheless, there is a feeling, expressed by a wing of the Conservative party that any requirement with respect to the reporting of critical financial information is an act of impending totalitarianism and simply one more step on the slippery slope toward a totalitarian state.
That position is one which, as I say, has been expressed with a great deal of sincerity. I know it is deeply felt but I just do not think it conforms to the nature of the world in which we live. All I can say is that it is an understandable reaction to the frustration which all of us in the opposition parties feel about the inactivity of the present government with respect to the
economy. It is an understandable frustration which I certainly feel.
When I heard the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) talk about the absence of an industrial strategy and the foolhardiness of the government of British Columbia in deciding to sell off lots of coal very cheaply, I could only say "hear, hear!' It is a position I share. When I hear criticism of the government's high interest rate policy coming from the same member, I agree with him. Unfortunately the person he has to convince is his colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who just ten days ago defended the high interest rate policy of Governor Bouey and said if he was minister of finance he would be defending it as well.
With respect to what he had to say on those matters, I was in substantial agreement. However, when it comes to looking at the principles involved in legislation of the CALURA type first introduced by the Diefenbaker government in the early 1960s, it seems to me the question is this. In addition to requiring a government to respond to the demands of its citizens, their right to know what is going on in government, the nature of the power being exercised by the government and our rights as citizens to access to critical information with respect to decisions being made, how can one then turn around and say that corporations whose power, even on the admission of the hon. member for Capilano, has grown substantially, who are exercising substantial power over the individual, should be even further increased? I think I heard the hon. member say that in many instances their power rivals that of government. The hon. member for Capilano and the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) both made passing references to the power of trade unions which I do not entirely accept. I think they exaggerate the power of the trade unions. Listening to the hon. member for Ontario talking about the billions in assets that international unions have, it demonstrates an ignorance about union finances which is astonishing.
Nevertheless, despite that fact, if you say these groups exercise substantial public power, surely at some point we abandon the mythological notion that we are simply talking about interference with privacy. Some other principles have to be established. At some point those groups have a responsibility to the public to give up information which is of concern and direct interest to the public. I say to the members of the Conservative party, who I know will be participating at great length in this debate and with some interest, that surely the question is not that all of this is on the slippery slope to totalitarianism; surely the question should be: What information do we really want and need to know-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Like what?


Bob Rae: -and why do we need to know it? What purpose is served by our knowing it, and what purpose is served by our not knowing it? There will always be those people who will say: "To ask this question is to interfere with my privacy". In many instances that is a justifiable concern. Certainly we are moving into a society where privacy is being threatened every day. Indeed, I would say it is substantially under attack even
June 17, 1981

in this House by the activities of certain members with respect to those matters.
We need to be concerned with why people want to know certain things, and what purpose is served by knowing about matters which are private, or indeed matters of state security, for which suddenly there is a demand to know. It seems to me that is the question that should be addressed, not to sort of take the blanket approach that anything the government wants to know with respect to trade unions or companies is an act of incipient totalitarianism.
I had occasion, Mr. Speaker, to work for an international trade union and I must say that I was always proud of the fact that that union was not afraid to disclose information with respect to its finances. Indeed, it had to be audited, the information was available to the members with respect to how much was paid to union directors, how much was paid to all employees of the trade union, precisely how much money was in the strike fund. All that information was public and I do not see why it should not be. Of course it should be public.
We had a fight in Ontario, which I am sure the minister who introduced this bill will recall, where there was a requirement that came through the United States that trade unions had an obligation to represent their members fairly, the duty of fair representation which was imposed in the United States. This was opposed by some trade unions because they say the state should not be interfering in the life of trade unions.
I have always felt, and I have argued it publicly and will argue it again, that where bodies exercise a substantial amount of public power with respect to their members, even if they are voluntary organizations like trade unions, society has a perfect right to impose duties on those organizations provided the administration of that duty is perfectly fair.
Now, any individual trade unionist in this country, because every province and the federal government requires it, has the right to take his trade union to the labour board if he feels he has not been fairly or fully represented. That right is not resisted by the trade unions because they recognize they are public bodies and they have a responsibility to society and society has a right to know. The objection voiced by my colleague in speaking on behalf of our party, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), is this. The kind of information being asked of trade unions under this act and the way in which it ascribes and compiles this information with respect to international unions can be misleading. This is because it underestimates the provision of services by international unions in Canada. It is misleading because it underestimates the extent to which funds are indeed expended in Canada on a variety of services, including the expenditure of strike funds. So that we often get a picture of trade union activity and financing in Canada which is misleading.
This is a debate which has been going on within the trade union movement itself. It is a subject which I do not want to preoccupy the House with; I simply want to indicate to the minister that when the bill goes into committee I think that the very real and practical concern that a large number of our trade unions have with respect to this information should be
Corporations and Labour Unions taken seriously, perhaps in the way in which it is presented in the annual report, so that there is a more accurate assessment of what is really collected and spent in Canada. Then we as a society can see the international trade union movement undergoing dramatic internal change. There is no resistance in any international union of which I am aware or have knowledge of to the idea that Canadian union members should have a complete, clean and exact picture of what is going on in their union. What is objected to is that the presentation of information with respect to the activities of international unions in Canada is misleading in its description of how much money is really expended on behalf of members. As I say, that is not an ideological question; that is a factual question which I think we should be able to reach some consensus on.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) said that he was really glad the government was nailing international unions. This is an attitude toward what is going on here which, if it were expressed by a member of my party, I would find quite amazing. The government is not out to crucify or nail anyone. It should be put in the context of what members of the public, members of the trade union movement and members of corporations have a right to know. What kind of protection should we afford to the important principle of privacy? How can we ensure that the presentation of this information is as fair as possible?
I want to turn to another aspect of the bill which concerns me. It is the question of the salaries of corporate executives. Not long ago in the House I directed some questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) concerning a comparison of the wage rates of average employees with the compensation paid to certain executives.
Because of wage and price controls, the imposition of the Anti-Inflation Act and the workings of the Anti-Inflation Board, there are really two moralities in the country with respect to compensation-who gets what, when, where and how. The negotiated wage rates of the organized worker or even the unorganized worker are published the day they are ratified. They can be found in the collective agreements. They turn up in the material of Statistics Canada. They are available for all to see. We can track every month the nature of settlements-how high they have gone; whether they have risen 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent; the calculation of the COLA and of the cost of fringe benefits. All of this is exercised under the clearest and harshest glare of publicity. One can say that we do not actually know what the individual makes because he may rent a room in his house or have a part-time job, but one is able to calculate in a very rough and ready but clear way exactly what an average employee earns.
In the publication of Statistics Canada figures last Friday, we discovered that the industrial composite wage rose 10.9 per cent. We all know that inflation for the same period has risen 12.5 per cent. Once again it is clear that this year the average

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
employee has fallen behind the increases in the cost of living. This is one morality.
Other people who are subjected to the same morality are members of Parliament. Dare I say on the floor of the House that our salaries are public knowledge? Our increases are negotiated in public. The salaries of public servants are available. If one wants to know how much a deputy minister makes, one can find out. It is public knowledge, it must be published, it is well-known. The vast majority of trade union salaries are public knowledge. They are published at conventions. They are usually known and voted upon by members at conventions. They vote upon whether the salary should be $50,000 or $60,000 for the president of a large trade union.
When it comes to information with respect to corporate executives, the most senior executive officers of corporations, we do not know how much they make. We do not know how much they earn, we do not know other forms of compensation they receive.


Mr. Orlikow:: Their shareholders do not know.


Bob Rae: As my colleague points out, their shareholders do not know. That information is secret. I am not surprised hon. members of the Conservative party resist the intrusion of the searchlight, the torchligh or even the mildest flicker of a candle into this field. They put up the argument that the information is private, that it is an interference into the private world of corporations. Individual shareholders might want to know this information.
Since raising this matter, I have heard from a number of shareholders who have said, "I would like to know. I do not know. I have raised this matter at shareholders' meetings, and I have been told where to get off. I have tried to find out about the number of interest free loans with respect to buying stock options until the year kingdom come. I have tried to make these inquiries and I have gotten nowhere."
If we want to talk about property rights, I would have thought individual shareholders would have certain rights with respect to the information they are entitled to know about the corporations into which they are putting money. Are they not entitled to know whether a corporate executive is earning $250,000, $500,000 or $750,000? I will demonstrate that those figures are not fanciful. I think shareholders are entitled to know that information.
Along with my concern about the manner in which trade union returns have been calculated, I have a major concern about what is missing from the bill. There is another reason we have the right to know such information. The hon. member for Capilano will not like to hear this because it will probably represent another view of why we are living in a decadent age. Envy is not the motive here. It is a concern about fairness and it is a recognition that as a society we have an obligation one to another. Society has become more complex and regulated. The nature of that obligation or what is our sense of community one to another is very difficult. It is very difficult because sometimes when the state imposes it, it becomes an infringement of privacy. I am very sympathetic to those concerns, as I have said on several occasions.
In other cases one must say that we know the wages of the average fellow walking down the street, the average longshoreman or the average worker in Capilano. Statistics Canada knows what they make. This information is available to the whole world. The information is public so that if the Minister of Finance wants to address the Conference Board, as he did the other day, he can say, for example, that there have been a number of settlements in British Columbia which have been a little lush. He can recite the exact percentages and exactly what people are earning. When the Minister of Finance speaks to the Conference Board, does he know how much the person who introduces him is making? No, he does not know because that information is private; it is no one's business but the person introducing him.
As I said, I disagree with the hon. member for Capilano. I respect him for the sincerity of his views, but I think he is expressing a yearning for the return of something which cannot come. The search for that return will prove to be very destructive to important things which have been won for people of all ages and incomes.
In a society which has a sense of community there must be a basis of comparison for a whole range of reasons and for a whole range of policies; not, God forbid, wage and price controls because we know who is affected by them more harshly than anyone. They affect the wages of the people who are in the glare of the public eye. We must have a sense of fairness in society.
It seems to me that we want to be a community. The increases which go to one group do not go to other groups. I have heard Conservatives and Liberal speakers often indicate that there is no free lunch. I agree that there is no free lunch. If society decides to give more to pensioners, it means other people will receive less. There is a sense of society with limits. Of course we should provide for growth, of course there must be incentives for society to grow. I am not talking about a society which is stagnant or decadent. I am talking about a society which recognizes the civil obligations of each of its members to one another, a society which realizes that there are limits to some kinds of growth. If a particular group of people want more, that means others will receive less. If a particular group of executives want more, that means the shareholders will receive less. It means other groups will receive less because there is a sense, a reality, in our society that each of us cannot simply make money off someone else without there being a cost.
As I said to the hon. member for Capilano, the search for his society will be a destructive one. The notion that one can somehow go back to a society where there is no concept of social cost and no sense of what the obligations of the community are to itself and to each member of the community, is a fruitless and, as I said before, an ultimately destructive quest.
June 17, 1981

I would like to use Massey-Ferguson as an example to make my next point. I do not know any of the people associated with that company and I have no particular gripe against them. As the hon. member for Capilano might think, 1 certainly do not envy them. I am not a particularly envious, and some might say a particularly enviable, person. 1 am certainly not envious of what the executives at Massey-Ferguson are making.
What kind of society are we trying to create? Massey-Ferguson, which is a large corporation, has fallen on hard times for a variety of reasons-because of a number of bad corporate decisions, very difficult interest rates, and the transformation of the farm implement business, not entirely dissimilar to the problems facing the auto industry. At the same time that this is happening, the company comes to the government. I am sure the hon. member for Capilano, when he was minister, heard rumblings about what was going on with respect to Massey-Ferguson. But at the same time that those rumblings were going on, the income of the chairman and president of that company was increased substantially. His salary went from $272,773 to $390,591-a pay increase of 43 per cent. The first vice-president accepted a 40 per cent increase bringing his salary to $281,818. Another vice-president had his salary increased by 30 per cent to $227,580.


Mr. Kristiansen:: That is restraint!


David Orlikow: Where did you get your figures?


Bob Rae: Two of my colleagues, in a gospel-like manner, are calling on me to make two points.
We recognize that the minister, when he was a Tory, was saying that we must have restraint. We must have a sense of what is fair. All of us now recognize that as a society we must make some difficult decisions with respect to who gets what, when, where and how. These are not individual decisions. These are no longer decisions which are allocated by the marketplace because the marketplace no longer allocates them. Where the marketplace allocates them it does not often do it very well, effectively or fairly. There has always been this fight in western civilizations since the collapse of the moral order in medieval society between the notion of a moral economy and the notion of a market economy.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are back in the Vanderbilt age.


Bob Rae: The hon. member says I am back in the Vanderbilt age. I will not do him the disservice of telling him what age I think he has been living in for the past while.
That is the nature of conflict; it is the consistent return in our society to the question of a moral economy and to the question of why people should be earning this much. Why should there be this disparity of wealth of ten, 20 and 30 times between one individual and another for performing work? That question is back and it will not go away. It will not disappear. You can not ask people to remove it. It is not a question of envy; it is a question of justice and fairness. It is the continual return to that question that we simply cannot tolerate any longer.
Corporations and Labour Unions
We cannot tolerate the Minister of Finance going to a conference and telling senior executives that trade unions must show restraint when we know what trade union increases have been in the last year. They have been 10.9 per cent; Statistics Canada tells us so. That agency also tells us that inflation is at 12.5 per cent. I do not care if it compiles its CPI figures in the last week of April, the first week of May or the last week of March for May or April, or however it is done, you cannot conceal the hard fact when it comes out. It is a fact which everyone knows-the cost of living is going up faster than the average individual's income.
At the same time, side by side with that, we have corporations which are not doing very well. You can hardly call it a reward for success. Where is the market punishing failure? Was the chairman of Massey-Ferguson punished for his failure? Was the company punished in any way for its incompetence? Where was the rugged, muscular individualism which is supposed to mete our punishment and give rewards? It did not function. It is not functioning. That is why it is so absurd that we must go to the United States to find out what the directors and chief executive officers of Canadian companies earn-as my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) implied.
Our society must find some way to recognize that the auto worker who lives in my riding, or one who works at Massey-Ferguson, has as much right to a decent wage and to a sense of property as anyone. He wants to own property. Who is protecting his right in a society where interest rates are at 22 per cent, where our largest institutions are only too happy to see smaller companies go to the wall, where the individual's right to property-be it a farm property or his home-is threatened, not by socialism, not by the NDP-certainly not in Ontario- but by the system itself? I believe in private property as much as the hon. member for Capilano. But I believe in it so much that I think everyone ought to have some. That is why I am in this party and not in his place.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) very much. Much of what he says in terms of fairness I agree with. But he has labelled me with probably belonging back in the age of the dinosaur, and I rise on a point of order to protest that.
Is not the problem he and I face today, the issue we are debating today, the problem of paying for the welfare state? For years I have heard Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Great Britain used as examples, and now Canada. They are all in trouble, with perhaps the exception of Norway which has the bounty of North Sea oil to assist it in its problem. That is the dilemma we face. I do not think the hon. member should label me as being back in the dark ages because the system or structure being put in place in those countries is not delivering the solutions. What we on this side are appealing for is debate and delivery, a resolution of the dilemma we face here in Canada. It will certainly not come from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. There is a custom in the House where an hon. member sometimes rises

June 17, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions on a point of order to inquire whether or not he might ask a question of another hon. member. There is no custom whereby an hon. member can enter into debate at a time of his own choosing and interrupt another member to do it.


Bob Rae: I do not mind the hon. member's interruption at all, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I would enjoy the opportunity of being in a forum where we had the opportunity to debate these issues.
Before I call it six o'clock I want to say to the hon. member-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Hurry up.


Bob Rae: The minister wants me to hurry up. But I am a little slower on my feet at six o'clock than I am at four.
I am saying to the hon. member that it is because this question has to be debated that we need to have the information. If we do not have the information then we do not have all
the facts at our disposal which allow us to reach decisions. If we are going to give more to savings and less to consumption- and I know the member's view is that we should, because I heard him express that view when he was a minister-that is fine and it is something which one could argue. Any society has to make those difficult decisions about future investment. But you cannot do it on imperfect information because partial information does not tell you who is getting the savings. That is all I am saying. If we are living in that kind of society, we will be arguing those things, so let us have the information. We do not have it, nor is the government going to give it to us.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 18, 1981