1982-12-17

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   DISASTERS BREACHING OF DYKES IN DELTA, B.C.

['No.']
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of the widespread and costly damage to agricultural crops and private property at Westham Island and East Delta, British Columbia, which has occurred in the past 48 hours due to a series of breaches to the Delta dykes, due to high winds and tides more than two feet above normal, and whereas the federal Government has consistently failed to meet its obligations to upgrade these dykes, in spite of repeated warnings of flood danger, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That the federal Government now recognize the seriously deteriorated state of certain dykes in Delta, British Columbia, by undertaking to meet its obligations to help the farmers in that particular area.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, Air Canada is apparently so overstaffed in its executive suites that it is making sweetheart, voluntary separation arrangements with 500 of its management personnel at a cost to the company of at least $21 million, together with untold costs to its presently unfunded pension plan. At the same time those people in the machinists' union who do aircraft maintenance and repair are being laid off and dumped on the unemployment lines. 1 therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House direct the Government to appoint immediately a special committee of this House, First, to examine the management of Air Canada to find out why Air Canada has 500 surplus management people in the first place, second, to determine the extent to which the sweetheart deals with its boardroom
types affect the quality of Air Canada pensions and the company's profitability and, third, to determine why Air Canada is not prepared to make realistic early retirement arrangements for all its work force, particularly its machinists.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, officials of the Department of Indian Affairs have admitted that the Micmac Indians of Conne River are eligible to be registered as Indians under the Indian Act. The Minister admits that only political considerations have prevented him from registering them so that they could receive direct funding from the federal Government. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House instruct the Minister that his top political priority should be to do justice to the Indian people and to proceed immediately with the registration of the Conne River Indians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) stated in St. John's, in The Daily News of December 7, that "Canada has been burned in the fisheries treaty with the European Economic Community and may break the contract to get out of it", that Canadian officials were under the impression that the tariff reductions negotiated in return for allotting EEC member countries the right to take 15,000 tonnes of fish from Canadian waters would be applied in Great Britain, where Canada

December 17, 1982
exports fish products, but instead the EEC allocated the rights to West Germany which buys almost no fish, so that Canada got the raw end of this deal. He also said that the treaty was "a great disappointment", so that "one of the remedies is to terminate the treaty". I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this savage indictment by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, of the former minister, now the Minister of Public Works, and of the officials responsible for the negotiation of this fisheries treaty signed in January, 1982, over the objections of the Government of Newfoundland and the Canadian fishing industry, be followed up by disciplinary action, including the dismissal of the Minister of Public Works and the officials whose negligence and incompetence caused this great disappointment and caused Canada to be burned at the same time Canada suffered a snow job from the negotiators for the European Economic Community.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF QUOTAS ON FOOTWEAR IMPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has succeeded in angering all sectors of the footwear industry in Canada, namely, manufacturers, importers and retailers, by the inefficient and incompetent way in which quotas were reimposed on imports, and by failing to realize that Canadian jobs are as much at stake in the retail as in the manufacturing end, and by failing to advise what the new quotas were prior to the expiry of the appeal period, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House direct the Minister of State for International Trade to meet again with representatives of all sectors of the footwear industry in order to resolve the serious problems which will bring disaster to all sectors of the industry, failing which this House direct that the Minister should get the boot.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee has agreed not to report Bill C-133 to the House until the last sitting day
before Christmas, and this means that third reading of the Bill will not be conducted until the House returns in January. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House urge the Members of the Liberal Party to return to their ridings over the Christmas break and actually talk to the Public Service pensioners, such as those demonstrating outside today, so they can find out first hand the damage that this Bill will do both to their standard of living and to their faith in the justice of Government.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian beef industry has been at rock bottom for some time with no relief in sight, a condition that will force more and more beef farmers into bankruptcy and ruin, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Agriculture meet with his provincial counterparts as soon as possible to implement the beef stabilization plan mutually agreed upon by the Provinces, which will help to stop further bankruptcies, until such time as a more permanent plan for a more orderly production and marketing of beef cattle is devised.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the purpose of the First Ministers' Conference, scheduled for March, 1983, is to identify and define aboriginal rights, which have only recently been recognized as sufficiently important to be entrenched in the Constitution, and since these rights were not, until recently, even recognized by the federal Government,
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That it is inappropriate to hold the First Ministers' Conference in Ottawa and that the conference, if it is to have credibility, should be held either in northern or western Canada.
December 17, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, today's press tells us that the Prime Minister, dissatisfied with the treatment that he has been receiving at the hands of the private sector network, CTV, has cancelled his annual one-hour interview, by Mr. Bruce Phillips, that has become a regular feature of Christmas seasonal television over the past 14 years. In an effort, presumably, to ensure a more favourable, even if less objective, reception, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has instead arranged for a half-hour session on the publicly-owned CBC network.
It has been a hard year for the Prime Minister and the Members of his Party. We here all understand that, and we have no desire to embarrass him unnecessarily in public. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That in the event that the scheduled CBC interview does not work out to the Prime Minister's satisfaction, he should be encouraged to repeat the experiment, for a quarter-hour period, the interview being conducted by either Senator Davey or Mr. Jim Coutts.


Mr. Whelan:: It sounds like you wrote that, Eric.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, whereas yesterday in its report, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs judged that Bill S-31 is unconstitutional because it gives the Federal Government powers it does not have, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That the Government withdraw Bill S-3 ] which imposes unwarranted restrictions on the investment plans of provincial governments.
Oral Questions


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. 1 think that many of us who are concerned about Canadian federalism, and especially the role of the Senate in our political process, were genuinely pleased with the announcement yesterday that a motion will be introduced in the other place to establish a Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform. As many Hon. Members know, a motion calling for the establishment of such a Committee is already on our Order Paper and in fact was debated in this House on June 4 of this year. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House endorse the Senate's initiative and express its intention to cooperate fully in any Committee set up to deal with this very important question of Senate reform.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['The Minister does not want his own Bill tabled. That is how sure he is of his own Bill.']
Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, my question had been intended for either the Minister of Justice, his Parliamentary Secretary or the Government House Leader. Since there does not appear to be any Minister of consequence across the way, I would like to reserve my right to await the arrival of one of these Ministers.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member could have done that simply by not rising.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 17, 1982
Oral Questions FINANCE



Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. At their meeting yesterday the Finance Ministers spent some considerable time, I understand, discussing the question of increased spending with a view to creating jobs. I want to ask the Minister of Finance what size of an increase in the deficit the Government is contemplating, and will this increase in the size of the deficit be handled by the federal Government, the provincial Governments, or will it be combined? What is the Minister doing to cut waste in spending, such as the 50 per cent increase in government travel, as well as the 17.1 per cent increase in the administrative costs of Government that I have referred to on a number of occasions in the past?
I ask these questions because it is important that Canadians have some understanding of how big the deficit is going to be, and that it is done in a way that reduces the amount of waste that is present in government spending today.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, we indeed had a very constructive and positive meeting yesterday of Finance Ministers. The Finance Ministers agreed that their respective Governments should all pull in the same direction to ensure recovery in 1983 and try to reduce the level of unemployment that we have at the present time. All of us agreed that in the preparation of our respective budgets we would look at ways of improving the economic environment. There have been press reports in that regard.
My friend referred to some of the indications which came out of that meeting. I can tell my hon. friend that we did not discuss the scale of any particular deficit, or increase or decrease in the deficit. We had a general discussion in that regard. There will be further consultations between Ministers. If the Hon. Member is patient, at the time of the budget he will see the size of the deficit planned for 1983. At the present time I am not in a position to indicate to him whether the deficit will increase, decrease, or remain the same.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, again the Minister of Finance neglected to address my question of government waste and the ability of the Government to cut down on spending.


CONTROL OF EXPENDITURES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, yesterday there seemed to be some discussion of increased spending on public works and transportation. Obviously the purpose of the increased spending is to create jobs. How does the Minister reconcile this objective with the Income Tax Act and the regulations before us today, which will reduce the capital cost allowance and introduce nine separate disincentives for small-businessmen to increase their spending and thereby increase jobs? Is it the intent of the Government to take that job creation capacity away from small business and
centralize it in Governments where bureaucrats can control the whole process in the country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend should not be surprised if it is not possible within the limits of the Question Period to answer the three or four questions he decides to ask at the same time under the pretext of asking one question. Therefore I will go back to some of the points he raised. The first one was control of expenditures. The Government has established very strict control on expenditures over the years. In fact, as my hon. friend knows, the Government has appointed a Comptroller-General. That followed on recommendations from the Auditor General and from the Lambert Commission a few years ago. He is an outstanding person who came from the private sector. He has helped very considerably in ensuring that all Departments are exercising very strict control over their expenditures. The President of the Treasury Board has indicated he is reviewing all government expenditures in all Departments to ensure that they are being put to the best possible use.
As far as the question relating to the Income Tax Act is concerned, I remind my hon. friend that the measures put forward in the Income Tax amendments include many provisions which would be of significant benefit to small business in this country, particularly the increase in income eligible for the low level of income tax rate from $150,00 to $200,000, and the global deduction increase from $750,000 to $1 million, as a whole, in terms of the low tax rate from which the small business people are going to benefit.
This is only one amongst many measures included in that Bill which are benefiting the small business sector. I hope my hon. friend will recognize that and support this Bill so it can get passed soon in order that small business can benefit from it.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice and is in relation to the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which have been in the possession of the Minister and the Cabinet of the Government for some considerable period of time. Why does the Government continue to hide this Bill relating to the disabled and women, rather than making it public immediately?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I do not know why my hon. friend would speak about hiding the Bill. I have given him a copy of it.


An Hon. Member:: Have you tabled it?
December 17, 1982


Mr. Clark:: Where is my copy?


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is mine?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, he is the critic in this area. 1 have now obtained authorization to enable him even to show his copy to his colleagues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Democracy limps.


Mark R. MacGuigan: This is a Bill which has not yet received first reading, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member, I understand, has been discussing the content of it, as he was authorized to do, with his colleagues.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, he was not. That is a falsehood.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I think the question-well, I don't know whether he has discussed it with his colleagues, Madam Speaker. I cannot say. But I authorized him to discuss the subject matter with his colleagues.


Charles Joseph Clark: You did not. That is a falsehood.


Mark R. MacGuigan: And to come back and say whether or not they would be prepared to-


Miss MacDonald:: You are making that up.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -give the Bill second reading without debate, as the New Democratic Party has agreed to do.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE TABLED
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the obsequious response of the Minister only makes me understand that 1 will never again take his word on anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is absolutely mistaken. He has misled the House on the facts. The fact of the matter is that some weeks ago when this matter was first raised-and the Minister knows this-I suggested in public and in the Committee that he immediately table this document-


Erik Nielsen: This Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -this particular Bill. The Minister has neglected or refused to do this. Today the Prime Minister has received a telegram from the representatives of COPOH, the disabled group, indicating that they agree with the position we have taken, that the legislation should be tabled immediately, so that all Canadians, not just a certain select number, would be able to see the contents of the Bill. I ask the Minister again, will he not now, in a sense of fair play and respect for the disabled people and women in this country, table and give first reading to this Bill so we can get on with the business of dealing with it expeditiously?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am at a loss to
Oral Questions
understand what the hon. gentleman's grievance is. We are not introducing further legislation in this session. That is the basic-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Why not?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -policy at issue, because we want to complete the business which is before the House, and we hope that the Opposition will co-operate with us in doing that.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Who is the House Leader over there?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I offered to the Hon. Member, as he well knows, if we could have second reading without debate, that this matter could go to Committee. I gave him a copy of the Bill so he could discuss the substance of it with his colleagues.


Charles Joseph Clark: But not to show it to anyone.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I do not know, Madam Speaker, whether he has discussed it with his colleagues. We do hear of more tumultuous happenings in the Conservative Caucus, and perhaps they have not been able to discusss this. But, Madam Speaker, we made an offer in good faith to the Opposition, and we would like to see them get on with this legislation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is, as the Minister knows full well, that there was an embargo placed upon me against revealing any of the provisions of that Bill to anyone, let alone members of my caucus. He knows that, and he continues to persist in misleading this House. I simply want to say to the Minister that we have been waiting two and a half years now, and our Party need make no apology for our stand on behalf of the disabled and women of this country. We have stood for their rights and for progress in human rights legislation, and we will continue to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What harm is there, Madam Speaker, in the poor beleaguered Minister simply taking 20 seconds of House time to table this Bill by way of first reading so that all Canadians can see precisely what the Government has on its mind?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I asked the Hon. Member not to show the Bill to his colleagues. I authorized him to discuss the contents with them. If the Opposition does not have confidence in its own critics, that is a problem for them, not for us. But it is a problem for the country and and for the disabled if this Bill is not given speedy passage.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 17, 1982
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Show it to us.


Charles Joseph Clark: How can we pass what you will not produce? There is no bill!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is one more step in closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. We learned from the meeting which took place yesterday that all provinces have decided to co-operate with the federal Government in job creation programs. For that, all Canadians can be thankful.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: However, with 1.5 million unemployed I am a little concerned about the timing and would like the Minister to clarify that.
One report said that there would not be another meeting until about a month from now. If that is the case, and considering that it will require a number of weeks after that meeting to create new jobs, it could mean that we will be well into the Spring before any new job creation measures have any effect. Therefore, will the Minister indicate a little more precisely to Members of the House of Commons and, more important, to the people of Canada, when we can expect some new job creation measures?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, before talking about implementing new job creation measures I think it would be quite helpful if the Opposition, instead of dragging their feet, would support the adoption of the Income Tax Bill, for instance, which will provide for creation of new jobs by the private sector. It would remove the uncertainty still surrounding those measures as long as they are not passed by Parliament.
Secondly, we have announced job creation measures, specifically one involving $500 million of additional expenditures by the federal Government, which has now been supplemented by about $200 million of provincial expenditure. We now have around $700 million of expenditures committed to that particular program. That program is being put into effect at the present time. It will have its impact in the months of January, February, and March. So there are things taking place.
I invite my hon. friend to look at what is happening at the present time. Let us support the programs being implemented,
and support the legislation before Parliament which will help remove uncertainty and ensure that recovery will take place speedily in the country. We are working on additional programs and projects, and as soon as they are ready to be proceeded with they will be announced, put in place, and implemented. But in the meantime let us get going what is already before Parliament, let us implement the programs for which money has already been voted.


DATE OF BUDGET PRESENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I hope the Minister will agree that this is an extremely serious situation. There are news reports, probably on the front page of every newspaper in Canada today, which try to suggest, to the unemployed particularly, that there are reasons to believe that there is going to be early action. What I heard from the Minister-if I heard him precisely, and I think I did-was that he is not prepared to tell us that we are going to get any new action at all. He is saying that the people of Canada have to rely on the measures announced by the Government many weeks ago. I say to the Minister that that is not good enough.
In the press today, with reference to the need for additional funds, the Minister is reported by the press today as saying, "The question is whether we can allocate more funds, and this is the question I will address for my next budget." If he is not prepared to spend more money until the next budget, will he at least tell us when we are going to get that budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that there will be a new budget early in the new year. I have indicated that for sure this budget will be brought in before the beginning of the next fiscal year. In due time I will be able to announce exactly when the next budget will be presented.
As far as the premise of the question of the Hon. Member is concerned, my purpose is not to try to satisfy him. I could come up with a budget tomorrow morning, and the day after he would come to me and say that we need a new budget with new measures. That has been the game of the NDP ever since it has been in this House. It will continue to be that way as far into the future as we can see. I could agree with everything he said, and he would come back the next day and say it was not good enough.
We are trying to do everything we can, and we will do it in co-operation with the Provinces. It is too bad if the NDP is not happy. It will just have to keep on being unhappy. That has been the history of that Party ever since it came into existence.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we can see that the Minister has finally lost his smile. We have hit a sensitive chord. He is trying to do a snow job on the people of Canada.
December 17, 1982


PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL JOB CREATION FUNDS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister to respond to the following question. For six weeks now we have put forward a proposal that would enable the Minister to spend $2 billion more on job creation, not three or four months from now, but right now. We have indicated where he could get that money.
Considering that the Minister and the Prime Minister have said in recent weeks that they will consider that proposal, will they now tell us what their decision is? Will they now go to where they can get that money and put it to work to create jobs for Canadians who need them now?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has put forward a proposal. I requested him to write to me-


John Edward Broadbent: You got the letter a month and a half ago.


Marc Lalonde: -about this particular proposal. It took weeks before he sent that letter to me.


John Edward Broadbent: Then it was lost in your Department.


Marc Lalonde: He should not be surprised not to get an answer the next morning.
I have also said that the suggestions he put forward were going to be considered in the preparation of my budget. That will be the case. Those suggestions will be given serious consideration and 1 will give the answer in the budget.
In the meantime there are hundreds of millions-as a matter of fact, billions of dollars-being put forward by the federal Government for job creation directly and indirectly. There are measures before Parliament at the present time which will help remove uncertainty and will create a better environment for the private sector. I would invite the Hon. Member to support those measures, rather than claiming additional measures when he is not even ready to support those that are before Parliament now.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it concerns the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. As 1 understand it, some of these amendments will apply to the rights of women. As the official spokesperson for the status of women in my caucus, I have been denied the right to see that proposed Bill.
I want to know whether the Minister denied that same right to the Minister responsible for the status of women, or if it is
Oral Questions
only to selected people to whom he is denying that right. If that is not the case, why will the Minister not table that Bill in the House so that we can all see how it applies to the rights of women-rights which some of us have been pressing for, for a long time?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it is customary for a Minister to deal with his opposite number in the Opposition. Perhaps the Hon. Member missed the point that I made earlier in my first answer to the first question, that 1 have now obtained the permission of the House Leader to allow the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West to show the Bill-


Charles Joseph Clark: To show the Bill? Table it!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -to anyone in the Conservative caucus who is interested in seeing it. The conduct of the business of the House is not for the Opposition to decide, it is for the Government to decide.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, that is not good enough. That is not the way legislation is handled in a parliamentary system.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that the last time a Minister of Justice in that Government dealt with women's rights, he betrayed women. He made a secret deal to deny them equality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: How do we know that the Minister of Justice will not do the same thing? Why will he not make that Bill available, not just to a limited number of people, but to all the women's organizations across the country so that they may know they are not being betrayed again. Why will he not table it?


An Hon. Member:: Table it.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member now knows that she can see the Bill. She knows that if her Party considers the Bill to be noncontroversial, as we believe it to be, and as the N DP believes it to be-


An Hon. Member:: Table it.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -this Bill could have immediate passage before Christmas.


An Hon. Member:: Put it on the table.

December 17, 1982
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


REPORTED AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND COUNCIL OF YUKON INDIANS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to certain press reports and television and radio broadcasts which I have reason to believe lack in some accuracy, to say the least.
It was reported widely last night and this morning that the final agreement in principle has been reached between the federal Government and the Council of Yukon Indians. It is my understanding that the CYI and the Government have reached agreement on a number of items-I believe it is in the order of 30-odd agreements-but that there is still a like number to be negotiated and completed. Can the Minister tell the House whether any agreement was reached yesterday with CYI and, if it was, could he enlighten us as to the major features of that agreement?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, may I thank the Hon. Member for Yukon for his question. I think he will be very happy with the reply.
When I indicate what the reply is to the House and to the Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, I should like to pay my highest regards to the Yukon Government for its involvement in the result and to the Leader of the Yukon Government, Mr. Pearson, and his sister, Mrs. Haines, who are in the gallery. I want to let them know how much I appreciate their assistance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: On the principal elements, the most contentious and troublesome elements, agreement was reached between the CYI and the federal Government negotiator, Dennis O'Connor, last night. 1 have discussed this element with Mr. Pearson and we are aware of the fact that the monetary compensation, which is always the most difficult element, was settled at $183 million in present value. The current value, stretched over 20 years, is about $540 million. The $183 million present value is broken down to $130 million for the aboriginal rights-in other words, lands to which they gave up aboriginal rights in return for compensation although they get other lands-and $53 million for the buy-out of certain federal programs that they are taking up front in cash.
As the Hon. Member will readily appreciate, those two elements are the most significant and troublesome and, because we have been able to reach agreement on them, we have a sound basis for optimism that we will reach final agreement very soon.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister will want to correct his "blues" with respect to his description of Mrs. Haines, who is the assistant to the Government Leader, not his sister.


John Carr Munro: I am sorry; that is correct.


TRANSFER OF LANDS TO YUKON GOVERNMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, will the Minister assure the people of Yukon that their legitimate desire to obtain an assurance or agreement to a process whereby the management and control of lands now held by the federal Government will, in a reasonable and logical fashion, be met, and that the lands eventually will be transferred to them through their elected Government? I am speaking now of the balance of lands that will remain after the native land claims have been settled.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I am in too happy a mood to get into an acrimonious debate with the Hon. Member.


Mr. Epp:: Just say yes.
MO)


John Carr Munro: I just tell him that eventually could be a long time. Let me say that in the meantime I have noted the comments by the Leader of the Government in the Yukon. I think they lay out a welcome proposal for discussion of transfers of land when required, because it is our policy, as indeed it is the policy of the Yukon Government, that that land should be for Yukoners. To interpret that as some undertaking that we will transfer all the lands in the Yukon from Crown lands in the right of Canada to commisioner Crown lands would be misleading. I have no mandate from my colleagues.


Erik Nielsen: Well, get it.


John Carr Munro: This Government is not authorized to make that type of commitment.


REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES ON LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. As the Minister knows, the future of the Canadian lumber industry is being unjustifiably threatened by the ongoing countervailing duty hearings now being held in Washington. I want to make it clear that I, and my colleagues in this Party at least, know well that the future of our number one export industry, its employees and the communities that depend upon it, is too important to be made a playground of partisan politics and loud retaliatory posturing. We will not engage in that kind of action.
Recognizing that there is a provision in the appropriate American law which allows our Government to intervene directly in these proceedings, has the Government or will the Government undertake to deliver a clear and careful but unmistakable message, either by directly intervening or by a
December 17, 1982

diplomatic note, to the United States administration for the attention of the U.S. Department of Commerce, clarifying the deep and serious concerns of the Government and of the people of Canada on this important matter?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his assurance of concern on what is unquestionably the most serious threat to Canadian exports that has occurred in very many years.
The value of our lumber exports to the United States amounts to over $2 billion. The countervail threat is a particularly serious one. It is a little difficult to come to grips with it because of the fact that it is not an action by the administration of the United States, nor is it a Congressional action, but rather an action taken by a part of the lumber industry under existing statutes. As a consequence, this Government has made very strong representations of our concern to the United States. 1 have personally discussed the matter with Secretary of State Shultz, with Secretary of Commerce Baldridge who will be here again next Monday when the matter will again be mentioned to him, and also with Special Trade Commissioner Brock.
We are working very closely with the provincial Government, with the lumber industry and the unions, in co-ordinating a reaction to the threat. The Hon. Member can be assured that every step is being taken to protect Canadian interests, but I say that this is a very serious matter and it remains a matter of concern as the hearings go forward. We are absolutely confident that the Canadian position is just-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Regan:: There is no commitment of subsidy, but we are watching it very closely.


Madam Speaker:: I must say the answers are unusually long this morning, but the questions are not any shorter.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: 1 thank the Minister for the length of his reply, but he did not answer the specific question which I was asking. There has been a change in tone in the hesitation which the Canadian industry previously expressed; that is our understanding.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE DIPLOMATIC NOTE
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, is the Minister seriously considering, or is the Government now considering, the sending of a formal diplomatic note to Washington expressing our Canadian concern?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, if the length of my original answer seems long, it is because this is a serious and complicated
Oral Questions
matter, and I am sure Members of the House would want it given full attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: In relation to the supplementary question, may I say to the Hon. Member that we believe the steps and representations which are being taken at this stage are the most effective and the most appropriate ones. I think he will find that both the companies and the unions involved believe that the actions we are taking are the best ones at this stage.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who is responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corportion, and it concerns an article published yesterday in the Montreal newspaper La Presse, Canada's largest French newspaper. The article, signed by a journalist who was unfortunately misinformed, appeared under the heading "A present from Radio-Canada to Liberal Members in the regions". It says that only Federal Liberal Members from Matane and the North Shore-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please put her question instead of quoting at length from a newspaper article.


Eva Lachance Côté: Could the Minister inform the House what the CBC has decided to do, since the invitation is extended both to Federal Liberal Members and Provincial Parti Quebecois Members from Matane, Rimouski and the North Shore, and all of us have accepted the invitation?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the journalist to whom the Hon. Member was referring was as misinformed as the Leader of the New Democratic Party. If they both had the common sense to call the CBC and ask the appropriate questions, they would soon have been told the facts. The two stations concerned were formerly private stations which always invited Federal Members and Members of the National Assembly to broadcast their Christmas messages, and as I said yesterday in the House, the CBC had the choice of either extending the same privilege and services to all Members of the House or putting an end to this practice at the two stations that were formerly private stations. CBC senior management was not aware of this tradition which had existed in previous years, and when the President of the CBC was informed, he decided to put an end to this practice of the two CBC affiliates.

Oral Questions


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have given notice to the Minister responsible for CMHC of my intention to ask him a question with regard to the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program. Is the Minister aware of the letter dated November 18 from senior counsel of CMHC in which it was acknowledged that the regulations required under the National Housing Act prescribing the circumstances under which grants can be made to Canadian home buyers under the Program have never been issued, and that the payments which have been made of some $300 million, to almost 100,000 Canadians, are likely illegal? What steps does the Minister propose to take to rectify the situation and to prevent what could be a very serious problem for hundreds of thousands of Canadian families?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I was informed that the Hon. Member gave me the courtesy of notice, just as I arrived at my office before Question Period. I was also informed that the authority for the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program is taken from Section 34.15 and Section 34.16 of the National Housing Act which permit loans and contributions not exceeding such amounts as are prescribed by regulation. Of course I will follow up on the Hon. Member's question, but I would tell him right away that if the benefits of the Program are such that there is a technical problem, I am sure the House will allow us to rectify it very quickly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Act also requires that there be an Order in Council issued, specifying the circumstances under which such contributions can be made. Those circumstances have never been specified by Order in Council, thereby making this $300 million illegal. I have written to the Auditor General to request an investigation by him of this.


METHOD OF PAYMENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that CMHC contrived an elaborate means of getting around the Act, which provides at the present time that contributions can only be made where a loan is taken out, and that CMHC decided to try evading the Act by contriving, in essence, a phoney loan to the tune of $3,000 which was automatically forgiven upon endorsement of the cheque, can the Minister tell me whether he has asked for an opinion from his legal counsel as to whether or not such an invention constitues a fraud against the Act?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member, who is a responsible Member of Parliament, would not want to srrear a corporation
December 17, 1982
which has really done a great deal to help Canadians, especially in the crisis of a year ago when interest rates were very high.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: As the Hon. Member knows, getting legislation through Parliament is an extremely long process.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Just break the law.


Roméo LeBlanc: The Hon. Member is heckling, saying break the law. I would hope that he leave it to the responsible people to make the decision if the law has been broken-


Charles Joseph Clark: Parliament.


Roméo LeBlanc: -to the judges, but that he would not take it upon himself to run a kangaroo court.


EFFECT OF FOOTWEAR IMPORT QUOTAS ON RETAILERS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. He recently told my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, that the Government reimposed import quotas on footwear in order to protect the jobs of Canadian manufacturers. But what is happening in Vancouver is that retailers are having to close their doors and lay off people because the quotas are not sufficient for them to continue their operations, and they cannot buy the products here in Canada. Canadian manufacturers do not want to make speciality shoe products because there is not enough of a market for them. How does the Minister justify putting Canadians out of work under a program designed to save Canadian jobs?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her expressed concern in relation to the employment of Canadians in the retail business.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Give us an answer.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I want to say to her that I recognize that this is a very difficult matter. The Government decided, considering the need to protect Canadian jobs, the quantum that would be allowed by way of imports. It then becomes an extremely difficult matter to satisfy the importers, the wholesalers, the retailers and the different groups who are involved.
It is certainly a fact that the limitation encourages Canadian manufacturers to try to make additional shoes available, but the quota is of such a nature that there should not be a case of any store being forced out of business.


Mr. Crouse:: They are.


Gerald Augustine Regan: We are in the position that they are receiving-
December 17, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Order. Ministers must make an effort to keep their answers a little shorter. It has been going on and on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


JUSTIFICATION FOR SYSTEM
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the same Minister. He seems to live in a naive world.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Pat Carney: In fact, the quota in some cases is only 50 per cent of what is needed to carry on a business-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Pat Carney: -and these people cannot buy their stock in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members on the other side are correct. The Hon. Member should now go to the question. When I ask Members to be brief, I mean on both sides.


Pat Carney: My question is this: how can the Minister justify a system in which people were allocated their quotas in November and the appeal date was set two months earlier, in September?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, again I thank the Hon. Member for her supplementary question.


Mr. Andre:: Just answer the question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Hon. Member must remember that her colleague, the Member for Joliette, was among the strongest of voices asking for quotas to be applied. She is inaccurate in her information. There is no appeal period as such, but if the Hon. Member knows of people who are having a particularly difficult problem, while there are only so many that can be distributed, I will be happy to examine or re-examine specific instances for her if she would bring those to my attention.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.


Erik Nielsen: Lots of luck.


Ian Deans: I want to put to the Minister of Justice that it would be a shame to allow petty partisan differences to stand in the way of the passage of the human rights amendments that affect both the disabled and women. The Bill obviously cannot be dealt with unless it is introduced. Will the Minister take it as an article of faith, at least from us, that we will pass
Oral Questions
that Bill before Christmas if he brings it in for first reading today?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I entirely agree with my hon. friend's view of the importance of this and that it is not a matter for petty partisan politics.


Erik Nielsen: Table it.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In fact, in our exercise of management of the House, and because of the assurances the Government gave to the Opposition some months ago that they had our legislative program for this session, and so as not to introduce new Bills which will compete with our present legislative program until it is complete, we have said that we cannot use House time in this Session although we can use committee time for further legislation.


Erik Nielsen: Just 20 seconds.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Because we understood there might be a possibility of unanimous agreement to get this Bill through without House time, only using committee time, we provided copies of the legislation to the Opposition critics to see if we could get that kind of agreement. We have the agreement from the New Democratic Party. Perhaps my hon. friend would care to address that same question to our colleagues in the Conservative benches.


Ian Deans: I am not allowed to ask them questions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Wait a couple of years.


REQUEST THAT BILL BE INTRODUCED
Ian Deans: I want to say to the
Minister that, although it is true that the Government provided a list of legislation, that legislation provided to us was not the only legislation with which the Government proposed to deal. In fact it introduced other legislation during that period.
Given that we now know that this Party at least does not intend to cut the incomes of pensioners in this country before Christmas, or at any time, and given that we only have four days left before Christmas recess and there appears to be some degree of unanimity with regard to the human rights amendments, will the Minister introduce the Bill? We will give our commitment that it can go to the Committee quickly and we will give a further commitment that the Bill will be passed by Christmas.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the Hon. Member is unable to ask the question of those who should be answering it, because of the rules of the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Table the Bill.
21692

December 17, 1982
Oral Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is an effective rhetorical device for him and I welcome it, but the question should be put on the table. We welcome the assurances which we have received from his Party. We would wish to have similar assurances from the Official Opposition so that the Bill could indeed be passed before Christmas without debate.


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question which relates to a Bill that has been introduced since the presentation of the list of the Government's legislation, namely, Bill S-31, is directed to either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who will know that the Senate has now raised several constitutional and other objections to the Bill. Will the Minister or the Acting Prime Minister tell us, in light of those objections, whether the Government will now freeze discussion on that Bill or withdraw the Bill, one or the other, until there has been the opportunity for full and formal consultation between the federal and provincial Governments?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that the report tabled in the other House was a committee report, and that consideration of the second reading stage of the bill is expected to take place next week. Consequently, the conclusions drawn by the Leader of the Opposition are probably premature. As for consultations with the Provinces, these have started, since I have already met with the Minister from Alberta. During the next few weeks I shall be meeting as well with the Ministers from other Provinces with an interest in the bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Provinces which he has consulted so far have told the Minister to withdraw the Bill or freeze it. I would certainly urge that action upon the Minister. I am encouraged that he says it is premature for him to give that commitment. I trust he will give that commitment soon.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
ask the Acting Prime Minister a question, concerning House business. If the Government is worried about its House business agenda, why is it prepared to introduce a Bill which threatens federal-provincial relations yet refuses to table a Bill which respects human rights?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the business of the House, a subject for which I have an abiding concern. Obviously, if he had not let the bells ring for a whole day this week, and if he had not allowed his Members to raise futile points of order the next day, of course we could have accomplished a lot more in the House than what we shall probably be able to do now before Christmas. As regards Bill S-31 to which he is referring, he knows perfectly well that the Bill was not introduced in the House of Commons but in the other House, and 1 fail to see why he is bringing up the point he just raised, because up to now, at least thirty-one bills have been introduced in the Senate and it is an entirely normal procedure. So when we say Bill S-31, this presupposes that before this bill, thirty other bills were introduced in the Senate, and that is why this bill is numbered 31.
Under our parliamentary procedure, the Senate is perfectly capable of being the first authority to examine a bill, and the Leader of the Opposition ought to know that once it has approved the bill, it cannot receive royal assent but must first be considered by the House of Commons as well. If we look at the Commons Order Paper, we see that the bills listed under the heading: Government Bills (Senate) are those bills which have the letter S- plus a number. Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE BILL AFFECTING HAN DICAPPED AND WOMEN
Charles Joseph Clark: Well, we are all encouraged to know that the Government House Leader can count to 31.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would ask him not to blame me for the stupidity of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, earlier this week the Minister of Agriculture introduced the practice which, in effect, meant that the House of Commons was not allowed to debate legislation. Now we have the Minister of Justice introducing the idea that we cannot see legislation before it is adopted. Let me ask the Minister of Justice, who has disappeared-


An Hon. Member:: He is right there!


Charles Joseph Clark: Has he resigned?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 17, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Go back, go back!


John Carnell Crosbie: We don't want you!


Erik Nielsen: Just like his Bill, disappeared!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, he is just like his Bill. One minute you see it, one minute you don't see it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Justice whether-


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't send us your turkeys!


Walter David Baker: Even if it is Christmas!


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 wonder if we will ever get through this Question Period. Briefly, because the time allotted Question Period has passed, I recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Minister of Justice table the Bill relating to human rights today so that this party, all of its Members, and the Canadian public, all of its members, may study the contents of the Bill so that we can all come to a decision based on seeing the actual Bill, and see if it will be possible for us to move quickly with the legislation before Christmas? Will he table the Bill today to let all of the people in on it, and not act like someone purveying dirty pictures-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -who flashes them to everyone and then runs and hides?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in its management of House business the Government very reasonably does not wish to introduce legislation which will compete with legislation which is already before the House in this session.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Because of the importance of this matter we made an offer to the Opposition to try to get its co-operation. As the Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, all Members of his Party are entitled to have a look at this. We can still make an arrangement if-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is true, because I have said twice this morning that I have now received the permission of the House Leader to-


Erik Nielsen: So, why don't you table it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -allow the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West to show the Bill to other Members of his caucus, and this could then lead-


Erik Nielsen: So, why don't you table it, then?
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Mark R. MacGuigan: If the Opposition finds the Bill to be as unexceptionable as we believe it to be, then this could lead to an arrangement which would ensure speedy passage before Christmas.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, for God's sake! Or a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Question Period is over.


Walter David Baker: Point of order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the basis of remarks just made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). 1 have in my hand the proposed Bill, which has been printed for some period of time, respecting the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I would like to ask Madam Speaker, that the House give unanimous consent that 1 table the Bill-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -so that everyone in Canada can read it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Agreed, agreed!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member must know that that is not a point of order and that there are no precedents for doing that kind of thing.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on the point of order, Madam Speaker. The House can do anything it pleases with unanimous consent. I think that principle has been well established from the beginning of the existence of this place. Now we are asking the unanimous consent of the House to table the Bill in the possession of my hon. friend. We ask that unanimous consent be given.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, after question period I was informed, and this is in connection with the document circulated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), of which 1 was aware before question period, that one of the parties opposite is quicker to respond than the other. The Bill was handed to the

December 17, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Opposition critics of both parties. The Minister of Justice did so out of courtesy, because we usually prefer to introduce a Bill in the House before having it printed and circulated on both sides of the House. On this side of the House we are very concerned about matters such as human rights and, more particularly, the rights of the handicapped and women's rights. The Minister of Justice therefore thought it appropriate, with a view to speeding up debate, and also considering the fact that we are near the end of the session and have a long list of fiscal and financial measures to consider, to hand his critics a copy of the Bill.
New Democratic Party Members then responded to the effect that they were prepared to let this Bill be referred to committee without debate. It seems the Progressive Conservative Party's response was more negative, since they wanted to be able to give the Bill a public airing first. However, our point is that since the Bill has not yet been introduced in the House, and in view of the limited amount of time at the disposal of the House of Commons and its very heavy workload before the end of the session, we would expect if they really thought it was important ... If the Member for Kingston and the islands (Miss MacDonald) is really interested in women's rights, she will perhaps let me finish what I am trying to say. If she is really interested in the preservation of women's rights and the rights of the handicapped and in the contents of the Bill, all she has to do is ask the Progressive Conservative Party critic for his copy of the draft bill. All she has to do is take advantage of this opportunity given today by the Minister of Justice, and after doing so, perhaps she could then rise in the House and tell us why she objects to having this Bill referred to committee without debate. We shall then be able to judge just how serious the Progressive Conservatives are about their concern for human rights in this country.


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on the point of order, Madam Speaker. There are two matters here. One is that the Government House Leader has told only part of the truth. The part of the truth that he did not tell is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) made it clear to the justice spokesman here that the justice spokesman here was not to show the Bill to any other Member of Parliament. That is the part of the truth that the Government House Leader declined to tell.
However, what is of more interest to us is that the Government House Leader has now indicated that what is in the possession of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is an avant-projet. It is a draft Bill. Therefore, he is asking us to speed into second reading, speed into committee without debate in this House, what is only a draft Bill. However, we have seen draft bills from the Government before and we know that they very often change. This Parliament would
be acting with the utmost irresponsibility if we were not able to see a Bill before we judged it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My point is this: first, there is a question as to whether or not the Bill given to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is the real Bill. The Bill on which the Government intends to proceed; and if that is the case will the Government give unanimous consent to allowing this real Bill to be tabled, so that all Canadians, not just a select few amounting to some 280 Canadians, can see it? Why not let the public know what the Government is doing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the argument of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is absolutely ridiculous. We are talking about the draft Bill because no Bill has been introduced in the House, and it cannot be a Bill before it is introduced.


An Hon. Member:: Then introduce it.


Yvon Pinard: If the Opposition do not like our courtesy of consulting them in advance before introducing legislation-


Erik Nielsen: Courtesy from you?


Yvon Pinard: -we will simply not go on with that kind of courtesy in the future.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is the responsibility of the Government.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, you can almost now identify what is about to happen. This Bill will not get passage because of the positions being taken. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) says that we must have the Bill before us in its final form before he is prepared to give it consideration. I wish he had had the same view when the six and five legislation was brought on.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Ian Deans: However, I say to him that from that point of view I agree with him-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Or you, on the Constitution.


Ian Deans: I agree with him. The Bill should be tabled for first reading.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I put to both sides, for Heaven's sakes, think of the people involved-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh oh!
December 17, 1982


Ian Deans: -and stop posturing. Bring the Bill in, put it through for second reading, send it to committee right away and let us deal with it before Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: 1 think we can solve this one quite rapidly. Does the House give its unanimous consent? That is the usual procedure for a Bill being tabled by a Member of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You hypocrite.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member did not get unanimous consent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Minister does not want his own Bill tabled. That is how sure he is of his own Bill.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


PETITIONS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present the following petitions in the House of Commons to fulfil a Private Member's obligation to give as direct access and direct representation as possible of his constituents to this Parliament. Equally important as to whether 1 personally support the view of petitioners or not, is that through the act of presentation I preserve and extend the ancient privilege of direct presentation of petition to the Crown, through Parliament.
I have the duty, Madam Speaker, to present these petitions from residents of Fraser Valley West who are concerned about proposed legislation, namely, Bill C-10. The nature of the petition is to oppose interference in the affairs of churches or voluntary organizations by Government, particularly any
Petitions
action or legislation that might empower the courts or any governmental body to force churches or voluntary organizations to retain in their employ or membership, those whose moral or ethical activities, characters or lifestyles are contrary to the beliefs held by the said church or organization.
The purpose of the petition is to preserve the concept of the sanctity of the separation of church and state, and therefore asks that Parliament deny approval to, or further proceeding with, Bill C-10 or any future Bill that proposes to interfere in church affairs.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition which was scheduled for two days ago when there were considerable procedural difficulties.
It is my duty to present a petition signed by 430 individuals of the Vancouver East riding. The purpose of the petition is to express strongly that world military expenditures now exceed $500 billion per year and the human race is faced with the choice between halting the arms race and proceeding to disarmament, or facing nuclear annihilation.
The nature of the petition is to call upon Parliament to call for U.N. adoption of suffocation to stop the arms race, including those elements in our minority report on security and disarmament.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of home owners and realtors in Fraser Valley West who are concerned that the federal Government has not been adequately addressing the housing and mortgage difficulties of Canadians.
The nature of the petition is to express their disaffection with the application of the Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan in the lower Vancouver Mainland, and other suburban city areas. The CMHC, contrary to the intent and spirit of the legislation as passed by this House, has arbitrarily excluded high growth urban areas solely based on membership in an artificial geographic boundary-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is really debating the question, he is not presenting a petition. I would ask him simply to read what the petition is about and the purpose of that petition; any intervention at this particular stage has to be limited to that.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The purpose of the petition is to ask the federal Government to apply the CHSP equitably in high growth suburban areas as well as city cores, specifically in the lower Vancouver Mainland, and include Langley in the "census metropolitan area" definition to ensure that all lower

December 17, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Vancouver Mainland residents receive equitable treatment under the Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan or, failing this, institute mortgages as an income tax deduction.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present this petition from many concerned residents of Fraser Valley West who are opposed to the proposed change in collection of federal sales tax from the manufacturer to the wholesale level.
The nature of the petition is to indicate that this change will have a very substantial effect on the rate of inflation and the cost of living in this country and that the total amount of tax collected will be greater, as well as the cost to administer the changes, and that increased costs will be passed to the retailer and then to the consumer.


Yvon Pinard: That is enough. That is another debate.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The purpose of the petition is to convey their opposition to the proposed change of level for the imposition of the federal sales tax, and to ask that this proposal be withdrawn.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition expressing concern over the issue of gun control legislation.
The nature of the petition is to express objection to Bill C-451 as an unnecessary piece of red tape which could serve to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens while having no effect on criminal elements.
The purpose of the petition is to ensure that Bill C-451 not only dies, but is dead and will not be resurrected again.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,526 and 4,596.


Mr. Siddon: What was the total cost to the Government to purchase, instal, remove and store the foreign flags displayed in the National Capital Region in honour of the various state visits to Canada which took place since January 1, 1982 and, in each case, where were the flags purchased and what was the method of procurement?


Roméo LeBlanc: State Visits
During Period January 1, 1982 to November I, 1982
State Visitor	Date of Visit	Number of Flags Where Flags Purchased Purchased	Method of Purchase of Flags	Cost of Purchase of Flags	Cost of Installation	Cost of Removal	Cost of Storage (per year)	Total CostsPresident of Somalia	March 16 to March 17, 1982	304 Canadiana Textile	Purchase Order (time restriction)	3,764.43	3,365.00	2,753.18	70.20	9,952.81Prime Minister of France	April 22 to April 23, 1982	184 Annin Flag Co.	Purchase order (time restriction)	1,600.00	3,024.68	2,183.32	70.20	6,878.20President of Cameroon	May 25 to May 29, 1982	325 Annin Flag Co.	Requisition DSS	3,900.00	2,824.68	1,853.13	70.20	8,648.01President of Brazil	July 18 to July 22, 1982	354 Scythes & Co. Ltd.	Requisition DSS	4,775.24	2,407.70	1,605.14	70.20	8,858.28President of South Korea	August 28 to August 31, 1982	353 Annin Flag Co.	Requisition DSS	5,697.00	3,054.25	2,036.18	70.20	10,857.63Prime Minister of Portugal	October 4 to October 6	250 Annin Flag Co.	Dss Standing Offer	5,200.00	3,069.82	2,046.55	70.20	10,386.57President of Greece	October 14 to October 18. 1982	400 Canadiana Textile	Purchase Order (time restriction)	6,064.00	1,813.46	1,208.98	70.20	9,156.64President of Guinea	October 30 to November 5, 1982	354 Annin Flag Co.	DSS Standing Offer	3,132.50	1,967.68	1,311.80	70.20	6,482.18Grand Total	2,524	34,133.17	21,527.27	14,998.28	561.60	71,220.32
Notes: (a) Number of flags purchased is determined by the program and the number of flags presently held in inventory, (b) Cost of installation and removal is determined by the program and the date and time of installation and removal.

December 17, 1982


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Were the former weather ships Vancouver and Quadra sold by the Government and, if so, in each case (a) at what price (b) what was the original price (c) what is its age (d) was the purchaser a Canadian (e) was the payment entirely in cash or were there credit arrangements?
2.	Were any restrictions, such as the re-sale to foreign countries, placed on the possible future use for the ships?
3.	Was the sale properly advertised and, if so, were the ships sold to the highest bidder?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1 am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, the weather ships Vancouver and Quadra were sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, (a) Individual price for the weatherships is not available since the ships were sold as a package for the amount of $645,000, (b) Vancouver ($14,447,902); Quadra ($14,316,090), (c) Vancouver (built in 1966); Quadra (built in 1967), (d) No, (e) Payment was entirely in cash.
2.	No.
3.	The sale was advertised in the following newspapers and publications: The Globe and Mail, Financial Times, Les Affaires, The Shipping World, Maritimes Reporter and Engineering News.
In addition, offers to purchase were sent to over 5,000 prospective purchasers. The ships were sold to the highest bidder.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to House business. I notice that the report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs was tabled today, thus allowing the House to be seized of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Could the Government House Leader give us an indication, since we will be dealing with Bill C-132 today, when we might expect to be dealing with Bill C-131?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I announced yesterday that we would be dealing with Bill C-132 today and Monday. There is no change for the time being, even if Bill C-131 has been reported today. If I were to change my mind, I would let
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Hon. Members know in due time. We will be dealing with Bill C-132 today and again on Monday. It will be followed by Bill



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-132, to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West) moved:: That Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 14 to 17 at page 1.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is best to begin today by explaining to Members the purpose and intent of the amendment which I have moved. This Party is convinced that the Bill to put a 6 and 5 per cent capping on the Family Allowance is wrong because it is punitive to that segment of Canadian society-children-who are least able to defend themselves. It is our intention as a Party, if forced to it, to vote against the implementation of Bill C-132.
I have moved an amendment to the Bill in the belief that it will make the Bill less punitive than it now is. The intent of the amendment is to remove the capping from the year 1984. It will unfortunately leave in place the capping for 1983, which is unacceptable to our party. Even if this amendment is adopted, we will still vote against the Bill in total. However, it makes the Bill only half as punitive as the Minister wants it to be because it would restore indexing for the year 1984.
All Members of this House, whether they are in the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party of Canada, should be very reluctant in the present economic circumstances to do anything that cuts the income of those Canadians who live at or near the poverty line. We should be especially careful about an intention to cut the incomes of those Canadians two years ahead of time. The present economic circumstances are such that there is absolutely no sense of certitude about the Canadian economy for the year 1984. We have very little certitude about what the economy will be like in 1983, but we are really out to lunch when we begin to think that we know what our economy will be like in 1984. It is not inconceivable that we might have runaway inflation by 1984. It is not inconceivable that the effect of this legislation, if Members do not vote for my amendment, will result in a 5 per cent capping in a 20 per cent inflation world.
Sometimes it is too bad that all Members of the House of Commons cannot attend a committee. If they had been at our Committee, they would have seen that other than the Minister

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
herself, every outside group of witnesses who appeared advised us clearly not to do this. Perhaps the most compelling and graphic presentation was made by a group who represents low-income citizens in Ottawa.
To put the matter in perspective for all of us on the Committee, they told us the following. In a self-help manner, they have organized a transportation system to take members of this low-income group to grocery stores which have the lowest priced food. They told us that if they were to schedule that transportation for the day before the Family Allowance cheques arrived in the homes, nobody would use it. These are low-income Canadians. Therefore, the day before the Family Allowance cheque arrives, there would be no one to use the transportation system.
They deliberately put that transportation system in place for the day after the Family Allowance cheques arrive. Therefore, their transportation is used. Mothers of this nation who live at or near the poverty line each month take their Family Allowance cheque to the lowest-cost grocery store they can find and buy the maximum amount of nutritious food for their children.
That is the purpose to which the Family Allowance cheque is put. That is the purpose which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) asks us to ignore. In a world riddled with uncertainty and inflation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare of this country asks us to cut the Family Allowance cheques which mothers use to buy food for their children.
When the Minister appeared before the Committee, she told us that the Government must do this, that old age pensioners and families must lead in the fight against inflation. 1 wish the Minister had been in Committee to hear some of the witnesses, in particular the labour union groups who to varying degrees have considerable economic expertise in their research organizations.
The group we heard this morning was speaking to the pension Bill, but they put the Family Allowance payments into perspective for us. They told us that the saving would amount to .05 per cent of the federal budget. That is one-twentieth of 1 per cent. In gross national product terms, that is 1/100 of 1 per cent. For anybody to believe that that kind of expenditure difference will have any impact on inflation is just incredible. In national terms, that amount is so tiny that it will not affect inflation one whit, one iota or one little bit.
The Government's case for the necessity of this Bill is further eroded when the Minister comes before us and says that inflation is reducing, that it is coming down. A number of spokespersons for the Cabinet stand up in this Chamber whenever they have the occasion to tell us that their program is working, that inflation is coming down. Stop and consider that statement for just one minute. It is a true statement; inflation in this country is coming down. However, the second part of the Minister's case is that therefore we need to take money away from families and pensioners. That statement collapses because we have not done it and yet inflation is coming down. We do not need to take money away from pensioners or from children.
Inflation is coming down for another set of reasons. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that on this particular piece of legislation, and the pension Bills which follow, the backbenchers on the other side will collectively begin to meet in the corridors and in their offices and start to exercise some sense of social responsibility. The Liberal backbenchers have an obligation to join with the Opposition in telling the Cabinet they are doing something wrong and we will not tolerate it. They do not have to bring the Government down and cause a general election; they just have to tell the House Leader that they will not stand in this Chamber and vote for this legislation. A quiet word to the Minister and this legislation will not come before us, and on January 1, 1983 those cheques for pensioners and families will go out under the present system, fully indexed.
Our parliamentary tradition, the very basis for the existence of this Chamber, is the belief that in all the ridings in this country people vote freely and democratically for someone to represent them here. Out of the Hon. Members of this Chamber we choose a Cabinet. Cabinet Members come from the Party that has the most seats in the Chamber. But the obligation is on all of us Commoners, regardless of Party; the Government proposes, but it is the backbenchers who dispose. We, the backbenchers of this House, either approve the plans of the Cabinet or make our disapproval known. And it is possible, Mr. Speaker, in the next four days for the backbenchers on the Liberal side of this House to meet quietly, to think through this problem, and to communicate to their House Leader and the Minister their disapproval of these three pieces of legislation which take money out of the pockets of children and senior citizens, which take food out of the bellies of children and the senior citizens of this country.
A growing proportion of Canadians live at or near the poverty line, and when you live there, Mr. Speaker, the little money you get in a world so full of inflation is needed for survival, not luxuries. It is needed for good health, good nutrition, good medical care, good shelter. That is what the money is needed for, and that is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare is asking us to take away from these people.
All of us who represent constituencies in this Chamber know what is happening in our communities. I come from the. community of Calgary, Alberta, and for a number of years now it has had the reputation of being one of the most economically advantageous places to live. I was looking over some newspaper clippings yesterday which reported that welfare rolls in the City of Calgary from October to November went up 11.9 per cent. That is in one month, Mr. Speaker. From October to November unemployment went up from 9.5 per cent to 11.4 per cent. That is almost 2 per cent in 30 days. The vacancy rate in my City in the last 12 months has changed from two-tenths of 1 per cent to the highest in the country, at 8.2 per cent. What that tells us is that the unemployment rate in that community would be somewhere near 20 per cent if all those Canadians who had moved to Calgary had stayed there. But they have not; they have returned in many, many cases to
December 17, 1982

the family home in other parts of the country, and thus have reduced our unemployment rate to 11.4 per cent and increased our vacancy rate to 8.2 per cent.
If that is happening in my community, which has been one of the leading communities in terms of economic growth in this country, then what is happening in the economically disadvantaged parts of this country? We all know about Sudbury. Close to 30 per cent of the people who live in Sudbury, Ontario, are unemployed today with little, if any, prospects of employment tomorrow. What does that tell us about family incomes? Our unemployment statistics told us we used to have one million unemployed and we now have one and a half million unemployed. Statistics show that welfare caseloads are going up at an average rate of 10 per cent a month.
What does all that tell us about family incomes? It tells us that family incomes are falling dramatically. The money which parents have to put food on the table for their children has decreased dramatically, and in the midst of that kind of situation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stands up in this Chamber and brings forward a piece of legislation which provides that in a time of maximum difficulty, we will cut some more money from those families. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his last budget decided to take on average $300 more out of the pockets of Canadians who are working.
Consumer spending is cut through those kinds of tactics, and as we cut consumer spending, we notice an increase in unemployment, and then an increase in the number of people who have to go on welfare because their unemployment insurance has run out. These are the people who have taken the consequences of what the labour unions were calling before our Committee "perverse fiscal policy". They used "perverse" in many senses because it is a word which has many meanings, but the clearest cut sense in which they meant it is that it is perverse in the sense of being opposite to what it should be.
With a million and a half unemployed Canadians, what Government needs to be doing today is encouraging Canadians to spend, to buy, to create jobs. Instead we have a Government that, through taxation policy, through the six and five cap on pensioners and families, is cutting down on spending. As they do that, Mr. Speaker, they encourage the creation of more unemployed and it is inevitable that a higher and higher proportion of Canadians will be living at or near the poverty line. There are more in that situation today than there were a month ago, and there will be more a month from now than there are today.
In the midst of all that, the Minister of National Health and Welfare says to the Members of this Chamber: Take some more money away from that growing number of Canadians who are forced to live at or near the poverty line.


Mr. Breau:: What nonsense.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: A Member who has not been at a single committee meeting, or heard a single witness, hollers at me across the floor "what nonsense". It is not nonsense.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Herb Breau: Read the Bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You read the Bill. You do not have to be in committee. I will give you one piece of the Minister's own testimony: The Government is going to save some money, she said, with each of these pieces of legislation. Not large amounts, but we are going to save some money. Well, if the Bill is designed to save the Government money, where is it coming from if it is not out of the pockets of families? How can the Government save money if it does not come out of the pockets of families?


Herb Breau: Why don't you be honest? You just said there are more people at the poverty line-


Mr. Taylor:: Stand up and make a speech.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Member will have a chance to stand up and try to refute the testimony. The money is coming out of the pockets of families today. Not only that, it is going to come out of the pockets of families way into the future. It is eroding the base of universality. If the Member says he has read the Bill, surely he recognizes at least that much.
In 1985, when we return to indexing, we will do so on a smaller base. If he has any familiarity with the mathematics of compound interest, he should understand that the eroded base will be taking money out of the pockets of families in this country in ever increasing amounts year after year after year. In ten years' time the amount will be enormous; in 20 years' time it will be horrendous. That is the impact of this legislation, which I gather the backbencher on the other side intends to vote for and will be answerable to his constituents.


Herb Breau: I always am.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You know what would have been better, Mr. Speaker? If Members of this House would read an article in The Financial Post of December 11, they would see it points out with some clarity that there are three major financial elements to the system currently in place to provide support for families. One element is the Family Allowance, another is the Child Tax Credit, and the third is the income tax deduction. For a family with two children and a taxable income of about $26,300, those three elements provide more than $800 for each of those two children. That is taxable income, Mr. Speaker. That means a gross income of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35,000.
Now, in a just and humane society surely we would think that the poorest people would get at least as much, a little over $800 per child. But under the current system, that is not what happens. The poorest segment of Canadian society, those families who do not even have enough income to pay income tax, get less than $700 per child. Those Canadians with family incomes in the neighbourhood of $35,000 get over $800 per child out of our system, and those with not enough income even to pay tax get less than $700.

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
If the Government wanted to save money, Mr. Speaker, if it wanted to be just, then we would not have this Bill before us today, because of those three elements of that system which affect family incomes, the fairest one to poor people of this nation is the Family Allowance. The other two elements are not nearly as fair. But we have a perverse Government, supported by what I am beginning to suspect are a perverse group of backbenchers. Of those three programs available for redistribution, savings or whatever, the Government attacks the only one which has justice in it, the only one of those three elements which maximizes benefits to the poor and gradually reduces the benefits as family incomes go up.
What rational explanation can backbenchers on the other side give to their constituents for cutting spending on the most socially just part of those three elements? How can they go back into their ridings and say: "We want to save a little money, but we will continue to give more to the rich or to the better off than we are going to give to the poor"? What sense of perverted Liberal thought is involved in this Government bringing forward this Bill? How can they go back to their ridings and defend this Bill as somehow making a contribution to reducing inflation in this country when it is an insignificant amount of money relative to our gross national product and when it is one-twentieth of 1 per cent of federal expenditures?
Members on this side, in committee and in this Chamber, have continually pointed out to the Government other areas which would have more impact on reducing inflation and would save the Government more money than this legislation. I would like to bring to the House's attention just a couple of them. Last night in committee 1 handed out an analysis which shows that in the year just finishing the hidden interest cost subsidy to Petro-Canada, one Crown corporation, is $514 million. Can 1 repeat that, Mr. Speaker? The hidden subsidy, which does not show up in the Estimates, to one Crown corporation, in one calendar year, is $514 million. There are direct subsidies in the Estimates to that same Crown corporation in excess of $400 million. At that point we are remarkably close to $1 billion, and here we are spending days of House time to approve a measure which will take about $80 million away from families and children. In a couple of days we are going to be asked to approve another measure which takes another $80 million away from pensioners. We do this with the certain knowledge that at the same time we are directly subsidizing one Crown corporation to the tune of $400 million and indirectly for another $514 million. Those amounts are ten to 15 times as great as we are going to save by cutting the Family Allowance in this fashion. Where is the logic in that Mr. Speaker?
When we look at the Minister's Department and at the Auditor General's Report on that department, we do not see massive savings because we are not too sure of what the Auditor General is telling us. However, he does tell us one thing, that in the year just passed the Department overpaid the Canada Pension Plan by $7 million and that the amount is growing yearly.
How did that come about? It happened because they were calculating benefits on gross figures rather than on net contributory figures. It was a simple arithmetical error. As 1 understand it, the Government is going to continue to honour this through the life of those individuals who are first-class senior citizens. Because of a departmental mistake, there was an additional cost of $7 million in the year just passed.
Other parts of the Auditor General's Report show that the Department of National Health and Welfare does not have adequate systems to investigate whether payments to pensioners and families go to those legally entitled to them. We do not know whether there is fraud in the system and, if so, the size of the fraud.
These are the questions which the Auditor General brings to our attention. Before any of us are persuaded that we should take this $60 or $80 million out of the pockets of families, surely we should first of all look into the system that is in place.


Mr. Waddell:: Why did you vote for the six and five?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I hear the NDP interjecting. That is the Party that in 1979 defeated the budget that was the fairest one for poor people in the decade of the seventies. They threw a Government out of office and now they want to know why we voted for the six and five.
In June, 1982 the NDP was the only Party in this House to vote against cutting their own salaries. They wanted to keep their salaries and that is how they voted. Members of this Party agreed that Members of Parliament should be involved in the war on inflation and should vote for a measure to reduce their incomes. The NDP voted to retain their salaries.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We voted against six and five and for the children.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The NDP does not seem to realize certain facts, Mr. Speaker. There was a piece of legislation, to be followed by others, which laid down a principle. The only group to be affected immediately by a reduction in income was Members of Parliament and Senators. This Party voted for that so that we could turn things around in the country, but the NDP voted against a reduction in salaries. That is on the record.
As the Bills on six and five came before the House, we committed ourselves to fighting them piece by piece. I would ask the NDP where their amendment on the Family Allowance Bill is. Where were they this morning when there was a vote on a similar amendment on pensions? They were out to lunch, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of talk but nothing in a legislative sense that makes the world better for anybody.
A Party that defeats a Government that has just brought in a budget that is the fairest for poor people in a decade is guilty of a hypocrisy that will be an albatross around their necks for the rest of their lives. They gave us inflation and they gave us a
December 17, 1982

Government that is attacking pensioners and attacking families.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Are you calling the voters stupid?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Every time I see an 8.2 per cent vacancy rate in my city, my blood boils. A high proportion of Canadians are unemployed today and are living near the poverty line because we have a Government that did not understand one sector of our economy. I do not think it understands many sectors but it really messed up the energy sector.
In the month of May we imported 400,000 barrels of oil a day at somewhere near $40 per barrel. That means $16 million per day went out of the country to create jobs in Mexico and Venezuela. At the same time, in western Canada there was that much oil in the ground ready to be pumped at a cost of $25 per barrel. Just the other night 1 heard that in this month of December there are 100,000 barrels of oil per day still shut-in in western Canada. At $40 per barrel, that means $4 million per day is going out of the country. Consumers could have that oil for $2.5 million per day and collectively would save $1.5 million per day. The other $2.5 million would remain in the Canadian economy to create jobs. In 20 days at that rate, we would not need to cut the Family Allowance and in 40 days we would not need to cut the pensions.
Not only did the NDP throw out that budget that was fair to poor people but subsequently it has consistently supported energy policies which have driven the nation into bankruptcy.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member knows that that is not a truth. We never supported the National Energy Program. We have said that consistently in the House and have voted that way. The Hon. Member should tell the truth of the House. I agree on the energy subject.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member agrees with me on the $514 million hidden subsidy given to Petro-Canada? He agrees that it is bad and should go to pensioners? Would he take it away from Petro-Canada? What a remarkable reversal of NDP philosophy! I hope it continues. If any Canadians are living high on the hog, it is those in Crown corporations, including Petro-Canada. They waste more money in a week than would be saved by this Bill.
Last night another Crown corporation, Air Canada, was in the news. The President was quoted as saying, "We are going to rent space or buy it for $30 million. We do not want the $20 million space." He said: "The difference is that we are going into a Buick instead of a Pinto".
That is the attitude of Crown corporations, Mr. Speaker. At a time of economic difficulty when a Crown Corporation is laying off 1,200 employees, it is going to buy a Buick for space instead of a Pinto. The Crown corporations are not controlled by this Chamber; they report to Cabinet Ministers and the NDP put those Ministers in place. They are guilty, they are culpable and they have to share that guilt.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
If this Bill becomes law and money is taken out of the pockets of families and out of the bellies of children, 1 hope Members of the NDP will experience some sleepless nights for helping to create a monster.
It is well known that Members of the NDP will do what they think is politically expedient. That is a well-known facet of their behaviour. But we appeal to the 10 or 15 Members out of the 147 Liberals on the other side to vote for an amendment that would make this a one-year Bill instead of a two-year Bill. We ask them to say that 12 months from now we will examine conditions in 1984 instead of trying to guess about them in 1982. That is all the amendment asks Liberal backbenchers to do. It would not bring down the Government. It simply protects Canadian children and families so that the Parliament of Canada can examine their situation at a time closer to the reality of the situation. That is not an unreasonable request. I hope that 15 Members on the other side will go along with it and vote with us on the amendment.


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may call it one o'clock, since 1 would like to have the floor when the House resumes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) had been recognized by the Chair.

The Chair, however, will recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order arising out of the permission granted today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) in connection with the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This matter is now reaching preposterous proportions. Your Honour will understand and recall that the background of this matter is that at first the Minister refused to disclose the Bill

December 17, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
to anyone, including myself. Second, he admitted today that he allowed me to see the Bill and to have the Bill as long as I did not show it to any other person. Today in Question Period the Minister stated that he had consulted with the Government House Leader and that it would be possible for me to have each Member of our caucus, 102 Members, provided with a copy of the legislation. Specifically that was the commitment and undertaking made by the Minister of Justice.
Over the lunch hour I attempted to have copies made of the Bill for that particular purpose by the House of Commons printing unit. House of Commons printing has refused to print this document, on the basis that it is a confidential proposed Bill of the House of Commons and that it is against the policy of the printing branch of the House of Commons to print any Bill, let alone proposed and confidential Bills. Then I got in touch with the law branch, and it would not allow me to have copies of this Bill for distribution to my colleagues on this side of the House.
My point of order is simply that 1 am being stymied in attempting as quickly as possible to apprise all my colleagues of the actual content of this legislation. Either the Acting Government House Leader should stand in his place and agree, within a matter of minutes, to provide me with 102 copies of the Bill so that I can circulate it, not to staff, not to any other person, but directly and only to Members of Parliament; or the House should make a ruling so that the printing branch will allow me to have the Bill printed and I can distribute it to my colleagues on the basis on which it was given to me by the Minister of Justice.
I raise this matter as a point of order because 1 am not able to carry out the important role I have to play in view of the statement made by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Government House Leader. I ask Your Honour for your intervention and assistance in this situation which has arisen because I cannot have copies made in the House of Commons printing branch.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this is a point of order. It seems to me that there is a photocopy machine, certainly in the offices of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). 1 do not know what is preventing the Hon. Member from using it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You tell me where I can get it printed.


David P. Smith: Perhaps if he were to use it, he would not try to score little points as he is trying to do today. I regret that he has taken this approach because my primary concern is to get that Bill through.
I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) was trying to accommodate him as the official critic of his Party by giving him a copy of the Bill. I regret that the whole issue has taken on the tone it has as a result of the position of the Hon. Member. I suggest that he go up to the fourth floor and use the photocopy machine of the Leader of the Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear. The Acting Government House Leader refuses to give me sufficient copies, but he is giving me permission to take this Bill outside the House of Commons and to put it in other hands, hands other than those of Members of Parliament for the purpose of reproducing it.


Mr. Mazankowski:: He just gave you that permission.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to make it quite clear, because 1 am not aware who has photocopy machines. My material is done in the normal way by the House of Commons printing service. I will not go around asking every Member of Parliament whether they have photocopy machines in their offices.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. It amazes me how things can get so twisted. I say to the Acting Government House Leader that it is really not good enough to suggest that someone should find his or her own way to reproduce a document for Members of the House of Commons.
I do not want to engage in a battle over it. If it is the Government's desire, as I understood it to be, that Members of the House should be given access to the document and given an opportunity to look at it in the hope that we might be able to come to an agreement for its quick passage, it would not be unreasonable for Members of the Opposition and, for that matter, Members of the Government Party to think that the Government of Canada, with its vast resources, could find a way to produce a copy of the document for each Member of Parliament.
I do not like to become involved in these questions but it cannot be acceptable that it is the responsibility of the individual critic for any Party to obtain the duplicating machine to copy a document which is, in essence, a Government document for which approval to distribute among Members has been given by the appropriate Minister.
In an effort not to prolong matters or make them any worse, and in the interest of trying to resolve the unnecessary dispute over passage of this legislation before Christmas, I would ask that we consider the matter no further and that the Government Deputy House Leader might consider, in light of what has been said, whether copies of this particular Bill may be made available. If copies are available, would it be possible for every Member to receive a copy of the Bill in an envelope marked "Confidential"?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the point just raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) of course makes eminent sense. My colleague for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was absolutely correct in his point of order.
It would be an abuse of the privileges of Parliament to pursue the course of action which has been suggested to us by the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the President of

December 17, 1982

the Privy Council (Mr. Smith). The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has offered the distinguished spokesman for the Government a solution. To believe for one moment that these Bills are not already prepared and quite capable of distribution within the next ten minutes is quite unthinkable to me. If, in fact, that were to be the case, then the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) has an onus to satisfy Members of this Parliament through whatever other actions he deems necessary in achieving the purposes of the agreement which was reached in the House earlier.
1 simply repeat to the Hon. Member that if he suggests to the House that this draft Bill-I will cede that point at this time-is not already in printed form adequate for distribution not only to Members of this Chamber but throughout the usual distribution system which involves 4,000 or 5,000 copies, then everything that was said earlier today by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) becomes somewhat of a sham.
I can only appeal to the commonsense of the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that we can resolve this within the next very few minutes and be able to give a response to the Government before the day is over.


David P. Smith: As Members opposite know, I am a very reasonable chap. The Minister of Justice is a very reasonable chap. I suspect that if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West had gone to the office of the Minister of Justice and asked for copies of the Bill that he indicated would be available, he may well have received them. 1 do not know whether he has done that. 1 do not happen to have copies of the Bill. Of course, I can make inquiries. I do not have copies here. It is not up to me to usurp responsibilities of the Minister of Justice.
With respect to giving a direction to those who operate the reproduction facilities in the House, that is something that falls under the jurisdiction of the Speaker or the Management Services Branch. Certainly it is not a matter in which I can issue instructions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are the Acting Government House Leader.


David P. Smith: I can make inquiries on his behalf. Perhaps we can resolve the matter. Had the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West gone to see the Minister of Justice, I suspect that he would not need to rise in the House on this point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am talking to the Acting Government House Leader.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into the debate but I have no idea what is in that document. I would caution all Members therefore that we should be careful about widely distributing copies of it in case it is not already in both official languages. If it were in one language only, I could envision perhaps some discriminatory practice against some Members, particularly on this side of the House.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not revealing too much of what is in the copy which I have when I tell the Hon. Member that it is in both official languages. It is printed as a Bill ready for introduction.
I thought that the proper and courteous way of proceeding was to deal with the Government House Leader, who has responsibility with respect to the distribution of Government legislation and proposed Government legislation. 1 meant no discourtesy to the Acting House Leader by asking him the question; I asked because it is his responsibility. I agree with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I do not want to waste the time of the House; I just want to get it distributed and dealt with. I do not want to waste any more time of the House.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, what the hell is going on here with all this phoney jockeying around between the Government and the Official Opposition? The Bill is available but apparently there are not enough copies.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I cannot get any copies.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are prepared to give unanimous consent for the House to revert to motions so that the Government can present this Bill for first reading. Even if the Government is not satisfied with the contents of the Bill, it can always leave it to die on the Order Paper. The Official Opposition can then be put on the spot about unanimous consent for first reading. I am beginning to wonder if either one of them wants it dealt with quickly. First reading can be dealt with right now with everyone getting a copy of the Bill.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, having heard Question Period and the subsequent debate today, I simply want to make the observation that it appears to me that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) went to the Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) because of his known expertise and concern in this matter. That seems to me to be a laudable gesture. It is a process which I think we would want to encourage, that we should go to other Members, in an informal way, to ask those Members who have a known conscience and ability for their preliminary input.
Let us make it clear that what is binding on the Member at this time is his promise to the Minister of Justice that he would keep this Bill on a confidential basis. He made that promise of his own free will to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice recognized that promise because of the previous stature and reputation of the Hon. Member.
I believe that the Members in the New Democratic Party have made a good point. A valuable process has been initiated by the Minister of Justice and he has received co-operation from the Member for Saskatoon West. This process of consultation before the introduction of a Bill to Parliament is very valuable. However, 1 suggest that the debate which is ensuing here is beginning to threaten that kind of co-operation. On a personal note, I must ask the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West why he feels he wants to threaten such a valuable process

December 17, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
by dragging it into the open ands making a big issue of it. So why is the destroying the opportunity for future consultations by going through this charade? 1 do not understand. I respect the Hon. Member and I respect the process, but 1 do not know why he is trying to damage it now.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you bring the Bill in, if it is so
good?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in over 40 years in legislatures and three years here, l have never seen anything so ridiculous. The Government is being completely hypocritical. It says that it wants to introduce the Bill and proceed with it, but it refuses to introduce it. The Minister tells the Member to make the copies available; however, the Government will not make the copies available. What is the Government trying to pull off, anyway? Hon. Members opposite stand up and say a bunch of baloney, such as we just heard from the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher). If the Government does not want the Bill introduced, why does it not say so instead of being so blatantly hypocritical?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let's get copies of the Bill. That is all we want.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We don't have to do anything.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I detect on the other side of the House a great enthusiasm for me to speak on this issue once more. To be very brief, I will make inquiries on behalf of Hon. Members opposite with the Minister of Justice and perhaps we can resolve this matter.
I would like to say, however, that the Minister of Justice is acting in good faith. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on this point but, as Your Honour knows, 1 have been the Chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped and, as a result, I have had a number of conversations over several months with the Minister. Quite frankly, I want to assure Hon. Members opposite that he has always dealt with me in good faith. I regret that there appears to have been some misunderstanding which has developed. I will make inquiries of him and hopefully we can resolve this matter.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an issue with regard to this proposed Bill. I know the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will make inquiries as to how it can be reproduced, but I want to advise him that I have just received a call from the Chairman of the organization for the handicapped in my constituency who has been following this matter and has asked me, as a Member of Parliament, to bring with me a copy of the Bill when I return to Kingston later today, as members of that organization would like to see it. I would like to know that, when I receive a copy of this Bill, I will not be bound by any restriction preventing me from showing it to those people whom it will so deeply affect. 1 would like the assurance that when this business of reproduction has been straightened out
as far as the Bill is concerned, I will be in no way abusing any kind of privilege which might be extended to me as a Member of Parliament if I show this Bill to the organization for the handicapped in my constituency over the weekend.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 had no intention of rising again, but this Bill is now being placed in jeopardy, there is no question about that. Whether or not this Bill passes will, to some extent at least, and 1 think to a great extent, be determined by the atmosphere which exists in the House. There is no way in which I or anyone else can do anything about what the Official Opposition does, but I want to put it to the Government that if it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation dealing with the Human Rights Code which will benefit the disabled and women in some way, I say to the Government put it out now. Introduce it.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What if it could be improved?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What is Parliament for?


Ian Deans: 1 heard an interjection from an Hon. Member who asked, quite legitimately, "What if the Bill could be improved?" Mr. Speaker, you know, as I know, that that is what the parliamentary process is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I put it to the Government that that legislation will receive approval in principle if the Government introduces it for first reading now. If there is any improvement to be made, it can be made in committee. We are prepared to have the Bill sent to committee on Monday. We are prepared to have the Bill dealt with in the House on Wednesday. If this is important legislation, and 1 happen to think it is, and if providing the kind of protection which these amendments would provide is something that we in the House of Commons would want to see, then please, for God's sake, stop this game playing and introduce the Bill.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for me to respond. I am not in a position to move the Bill, obviously. However, as soon as this debate is resolved I will have a discussion with the Minister of Justice. I would confirm what the House Leader for the NDP has said, that in fact not only did the official critic for the Conservative Party have a copy of this Bill, but the NDP critic had one, too. Quite frankly, they were quite co-operative and agreed that it could go into committee. For reasons I will not go into, this was not possible with the Official Opposition. However, I will make inquiries and see to what extent we can resolve this matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would make a further comment or observation for your edification or for that of the Parliamentary Secretary. For many years, a number of us in this Chamber have felt that the practice of acceptance of first reading and referral of subject matter, which, in essence, is the content of the Bill, at first reading prior to its being dealt with in principle at second reading, was the most useful course of action for this Chamber to take.
December 17, 1982

In every instance that I can recall going back 17 or 18 years, I say with some modesty that Government always extended Opposition Members the courtesy of informing them of the content. There has never been any aberration from the application of that principle. We have debated the subject matter from time to time, but what the Government is attempting to do here is simply to make available to select Hon. Members of this chamber the content of the Bill. There is no objection to dealing with the Bill but, rather, there is an objection to the process.
This practice has always been carried out in the past by Ministers of Transport, Ministers of Justice, Ministers of External Affairs, Ministers of National Defence, Ministers of Energy, Mines and Resources and Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans. I am not exaggerating. The staff of the Parliamentary Secretary can verify the fact that over the last 25 years there has not been an aberration. It is not a common practice but the practice has been there, and perhaps we should pay a little bit more attention to it.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the fact that the subject matter, the content, was wide open and public. There was no attempt to hide it or impose intervention by way of exception in any way. It was always wide open. It was a recognition on the part of Government that it was not infallible and that, in fact, good concepts could be bettered if they were widely broadcast to a legitimately interested community. In the discussion which would take place in detail on the subject matter, amendments which could be construed as substantive could be proposed, and then the matter would go before the House for second reading debate. However, it should not be narrowly restricted to one or two Members, or even to 102. There are other Members of this Chamber whom 1 am sure have not seen this matter, and if they had the benefit of the half or three-quarter of an hour before the House adjourns for the day, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could in fact achieve what it is that he seems to want to achieve. But do not make the mistake that this Chamber will now accept, or ever has in the past accepted blindly such a proposition. It is the principle that we are talking about, not the end. The implication left by that holier-than-thou friend of mine from that little mountain-Hamilton, or wherever it is-that the only people in this country concerned about the subject matter or content of the Bill under question are those to my left is a crock of nonsense.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can in fact get himself geared up to go outside, I think he will find that there are about 4,000 to about 6,000 copies of the Bill printed and awaiting distribution. It awaits some significant action on his part. I trust he is enjoying signing his letters, because I am making two very serious points.
This is a common practice. Do not try to obfuscate it by the fog that you are trying to put over the top of it. We have always been open about these matters. Why not proceed in that manner today? There is nothing wrong with first reading
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
and reference of the subject matter to committee before second reading and acceptance in principle. Just simply let us take a look at it. It is the easiest thing in the world to do. That is the process, in any event.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, one point that has not been raised today, and the Deputy Government House Leader has ignored it, is whether you do not feel as Speaker of this House that you have an obligation to see that all Members of the House are treated equally.
I would submit, sir, to you, and through you to the Deputy Government House Leader, that we have been asked to have this draft bill reproduced in the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), on his machine; but that does not take care of every Member of this House. More particularly, it does not take care of an individual Member, a Private Member, not belonging to a party. He has as much right in this House to be informed on this Bill as the rest of us have. I think we should expect that when the Deputy Government House Leader comes up with some solution it should take into account every Member of the House and not just those who happen to belong to a Party.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, it could be that when you have heard my presentation you may rule it a matter of privilege rather than a point of order.
I have been listening very carefully both in Question Period today and to the subsequent debate this afternoon. I believe you could very well find that someone's privileges are being trampled upon in this whole affair. I am speaking on behalf of the handicapped and women. I happen to be a member of both those groups, I personally, and as a handicapped person and as a woman, I am outraged that both groups should be used as the tool of a cheap political ploy.
The handicapped and the women of Canada have waited for many, many years to have their rights readjusted. I think we can wait another couple of days, particularly if our dignity is going to be absolutely destroyed and torn to shreds by what is happening today in this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just one small contribution. I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader that if they were to go through the normal distribution process and use the normal printing press, the cost to distribute the Bill would be considerably less then the cost will be if we are forced to use xerox machines. That money could be used to provide services to the handicapped. Those on this side of the House would rather see the money saved by using the normal process put to that use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair does not have a motion in front of it. Some Hon. Member may choose to rise and put a motion, in which case the House will deal with it as it sees fit.
We do have a point of order explored at some length by Hon. Members. I do not think it should be the responsibility of

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the Chair to interpret the agreement that was reached during Question Period today between the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
I concern myself very much with the point made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). 1 think it would put the Chair in the position of being the interpreter of an agreement that occurred in the House and, quite obviously, because there is disagreement now, the Chair is not well advised to try to put new clauses into an agreement that has been reached.
I do have, I believe, in the name of the Speaker, the authority to order a document printed, but 1 am very loth to do that because, again, the agreement which took place in the House seems to have some limitations on it.
My hope is that the offer made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) might be accepted by the House for a few moments, and that he might be able to resolve the problem on an organizational and practical level.
If it cannot get resolved that way and if some Hon. Member wants to rise to put forward a motion, of course the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for that purpose. In that case, if I may, 1 will recognize the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT, 1973 MEASURE TO LIMIT INDEXATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 21697).
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, we were discussing Bill C-132 and more specifically an amendment put forward by the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Because the Member for Calgary West is so confused about the facts, he is conveying grossly misleading and false impressions to the House and to the Canadian public and I think these must be corrected. I say that maybe for the first time in ten years since I have been elected to this House, it is difficult for me to understand that a Member with a PhD, who has worked in the field of social sciences, would misread the Bill so grossly, but I will take the time to explain to him what this Bill is all about. Of course, I will have to invite all Members to vote against the amendment of the Member for Calgary West, because it would defeat the purpose of the very objective of the Government, which is to reduce inflation, to cut it by half.
Among other things, the Hon. Member repeated very, very often that the Bill by which we will limit the indexation to 6
per cent, and to 5 per cent the year after, for Family Allowance recipients who do not need the Child Tax Credit will affect the poor in the country. It is totally misleading and really 1 would like to be able to use a stronger word to say how wrong it is for him to dare say things like that.
The Bill, of course, is part of a package, and the other Bill, C-139, its complement says very clearly that all Canadian mothers who receive Child Tax Credit, even a part of the Child Tax Credit, even a dollar, of a Child Tax Credit which means that they are at the very end of the scale for those who qualify, they may have a family income of $40,000 a year, will receive not 6 per cent but full indexation in this coming year, in their next month's cheque.
fTranslation]
This means, for instance, and I want to stress this point, that any Canadian mother, if she has only one child and if her family, that is she and her husband have earned $26,330 in 1982, or any mother who falls in that category or any mother who has more than one child and whose income is over and above that amount will be entitled to a child tax credit or a partial credit which will be increased by $50 for each child to compensate for our small cut in the indexation.
Today's Hansard has not yet been printed, but 1 took notes when the Hon. Member was talking. He stated that the number of those people living at or near the poverty line and the number of welfare cases would increase. He repeated often the incredible phrase that this Bill takes food away from the bellies of children. The Hon. Member comes from a rich Province and probably the wealthiest city in Canada, Calgary. The Hon. Member surely is joking when he says that someone with one child earning $26,330 a year, the maximum at which people receive the full Child Tax Credit, is living at the poverty line. There will be a reduction of $1.40 a month on their cheque. For a person earning more than $26,000 a year, how can anyone who is honest suggest that it is taking food away from their table? That and other stupidities are what we have had to listen to.
This matter is very serious. 1 want families to understand what is going on. After having listened to the Hon. Member for Calgary West, Canadians will wonder what is happening. What will happen is this. Of the 3.6 million mothers in Canada who receive Family Allowance, two-thirds, or 2.4 million of them, those in low or middle-income families, next year will receive the fully indexed value of the Family Allowance and Child Tax Credit. 1 want to assure everyone in the House of that as it is very important. This is a very generous Bill.
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What about 1984?


Monique Bégin: The same is true for 1984. In each of these two years they will get the full value of the fully indexed Family Allowance and Child Tax Credit. 1 repeat, that will go to two-thirds, or 2.4 million mothers.
December 17, 1982

What about the other third? The other one-third or 1.2 million mothers are in high-income families. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with high-income families. However, we had to make a choice. Those earning between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, depending on the number of children they have, will be asked to contribute along with other Canadians, including Members of Parliament and Ministers who have cut their salaries. This one-third is being asked to contribute in a modest way to the economic recovery through the six and five program.
I have more than once tried to explain to the Hon. Member for Calgary West that the six and five program is not for savings, as he suggested this morning. Although I have often explained that to him, he does not want to believe it. The purpose of six and five is to mobilize Canadians and public opinion toward the fight against inflation.

The rate of inflation was expected to be 12 per cent and 10 per cent in the next two years. We have decided that our collective target to reduce and control inflation would be to cut those rates in half and bring them down to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after. Of course, in any fight against inflation or in any economic endeavour, the psychological element is a key factor and that is why we have used our legislative powers to face up to our responsibilities with a view to controlling inflation. Bill C-132 therefore reduces the increase for next year. Instead of being a full indexation as expected, it will amount to only 6 per cent the first year and 5 per cent the year after. Bill C-139 provides that any Canadian mother who receives a full or partial child tax credit will be entitled not only to the usual full indexation of the child tax credit which was, as you may recall-

Depending on the number of children, families will qualify for a full or partial Child Tax Credit. Last year a mother receiving a full Child Tax Credit received $261 non-taxable per child. The Child Tax Credit is asked for by mothers at the beginning of the year. The Child Tax Credit for this year would have been $293 non-taxable per child. Mothers will be surprised to hear that this year it is going to be much higher. It will be $343 non-taxable for the child for the year. As 1 explained, there will be an additional $50 for all mothers who receive the Child Tax Credit, regardless whether they receive a full or partial Tax Credit.
Why is this being done when it costs so much? We want to ensure that the small reduction in the Family Allowance indexation will not hurt in any way, shape or form the low-income and middle-income families. That is very important. That is why I can easily deny the false statements made this morning. This is why I say to those Canadians who are listening to the debates or will read about them that nobody earning less than $26,330 will receive less next year or the year after than they normally would have received.
Let me explain to mothers that if inflation had been as high as we thought it would be, they would lose $1.40. In other
Family Allowances Act, 1973
words, their Family Allowance cheque will be more than it is now, although slightly less than they anticipated. If we had full inflation such as we have known, they would lose $1.40 on their cheque; but the more inflation is brought down, the better off they are. For example, inflation is around 8.5 per cent and it is coming down. That is good news. Mothers will lose less than $1.40. They will just lose a few cents. Therefore, the quicker we bring inflation down, the smaller the gap will be. There is no gap at all, in fact, if we succeed in bringing inflation down to 6 per cent-and I should not say ' if ; it is "when" we succeed. We are coming towards that goal of only 6 per cent inflation, which is not ideal but is far better than what we have had in past months.
It is a fact that the inflation rate is coming down-the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has just explained all that-but nobody will admit that it is due to the government's 6 and 5 per cent program. Hon. Members opposite, because of party politics, just cannot admit that the government may have succeeded in its psychological campaign to mobilize all Canadians, and they will say: Indeed not! Economists say that there is another reason, but it is not because of the government's 6 and 5 per cent program. Well, maybe it is quite fair for a politician to play politics, but 1, for one, have no use for that little game, because Canadians are not any better off in the end. What 1 find interesting is the fact that the inflation rate has come down. I think everybody will agree with me on that. Since the month of June when we started the 6 and 5 campaign, in other words, over the past six months, the rate of inflation has gone down. In fact, it has gone down over a sufficiently long period to warrant the conclusion that a real trend has been established that will continue to bring about permanent and beneficial change for all families, and I would emphasize the words beneficial and family. In committee, the Hon. Member asked a great many questions, and then he said: How do we know what you are saying is true? We have no guarantee that the child tax credit will be fully indexed and that it will be increased by $50 for all mothers receiving the child tax credit. So 1 told the Hon. Member, who still does not seem to understand, that he should read the House Order Paper more carefully, because then he would have known that on December 7, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tabled in the House Bill C-139, which provides for amendments to the Income Tax Act. Perhaps he does not understand that the child tax credit does not fall under my Department's jurisdiction. It is a fiscal measure which must therefore be amended and supplemented by a special bill, which happens to be Bill C-139.

I say that because his Leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), has said recently, and it is reported, among other things, in The Globe and Mail of December 9, that he would

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
oppose this Bill. Well, if the Conservatives decide to oppose this Bill, they will make two-thirds of all Canadian mothers lose their Child Tax Credit or see it delayed. That is what it means. I do not quite understand why The Hon. Member did not address that point and explain why the Conservatives would delay the passage of a Bill which will increase the Child Tax Credit. That is key. 1 want to stress that this Bill should be passed as rapidly as possible by this House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would not want the Minister to grossly, or in any other way, mislead the House. 1 wonder if she can tell us how many pages of this thick Bill deal with the Child Tax Credit and how many things there are in it which must be opposed by any responsible Opposition? She is trying to indicate that there is only one piece of legislation dealing with the Child Tax Credit, and that is just not correct.


Monique Bégin: No, that is not what i said. I said that that Bill, however, is the tool which deals with the increase in the Child Tax Credit and 1 have asked the Hon. Member for Calgary West if he has the permission of his Leader to assure Canadian mothers that there will be rapid passage of that Bill. He did not answer my question, which is a very simple one, because his Leader said he would oppose the passage of the Bill. These are the negative consequences. 1 have just listed them, in case he had not realized that. He did not know in committee last week that this Bill existed. He did not know in committee that this Bill contained a provision amending the Child Tax Credit and increasing it by $50 on top of the full indexation. I have explained why that special additional $50 is given to all mothers receiving the Child Tax Credit.


An Hon. Member:: For one year only.


Monique Bégin: For one year, which is enough to cover the two years of small reduction in indexation. And that, of course, is based on this generous, I must say, forecast of inflation figures which 1 gave often in committee last week and which has been printed in the proceedings of the committee. They are the figures which the Department of Finance and my Department anticipate for inflation. We calculated what would be missing for Canadian mothers if inflation was that high compared to 6 per cent. We found that the figure for the two years would be a little less than $50, so we are adding $50 to the Child Tax Credit for all to make up for that small reduction in Family Allowances.
In the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary West to Bill C-132, he does not say if he would also reduce that special $50. He wants to do away with capping Family Allowances indexation to 5 per cent in 1984. That is his Bill. But the point of the $50 is that probably half of it, roughly $25, belongs to 1984, although we are giving it this year. Does he also want to reduce that, which is, of course, what he should be doing to be in line with the calculation and to respect our objective of fighting inflation and reducing it to 6 per cent and 5 per cent? He has not said what he would do. I think this is wrong. I am
convinced Canadian families will benefit more than anybody else from the dollar being worth more, instead of its constant erosion by inflation.
In other words, the faster we reduce inflation, the better it is for any mother or any family, because the family budget reflects the purchasing power of the dollar. This is the ultimate goal. If the price to pay to reach that goal is to ask Canadians who can afford it to take a little reduction in their increase of Family Allowances cheques, 1 do not think we have to apologize for that. All mothers with a family income of below $26,330, or more if there are more children, and all the other mothers, by the way, who get only partial Child Tax Credit- and that can go up to at least $40,000 income-will not suffer at all and will not have to pay a penny to that campaign. We will not apologize, because we are doing for Canadians what we really think is best in the long run to fight inflation and get it under control.
[ Translation]
The Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), using a trick well known to all politicians, tried to create division among the Liberals by calling on Liberal backbenchers to rebel and to vote against the Government. Clearly, the Opposition does not understand why its campaign to influence public opinion never got off the ground. It is clear that, as regards both Bill C-13I and Bill C-132, the so-called public opinion campaign which the two Opposition parties tried to organize never got off the ground, never had any success and in fact has no connection with real public opinion. Every family has members who are jobless, either a husband, a wife, a child, a brother-in-law or a niece who lost their jobs or who need a job because he or she is twenty years old. They know perfectly well that once we set our priorities for creating employment or protecting existing jobs, and we decide to fight inflation and to bring it down by half, let us say to 6 per cent, and after that to 5, we shall not stop until inflation has been beaten.
The public knows perfectly well that it stands to benefit most from this policy in the long term. For instance, last June, the day after our hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, brought down his budget, I started to draft, with my officials, the insert that was sent with all cheques. This special message was received and probably read by all mothers in August or September, I do not remember exactly. In any case, the insert described in detail how family allowances and child tax credit would be affected by the Government's decision as announced in the June 28 budget. I immediately sent the news to all Canadian mothers. I knew I could reach this group, and that they would read the insert because it would help them understand the facts. The insert was straight to the point, without any political partisanship, since that was not the point of the exercise. Its purpose was to explain: Your cheque is so much today. With full indexing for inflation, it would have been so much. It is going to be a little less. It will be higher than it is now but a little less so. However, everyone receiving the tax
December 17, 1982

child credit will continue to benefit from full indexing and, in addition, receive another $50 in compensation for the next two years.
Canadians read this. They wrote us a lot of letters. They did not write silly letters but letters in support of our policy, whatever their family situation. The same applies to Bill C-131. We did not receive tons of mail, but we did get many letters which, in fact, I receive when I visit my own riding or when 1 visit other ridings in Canada to meet people in connection with my work-people who invite us for one reason or another. So I would like to ask the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) to stop urging our backbenchers to rebel against the Government, because it is of no use. These Members are very proud to see that inflation is going down. The truth is, none of them over there are listening. They are all busy going through their papers. It was quite a different story this morning, however-
He will not have the slightest success in appealing to the Liberal backbenchers to organize a revolt. They will not have it. Liberal backbenchers-


Mr. Nickerson:: Do what they are told.


Monique Bégin: -are pretty pleased that we decided to mobilize all Canadians to fight inflation. They are pretty pleased and excited, as is every Cabinet Minister, to see that inflation in the last six months, since we started the six and five campaign as we call it, has decreased month after month. We are pretty pleased; it is fabulous.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I have also studied social sciences, as did the Hon. Member for Calgary (Mr. Hawkes), and he should recognize the importance of the psychological element in any economic objective or goal. He should recognize that, and if he was "normal", he would be happy. Why is he not happy to see inflation go down? I wish I understood that. Suddenly, with his Leader, he votes in favour of six and five, but when it comes to concrete application, he disappears in the woods. He is no longer there. Then he hates six and five. Can he explain to us the reason? 1 mean, does it take a Ph.D.? Where is the logic in all of that? 1 do not get it.
Unfortunately, you have to take the bitter pill when it is a bitter pill; it is not always a candy. You have to be in favour of six and five. You are in favour of it when it suits the bosses, but you do not seem to be in favour of it when it is more difficult to take one's responsibility and go and explain to Canadians that it also means that rich families will have to make a little effort as well. Where is the logic in that? I do not understand whom you represent. I do not understand who elected you. I do not understand how you have the guts to speak up publicly, because this measure gives more money to poor people, and you know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: 1 do not understand how you dare stand up and speak for at least 40 minutes-1 would be very pleased if this
Family Allowances Act, 1973
was a case where parliamentary reform was retroactive. You go on and on and on, frightening the poor families in the country, when this Bill C-139 will not only give them their full indexation on the Child Tax Credit, but another $50. So what is your exact constituency? I do not understand, but I know Canadians. 1 know Canadian mothers. We all know Canadians on this side. 1 mean the every-day Canadian, the Canadian who does not want to continue with inflation. The mother whose budget every month is eroded. She is quite pleased to see the slight decrease in inflation month after month for six months, and we are very pleased.
I will finish with one plea, Mr. Speaker. I will ask our Members to defeat the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), and to go on with the work of bringing down inflation once and for all.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak in favour of this amendment, although certainly against the Bill. It is a very short Bill with one clause and two sub-clauses, and only one sub-clause is involved in the amendment. But to address this, I think we have to look at the nature of the child support programs at the federal level. There are three direct support programs, and I suggest we consider them from the point of view of three principles. One is universality; another is the progressive or regressive nature as to whom the money goes to; the third is recognition of the role of parenting given by the different programs.
First of all let us consider the Family Allowance. This is the only universal program of the three child support programs at the federal level. It is one in which payment normally goes to the mother, in other words, to the prime parent, the person who is doing most of the work in raising children. That is very important. That is one of the reasons that women's organizations across the country have supported the Family Allowance, and indeed want it to be expanded, never mind being cut back. Since it is taxable, it is a progressive measure. It goes out univerally, but there is a means of taxing it back from better off families. Indeed, that could be improved if we were concerned about measures of economy, but certainly we can respect the principle of universality and taxing back at the same time with this very important program.
The next one is the Child Tax Credit, Mr. Speaker. Supposedly it goes to the worst off families, although the cut-off point goes up to $26,000 odd for the full-tax credit. It is a selective program and therefore does not have many of the benefits the universal programs do. It is also normally paid to the mother of the child, the prime parent, and for that reason it is a just and good program and something my Party would like to see expanded further.
Then there is the third program, and this is the one the Minister does not like to talk about. When she is pressed on it in committee, she still does not like to talk about it. That is, Mr. Speaker, the child tax deduction. This is not a universal program, it does not benefit everyone, and in fact it benefits most the richest families in the country. There is a lesser

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
benefit to the middle-income families, and it does not benefit at all the poor families because they are not paying any income tax whatsoever. So it is a regressive program, and one which is continuing absolutely untouched by the reforms and "deforms" which have been brought before us by the Government. Another feature of the child tax deduction program is that it is paid largely to the parent who does not do most of the work of looking after the child. It is paid to the parent who claims the Family Allowance who, in most two-parent families, is the person who makes the higher income. In other words, it goes mainly to the father of the family, and he is making a higher income because his wife is at home looking after the child. It is a very unjust program which gives the benefit to the person who needs it least and who deserves it least by virtue of the fact that he or she do not have the prime parenting role. One might want to dispute how those roles ought to be shared, but the fact is that it is the mothers who do the prime parenting, whether full time in the family or in the work force.
In Bill C-132 and the amendment that is before the House, we have a change in an economy measure brought in by the Government which is going to attack the progressive and universal Family Allowance Program which benefits the prime parent most. It attacks the best program in a number of respects and leaves untouched the worst program of the three.
Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Mobilization has been given as the reason that the Minister and the Government have brought this measure forward. But mobilization for what, Mr. Speaker? My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) asked this question in Committee but he did not get much of an answer.
What do we want mothers on Family Allowances actually to do? The Minister has not answered that question. The Hon. Member for Spadina suggests, with some reason, that what we are talking about is immobilization, rather than mobilization. This is a measure to frustrate people. Mothers are going to receive a smaller Family Allowance cheque and they are going to feel guilty about it. This is a psychological program that is supposed to upset them. It is supposed to stir them up-to do what? Nothing positive, according to the Minister. I think we have to assume that it is supposed to make them sit back and worry, feel unhappy and be a little more docile so that the Government can do what it wants with its programs.
I did try to explore with the Minister the savings that might result from this program. It is part of six and five, and we are supposed to be putting more money into job creation. We are supposed to be concerned about the deficit and all these other high principles.
When the Minister first explained the Bill, she let it out that the savings would be in the order of $70 million in the two years, 1983-84. Her computation did not include a very important factor, however, and that is the taxing back of the Family Allowance. If that is cut back, then not very much money will be returned through income tax. We dispute what the exact measures are that account for that. The Government
admits that the real savings of the program outlined in Bill C-132 are only $15 million for two years. According to our computations they are only $10 million for two years. Either way, Mr. Speaker, it is a very significant figure. If they want to argue the case on the basis of necessity and having the money available to do other things, this is a trivial amount. Surely we could find ways of getting the money that would be less harmful to the people of the country than this.
In the Minister's speeches she has expressed the pious hope that the matter could be dealt with in graph form so that we could see more clearly the implications of the program. She brought a graph to one committee meeting and I have a copy in front of me. It is very revealing. Some Liberal backbenchers stumbled around and talked about the distortion in the graph. The problem is that there is a serious distortion in the system through which we hand out benefits.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that the curve goes up. Lower income families start at this end and higher income families at this end, and the total benefits are the top line. The line goes up so that the total benefits are highest for families at the $30,000 per year level, then they begin to go down. It is only around $35,000 per year that we find the benefits reduced to the level that a poor family receives something from public money funnelled through the federal Government. The benefits are lower at $10,000 per year and under than they are for families in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. That is shocking, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons for this is that the child tax deduction program is so highly regressive. It only benefits families with enough income to pay income tax and benefits most those families paying a high rate of tax. The Minister is aware of this because it was discussed in committee. It is a well known fact. When she was pressed on the matter, she answered, "It is not my Department. We are not concerned with tax reform. Equity is not at issue here." She completely removed herself from responsibility by saying it belonged to another Department. Mr. Speaker, she has colleagues in Cabinet, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Surely that is what Cabinet is for. There are three programs, each coming under a different ministry. Surely Cabinet Ministers are paid well enough so that they will do the job properly. They should consult with each other and bring in legislation which is consistent and which makes sense.
Instead of that, we are faced with extremely unfair measures, one of which is an attack on the universal system and leaves untouched the most regressive and selective system, the child tax deduction.
I want to make some partisan remarks about the role of the Conservatives in this, Mr. Speaker. It is very nice to see them supporting us on a Family Allowance measure, but we have to recognize that they are rather late converts to the cause. Family Allowances were introduced in the 1940s by the Liberals. They had been a CCF measure and had been advocated by this Party and its predecessor Party for many years. At that time the Conservatives fought against Family
December 17, 1982

Allowances, but they were introduced because our predecessor Party had advocated them. The Liberals came to the conclusion it was a good program to swipe from us. When they brought it in, we supported it.
The Conservatives had interesting arguments to oppose Family Allowances. At different times it is the Conservatives who attack Family Allowances with the Liberals defending, and at other times it is the Liberals attacking with the Conservatives on the opposite side. The point is that one cannot rely on either Party for consistent support for Family Allowances. They both support the program out of expediency only. At a time when they can see they can score some political points they are behind it but when they do not see that, they are not behind it. This Party is the only one that has consistently supported Family Allowances, and it will continue to do so.
1 want to make one final comment a propos the remarks of a Conservative Member of the committee and the Minister's response to them. The Minister gave a very spirited response to the accusations of the Conservative spokesperson that this was an attack on poor families. I suggest that her very strong defence that it is not an attack on poor families, but is more selective, and is an attack on richer families with greater protection for the poorer ones, hangs her on another point that she has tried to avoid and that is, the question of universality.
She is right in her claim that there has been an increase in the Child Tax Credit, the selective program to make up for the reduction in the Family Allowance. But she did not address the question that the base of the Family Allowance has been reduced and that all families will suffer because of that. On the selective question she says there is no attack on universality. She says that even though the Family Allowance Program is universal and even though this one is being reduced, this is not an attack on universality. In committee she went so far as to say that if so much as $1 remained in the Family Allowance per year, there would still be a universal program. This is rather revealing, Mr. Speaker. It is rather shocking and disturbing to think that a Minister could even talk in those terms. It is a pretty specious argument, but there it is.
The Minister emphasized the increase in the selective measure to offset the universal program. 1 think she has to admit that the real problem with the Bill is that it is an attack on universality. This is an important social program, a universal one, that gives recognition to mothers of families. The Government is attacking this program. It is not the first time the Government has attacked this program. Limits have been placed on it before. In fact, Family Allowance would be up to $40 per month per child if indexing had been continuous since it was introduced. We have had attacks before; we are very skeptical and we are very concerned about this one. It is not a measure which will save a lot of money this year because of the increase in the Child Tax Credit. It will ruin the base. It is the thin edge of the wedge for attacking universal programs, and it is a very backward step for that reason.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Let me conclude by saying that 1 am not very satisfied with the approach either of the Government or the Conservative alternative. The amendment is one which should be supported because it limits the cutback to one year. For the same reason that half a loaf is better than no loaf, half a cutback is better than a full one. Certainly that is not what we want. This is a very mean Bill. We must defeat it because people will suffer very definitely from it. It is the thin edge of the wedge to destroy other important social programs. I urge support for the amendment, but the most important thing to do is to defeat the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on Bill C-132. I have followed it through the debate. 1 have read committee reports to understand better just what the Minister is attempting to do in the Bill.
It is an innocent enough Bill. We are used to having large Bills around here, but this one has only one clause which in effect reduces the Family Allowance expected by parents in the country over the next two years. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) moved an amendment. The basis upon which he moved it was that he felt-and I agree-that it was impossible to predict just what inflation would be like in 1984 and that, therefore, to project the program that far ahead was unfair to families. Also he stated that in effect the Bill should not be passed in the first place because it was an attack upon Family Allowance, upon something which mothers in particular use in planning their budgets each month. To say that Family Allowance cheques buy a certain amount over six and over five and will not have any effect upon family budgets is not the case. Many people, particularly today, find that they have to budget very close to meet their monthly and yearly expenditures.
To have even $1.40 per month per child removed, as was stated, can affect the income of a family. To a great deal the family is affected psychologically because it is not the only factor which is being removed. At the same time the family has to face extra heating costs because of a program in which the federal Government takes a substantial amount of tax from oil and gas, with no credit going back for heating costs. Also there are increased property taxes which the family faces every year, as towns and cities find it impossible to meet the demands placed upon them.
In the last economic statement, which was possibly a small budget, the federal Government added a tax upon those people working as they pay more for unemployment insurance and other measures brought forward. To say, "We have brought this Bill forward; it seems like a small amount, so we should not really consider it, we should pass it through quickly because these people will be doing their part to help in the fight against inflation", is just not so. It is also a psychological

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
factor. It takes away from the income of people who cannot afford it, people who expect a cheque every month to assist them with family income.
The Hon. Member for Calgary West used the figure of some $80 million as the amount being taken away from families. If we consider the tax back, perhaps only $10 million to $15 million will be removed. I am sure there are hundreds of ways Members of Parliament could find to save that amount of money, so that we would not have to deal with this Bill at all and we could leave the Family Allowance as it is. For example, let us look at the report of the Auditor General. We could find hundreds of millions of dollars which could be saved. In their committee work Members of Parliament have probably found other situations they could recommend at which even the Auditor General has not looked. Crown corporations alone have some $3 billion in losses. If we look at the Department of Energy, with which those of us from western Canada are so familiar, there are hundreds of millions of dollars being used by Crown corporations such as Petro-Canada in very questionable expenses, such as the purchase of British Petroleum service stations, expenses which will not really help our citizens at all. There are examples of expenditures which could be avoided. Those funds are very readily available and could be used in place of the few million dollars the Minister is attempting to save in this Bill.
The argument for the Bill cannot by very strong. I was looking at how the Minister attempted to explain the breakdown of the Family Allowance and the Child Tax Credit. I looked at the proceedings of the committee because 1 wanted to refresh my memory on how they were calculated. In order to find out just where is the cut-off on the Child Tax Credit, I looked at the evidence of the expert witness, as reported in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs wherein the following was reported:


Ms.   Dulude@: I believe that $26,000 is the amount-the cut-off point-at the present time. But this $26,000 is not a net... Let us see-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is taxable income rather than gross income.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No. It is graduated between $26,000 and $40,000. It diminishes from $26,000. Under $26,000 you receive the full amount.


Ms.   Dulude@: It is graduated over...


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is $26,330.


Ms.   Dulude@: Between $26,000 and-
Then the following appeared:
A Witness: It is mainly from capital deductions, not-


Ms.   Dulude@: Yes, but I do not know what the cut-off number is.
A Witness: If you manage to take advantage of all the deductions, you can get up to an astronomical income and still have less than $26,000.
I decided that I had better go back to my notes because I understood myself better before I tried to find out exactly where the Child Tax Credit was cut off.
Most Members of Parliament-and perhaps all of us- agree that the Child Tax Credit is a good thing, but the difficulty with it is that it comes only once a year. For many families it is important to receive cheques once a month; they depend on them. It is very easy, when one receives the $343 lump sum once a year, to find some major item needed by the family on which to spend it. But what happens the next month
if one is faced with a breakdown in a refrigerator or something of that nature and one has not set aside some of that money in the family budget? If we are to be progressive, the best thing we could do is to find a way to pay out the Child Tax Credit monthly instead of once a year.
If we look at the Family Allowance, we find that it has been quite a game over the last few years. In 1974, the amount was raised to $20 from the previous amount in the neighbourhood of $7. In 1979, through indexation, it rose to $25.68. Then the Child Tax Credit was brought in and the Family Allowance was reduced back to $20, whereupon indexation again took over. Inflation had been running at a very high rate at that time. As a result, the amount has increased again. Today we must deal with another Bill which will once again reduce the amount of Family Allowance which mothers have come to expect. This makes it very difficult for parents to predict what they will be receiving from their Family Allowance each month. The Government has played this game too often.
I follow the performance of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development very closely. The Indian people of this country suffer from poverty more than any other group. They must plan their monthly budgets very closely. They have come to depend on various types of assistance, such as that which they receive for the purchase of books or the payment of tuition for the children they send to off-reserve schools. Yet this year, in order to find some savings in his Department, the Minister has said that he has no legal obligation to provide that assistance and is therefore no longer paying for off-reserve expenses for Indian children. This results in an immediate increase in the budgets of those Indian families. They will now have to deal with the reduction in Family Allowance.
Another example of reduced assistance is the noon hot lunch program which had existed in this country for a number of years. It is an essential program to children on reserves who are often sent to school without lunches. In 1978 that program was suddenly cut in an attempt to save money. In 1979, the Conservative Government reintroduced the program, but only temporarily since the program was cut again as soon as the Liberals returned to power.
These examples show how difficult it is for families to plan their budgets. Statistics Canada figures show that there are some 900,000 Canadian children living in poverty. I am not sure if that figure includes Indian children because Statistics Canada do not include Indian people in its figures for the unemployed. They are simply passed over. Therefore, I wonder if this is the case as well when Statistics Canada determines which children in Canadian families live below the poverty line.
The total amount in benefits for children over the next two years will be reduced. Despite what the Minister says, these benefits will be reduced because in our current economic situation, while we hope that inflation continues to drop, the
December 17, 1982

inflation rate will likely be more than 6 per cent and 5 per cent. Inflation will be higher than 6 per cent and 5 per cent because of the Government's large expenditures which are uncontrolled and allowed to run rampant.
The Minister has said that if we do not pass Bill C-132 quickly in order to get this additional money to mothers under the Child Tax Credit, we are holding back that money which is available to them. Again, as Members of Parliament we are being put in the position of having to decide between the pros and cons of this Bill. While the Child tax Credit is a beneficial measure which should be passed quickly, there are a number of measures in this Bill which are totally unacceptable to Canadian families and businesses across the country. Members of Parliament must make the decision on whether to support the Bill for its one or two positive measures or to oppose it because of its 10 or 20 clauses which are unacceptable. Of course, we must find it unacceptable to pass the Bill because of its many destructive measures which will hurt Canadians more than the Child Tax Credit will assist families.
I took the opportunity to review the Committee's Minutes of Proceedings, because I thought they would contain a message from a Liberal Member besides the Minister in defence of this legislation. 1 discovered the remarks of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) whose remarks took up quite a few pages in his attempt to defend this Bill. I would like to review some of his statements because I thought they really defended the Bill. In the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee, at page 51:23 he said:
I know in any situation where there is a-it is not really a loss; rather than a loss, it is just not a gain. I think we should be careful in setting this out in its proper perspective. It is not as though there is nothing coming to families under the legislation.
It is at six and five. If of course the inflation rate reduces, it will probably be less of a burden than it otherwise would be. But at least six and five is something; and this is not the only group affected.
He went on to say:
At the same time, what are we talking about? We are talking about, what, 416 cents a day per child ... Is that right?-for those who are actually affected.
I believe that this is a defence of the Bill by a Member who is not really sure himself of what effects it will have on Canadian families. 1 reviewed all of his defence and could not find one clear statement about how he felt the Bill was not hurting families. I found that he was often convoluted and ended up by saying that it would affect Canadian families. As I reviewed these Committee's Minutes of Proceedings, I found that not only was I confused by the Minister's statement about how this Bill will not hurt the family, many Liberal Members were equally confused.
The Hon. Member from the NDP who just spoke raised a very interesting situation. This situation with regard to the draft that was inserted in the back of Issue No. 51 of the Committee's Minutes of Proceedings was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Calgary West as well. It points out the very interesting situation that the greatest benefit from the three sources of family income assistance, the Child Tax Credit, the Child Tax Exemption and the Family Allowance, goes to those families earning between $10,000 and $34,000. A family must earn over $34,000 before the total benefits begin to diminish.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
We find that a large amount of the benefits which is supposed to go to the poor families does not, in fact, go to them.
This raises a question which many Members of Parliament have been asking themselves for some time. When programs are established for the purpose of assisting those in the greatest need, why do we find that a great amount of the money being set aside for those families does not reach them but goes to families who do not really need that tax credit? I have held the opinion for some time that we should reconsider whether those families earning over $34,000 a year should receive those funds and whether that money which is going to those families earning over that amount should be given to those earning under $10,000. 1 can name many families in my constituency who are earning less than $10,000 a year and could benefit from that extra amount of money.
Family Allowance was initially introduced for two reasons. One was to help families, mothers in particular, raise their children and provide a source of separate income to the mother, particularly in poorer families, where perhaps the husband did not spend enough on the care of the children. The mother always had a certain amount of money which she could set aside through the Family Allowance to provide the basic physical needs for her family. Those were excellent reasons for setting up the Family Allowance Program. We find now that many hundreds of millions of dollars are going to people who do not need this assistance. This is assistance which should be going to those who live below the poverty line. It is not going to them under the present program. Therefore, all Members of Parliament will have to deal with this question. They must ask themselves, "How will we improve our programs so that those people who are really in need will, in fact, receive the moneys that we set aside and those who are not in need will not receive those moneys?"
There are many things that can be said about this Bill and why we should not deal with it. The Minister states that we need to take money away from children and pensioners in order to solve the inflationary problem and that, in fact, because of the six and five program, inflation is coming down. I will grant the fact that there is a certain psychological advantage to saying that everyone is participating in a program and therefore we are all helping to bring inflation down. We must ask why inflation has been dropping as was stated previously, even though this Bill concerning pensioners and Family Allowances has not yet been passed. Why is that? It is because the economy of this country is in such terrible shape. Businesses are going bankrupt. There are 1.5 million unemployed, and we are not even including Indian people in that figure. Money is not in demand as it once was. Banks are having trouble even lending their money. With all of these situations, the expenditures in this nation for goods have dropped off tremendously. Factories are closing, businesses are laying off people who are superfluous to their needs, and it is no wonder that, with the economy slowing down in the manner it is, inflation is dropping. We should seriously consider

December 17, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
whether we need any of these pieces of legislation being brought forward.
It has also been stated that each month, in many communities across this country, 10 per cent more people are applying for welfare than in the previous month. What does that tell us? It tells me that there are many more families in this country which have a need for every dollar they can get, and one dollar per month per child is important to them because there is not much money coming in any more. Family income is dropping. Therefore, we in this Party, particularly, are asking the question: is it so important that we save $10 million, $15 million or even as much as $80 million as a result of this Bill when we could very easily find hundreds of millions of dollars elsewhere? This could be done if we as Members of Parliament really looked, and then we would not have to deal with this legislation.
1 therefore say to Hon. Members: search very well when and if you come to vote on this Bill. Consider the amendment of the Hon. Member for Calgary West because it is a very positive amendment, one which deserves support from all sides of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to improve on the speech that my Minister made this afternoon.


Dave Nickerson: No, it is not.


Walter David Baker: Go ahead and try. You have lots of scope.


James Duncan Schroder: I think she gave an excellent speech. She covered many points. The only problem is that the Opposition has taken hold of the idea that it does not want to be confused by the facts, as usual:
1 would like to refer to the comments of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) to the effect that the psychology of inflation may be working. While I must confess that 1 am not an economist either, I find that the complex issues with respect to inflation are difficult to comprehend. It strikes me that one of the most important things we can say is that the psychology of inflation is working in the six and five program.
I, too, attended the committee meetings where various witnesses testified that times were tough. I had a great deal of difficulty in sorting things out, because the Conservative Members of the committee were certainly all over the map.


Walter David Baker: We are a national Party.


James Duncan Schroder: I think that the Members representing labour unions and other organizations will take great solace in knowing that it is very clearly shown on the record that the Conservatives support the labour unions, the labour people, and this idea that the rich should be soaked and that there is
no sense of responsibility on the part of all Canadians to try to keep this psychology of inflation working.
I heard that the problem was that people were having difficulties because of inflation, especially because they were finding high prices in the food stores. I have heard a story about an organization providing a service whereby people were picked up and taken shopping, but that before people received their Family Allowance cheques they would not avail themselves of the service because they did not have any money. I would like to suggest that reducing inflation will be of far more benefit to those people than Family Allowances.
We must also remember that the Bill will really not take anything away from anyone, particularly those people who are considered as being those most in need. I think the Minister has gone to great lengths to explain this fact. This is one of the facts which the Opposition seems to have difficulty in absorbing. In fact, in some cases, depending on how one uses statistics, some of them may even be better off.
The psychology of inflation really involves a sense of credibility, a sense of understanding. Both Opposition Parties have been suggesting that certain social programs which have been of great benefit are being undermined by the six and five program, and that it is too bad that we must do something to interfere with them. All of those social programs were introduced by the Liberal Government, and that speaks for our record.
One of the witnesses in committee, while making a presentation on behalf of the Canadian Council on Social Development, emphasized the fact that most people recognize the worth of social programs which have been inaugurated by the Government and greatly enhanced by the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). Terrance Huns-ley, the Council's executive director, said, "Although our Council has not hesitated to criticize individual iniatives of the Government, it is also true that our social programs are presently proving their worth in softening the impact of the recession." Spoken in rather quiet words, I think that was a very glowing report of the sensitivity of the Government to the requirements of the most needy in this country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would entertain a question related to his last point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: Would the Hon. Member entertain a question?


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, 1 will entertain a question at the conclusion of my remarks.


Walter David Baker: Oh, wait until we change the rules.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Then you won't want to speak, Jim.


Walter David Baker: We will never hear from you again.

December 17, 1982


James Duncan Schroder: The amendment to this Bill, of course, is to change what is a two-year Bill to a one-year Bill. In other words, there is a certain degree of inconsistency here which 1 find difficult to understand. First, the Official Opposition voted to support the six and five program. That means that they have in general terms, 1 suspect, appreciated the merits of this program and its purpose, which is to try to reduce inflation so that everyone, not just the needy, but everyone in this country will be better off. Let us get that straight. We have support in some quarters besides our own Government for the six and five program.
Now we get an amendment which proposes that we only do half this program that is supposed to have impact on reducing inflation. We have an amendment which is introduced to say: let us not try to get inflation down to 5 per cent, let us quit at 6 per cent. 1 see the rationale which is that they want to convert what is a super-program based on 6 per cent inflation then being reduced to 5 per cent inflation, to say, OK, let us go to 6 per cent inflation only.
The other thing that really disturbs me is that they say, "When the total package comes in we are going to vote against it anyway". They are sort of flip-flopping back and forth.
We can use figures to prove anything, and one motive of the Opposition appears to be to frighten those people who will be most affected by this legislation. In reading the testimony and listening to debate, one of the things that has impressed me is that it is almost as if the motive of this program were to save money. Questions which one can find in the testimony so far, and in some of the speeches of the Opposition, seem to say, how much does the Government hope to save from the 50,000 pensioners?
In the June Budget, the former Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), forecast that limited indexation would reduce expenditures on the Old Age Security Program by $105 million by the end of the 1983/84 fiscal year. Now we have every reason to believe that these savings will be much less, because the six and five program is working.
Why is the Government so pleased about these reduced savings? Here is the flaw in the reasoning which we see there, because the objective of the six and five program was not to save money. It was to reduce inflation to 6 per cent by the end of 1984. The less we save because of the limited OAS indexation, the happier the Government will be, because that will mean a lower rate of inflation and, most important, there will be better prospects for pensioners, and for innumerable other Canadians.
Another suggestion on this idea that perhaps the Government is not saving as much money as it had hoped to save, is that the Government will only save about $10 million from the Family Allowances and the Old Age Security Program, because of the six and five program. I hope we save even less than that $10 million because that will indicate that the six and five program has really worked and that pensioners and
Family Allowances Act, 1973
families with children will not have to give up as much as we originally forecast, which is not very much.
Again I remind you that the purpose of the six and five program was not necessarily to save money. I want to emphasize the fact that this is a short-term program. It is a temporary short-term program and it is meant to achieve the longer range goal which is to reduce inflation.
One of the other major problems that I have with the Opposition is the fact that they are twisting these programs to suggest that universality is in doubt. I think that if you have listened to any of the Minister's speeches, if you have read any of the testimony, certainly from the Government side and if you have listened to some of the other speeches, you will recognize that that is not and never has been in question, and that the program of universality is the key to the social programs that are supported by this Government.
This program is meant to reduce inflation; there will be no loss to those people most in need; the Child Tax Credit will be fully indexed and that group of people who are making up to $27,000 a year will not be touched. If the program works as we trust it will, and we do get inflation reduced to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, not only will those people who possibly are going to feel a little pinched because their incomes are suffering, mostly from inflation, but all Canadians will benefit because we will have reduced inflation by 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
I am worried that so much of the propaganda produced by the Opposition is going to have a detrimental effect on this anti-inflation psychology, which one of the Members admitted in his speech earlier appears to be working and which is a state of mind. 1 think that we must continue to enforce that psychology so that all Canadians, those who are in the higher income brackets and those who are needy, will find that inflation will come down. They have lowered their inflationary expectations, and therefore will be better off because of that reduction in inflation.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that earlier this afternoon in my absence points of order were raised by the Opposition which had to do with prospective amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. I do not think this has been a very edifying spectacle today in which procedural points have been used for political purposes to try to frustrate something which is extremely important to the disabled as well as for the women of this country.
This has not been a struggle about first reading. It has been a struggle about third reading. I will have other motions to make, but I would at this time like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof. I would like the permission of the House to introduce this Bill for first reading at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 17, 1982
21716______________________________________
Canadian Human Rights Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-141, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the Bill be read a second time?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to challenge the Opposition to show that they can rise above the kind of partisanship in which they have been indulging today. 1 challenge them to give second reading to this Bill now without debate so that this can proceed now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Listen to the howls from the opposite side. This will be the test of their partisanship and whether they are able to rise above that. 1 challenge the Opposition to give second reading to this Bill now without debate.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that this is Private Members' hour, unless there is some special exception. 1 have a Bill which I am yearning to present.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would have to proceed to Private Members' hour. Normally when we have some activity going on in the House as at this moment, it might be a good idea to see whether there is unanimous consent to recognize, for example, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on the point of order. Does the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) insist that we proceed to Private Members' hour or may I recognize, for example, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite pleased to see the Chair recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 should start off by congratulating the Minister for a long delayed recognition of the proper way in which to introduce any piece of legislation in this House, particularly a matter affecting the rights of two important groups in our society.
The fact is that the Minister has come in and has tabled a Bill. This will now give the people of Canada an opportunity to see the contents of the Bill after it has been published. It meant my having to go off the Hill to publish at my own expense copies of the Bill for distribution to Members of Parliament, an unprecedented situation in terms of parliamentary traditions, practices and courtesy. We can, in the spirit of
co-operation for which we in this Party are known, consider this matter at the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Demoratic Party, I want to say we appreciate the fact that the Minister has finally put this Bill before the House. We certainly agree to its introduction, as we will agree to its second reading and reference to the Committee because we are most-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Further, on behalf of my Party, I would like to say that I am thoroughly sickened by the posturing and the simulated indignation that has gone on in front of the people of Canada over this issue by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It may be that the House is ready to dispose of the matter. The Minister was seeking unanimous consent for second reading and reference to a committee. I believe the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) made it clear that the answer to the question as to when it shall be read a second time would be at the next sitting of the House. There is not now unanimous consent and we will now proceed to Private Members' hour.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Just before going to the Private Members' matter standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), I would advise that there have been consultations among representatives of the three Parties and also with the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey. I believe there is agreement for us at this point to deal very quickly with two Bills seeking to change constituency names. The Bills in question are Bill C-647 standing in the name of Saint Michel (Mrs. Killens) and Bill C-620 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand). Our agreement is to pass these Bills now at all stages without debate. I want to thank very much the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey for his courtesy in providing the minute or so necessary for this procedure.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With whom were these Bills cleared? Was this cleared with our House Leader?


David P. Smith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the House Leaders of both Opposition Parties.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Okay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Public Bills, Notices of Motions, Private Bills. I have, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, two Bills which reflect changes of names of constituencies. We will proceed with ladies before gentlemen.
December 17, 1982



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel) moved: that Bill C-647, to change the name of the electoral district of Saint-Michel, be now read the second time and by unanimous consent referred to a committee of the whole.


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

Mr. Andre Bachand (Missisquoi) moved: that Bill C-620, to change the name of the electoral district of Missisquoi, be now read the second time and by unanimous consent referred to a committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
André Bachand: that the bill be read the third time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since I have not read the full details of the Bill, could the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chair or the sponsor, give us the new name of the constituency which is being changed?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 had thought that the two Hon. Members who evidently are proceeding to change the names of their constituencies might wish to identify them themselves when I finish with the two Bills, as a courtesy to the House.
[ Translation]


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank with all my heart the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) for gaving me a few moments to speak on behalf of my constituents. To reply to the question of the Hon. Member, my constituency will in future be called Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic.


André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, 1 simply want to say that the name of my constituency will be changed from Missisquoi to Brome- M issisquoi.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [English]
Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed to Private Members' Hour, 1 wonder if I might bring to your attention the admissibility of this particular Bill, C-218. 1 would hope you would make a ruling as to whether or not it is admissible, but before doing so, 1 wonder if you would hear me, and perhaps we would be courteous enough to give the Hon. Member an opportunity to say his piece. Then perhaps, at the
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
conclusion of that, you would make your final ruling, because I am sure you will want to check with officers at the Table, as well as with other precedents.
I refer the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 62(1), which reads:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this particular Bill involves the expenditure of public moneys, therefore, it ought not to be classified as a private Member's Bill. I think you ought to take note of Clause 6 contained in this particular Bill. Therefore, I do not think we can actually debate this particular Bill today. However, Mr. Speaker, prior to making your ruling, I am sure you will want to give opportunity to the very courteous Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) to have his say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has raised an appropriate point of order. There is standard phraseology used by the Chair which I will use in a moment to alert Hon. Members that a Bill may in fact infringe upon the rights of the Government. I will read that and then I propose to indicate how, if everyone is agreed, we might proceed. It reads as follows:
Before proposing the question for the second reading of Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act, the Chair ought to express strong reservations as to the procedural acceptability of this Bill which seems, in some of its clauses, to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown as far as the power to expend public funds is concerned. Having entered this caveat, the Chair intends to allow debate to take place on the motion for second reading. Should such debate come to an end, then the Chair will have to rule on the procedural acceptability of the Bill.	.



ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL ACT, 1980 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH

Gary Michael Gurbin: that Bill C-218, An Act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With respect to the issue raised by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), I believe the suggestion made is appropriate, and that the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) should be heard. If no other Members at that time rise to speak, I will rule on procedural acceptability of the Bill. Obviously, I have warned the Hon. Members that we will be finding the Bill out of order. If some Hon. Member rises at that time and asks for a final ruling on the Bill, I think the

December 17, 1982
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
Chair would be obligated to do that as well. We will proceed in that fashion.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration which has been shown by the Chair, and by the Hon. Member opposite, in approaching this Bill. I will say that 1 recognize there could be some difficulties with this Bill under the references which have been given. Indeed, it does propose an establishment of a board. This board could be seen to replace a board which is now in place and its members could in fact be renumerated at the same level, in spite of the fact there are additional members on that board. That is one argument which I would be prepared to put forward.
I would like the opportunity to explain the real reason for bringing forward this Bill today. At a time when, perhaps, we might have chosen to speak of other things because of the difficulties which are being faced by the Canadian economy, I think this Bill allows an opportunity for taking into account some of the considerations which are in front of the Canadian people now in nuclear energy and matters relating to nuclear energy, and also those facing the nuclear industry.
To explain the Bill, 1 would like to say that much of the substance has been presented before by way of the Bill which the Government presented in 1977, which was called the Nuclear Control and Administration Act. This Bill was not enacted, and it died on the Order Paper. The Bill at that time was designed to bring into focus the development and concerns which have become evident since the first passage of the Atomic Energy Control Act, and that Act was first passed in 1946. There was one amendment in 1974. However, from that period of time we have not had major revision or review of the process to deal with the whole nuclear question in Canada. Since this Act was presented to Parliament, that is, the Atomic Energy Control Act, nuclear-generated electricity has become a very important component of our electrical system, particularly in Ontario where it accounts for approximately one-third of the total electrical power generated. Spectacular advances in the use of nuclear materials in industry and medicine have added significantly to the broad application of nuclear materials throughout Canadian society.
Bill C-218, as presented to the House today, also contains some revisions as suggested by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and changes by myself and others. The Bill was first re-drafted nearly three years ago, and is a sister Bill of two other private members' Bills, that of the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and that of the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan). In the context of today's economy, unemployment and serious nuclear industry problems, the Bill needs revision again in co-operation with the interested parties. This Bill includes proposals which would see a nuclear control board created composed of people without vested interests in the nuclear industry. It establishes a radioactive decontamination fund, requires site approval as a first step in the establishment of a nuclear facility, requires disclosure of unclassified documents, and makes the Minister responsible for the board report to Parliament on a regular basis.
The Bill is as complex as the subject, and I readily admit to limitations in being able to fully determine the legal, jurisdictional or other implications of some of the suggested changes.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, the Conservative critic for the environment, and 1 would not support any measures which would threaten the economic viability of the industry, or act as roadblocks for future development. Evidence now available in connection with acid rain, carbon dioxide, and other environmental disruptions, as in coal electrical generation or the James Bay hydro development, suggest that nuclear energy has distinct advantages. No industry, no energy form, no economic activity is without its price in environmental impact. Indeed, the first point I would like to make is that we have really not had the opportunity in Canada since 1946 to consider in a public or parliamentary forum what our nuclear energy future should be, and what relative advantages and disadvantages there really are to the nuclear energy option.
In 1980 the Porter Royal Commission dealt with nuclear energy in Ontario and made a valuable contribution to the understanding of nuclear energy in Canada. Today we really have the worst of all worlds; a mature industry that has produced a very effective high cost technology for Canada's energy needs and is also exportable but is in desperate condition, and a public that has serious concerns and mistrusts, if not in the form of energy, then in the traditional processes which have been involved in dealing with it. I think both the industry and the public are capable of dealing with our nuclear program in a productive way, in the interests of the economy, environment, and our energy future. It is with that hope that I introduce Bill C-218 for the consideration of the House.
I would like to add to my introduction of this Bill an interim plan of action to deal with what is an emergency situation in the Canadian nuclear industry. Over 36,000 Canadian skilled jobs are at stake, in addition to the important energy considerations. Continued energy research and development for future medical, energy, environmental and economic advantages are also at stake, and we cannot afford to dream of future success unless we move swiftly and competently to deal with the problems we are faced with today.
The essential components of this plan of action are, one, the nuclear industry itself must be rationalized to ensure shortterm viability; two, the Government must also similarly rationalize its approach in co-operation with the nuclear industry and the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources, External Affairs, and Industry, Trade and Commerce and others; three, there must be full Government support and open discussion of our nuclear waste management program; four, domestic reactor facilities must be promoted as part of an over-all Canadian industrial strategy; five, our Canadian energy policy must be directed in both research and development for the use of the nuclear fuel source for our transportation needs and for the heat energy that can readily and cheaply fuel our industries. An example is the proposed Bruce Energy Centre; six, we should develop an effective strategy for the export of nuclear electricity to the United
December 17, 1982

States; seven, Canada is in as good a position as any country to promote adequate international safeguards through an aggressive position with the IAEA. While we continue this important and difficult task we must maintain bilateral safeguards to protect against the abuse of our technology while promoting export sales of the Candu to world markets which have a viable financial status, and as part of an industrial development export strategy in countries where the sale of reactors alone is of questionable value, and where cost considerations are otherwise marginal.
1 hope the Government, while it is occupied with the immediacy of the problems brought forward by the public concerns and with consideration of the nuclear industry's status, can provide the necessary leadership and action. Bill C-218 would allow us a framework to deal with an outdated Canadian statute and, L hope, in the long run serve the needs of both the Canadian public and the nuclear industry.
I ask for concurrence so that at least the subject matter of the Bill can be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee of the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make some remarks regarding the speech by the Hon. Member. I am glad he brought this Bill forward. There are certain aspects of the Bill that I disagree with, and certain aspects of his speech that I disagree with, and 1 am going to go over them in a minute.
The Hon. Member and his party, and 1 and my party, share a concern that-and I will try and put it politely-there is a really scandulous situation happening in Canada. We have criticized the United States for many things, but this situation could never happen there. What I am speaking of is really a cover-up going on in the Canadian nuclear industry, and an unwillingness to debate what is happening. The Conservative Party and the NDP have different views about the nuclear future, but we have in common the desire to have a full and open public inquiry on this issue. It is really a scandal that we in Canada have had nothing but whitewashing of this issue.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) stood up at the beginning of this debate and tried to block the Bill because it involved spending public funds. If 1 did not know the Hon. Member, that would add to my suspicion and the suspicion of the others in Canada that Government strategy is one of sweeping the whole nuclear problem under the carpet. We have a vast problem here in Canada with the nuclear industry, Mr. Speaker. We have not faced it as a people or as a Parliament. It has continually been kept out of the mainstream of our political process, but it is boiling around the periphery, if you like.
Let me just give you an example. Speaking in terms that anyone can understand, that is in terms of money, it has been said by some that you can do two things with money: you can either burn it or give it to AECL and they will dispose of it for you. We have spent $825 million for three heavy water plants which the Government wrote off numerous months ago. Its representatives came into the energy committee with this kind of estimate for the write-off. One of the plants has been mothballed and two others are stockpiling heavy water at a
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
cost of $! million a year in the hope that a number of Candu's can be sold abroad. But we are not selling Candu's abroad, even though we are prepared to sell them to almost anyone. I am sure if General Zia wanted another Candu reactor today, we would sell it to him in a minute. We are prepared to sell nuclear parts to Argentina, to Korea, or any kind of regime we can in order to get rid of those Candus. We are going to Romania, which is virtually broke. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on these international trips, is spending about one third of his time trying to sell Candus. It is really quite an incredible situation when you think about it. Maybe that is the right thing to do. I do not think it is, but we should be debating the future of our nuclear industry and the Candu in the House of Commons, not just during the short time we have in private Member's hour.
I will give you another example, Mr. Speaker, of money which has been wasted. There is a $25.7 million loan on AECLs first Candu reactor operating at Rolphton. That has also been forgiven. There was $87.5 million given to the ill-fated Gentilly I reactor in Quebec. It was built on the basis that Hydro-Quebec would purchase the station when it proved safe and reliable. This experimental reactor never did prove its worth, Mr. Speaker, and it has been mothballed.
[Translation\
I do not know how to say it in French, but if it is the same as in English, I would say that it is a lemon.

In other words, it is a lemon and $87.5 million went down the drain. These amounts of $87.5 million, $25.7 million, $825 million are not peanuts, Mr. Speaker. There was another $81.5 million spent on the Douglas Point nuclear reactor, built under a similar agreement with Ontario Hydro. It is expected that we will lose $130 million on the Candu sale to Argentina which we made in 1976.
In a question to the Prime Minister in the House I raised the matter of Canada shipping nuclear rods to Argentina at the height of the Falkland crisis. I wondered what policy we had that would allow us to do that at a time when our ally, the United Kingdom, was at war with Argentina. That was an instructive experience, Mr. Speaker. It indicated that we will do almost anything to save the industry.
Let me suggest that we have to deal with this issue. I am sure that the Member who will speak for the Liberal Party will point out that a Nuclear Industry Review has been published. But Mr. Speaker, that was an in-House review. At the time I described it as an "enigma wrapped in an ambiguity''. It had all the markings of a speech of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren). It does not say anything; it does not deal with the problems.
The New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party demanded an open inquiry. Judging from the letters that the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) and others

December 17, 1982
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
have received regarding nuclear matters, the Canadian public is interested in the subject. For the young people of today it is not just a financial issue but, rather, an ethical issue. This whole matter of the nuclear future may be one of the great issues of our generation. It concerns our energy future.
The ethical issue is whether to develop nuclear energy without having a means of disposing of the waste. We cannot deal with the dangerous waste. We have no way of disposing of it properly, yet we are prepared to go ahead with the development of the industry. In my view, that is immoral. It is passing a problem from our generation to a future generation and asking it to take the responsibility or to absorb the result.
It is claimed that the reactors are safe and that there are no problems with them. But people know otherwise, Mr. Speaker, and I point to the Three Mile Island incident. The problem is not that a couple of people might die but that a whole generation could be killed. 1 know that is over stating the case, and I admit that, but I want to point out that there is the issue of the waste of money as well as the ethical issue.
The Hon. Member who introduced the Bill tried to deal with some of these problems in Clauses 28 and 32, the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste still exists.
I have a letter on this subject from the citizens of Massey, Ontario, sent by Isabel Hobbs and David Rietkoetter who write:
We are frustrated and angry because the federal government denied our right to veto A.E.C.L. plans by changing the Canada/Ontario Agreement of 1978, just prior to their arrival here.
They write of a ten-year program for storing nuclear waste in deep-rock storage. Every community is concerned because nobody wants nuclear waste stored in the backyard. You would not want that, Mr. Speaker, no Member would. So we have a nuclear waste storage problem.
Why are we developing nuclear energy if we have waste storage problem? Should we not solve some of these problems before we develop the energy? It seems to me that that question has to be examined, and that we must have an open inquiry on the subject. The Bill does not go far enough in dealing with it.
The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) spoke about the jobs that are at stake. That is a real problem and there will have to be trade-offs. There are other ways of dealing with the issue of jobs at stake. Perhaps the energy industry could be diverted to other, safer areas such as conservation. Just imagine how many jobs could be provided if every house in Canada were retro-fitted, Mr. Speaker. A lot of energy would be saved and nuclear would not be needed. I know it is easy for me to say that, Mr. Speaker, coming from British Columbia where people do not like nuclear energy. The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody will probably confirm that the citizens of British Columbia do not want a nuclear industry to be developed.
As the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey pointed out, 30 per cent of the energy produced in Ontario is generated by nuclear means. I do not advocate that we do away ,vith it altogether,
but I advocate that we consider whether the production should be expanded. He also referred to the export of electrical energy. In the publication "The National Energy Program Update 1982" at page 67 the following appears:
It would be prepared to consider some form of support for future nuclear plants, even if-initially, at least-they are built to serve the export market. In the case of a possible Lepreau 2 plant, the Government of Canada is prepared at this time to work with the New Brunswick Power Corporation and to provide immediate financial support to pursue an arrangement with U.S. utilities that would allow Lepreau 2 to be built in the immediate future.
A proposal has been made to build nuclear plants in Canada. We cannot sell the Candu abroad, so it has been suggested that we should keep the industry going, build them in Canada, and export the power to the United States.
When I was in Washington I spoke to some energy officials who thought we would be crazy to do this. They said, "Why would you assume all the risks and probably end up having to subsidize the plants? You would be subsidizing American consumers and what would you get out of it? Perhaps you could keep the industry going in the direction it is going now." I say that is the wrong direction, Mr. Speaker, and there may be other directions that we could take.
Perhaps the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill has received a copy of the letter from the Maritime Energy Coalition in Fredericton over the signature of Mr. Allison Connell written to the Leader of this Party, in which he states:
The Maritime Energy Coalition, representing many people of the Maritime region on matters of energy development and usage, has well-founded reasons to entertain the gravest doubts concerning the safety of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
The letter then goes on to deal with safety problems. 1 do not know all about the issues of the safety of that generating station, Mr. Speaker, but I know that letters come from all over the country expressing concern about the safety of nuclear power and about the disposal of nuclear waste.
I want to add a third point and that is the cost of the subsidy to the nuclear industry. I gave four examples that amount to over $2 billion. I have the figures in front of me. We have spent $2.5 billion on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since it was formed in 1952. From 1947 to 1979 we spent $3.5 billion on this industry. We have to decide whether it is worthwhile to continue to pour money into the industry or whether there are some other alternatives.
In Clause 28 of the Hon. Member's Bill he tried to deal with the problems of nuclear waste, to which I have already made reference. Also in Clause 32 of his Bill he dealt with the matter of hearings. We want a full inquiry into the nuclear industry; we want an open inquiry. If the industry has nothing to hide, then why is it hiding? Why does it not press the Government for a full inquiry so that we can bring together all these forces? In the end-and I am sure Hon. Members would accept it if they believe in the real power of democracy where issues are debated in the open-we may obtain a nuclear policy.
December 17, 1982

I am looking at the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey and wondering whether he has seen the review of the nuclear industry. It is a real sham. 1 had other words to call it but I cannot remember them; they were much wittier.
The Hon. Member talked about the power of and the role for inspectors in Clause 38 of his Bill. 1 point out that the Government is now doing research on making fuel bundles safe so that they cannot be removed. Even if this worked, it seems to me that we still cannot be sure that an Argentinian or-and I will say it today-a Pakistan or whatever could not take fuel bundles out of Candu reactors and make nuclear bombs.
If another country in the world, perhaps not a stable one, used bundles from Canadian reactors to make nuclear bombs, as I suggested Argentina might do, and it used the bomb, think of the consequences to Canada. We know that even a friendly country like India took our uranium and made a bomb. I love India, but I regret that policy.
Let me conclude by saying to the Hon. Member that his Bill is interesting. The consideration of the subject matter is long overdue. I agree with some of the things he has said; I differ with him on others. But the Member and I agree that these are the real issues: the issue of nuclear waste disposal, the issue of expanding Candu sales, the issue of our nuclear future in Canada at the expense of other alternatives, the issue of the money which we have put into AECL, and the issue of openness. These are vital issues of our generation. They are really important matters about which the public knows, and is demanding an inquiry. The Government stands condemned on this issue. It is really one of the big sleeping issues in Canada today, and the Canadian public must somehow find a resolution. I thank the Hon. Member for bringing in this Bill because it suggests one method. It suggests a small step, but it is one way of forcing the Liberal Government to come forward with an open inquiry into the future of the nuclear industry. If the Government is in favour of nuclear, if it is confident about its policy, if it has reasons for writing off the $325 million, the $87 million, the $25 million, the $81 million and the other $130 million, and if it can justify these expenditures, then what is it afraid of? Let us have an open inquiry. Let us take this Bill and add to it. Let us develop a new nuclear policy for Canada which makes a little sense.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks, I want to say that I appreciate the courtesy which the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) afforded Hon. Members on this side of the House by allowing two other Bills to precede his particular Bill. I appreciate the comments he made, but I should like to reflect upon the substance of his remarks. I will certainly reflect upon them and bring them to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). I hope also that we have an opportunity to hear from the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). If time permits, we will.


Mr. Jarvis:: No way.
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody is one of the more articulate spokespersons on that side of the House, notwithstanding the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis).
I listened carefully to the assertions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Waddell). Of course he is always full of challenges and inquiries, whether they be predicated upon one or two letters. I share some of the concerns which he raised. I hope when we return to the House in January that he will have a number of questions to ask before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works when the Minister attends or, indeed, during Question Period. I know he will take advantage of the opportunity provided by the House orders, setting aside Opposition days, to discuss this particular subject matter which is of great urgency to him and his Party. I know and I am confident that he will do that, because he believes it to be such a serious issue.
As in the case of most regulatory processes, the nuclear regulatory process in Canada has developed from a parochial, introspective set of procedures in which a very few persons were involved, to one which provides for public consultation and relies extensively upon the co-operation of federal and provincial agencies having public and occupational health and environmental protection responsibilities. Quite clearly the process is not without its critics, and continued effort will be required to ensure that further improvements are made.
Many of those involved in the Canadian nuclear program like to refer to the country's nuclear safety philosophy as somewhat unique. In reality, there are several unique features such as that of primary reliance upon the ingenuity and competence of operators to ensure a high standard of safety and environmental protection. However, many of the fundamental principles were derived on the basis of world-wide experience. It is the Government's intention to continue to maintain an awareness of new developments and to take these into account, as appropriate, in future regulatory proceedings.
The inter-relationships among health, safety and security; national and international aspects; and occupational, public and environmental protection aspects present a complicated array of overlapping subject areas. The Atomic Energy Control Board has been actively seeking to clarify these. Improved working arrangements have been achieved with the Federal Departments of National Health and Welfare, Environment, Labour, Energy, Mines and Resources and Transport. With the first four Departments mentioned, these arrangements formally recognize respective responsibilities and the current practice of AECB of taking into account the standards set by other departments with regulatory interests.
With the continued application of the AEC Act, a number of improvements in regulations have been undertaken. The following subjects have been identified for this work and several documents have already been produced for public comment, covering physical security; administrative aspects including licence review, revocation, and inspection powers; radiation protection regulations; transport packaging regulations; mining regulations; and rules of procedure.

December 17, 1982
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
The joint regulatory process established by the AECB with federal and provincial agencies and departments concerned with health, safety and environmental aspects of the nuclear industry, has proven to be very effective in addressing regulatory requirements. Thus, although all the ambiguities in nuclear regulation may not yet have been eliminated, the major areas of concern have been recognized and are being dealt with on a continuing basis by the single federal agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board.
This Bill before us provides a general statement of the federal role and of the responsibilities of AECB, but in doing so it necessitates detailed discussions between certain federal departments and the AECB on the definition of their respective roles. In particular, it is important to identify those areas where mandates or actions of other federal Departments present real or potential overlaps with the mandate of the Atomic Energy Control Board under the proposed Act. For example, the extensive emphasis on the environment in this Bill, a change from the current focus on people, presents a jurisdictional issue requiring considerable consultation and thought.
In recent years there have been a number of highly visible discussions and debates on aspects of the regulation of the nuclear fuel cycle. These have arisen in Royal commissions, in legislative select committees and in other prominent ways. A common factor has been the questioning of the thoroughness and responsibility for regulatory control, usually with emphasis on occupational health and safety. Questions have included the following: is the regulation sufficiently intense? Could it be improved by change of statutory responsibility? Is the legislation clear, or is it confusing to those being regulated? How much federal involvement should there be?
With a profusion of statements on the situation stemming from a variety of viewpoints in governments, industry and in labour, it is not surprising that misunderstandings occasionally arise. I am concerned that this Bill is a reflection of that type of situation.
The Bill removes a significant degree of discretion from the Government of the day by specifying the Minister of the Environment as the Minister responsible for Part I of the Act, that is, the regulatory section. One must remark that apart from the administrative constraint this imposes on the Government, the choice of portfolio is not obvious. The Bill, after all, covers health, safety and security as well as protection of the environment.
It is noted that a major increase in the number of board members is proposed, more than doubling the present total from five to 13 and expanding the number of full-time members by at least four times and possibly nine times. Without quibbling about the additional cost of such an expansion, I would have to question the rationale for this. While it may be desirable to enlarge the board to cope with new responsibilities, I fail to see why nine, 12 or indeed a baker's dozen would necessarily be an improvement over some other number.
Surely the existing board should be asked to advise on this in light of the tasks to be addressed today and indeed in the future.
In this Bill there are no clauses dealing with renumeration of permanent and temporary employees, nor with continuing employment of existing staff, the status of the board as a separate employer, or the status of employees under Public Service legislation. Surely it would be unreasonable to create a regulatory tribunal which could not keep and pay the pool of expertise which now exists or which would end up in some sort of personnel limbo for want of specific staffing references in its governing legislation.
There is an important new approach introduced here which warrants considerable thought. This Bill would have the effect of transforming the nuclear regulatory body from a strictly technical licensing body, to a populist judge of social and economic parameters having political overtones, for instance the requirement to consider alternatives to a proposal. Surely we do not want to detract in any way from the decisionmaking prerogatives of municipal and provincial Governments, nor do we wish to abrogate the political responsibilities of Parliament. I suggest, with respect, that we need a strong, competent, technical tribunal to sort out the technological imperatives while others, Members of this House included, discharge their responsibilities in the more subjective areas of socio-economic and political affairs.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) be prepared to answer a question?
The Hon. Member just made reference to the responsibility of others, namely us, for these social and economic issues. Would he tell the workers in Cape Breton-East Richmond, specifically at Port Hawkesbury at the heavy water plant there, what their future will be? A lot of heavy water has been stored there. There are no Candu sales. It seems to be coming to the end of its period. Will those workers be laid off or will they be kept in this limbo of thinking they will be laid off today or tomorrow? What is he proposing to say to be fair to those workers in that important part of the country?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 would gladly attempt to answer the question asked by the Hon. Member. But first let us be candid with one another. It has been the official position of the NDP, as voiced in the House and in national conventions, that they are opposed to the nuclear industry. Hon. Members from that Party have even suggested quite specifically that two heavy water plants in this country, namely those at Port Hawkesbury and Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, be closed immediately.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I never said that.


David Charles Dingwall: I am not suggesting that the Hon. Member said that, but that is where his Party stands. The Government of Canada, in attempting to deal with that particular problem, has met with union spokespersons, with management of both those facilities over a period of time, with both myself, the
December 17, 1982

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). We have told them very clearly that this is a very difficult situation in view of the fact that there are no sales of Candu reactors in the immediate future. However, there are some prospects in the nuclear industry, particularly for Candu reactor sales, which may prolong the health of those two plants. We said very clearly that the matter would be before Cabinet and various alternatives would be reviewed, and that when a decision is reached they would be the first to be consulted whether there is a shut-down or not or there are, indeed, alternatives. That has been the approach and sensitivity shown by this Government to those plants, unlike that of the NDP which proposes to shut them down. There have been no alternatives coming from them.
At a nuclear facility, where do you draw the line between protection of the workers on the site and protecting the public just beyond the boundary fence? Depending on how you read it, this Bill seems to propose a termination of, or at least a partial withdrawl from, nearly a quarter century of rather remarkable performance by the board in regulation. This fine record has gone hand in hand with the intimately associated protection of the general public and the environment from radiation hazards. Lacking an unequivocal statement of responsibility for workers' health and safety, the board could become no more than a builder of safety walls, unconcerned with what went on behind them. Can you imagine a health authority simply slapping a cautionary quarantine sign on a dwelling's door without ensuring medical attention for the occupants? This remote, outside-in approach, is not in the public interest and does not reflect the experience gained from the regulatory performance to date. That is what I am suggesting the Hon. Member is attempting to do in this particular Bill.
Atomic Energy Control Act, 1980
I am sure Members of this House are concerned that a number of provisions of this Bill fly in the face of the principles established by the Access to Information Act now awaiting proclamation. The conflict is understandable since the Bill was drafted more than two years ago, but it is one more indication that additional consultation is desirable on the appropriateness of certain sections. There is no point in itemizing information access provisions, including, 1 note, a somewhat draconian penalty for board staff obstructionism, when a well thought out law on the subject is already on the books.
In conclusion, I have indicated privately to the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey that I would certainly reflect upon a number of the suggestions which he has made today. I hope there will be other opportunities to discuss this particular subject matter, whether it be in committee or in the House on an Opposition day. I know that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway will want to rise and speak because it is such an important matter.
In closing, I just want to say that the sudden concern of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who now sits with the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, for the workers in Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury appalls me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not have the sense of the Members' will as to whether or not the Chair was being asked to give a ruling. However, we have come to five o'clock and I have to take into consideration that this may be part of the plan.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). '
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
21725

Monday, December 20, 1982