1982-05-21

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
31 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 21, 1982


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, whereas the appointment of the new chairman of Canadian National Railways should not go unnoticed by the House, I move, with apologies to, but seconded by, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That in the opinion of this House:
The cowboy from Crowfoot called Jack,
Went through the House doubled-tracked,
Trudeau's his protector But CN directors
Are saddled with Jack, and the flak.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to observe that, in the light of certain appointments and selections regarding architects and railroads, the Prime Minister's office has assumed the roles of placement agency, hiring hall, staffing commission, and veto authority over public service recommending agencies. You do not need merit when you have friends in high places. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey):
Once upon a time, to get the job you needed merit;
Now all you do is join the Grits and wait and grin 'n bear it.
Plums and pork don't usually mix.
But they do when friend Pierre handles the fix!


Madam Speaker:: There could be no better time for poets in the House.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, whereas since Wednesday of last week Indians from the Peguis reserve in Manitoba have been demonstrating peacefully outside the DIAND offices in Winnipeg to protest the longstanding critical housing shortage on their reserve, and whereas more than half of the Manitoba bands have now joined the demonstration in support of the Peguis and to protest their own housing needs, I move seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House direct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to reverse the answer he gave to me privately two days ago and go immediately to Winnipeg to meet with the Indian leaders involved to solve this matter before frustrations turn to anger and then anger to violence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, in view of the statement of the Minister of State for Economic Development in the other place earlier this week, to the effect that the Minister of Finance speaking on behalf of the government at the Summit meeting in Ottawa, expressed "the deep concern that this government has for the distress it is creating," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government adopt measures, such as withdrawing the budget of November 12, 1981, and presenting a new one in its place, in order to alleviate the distress it is creating.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: No.
17674____________________________
5.0.	43


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Undersecretary of State amazed the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture by describing the Secretary of State as the "advocate minister to the voluntary sector". The minister, however, for the second time failed to meet the committee to discuss his departmental estimates on this subject, and has been silent on the government's intentions regarding Canadian volunteers.
Since the consumer price index is 11.3 per cent higher than April, 1981, and Canadians therefore have less money available to support vital charitable and voluntary programs, and since the Undersecretary of State confirmed yesterday that departmental work has been completed for cabinet on the comprehensive federal government voluntary action policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government announce immediately its long-awaited policy with regard to the voluntary sector, including the acceptance of the give and take tax proposals.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) is quoted in a news story today as saying, "When you have people all the way from Genghis Khan to Karl Marx, you cannot expect them all to stand up behind the leader and support him." I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That since it is fairly simple for anyone to pick out a Genghis Khan, that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River rise in his place and identify which one of his caucus colleagues he would classify as a Karl Marx.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 21, 1982


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Secretary of State responsible for coordinating the implementation of the "Obstacles" report on the disabled and handicapped, indicated on March 23, in response to a question from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), that he planned to table further responses from various departments within 30 days. As of tomorrow 60 days will have passed since that commitment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House urges the Secretary of State to table forthwith any further responses now available to the report, "Obstacles".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, as has already been noted this morning in the press, a very distinguished member of the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), revealed that the Conservative Party lacks coherent principles, and that the average political science student could not tell the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal. Therefore, and in light of the cynical appointment of "Jumping" Jack Horner, the most famous Liberal-Conservative of them all, as chairman of the CNR, an act which is the epitome of a lack of principles, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That the PCs and the Liberals move to rationalize the political system through a merger of their parties, thus saving money, lessening confusion, and making clear who really are the fellow travellers in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Western Arctic.


FINANCE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, as the Liberal recession worsens it becomes evident that the predictions made at the time of the last budget will be way out

May 21, 1982

of line. Public revenues are much lower than expected, expenditures are higher, and economists are now predicting a $17 billion deficit for this fiscal year. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That the Minister of Finance table the latest departmental estimates of the expected financial requirements of the government which will likely exceed twice those forecast in the budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that another distinguished Liberal, one of a vanishing breed, Senator Cook, has resigned from the Liberal party because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has acted with great impropriety in going directly to the Supreme Court of Canada with a reference on the offshore issue at a time when it has been referred to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal, thereby insulting the Newfoundland court, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House congratulates Senator Cook for his courage and dedication to the public good, and for his defence of our federal system, and further that this House encourages other distinguished Liberals, if such there be, to follow suit.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the War Veterans Allowance Act does not apply to ex-members of various resistance movements, and that omission does a gross disservice to many individuals who actively fought for the allied cause during World War II, and who now live in Canada, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House requests the Minister of Veterans Affairs to bring forward amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act that would give full recognition to those individuals who gave so much of themselves to the allied cause during World War II, and who now require financial aid in their retirement years.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns today's inflation figures which show that Canadians are suffering all the grief from the minister's policy but are getting none of the relief that he has been promising for the last 12 months. The anti-inflation policy of the government is simply not working. We are stuck at the 11 per cent to 12 per cent inflation rate. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs because of the minister's policies. Thousands of businesses and farms are being destroyed. The confidence level of the Canadian people has been completely shattered by the government. Canadians are desperate. Will the minister give a commitment today to the people of Canada to make a statement outlining some new economic policies before the middle of June?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member ought to have acknowledged that there has been a drop in the year-to-year inflation rate. It is the lowest year-to-year increase for 16 months. I believe that is something which ought to be acknowledged. The peak inflation rate for this country was 13 per cent which occurred in July, 1981, I believe. The rate has dropped, and I think the hon. member ought to acknowledge that year-to-year drop recorded in today's statistics. It is a hopeful note. As well the month-to-month increase is the lowest since last September.
The hon. member, in dealing with the very serious problem of inflation, which is undoubtedly serious, should acknowledge at least that there has been a continuing downward trend, not only on a month-to-month basis, but on a year-to-year basis.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer my question again. I am getting used to that, however. He never answers questions. But the minister should also acknowledge the fact that in the United States over the same period we have seen the inflation rate drop from about the same level to the current level of approximately 6.5 per cent. Clearly things are not working here in Canada, and we are suffering the same pain and the same problems as they are in the United States, without any of the benefits.

May 21, 1982
Oral Questions HOUSING


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responsible for housing. In this field also the government's policy is not working. The mortgage renewal program has been used only by about 1,000 Canadians. The incentive program for new rental units is simply inadequate. That fact has been expressed to us by many people in the country. In the early part of this year, single family housing starts, as I said yesterday, have dropped 58 per cent. Housing construction is the most labourintensive industry in the country. I have a simple question for the minister. Does he not realize the damage his lack of housing policies are causing? Will the minister encourage his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to include some changes in housing policy if, as, and when, he brings in a new economic program?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, on the contrary, I believe the government's policy on housing is working.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: As a matter of fact, the announcement by the government of $30 million going into rehabilitation housing was so successful that the demand for that program was taken up in one week. That program not only put $30 million into rehabilitation but drew $60 million from the private sector. We have encouraged Canadians to take money out of the banks. We know that Canadians are putting money into banks in unparalleled amounts. This program will take $60 million out of the banks to be matched by $30 million from the federal government. It will be used to get Canadians working in the trades that have been hit by unemployment in about 50 centres across the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I notice there is only scattered applause on the other side. I think there is a very good reason for that. Single-family housing starts are down 58 per cent. That is a fact. That statistic comes from the minister's own department. He said that it is working. If it is working according to his objectives, we must wonder what are his objectives.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order. The hon. member must be reasonable and go to his question; he is making speeches.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am frustrated. I think many, many Canadians are frustrated.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: All the members of the minister's caucus are also frustrated.


Madam Speaker:: Order!


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, since so many members of the government caucus, the group of ten and the economic development committee, have gone public with their concerns and have gone to the Parti Quebe-cois for advice, would the Minister of Finance explain to Canadians why he will not say today that he will bring in some new economic policies to give Canadians some hope and some sense of confidence that there is direction in the Government of Canada to lead us out of the problems we are facing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, because I disagree totally with the preamble to the hon. member's question. I do not see its relevance at the present time.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE TO DOME PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Now that the government has destroyed the Canadian oil and gas industry by virtue of its disastrous National Energy Program, could the minister tell the House whether it is the government's intention to provide financial assistance to Dome Petroleum? Has the government made any commitment, or is it in the process of considering any commitment to provide financial assistance to Dome Petroleum?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the problems relating to the oil and gas industry are obviously under constant consideration by the government, as are problems relating to other sectors of the economy. When any decisions arising from these considerations are made, I assure the hon. member that they will be announced in the regular way.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, when will the Minister of Finance answer a simple, straightforward question in the House? When on earth can we obtain an answer? Let me just put my question to him one more time. I would like a simple answer. Will the government provide financial assistance to Dome Petroleum, or will it not? It is a simple, straightforward question. Will the minister please answer it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the same answer stands. If and when a decision is taken on the matter, it will be announced.


Miss MacDonald:: Conditionally.
May 21, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not intend to fall into the obvious trap which the hon. member is attempting to set.


FORMALDEHYDE GAS LEVELS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns a very serious health problem which is becoming more and more evident. Recently a study released by Dr. Yves Alary, who is head of the School of Environmental Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, indicated that the level of formaldehyde gas in homes established at 0.1 parts per million was far too high. His figures indicated that there was serious health damage with a level as low as 0.03 parts per million. Is there any indication on the part of the government that it is willing to reduce to this established level of 0.03 parts per million as the safe level in homes? Of course the minister must realize that this would dramatically increase the number of Canadian home owners with urea formaldehyde foam insulation who would qualify for the government's program if it were to do so.
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the scientific data used by my department to determine what UFFI gas level is harmful to a person's health are in our view extremely sound and very much on the conservative side, since ample allowance is made for the individual's state of health, even for those suffering from allergies. We have therefore no reason to change or lower the standard we have set.


Raymond John Skelly: Unfortunately, the evidence gathering on this subject indicates to the contrary. The study by Bruce Small, the study by Alfred Nantel, and now the study by Yves Alary indicate clearly that there is a problem and that those norms were set too high. The Ontario Department of Health study also indicates that those norms were too high.


DEPARTMENTAL STUDIES
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, 1 would ask the minister whether or not the government would be prepared to consider conducting studies that would either confirm or at least shed more light on the matter. Will she be prepared at this time to tell the House what studies her department is doing to determine whether or not this norm of 0.1 parts per million is adequate? Also, has she looked into
Oral Questions
substantiating the work that has been done by three other competent individuals in this field?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, studies are constantly being done on the alleged effects of urea formaldehyde foam. The hon. member is referring to newspaper articles about certain studies that were published very recently. A number of conclusions were made, and they should be considered and compared with many other studies which do not necessarily support these results. As for the Canadian studies I have just approved under the National Health Research Development Program, I would have preferred to receive notice of his question, in which case I would gladly have given him the information verbally. In the circumstances, I shall send him a letter with a list of the approved studies and a brief description of the field covered by each study.


Raymond John Skelly: Certainly I believe the common knowledge of what is being done is one matter, but I express deep concern about the health question involved.


PROVISION OF DISASTER EMERGENCY FUNDING
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing. There is information which comes from statements by officials of the Government of Canada indicating that where a province is willing to avail itself of the provisions available under national disaster programs to put up moneys to assist victims of urea formaldehyde foam insulation, the federal government would come forward and add an equivalent amount. There are groups who are now talking to provincial governments about this matter. There has been no clear statement from the federal government on whether it was serious, or whether this was just another off the wall comment. Would the minister clarify whether or not there has been serious consideration given to discussing, with the provinces and home owners, a method of implementing that particular idea?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, that is a matter which was administered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On a couple of occasions he indicated in the House that he had already contacted the appropriate ministers in the provinces and asked for their co-operation. My recollection is that the co-operation from the provinces has not been forthcoming. However, I will take the hon. member's question under notice, discuss it with the minister, and perhaps he can get back to the member.

May 21, 1982
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


FALKLAND ISLANDS-REPORTED LANDINGS BY BRITISH FORCES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the very serious situation in the Falkland Islands. 1 call them the Falkland Islands, not the Malvinas, or Falkland-Malvinas like the government does. Can the minister bring us up to date on what is happening in that area?
We understand that United Kingdom forces are landing at various points in the Falkland Islands. Will the minister tell the House what we have done since April 2 to assist in that situation, either to get a negotiated settlement in accordance with the United Nations resolution, or to assist Britain in carrying out this action on behalf of world order and the principle of resisting armed aggression? What have we done in a negotiating sense? What have we done to assist in reaching a conclusion? What have we done to assist the United Kingdom? What is the present situation?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, to begin, I should emphasize that we had absolutely no advance or private knowledge of the military aspects of the British position. The newspaper reports which I have seen indicate that the actions which are occurring are probably not an invasion, as such, but perhaps preliminary actions that are being taken.
With respect to what we have been doing in the last two months, the record is almost entirely available to the public. We have met every request which Britain has made of us. We have engaged in extensive consultations with the United Kingdom. I spoke to Mr. Pym this week. I had a meeting with Lord Moran, the British High Commissioner, last night. We have been in very close consultation with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and we have made offers of service and offers of facilitation. We gave tentative approval to a peace initiated by Peru, which was stillborn, overtaken by events and by actions of the Secretary-General before it became operative. I would add for the information of the hon. member that, in this bilingual country, he might want to note that in French the term for the Falkland Islands is Les Malouines. It is that term we use in describing, when we want to do so in a bilingual form, a place to which we are having reference.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is an English release I am looking at with "the Falkland-Malvinas Islands" on it because the government will not state that the Falkland Islands are a United Kingdom dependency. It is an English release.


NATURE OF SUPPORT FOR UNITED KINGDOM
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister said finally that the government is giving the United Kingdom 100 per cent support. What does that support consist of, and what steps are we
taking? I am not asking what did the United Kingdom seek. The United Kingdom is trying to enforce a world principle to resist armed aggression. The British are not invading the Falklands. They are re-occupying their own possession, not invading. The invading was done by Argentina. What steps are we taking to give materiel assistance and, in particular, are we now going to stop business as usual on the Argentina Candu reactor contract and stop the sending of nuclear fuel bundles while the conflict is under way in that area?


Mark R. MacGuigan: As the hon. member knows, we are not engaged in business as usual with Argentina.


John Carnell Crosbie: We certainly are.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The import restrictions which Canada and other nations have imposed are an important part, I believe, of the international action of making Argentina realize that the rule of force is not to be tolerated in international law. We have, of course, imposed a ban on the shipment of military materiel, as is well known to Argentina.
The hon. member knows that the reason we have not imposed a ban on past contracts is that no country that I know of has done so. In our case, we have extra reasons for not doing so because, first, there is no relationship between the fuel bundles and the present conflict. Second, we have an agreement with Argentina which provides, on one side, that we will complete our obligation and, on the other side, that they will observe their obligation that they will not use any Canadian nuclear technology or material for non-peaceful purposes. We value the provisions of that contract. We do not intend to depart from it.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


John Carnell Crosbie: You would have sent it to Hitler during World War II as well. What tripe! Give it some backbone. What kind of government is this?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Following the imposition of the 200-mile limit, we in Atlantic Canada were promised that once our over-fished stocks had been restored, only fish that was surplus to our needs would be allocated to foreigners. Since the minister has stated that the main problem in the industry is the over-expansion of fish processing capacity, why is he refusing licences for inshore and offshore Canadian ships, which would provide fish for the existing plants and, if the resource will not stand increased
May 21, 1982

fishing pressure, when is he going to implement his promise and allocate to foreigners only those fish that are surplus to our needs?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I do not have the statistics at my fingertips, but surely the hon. member knows that the vast majority of the species in which we have an interest are very much taken by Canadian fishermen. In the case of the European community, to a number of countries-Spain and Portugal come to mind- we have allocated very small amounts in recognition of other advantages, especially some presence in their markets. This was done following consultation and discussion with the industry. For the hon. member to say that some fish plants are having trouble because of the allocation of a very modest amount of fish to other countries is really stretching the truth.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When it comes to the truth, Madam Speaker, 1 do not need to take any lessons from the Minister of Fisheries.


QUERY RESPECTING PROTECTION OF EAST COAST INDUSTRY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister of Fisheries knows that the state of the industry is a direct result of his mismanagement over the years; 23 million pounds of capelin allocated to the Russians last year, 11 million pounds of squid to Cuba, and 33 million pounds to Japan, while Russia only bought something like $4 million worth of fish from this country. Let us have a little truth from that side. Since the minister stated on May 5 that Ottawa will step in, and those are his words as quoted in the press, to save the east coast Fishery-that is what he said-and since fish quality and marketing are two of our major problems, what steps does he plan to take to present this valuable resource-based industry from going down the drain, aside from his statement that some of the Fish processing plants in Atlantic Canada must be allowed to fold, as they are now doing?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the hon. member illustrates one of the real difficulties we have when we discuss fisheries matters by wanting to have it both ways. On one hand, he takes a dog-in-the-manger attitude that there should be no allocation of fish to any foreign country. On the other hand, he complains that we cannot break our way into the markets of the world. I simply ask him what he intends to use as currency to try to get access to markets where we have traditionally not been successful? It is for that reason, when there is fish surplus to our needs-the hon. member knows very well that Canadians will not take all the surplus that there is in squid or capelin, for example-if we allocate it and in exchange try to get commercial advantages like access to markets, I would at least expect support from him.
Oral Questions


AIRPORTS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is another in a long line of questions which my hon. colleagues have put previously to the Minister of Transport, and it of course concerns with the future of Mirabel. Since July 1980, the minister has been giving us the assurance that following a report by his departmental officials, a decision would be made and announced in a matter of months. Not long ago, last February, he gave 33 mayors from the Montreal area the assurance that a decision would be made and announced on May 18 of this year-in other words, last Tuesday. Therefore, I would like to know what the minister intends to do to protect the credibility of his department and when he is going to make a decision on the intended use of Mirabel.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that some direction should be given and indicated. I am prepared to give that direction in the very near future to my cabinet colleagues. The issue is extremely complex, as everyone knows, and it is one of those questions where the minister himself has to penetrate the issue from within. In doing so, I have collected a tremendous mass of material, facts, impressions and perceptions, and it will take me a few days to boil all this down into a comprehensive paper. During the long weekend I will have an opportunity to give my undivided attention to this subject.


TESTING OF PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister knows, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a random sample of 10 per cent of their pharmaceutical testing facilities found 127 laboratories in the United States to be in serious violation of regulations. It also found that 43 doctors were suspended and another 234 are under investigation. The minister knows that the Edmonton Journal has revealed serious deFiciencies in the chemical trials of at least 16 drugs which are also used in Canada today. Can the minister give us the assurance that faulty tests are not the basis for registering pharmaceutical drugs or pesticides and other chemical products in Canada today?


Monique Bégin: Yes, Madam Speaker, to my knowledge I can give that assurance. The problem about which the hon. member is

May 21, 1982
Oral Questions
questioning me today has been thoroughly discussed in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of the House, and I have written to the hon. member confirming that the Americans have found that the rate of deviation from adherence to good investigation protocol is about 25 per cent, but in practice the rate of serious deviation is considered to be 10 per cent. The same type of deviation probably exists in our country, but mechanisms are in place to control that and to withdraw immediately products from the market with which we learn there are specific problems.
I have also assured the hon. member of the link we have with the United States respecting information on specific problems regarding certain chemicals, which is passed on to us as confidential information.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF TESTING PROCEDURES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the minister is saying, but the minister also knows that an Oakville woman almost died because the Upjohn Company in the United States knew, five or six years before we in Canada did, that the particular drug she took caused serious side effects. It took five or six years after it was known in the United States for us to hear about it. Surely the minister must admit that the time is long overdue to reexamine the whole process of testing chemicals and their registration in Canada. Will she at least agree to a review of this whole process?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the case concerning Clindamycin and the woman to whom the hon. member refers who almost died after taking this product, put on the market by the Upjohn Company, is at least 12 years old. All the facts were given to the hon. member in detail in a letter. Since that time changes have taken place in all procedures. I thought we had explained that.
Two problems remain. The hon. member wants every chemical to be fully assessed before it reaches the market. This is not the case in any country. I have explained often to the hon. member that I am not sure any country has found a solution to this problem. On the other hand, the hon. member, like many of us, presses for the eventual development of a project of great interest to Canada, and probably to western Canada in particular, namely, the development of one or more centres for toxicological studies here in Canada. That surely will be a very happy development, but in the meantime our procedures in Canada assure the safety of products for Canadians to the maximum extent possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the House in answer to a question by the hon. member for Halton the minister stated that the change in the business development bond had made available $100 million in loans to the agricultural community. He advised the CFA of this, but that federation advised him of the fact that in the period 1978-81 interest charges alone as a cost to agriculture rose by $1.25 billion.
In view of the fact that the $100 million represents 8 per cent of the three-year interest increment for agriculture, and represents less than 5 per cent of the total agricultural interest cost, would he now agree to adjust the business development bond so that he can use the word "significant" in a meaningful way when addressing himself to farmers, rather than assisting them with less than 5 per cent of their interest costs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member misunderstood, obviously, the purpose of the Small Business Development Bond when it was initially introduced by the hon. member for St. John's West. It was never intended to achieve the purpose the hon. member now seems to think was its purpose. However, I am aware, as he is, that the impact of high interest rates is affecting a portion of the agricultural population of Canada in a very difficult way. It affects all, of course, but some are much more hard pressed than others, and it is to that group that the revisions of the small business bond were directed and the provision that was made in the last budget to make lower interest rates available through the Farm Credit Corporation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture made some proposals at its meeting with me last week which I undertook to consider in conjunction with the problems the Federation laid out.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION BORROWING AUTHORITY
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. The same document presented by the CFA made the statement that the FCC proportion of long-term lending is down from 70 per cent to less than 20 per cent of the farm requirement. In view of the authority recently granted to the Farm Credit Corporation to borrow money on its own, and in view of the total lack of concern and understanding of the Minister of Finance, would the Minister of Agriculture explain to this House how he plans to use the new borrowing capability of the FCC to provide money to the agricultural community at the 10 per cent interest level which the Federation feels is the maximum producers can afford to pay under existing economic circumstances imposed by the Minister of Finance?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a
May 21, 1982

presentation to myself and several of my cabinet colleagues, and I stated at that meeting-as I state to the hon. member now-that even if we financed some producers at 10 per cent, there is no light at the end of the tunnel for some of the operations in which they are involved. We have to have better marketing programs, etc. We are moving as fast as we can with the Farm Credit Corporation. 1 am surprised that the hon. member is so concerned because the bill was waiting in this House for two weeks while the bells rang, and nothing was done. We could not go ahead with the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DEVELOPMENT OF PEACE RIVER TAR SANDS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to address my question to his parliamentary secretary. In the past few weeks the department has received several telegrams from people in the Peace River country who are concerned about the development of the Peace River tar sands project. I would like to know what the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is doing to see that this particular program goes ahead.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's concern about that particular project, yes, the department has received the telexes. At the present time it is considering the purport of the suggestions made in those telexes, and when we complete our consideration of this particular problem, the hon. member will be notified in due course.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, Canadians desperately need jobs right now, and this particular megaproject would provide several thousand jobs for Canadians.


TIMING OF DECISION
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the parliamentary secretary. How quickly can we expect some kind of response?


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to give a response today; however, when the consideration is completed, the hon. member will be notified in due course.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, if he will stop hiding behind the curtain and come into the House.


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Mr. Cousineau:: Go ahead.


Erik Nielsen: My question to the Minister of Justice concerns the propriety of the government in the filings it made before the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the reference by the governor in council concerning the Hibernia field off Newfoundland. I have in my hand a copy of the notice of motion filed May 20, which sets forth that an application will be heard next Friday or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. Together with that notice of motion, for which no provision that I am aware of exists in the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, is filed a government press release which sets forth the government's propaganda on why it is taking this action.
Under what authority did the government file a copy of its press release with the documents usually permitted for filing in the Supreme Court of Canada, and what purpose did it have in filing the press release? Does the minister not now think that the contents of that two-page press release may well prejudice the hearing of the notice of motion when it comes before Mr. Justice Ritchie?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of this detail. As way my duty as Attorney General of Canada, I filed the petition in the Supreme Court of Canada. On the question of the sustaining documents, if there is an explanation of why it is called a press release-I do not know if it was filed but I will check that. I think it was very important to proceed in that matter. Now the court will decide, so I have no further comment to make.
As to the remarks of the hon. member, everyone knows that he likes to engage in dirt so I will not speak at his level.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will overlook the intemperate remarks of the minister.


REQUEST THAT PRESS RELEASE BE REMOVED FROM COURT DOCKET
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the press release dated May 19, cited at St. John's Newfoundland, bearing the stamp of the Supreme Court of Canada and filed May 20, 1982, under number 17096, which is the number of the Supreme Court of Canada docket.

May 21, 1982
Oral Questions
In the absence of any provisions in the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada for filing such documents, does the minister not think that the action the government took in filing that press release was highly improper? Even at this late stage, will he not issue instructions to whomever does his filing for him in his department, to have that document removed immediately from the Supreme Court of Canada docket?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the Supreme Court judges can handle these matters quite properly and it is not for me to debate them in front of the House of Commons. I said I was not aware of the filing of that document and I will inquire about it. If there is something improper about it, I am sure the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada know the rules and do not need the advice of the House of Commons, especially from this member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would he tell us whether the government is concerned about the fact that the Constituent Assembly of El Salvador, under the presidency of the notorious right wing Major Roberto d'Aubuisson, decided on Tuesday to suspend the long-promised land reform program for up to four years? This would cut half the peasant population off from opportunities promised to them. If this is the case, has the government expressed its concern to the Government of El Salvador and the Government of the United States and, if so, what is their response?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as yet we have only the same newspaper reports on which I presume my hon. friend's question is based. We have not received an analysis of what actually happened in the El Salvador Assembly. We are concerned about the preliminary reports and are trying to find out the exact implications of what has happened. When we have that analysis we will be in a position to make any representations which we believe to be appropriate.


UNITED STATES ARMS SHIPMENTS TO EL SALVADOR
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the background to the suspension of land reform, namely, the decision of the United States government to send more arms to El Salvador. In light of the fact that both the Canadian and the United States government's policies toward El Salvador were based partly on the promise of land reform, and in light of the fact that the reported decision to suspend land reform followed only five days after a United States decision to send $60 million worth of arms to the
government led by Major Roberto d'Aubuisson, is the Canadian government now prepared to reconsider its policy? Will it condemn the farcical right-wing elections held in El Salvador on March 28? Will it condemn the rising violence under that new government? Will it condemn the increase in the supply of U.S. arms to Major Roberto D'Aubuisson, and will it condemn this brazen betrayal of the promised land reforms?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, we have long been opposed to the supplying of arms by the United States to countries in that situation, just as we have been opposed to the supplying of arms from countries on the left.
I am sorry that my hon. friend's remarks are so intemperate. They indicate a bias which I think is unworthy of him and his party with respect to a democratic election which has taken place in El Salvador, and which everyone else in the world has widely accepted as the genuine voice of the people in El Salvador.


FINANCE
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I know that the minister and his department have been intensively studying the tax cuts passed by the United States government which will come into effect on July 1. There has been a great deal of publicity about the tax cuts on the personal side, but I understand that there are also significant tax cuts on the business and corporate side.
Will the minister arrange a reference for the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and would he and his officials appear before it with their documentation, so that over the summer the committee may study the relative rates for personal tax and corporate tax before budget bills come down in the fall?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is obviously of interest. We have been examining the relativity or comparability of corporate rates in the United States and Canada. Obviously it is of importance to the Canadian economy to ensure that relative tax burdens are in line as much as possible. It is our conclusion that our taxing regime for corporations is as favourable as that in the United States.
The hon. member added a request for a special reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I know that committee has a great deal of work before it at the present time. I am not sure whether it would be possible for it to handle a new reference when so many burdens have already been laid upon its very capable members.
May 21, 1982


EMPLOYMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he will be aware, this weekend is graduation weekend for many thousands of students across Canada. Many of them, and many still in the school system, will be unable to find jobs this summer. They face a very bleak summer. The situation is reaching crisis proportions.
Given that an estimated 200,000 Canadians students will be unable to find jobs this summer, and given that this will very seriously impair their chances of returning to university in the autumn, will the minister tell us whether the government considers the situation a crisis situation, which it really is? In that event, has the government prepared contingency plans to deal with the situation and, if so, what are they over and above the measures already announced?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the government has always considered the employment of young people to be a major concern and a major priority. I would point out that well over 50 per cent of the people who use the wide variety of services that my department provides are under the age of 24 years.
In terms of special efforts for students this summer, we have not only established the Summer Youth Employment Program which will employ well over 55,000 students, but we have also established a network of close to 400 offices across Canada operated by students themselves, and which are designed to provide areas where students can register and where job placements from the private sector can be entered.
My plea, Madam Speaker, to all members of this House is to co-operate with us as we try to encourage businesses and individuals to put their job applications in those centres to provide the maximum opportunity for students. We are undertaking a major advertising campaign and making major public appeals, but if members of this House joined us I am sure we could develop a broad range of job opportunities for students.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, what I want to register with the minister is that there are 200,000 students who are going to be out of work this summer, a great many more than last year. Student summer unemployment has increased from 11 per cent last summer to an estimated 16 per cent this summer. In my own constituency there are 2,000 students unemployed, up considerably from last year.
In the face of this crisis, Madam Speaker, I ask the minister if he would consider calling together his provincial counterparts in an all-out effort to design new job-creation programs for students this summer so that students will not have to face returning to university this fall-if they can-with higher
Privilege-Miss MacDonald
tuition fees and costs which they cannot possibly meet because they have been unable to make the necessary money this summer?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to provide one caution in terms of the remarks of the hon. member, which is not to predict what the unemployment rate will be until we have made an honest, sincere and effective effort to develop jobs for people this summer. If we start prophesying beforehand, that will defeat our purpose. At this point in time we should be maximizing our efforts to have job openings placed in those centres. Certainly I regret that many provincial governments have in fact cut back on their job efforts when the federal government has gone ahead and added job requirements through the federal public service and community groups. We will continue our efforts, but rather than harbouring great prophecies of doom it would be far more effective if members of this House got together and talked to businessmen in their constituencies to find jobs for their students.

[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented on Thursday, May 20, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have given you notice of a question of privilege based on the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in the House on May 19. I am prepared to go ahead, Madam Speaker, but in the absence of the minister 1 was wondering if it would be preferable to file another notice of privilege on Tuesday when he would be back in the House?


Madam Speaker:: I would prefer that the hon. member expose her question of privilege. If I feel a reply or rebuttal or some other intervention on the part of the minister is required, I can defer my decision. A question of privilege is, in essence, a very urgent matter and would prevent the House from proceeding to other business, so it has to be heard at the earliest possible time. Therefore, l will hear the hon. member and I may defer my ruling or judgment on it.

May 21. 1982
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is my contention that the House has been misled by the minister's reference at page 17592 of Hansard where he referred to a two-year delay in imposing jail sentences on operators of small retail food stores who have not adopted metric measurements. That has to be compared with the letters being sent out to those same small food store operators by officials from the weights and measures section of his department. I presume they are being sent with the authority and approval of the minister. There is no mention in those letters of a two-year delay in the imposition of a jail sentence. Such a letter was sent to a Mr. and Mrs. Menikefs of Kingston which states that the conversion period for their store was from January 4, 1982 to March 3, 1982. It goes on to say:
It is now an offence in this location under Section 7 of the Weights and Measures Act and Section 339 of the regulations to use a weighing device that does not measure in metric units of measurement.
This department will enforce the Weights and Measures Act which provides for penalties of a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to six months for each offence.
There is absolutely nothing in that letter, Madam Speaker, about a two-year delay in the imposition of a jail sentence. It states instead that the recipient of this letter must contact the district manager of that department as soon as possible to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to the hon. member for about five minutes and it seems to me that she might have a grievance. She might have found some discrepancy or lack of clarity in certain instructions as compared to what the minister has said in the House. That is a matter which the hon. member might want to clarify in the future through other means at her disposal, but it certainly is not a question of privilege and I have to rule on the basis of what the hon. member has been telling me for five minutes.
MR. de JONG-REPLY OF MISS BfiGIN DURING QUESTION PERIOD


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), in a reply to me during question period, suggested that Mrs. Stavro was dead. To the best of my knowledge, the lady is alive. In fact, she settled out of court with the Upjohn company in March-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Whether someone is dead or not is not very much a matter of debate, but the hon. member is debating the question and it is not a question of privilege.


MR. CROSBIE-ALLEGED IMPROPRIETY RESPECTING DOCUMENTS FILED WITH SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be alive sometimes! I want to give notice of a question of privilege arising out of question period. There has been a most serious lapse of propriety by the government through the Department of Justice and-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is a matter which deals with the administration of justice.


Madam Speaker:: There is no need to give oral notice of a question of privilege. The hon. member can raise a question of privilege which arises from today's proceedings, but the hon. member rises and says he is giving notice. I have said several times in the House that oral notice is not appropriate; I must be given written notice of a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege, of which I am not giving notice, arises out of question period. There has been an apparent serious interference with the judicial system of this country which just came to our notice this morning when we had a search made at the Supreme Court registry to see what documents were filed in connection with this offshore reference. Three documents were filed: a notice of motion on May 20 by the Department of Justice; an order in council on May 19; a political press release of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) dated May 19 in St. John's, and filed on May 20. It is headed "Statement by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Hon. Jean Chretien, on the Newfoundland offshore reference".
It then gives a series of alleged reasons why the government is filing this reference before the Supreme Court of Canada. It gives arguments why the federal government is ignoring the fact that the provincial government had recently filed a reference to the provincial Court of appeal dealing with the same series of matters, saying that they are too complex and much broader, and giving the alleged reasons why the government is proceeding as it is.
It is totally improper to file a document in the Supreme Court of Canada containing a series of political arguments by a minister who is a politician, where the judges can see the document. I know the hon. gentlemen opposite do not think there is any impropriety in this or that the matter is a question of privilege, but in any event I will make my point.
This is an interference with the judicial system by a member of the government. It is a breach of the privileges of members of this House. The matter has to be dealt with by this House. This kind of impropriety has to be stopped either on the instructions of the Speaker, the House or someone else.
In all my years as a lawyer, I have never experienced such a blatant attempt to influence a court by filing political press releases in the court docket in a place where judges could see them if they ask to see the file, as no doubt they will. The docket number is on the document as well; the number is 17096.
I put this matter before the House. In my view, it is a breach of privilege and it should be referred to a committee, although I am certainly prepared to hear other suggestions as to what should be done about it.
May 21, 1982

Introduction of Bills
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, it cannot be denied that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has failed to abide by the rule so clearly put in Beauchesne, which says that questions of privilege are to be raised very seldom, and then only in exceptional cases where the freedom of expression and speech of members is at stake. In the circumstances, I feel it is clear that the message he has given us today if purely political, namely, that he is not happy about the fact that certain documents have been submitted to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, the proceedings before a court are totally independent of the proceedings in this House. The justices of the Supreme Court are quite able to determine what is acceptable and what is not, in the case of documents that are submitted to their tribunal. It is not up to us to tell them what to do, and I feel that the attitude of the hon. member for St. John's West is an insult to the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is certainly out of place as far as Parliament is concerned, since the documents in question have been submitted to a court, where members' privileges are absolutely irrelevant.


Madam Speaker:: 1 have the clear impression that the question, as it was put to me, falls within the purview of an entirely different authority, and certainly not mine. I am not convinced that a member's privileges have been breached. Hon. members may have comments and even grievances regarding the situation over which the Chair personally has no control and, above all, should not be asked to rule. I do not believe it is a question of privilege, and consequently, I declare at this time that I cannot accept it as a question of privilege. Perhaps the hon. member would like to seek redress from other authorities.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, we will, Madam Speaker. We will not allow the judicial system to be interfered with. It is jackboot justice and it is an interference with the courts. It is disgraceful, and I say to members opposite that they must clean up their qct.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker,
I have the duty to present the following petition. To the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned of the Abbotsford Fish and Game Club in the province of British Columbia, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the private member's Bill C-451, regarding gun control legislation which deals with the number of firearms in Canada; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose this legislation and deal directly with the present laws which are cumbersome, expensive to administer, and ineffective except to harass law-abiding people. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


BANK ACT
Madam Speaker:: Introduction of bills. Mr. Yurko, seconded by?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are confronted with a rather unique situation here where the only independent member of the House of Commons is attempting to introduce a private member's bill, which is not going to be discussed in any event until this session prorogues and we commence another one.
It has been a tradition in the House that private members on all sides nevertheless have their business introduced, at any rate; whether or not it arises for discussion is another matter. I think if you were to request it, there might be a disposition, on the basis of that tradition-that is, the right of every private member-to give unanimous consent for the introduction of this private member's bill.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Mr. Yurko, seconded by Mr. Kempling.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-655, to amend the Bank Act to provide a

May 21, 1982
Introduction of Bills
minimum one-year period of notice in the event of foreclosure proceedings on property that is the principal place of residence.
Mir. Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the reason I rose on a point of order was to provide the facility through unanimous consent to dispense with the seconder that is normally required. I suggest that the record be allowed to show that there was no seconder but that there was unanimous consent in order to facilitate the right of any private member to have his matters presented to the House. I emphasize that it is a private member's right. Simply because we have a single independent member sitting here, regardless of his politics, where he sits or what are his beliefs, the tradition is that every private member should have a right to introduce private member's business. It was on that basis that I was seeking the consent of the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, enough of this procedural nit-picking. We are willing to let the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Yurko) introduce his bill. 1 feel this kind of discourse is totally useless and wastes the time of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I am in a bit of difficulty because one hon. member indicated he would second the bill.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, once upon a time many years ago Mr. Allard, who I believe was a member of the social Credit party, was caught in the House one day, and I seconded his motion to introduce a bill for debate in the House. Somehow or other I survived that experience. I believe I can survive the experience today. Therefore, I am prepared to let my name stand as the seconder of the hon. member's bill.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, may I draw to your attention that the motion has already been seconded by the whip of the Conservative party.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I should like to observe on this Friday that there was a seconder. We were prepared to give unanimous consent and in fact we did. We have had a seconder in the initial case, and now we have a second seconder from the Conservative party. Therefore, I think that the bill of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) is not only introduced, but it is seconded and thirded.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank all hon. members of the House for being so generous on this Friday afternoon with regard to the seconding of my bill. It is a very important bill and 1 want to take a few minutes to tell the House what it is about.
Basically its intent is to amend the Bank Act as follows. A bank has no right of action by virtue of a mortgage or hypothec held on the principal residence of a debtor who is in default of payment, unless it gives at least one year's notice in writing to the debtor of its intention to exercise its right of action.
Second, a bank shall give notice of its intention to exercise its right of action to the debtor in default of paying the sums owing by registered letter sent to his domicile.
It is a very simple bill. It provides home owners a period in which they can recover from a debt structure which indeed imperils their homes. I believe all hon. members would wish to give serious consideration to this type of legislation when, as a result of mortgage renewals, mortgages are coming in at 18 per cent to 21 per cent and a substantive number of home owners across the nation will be in danger of bankruptcy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think Madam Speaker is aware of some questions which were raised in the House of Commons about the filing of the order in council in the Supreme Court of Canada. I checked with the Supreme Court of Canada a moment ago and found out that the only document which the government filed with the Supreme Court of Canada was the order in council and that the communique which the hon. member had in his hand was not filed by the government. There was an error made by a clerk at the Supreme Court of Canada, and I should so like to inform the House of Commons.


Madam Speaker:: Order, I have already ruled on that particular question of privilege and therefore cannot accept any further interventions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, I think he should apologize.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 (NO. 2) AMENDMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF QUALIFYING PERIOD
Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-114, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 2).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
May 21, 1982

Yvon Pinard: for leave to introduce Bill C-115, to establish a national program for occupational training.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to rise on a matter of personal privilege at this point, because with respect to the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), you said there was no case for a question of privilege. On the other hand, the hon. members for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and St. John's West stated several times in the House that the Minister of Justice of Canada had done a specific thing, and I am not referring to what happened at the Supreme Court. I feel that my privileges were breached because I was accused of doing something which I did not do. They accused the Minister of Justice, and not the Supreme Court. Therefore, my personal privileges as a senior government official and a member of this House have been breached by the member for Yukon and the member for St. John's West.
And since the charge that there was some negligence on my part has no basis in fact, 1 feel, Madam Speaker, that my privileges have been breached and that the hon. members who made the charge should apologize, because they wanted to create the impression, with great fanfare, that 1 had made a mistake on behalf of the government. So 1 called the Supreme Court on the telephone, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court informed my deputy minister that the only document the government had filed was the order in council, and that if another document was put in the file, this was done by an official who made a mistake at the Supreme Court. So instead of accusing me of not having done a good job, I feel that if the opposition members have any feeling for the honour and dignity of this House, they will admit that they made a mistake. I do not accuse them of doing so deliberately. If they had inquired at the Supreme Court, they would have found out the reason. However, there are rules and sometimes mistakes are made or things are said, not always deliberately, but if the member for St. John's West or the member for Yukon had been more thorough, they would have tried to find out exactly who filed the document before accusing the Minister of Justice.
That is why I feel they breached my privileges as a member of this House and a member of the government. The document
Privilege-Mr. Chretien
was filed by the Clerk of the Privy Council, as is customary, and not by the Department of Justice on the instructions of the Minister of Justice. No press release was put in the file by the Government of Canada. So, in view of these facts, I demand that the member for Yukon withdraw his accusation and that he agree-if he refuses to take me at my word, what can 1 do?
I asked my deputy minister, Mr. Roger Tasse, to get in touch with Mr. Hofiey at the Supreme Court, and Mr. Hofley confirmed that the only document filed was mine, namely, the order in council, and that we did not file a press release. So I would ask the opposition members to withdraw their charges and apologize.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the minister has a very weird idea of ministerial responsibility. He is responsible for the actions of his deputy minister and all public employees in the Department of Justice.


Mr. Peterson:: But not those of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: He is asking us to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada somehow manufactures press releases on the letterhead of the Department of Justice about a filing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: How ridiculous can you be?


Erik Nielsen: He is asking us to believe that that press release on the stationery of the Department of Justice somehow magically found its way into the hands of a clerk of the Supreme Court of Canada who then made a mistake. 1 am willing to accept that a clerk of the Supreme Court may have made a mistake, but let the minister not ask us to believe anything other than it was an official of his department or counsel retained by his department who transported that departmental press release to the Supreme Court of Carlada where it was accepted. Otherwise it would not bear the stamp of the Supreme Court of Canada dated May 20, which it does, and it would not bear the docket number. That is, the press release has on it the Supreme Court stamp and the docket number. The only way that press release could have got there would have been on the minister's instructions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You accused me of filing it.


Erik Nielsen: It has been filed. It has been filed either at the direction of the minister's department or by the neglect of the minister or his department officials. It found its way on to the docket and it is on the docket very, very improperly.
I am willing to accept it if the minister tells me that there has been an admission by the Registrar of the Supreme Court that a mistake was made at their end; but I am also suggesting to the minister that there was a mistake made at his end for that press release, which is entirely government propaganda,

May 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions
ever finding its way on to the Supreme Court file in the first instance.


Madam Speaker:: I believe we have had a debate; that is quite clear to me. I think the House will agree that both parties have made their point, and the House will also agree that I was wise in letting it take place.


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. 2,340, 2,341, 2,342, 2,826, 2,836, 2,883, 2,954, 2,971, 2,974, 3,609 and 3,901.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Will the government, in keeping with the Auditor General's comprehensive audit of April, 1980, released in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on February 5, 1981, introduce "specific legislation" in this session to legalize, regularize and authorize appointments of the officers of the House since repeal of the Civil Service Act by unilateral application of the system of orders in council?
2.	Will all such orders in council be tabled for examination and report by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments?


Yvon Pinard: 1. No.
2.	No. The standing joint committee examines only regulations and statutory instruments as defined in the Statutory Instruments Act. Orders in council making appointments are not included in the definitions in the act.


Mr. Cossitt: In the light of the higher salaries recommended in the comprehensive audit by the Auditor General, for what reasons were officers of the House appointed by the government at salary levels below the minimum paid to their respective predecessors, as disclosed by the Auditor General, and below those authorized and paid by the House to incumbents of positions several responsibility levels lower?


Yvon Pinard: The
government has appointed no officers of the House since the Auditor General's 1980 report was released.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Auditor General recently convey to the government, as have his predecessors since 1870, that the management and regulation of the internal affairs and control of staff of the House of Commons without interference from the executive is the undoubted right of the House of Commons?


Yvon Pinard: No.
The Auditor General's report to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1980, made certain observations and specific recommendations to the House concerning appointment, classification and compensation related to senior House officer positions. The government is aware of these observations and recommendations.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of National Defence at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of SI86,385 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) and (b) The guidelines concerning educational leave are listed in the Personnel Management Manual published by the Treasury Board- chapter 110, sub-chapter 110-5 "Conditions governing education, training and development including subsidization". These guidelines in conjunction with pertinent management recommendations formed the basis of decision for educational leave.
2 and 3. None.
4. It is 13.24 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the education leave costs recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the Public Service Commission at page 13.6, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, what guidelines were used to determine (a) which employees should obtain educational leave and whether such employees should be granted (i) leave with pay (ii) travel expenses (iii) payment for tuition (b) whether the skills to be acquired were needed on a permanent basis?
2.	What percentage of the education leave cost of $159,740 was necessitated by the acquisition of new equipment and by the need to have new skills in order to use the equipment?
3.	What percentage of the education leave was necessitated by reason of job redundancy because of the (a) acquisition of equipment (b) change in the role of the employing agency (c) change in the capabilities of employees?
4.	What percentage of employees granted such leave in the past three years have subsequently left the public service?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1 am informed by the Public Service Commission: 1. (a) and (b) Please refer to Treasury Board Policy, Personnel Management Manual, chapter 110-5, "Conditions governing education training and development, including subsidization".
2 and 3. Nil.
4. Of the seventy-three employees granted education leave in the last three years, 11 or 15.06 per cent, have left the public service.
May 21, 1982


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Privy Council Office for the Chief Electoral Officer at page 32.26, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the Chief Electoral Officer explain the 1,155 per cent increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Yvon Pinard: (a)
Increase due to payment of expenses of thirty-first and thirty-second general elections in 1979-80 compared with expenses of 15 by-elections in 1978-79.
(b) and (c) Conduct of thirty-first and thirty-second general elections
Security services at Office of Chief Electoral Officer
Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, Ottawa	$ 2,981
Security services and constables at polling stations (no
payment exceeding $75)	$590,248
Interpreters at polling stations and translation of election
documents for Returning Officers	4,095
Storage of election material and ballot boxes	46,684
Auditors' fees for auditing candidates' election expense returns pursuant to subsection 63.1 (3) of the Canada
Elections Act (no payment exceeding $250)	330,802
Microfilming of election documents. Public Archives-
Canada, Ottawa	8,150
Conduct of seminars on election expenses for candidates, official agents and auditors. Supply and Services Canada,
Hull	$ 14,800
Total conduct of elections	$997,760
Administration of Chief Electoral Officer's Office including fees for membership in professional organizations,
hospitality, and training of Publlic Servants	6,177
Total	$1,003,937


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Department of National Defence at page 32.20, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts over $2,000, to whom was it paid?


George Roland Henderson: (a) and (b) In accordance with Receiver General directions and commencing with fiscal year 1979-80, only payments of $25,000 or over are reported for inclusion on the page referred to in this question. This is a change because in previous years, contracts amounting to $2,000 and over were reported.
The data requested concerning type of service, to whom it was paid and the amount expected are all contained in the following list.
Order Paper Questions
Name	Type of Service	Payment
Air Transport Association, Ottawa,	Scholarship Training	
Ont.		191,245
Bradson Personnel Services, Ottawa,	Personnel	
Ont.		29,267
British Airways, Montreal, Que.	Facilities at Gatwick, G.B.	130,252
Cal-Van Canus Catering Ltd,	Food	
Vancouver, B.C.		771,439
Canada Catering Company Ltd,	Food	
Toronto, Ont.		58,142
Canadian Engineering Publications,	Technical Training Film	
Toronto, Ont.		26,187
College de Jonquiere, Jonquiere,	Food	
Que.		177,682
Custom Machine & Tool Company,	Tech Training Film	
Mount Uniacke, N.S.		45,239
Dalmar Food Ltd, Toronto, Ont.	Food	408,407
Domaine de la Jeunesse Inc, Arvida,	Food	
Que.		43,028
National Film Board, Montreal, Que.	Technical Training Film	404,443Job Earn, Ottawa, Ont.	Personnel	27,234Graphic Films Ltd, Ottawa, Ont.	Technical Training Film	35,664La ligne navale de Cap-Chat, Gaspe,	Food	Que.	76,214National Nimbus Film Ltd, Ottawa,	Technical Training Film	Ont.	39,009Nothmount Camp Services,	Food	Vancouver, B.C.	116,930Overseas Indigenous Labour	Personnel	19,148,617Royal Bank of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.	Miscellaneous*	28,367Royal Canadian Flying Club,	Scholarship Training	Ottawa, Ont.	122,798Williams Catering, Saskatoon, Sask.	Food	297,797
* Miscellaneous payments of other types of services to individuals such as civilian officiating clergymen, paid in cash through a public imprest account with the Royal Bank of Canada.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of miscellaneous items recorded by the Department of National Defence in footnote No. 10 at page 13.4, volume I of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the equipment lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the musical instruments?
3.	How does the department account for the balance in the amount of $195,451?


George Roland Henderson: 1. The items listed in footnote No. 10 at page 13.4 volume 1 of 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada represent over 60 different thefts which were added together and assembled under different headings. The information requested in parts (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) is not readily available and the department does not have the necessary resources to review over 60 investigation reports at various locations.
2.	Musical instruments are used by authorized bands of the regular and reserve forces.
3.	Miscellaneous losses
less items listed in footnote 10:


[Stage Direction]
Radio sets	$ 2,774
Stores clothing & equipment	15,040
[Stage Direction]
May 21, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Camera equipment	1,192	$220,050
Musical instruments	5,293	
Landing boat	1,000	25,299
This balance is accounted for as follows:		$194,751
Damage to DND property caused by		
mobile support equipment	$ 93,000	
Material written off inventory as being outdated or obsolescent	94,447	
Material lost in transit	7,304	
Total	$194,751
Mr. Clarke: With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of vehicles recorded by the Department of National Defence at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada (a) how does the department explain the loss (b) under what circumstances were the vehicles lost and (i) who was culpable (ii) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (iii) are any trials or appeals pending (iv) was the equipment replaced (v) did the Department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?


George Roland Henderson: (a) and (b)(i), (ii) and (iii) The information requested is not readily available and the department does not have the necessary resources to review hundreds of accident reports at more than 50 bases and stations, (iv) Only the equipment still required by the forces is replaced. All losses and damages to public property are investigated to determine cause and responsibility. Remedial action is taken dependent on the situation and when negligence is determined disciplinary and/or recovery action is taken.
4.	There is no record of any complaint having been made by the Government of Canada to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. on this subject.


Mr. Lawrence: How many inmates in Canada are serving indefinite sentences as (a) dangerous sexual offenders (b) habitual offenders and, in each case (i) for how long have the offenders been serving their sentence (ii) how many offenders are currently on parole?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Secretary of State):: In so far as the
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) There are 51 inmates presently serving indefinite sentences as dangerous sexual offenders, (i) See table below, (ii) There are currently 33 dangerous sexual offenders on parole.
(b) There are 38 inmates presently serving indefinite sentences as habitual offenders, (i) See table below, (ii) There are currently 63 habitual offenders on parole.
As a result of amendments to Part XXI of the Criminal Code which were proclaimed October 16, 1977, the categories of dangerous sexual offenders and habitual offenders were replaced by the new category of dangerous offenders.
The answers to the above questions with regard to dangerous offenders are as follows: There are 19 inmates presently serving indefinite sentences as dangerous offenders, (i) Date sentenced: See table below, (ii) There are currently no dangerous offenders on parole.
Dangerous Sexual Offenders Case Number-Date Sentenced


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, does the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. located at 285 Charlotte Street, Ottawa have electronic gear on the roof and, if so, what is the purpose of the equipment?
2.	Are any of the items considered to be listening devices for the purpose of obtaining information from such sources as the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian security organizations?
3.	Are any of the items directional antennae and, if so, in what direction are they pointed and what government sources are they trained on?
4.	Has the government ever complained to the Embassy about anything whatsoever to do with this general subject?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. The government is aware that electronic apparatus consisting of antennae is located on the roof of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. at 285 Charlotte Street, Ottawa. Any comment on the purpose of the antennae would be purely conjectural.
2.	The antennae would appear to have the capability of monitoring various types of electronic emissions.
3.	Some of the antennae appear to be directional and capable of covering a range of radio frequencies including microwave.
1	18.11.1953
2	23.11.1953
3	07.02.1958
4	12.04.1972
5	17.09.1965
6	22.08.1962
7	25.10.1965
8	01.11.1974
9	11.03.1969
10	17.04.1964
11	24.08.1962
12	28.01.1966
13	04.09.1956
14	14.06.1976
15	09.03.1967
16	23.06.1961
17	15.03.1971
18	10.07.1975
19	31.01.1956
20	27.02.1970
21	24.08.1964
22	21.12.1964
23	13.02.1961
24	02.06.1971
25	13.06.1966
26	02.11.1972
27	28.03.1973
28	06.10.1966
29	05.12.1968
30	03.07.1956
May 21, 1982

Business of the House
31	30.07.1957	6	29.02.198032	08.10.1964	7	30.09.198033	05.11.1965	8	18.12.198034	26.04.1963	9	15.05.198135	27.08.1975	10	22.03.197936	22.01.1975	11	29.11.197837	19.01.1973	12	19.05.198138	03.02.1975	13	02.03.197939	21.02.1969	14	12.12.198040	02.07.1970	15	29.05.198041	07.11.1966	16	21.09.198142	16.02.1977	17	27.02.198043	29.01.1971	18	31.03.197844	18.11.1966	19	02.03.197945	12.12.1975	46	09.05.1977	47	30.10.1970	48	19.07.1976	[Translation]	49 50	06.05.1977 20.12.1962	Madam Speaker: The questions enumerated by the parlia	51	01.05.1973	mentary secretary have been answered.	Habitual Offenders	
Case Number-Date Sentenced
1	09.01.1964
2	05.02.1973
3	21.09.1973
4	25.06.1969
5	11.10.1963
6	18.03.1970
7	23.05.1952
8	21.08.1952
9	06.09.1968
10	12.03.1976
II	17.10.1974
12	03.10.1962
13	18.12.1968
14	01.06.1977
15	15.02.1972
16	12.01.1968
17	14.12.1970
18	03.04.1967
19	29.05.1964
20	11.07.1975
21	12.05.1969
22	25.06.1964
23	13.02.1970
24	02.02.1965
25	21.05.1970
26	01.12.1969
27	23.09.1971
28	07.04.1966
29	11.10.1967
30	19.06.1972
31	22.11.1963
32	14.11.1973
33	12.12.1956
34	02.10.1967
35	25.09.1970
36	06.04.1971
37	17.02.1961
38	18.02.1974


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,462?


Mr. Young: 1.	Does Canada Post intend to move the location of its philatelic services from Ottawa to Antigonish?
2.	How many employees currently employed in the unit are (a) physically disabled (b) mentally handicapped?
3.	Are measures being taken to place such employees in other employment and, if so, what are such measures?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 apologize but the parliamentary secretary with that answer seems to have disappeared. Perhaps it can be answered next week.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Dangerous Offenders Case Number-Date Sentenced
1	06.02.1981
2	17.11.1981
3	11.08.1980
4	14.07.1981
5	23.11.1978
David P. Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, consultations have taken place between the parties and I believe there is agreement to go to Bill S-25 and deal with it in all stages today.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is consent of the House to go to Bill S-25, but one very vital element was left out by the parliamentary secretary. We have consented to deal with

May 21, 1982
Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans
all three stages of the bill today on the basis of one speaker per party.


David P. Smith: That is correct, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed to Bill S-25?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved: that Bill S-25, to amend the act of incorporation of the Association known as The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, fellow members, I have the honour of presenting Bill S-25, an act respecting the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, for debate here in the House of Commons. As presented by the hon. Senator Jack Marshall, Bill S-25 will receive all-party support here in all three stages. This is not a controversial bill; in fact, just the contrary is just the case.
I would like to begin by giving my most sincere congratulations to the four witnesses representing The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans at the Senate Health, Welfare and Science Committee. Stan Stillwell of Winnipeg, who is president of Dominion Command of The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada; Albert Bianchini of Edmonton, who is the vice-president of Dominion Command; John C. McArthur who is secretary-treasurer of Dominion Command; and Shannon Howard Martin, their legal adviser, all made excellent contributions to the deliberations.
The purpose of this bill is simple. It makes amendments to the act incorporating the association known as The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. Its purpose is to allow those people supporting the purposes and objectives of the association to become eligible for membership. This expanded eligibility is necessary in order to maintain membership levels and will also serve another very useful purpose. It will allow the continuation and perhaps the expansion of the many noteworthy projects undertaken by The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans across Canada. I will expand on this in a moment.
The belief that this bill will mean that The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans would cease to be a veterans' organization is simply not true in the spirit of the proposal. The admirable work carried out by this group represents a united veteran brethren working on behalf of others who are less fortunate than themselves. Would this noble goal be lost just because others of the same mind would be permitted to aid in that endeavour? I do not think so. Would the participation in
hundreds of local events such as parades, community barbecues and bazaars be lost because those who wanted to help but were not veterans were admitted to the army, navy and air force team? I do not believe this would happen. Would the canteens in place across Canada suddenly close their doors, or would the feeling of patriotism ever present in this collection of individuals diminish as a result of the entrance of people who agreed with the aims and objectives of the veterans' association? None of these events would happen.
It is my belief that the veterans who are now running the show would pass on the traditions, the practices and the spirit to new members, just as a grandfather passes on old stories to his grandchildren. The legend would be enhanced in the telling and the example set would be a goal to be strived for.
New members would not detract from the tradition set by veterans' organizations. They would be expected to live up to and even improve upon it. The witnesses assured the Senate committee studying this bill that all persons applying for membership are subject to a careful screening process. They made it clear that it is unlikely that former veterans would tolerate the membership of men and women who had fought against Canada, or who were known to be opposed to the principles and objectives of a free, democratic society. What this bill does is legalize what is already a policy enforced by The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, as it did in the case passed last year of the Royal Canadian Legion.
The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association in Canada has a rich history and I would be remiss in not mentioning it. Some Canadians may think that there is only one organization representing veterans in Canada, the Royal Canadian Legion. There are, however, several organizations and The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association in Canada holds the distinguished position of being the oldest veterans' organization in the country.
Documentary evidence shows that the organization was in existence in 1840 under the title of "Army and Navy Veterans." There is reason to believe that units of the association were active even before that time. Membership in the earliest units were recruited from the ranks of veterans of the war of 1812-14 and migrating veterans of the navy and Wellington's army. It is even possible to assume, therefore, that some form of this organization was in existence in the city of Montreal in 1840 and that date is abitrarily accepted as the time of its founding.
Soldiers who served in various campaigns abroad, such as the India mutiny of 1858, along with other battles during that period, formed through their achievements a sense of comradeship borne of dangers faced together. Ever-increasing membership grew from this comradeship in the oldest of all Canadian veterans' organizations.
When the country was confronted by the grave crisis of August, 1914, members of the army and navy veterans in Canada of that day were foremost in volunteering their services and in aiding the authorities to recruit men for the
May 21, 1982

first contingent. As an instance of this effort, reference was made to the history of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry which, as everyone is aware, was a famous regiment that served in the wars fought by Canada.
The activities of the association in World War II are of recent memory. Added to the numbers of those who served in the army and navy from the outbreak of hostilities to the eventual collapse of Germany and Japan was the very large contingent which fought in the RCAF. By act of Parliament passed in 1946, the name of the association was changed to the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada.
Veterans of the Korean conflict and those who served in the special forces in peace-keeping missions have added to the membership of the association. There are now 40,000 members across Canada and there are units in most major and minor communities throughout the country. One in which I have the honour to be a member is Unit 283.
I would like to say a little about Unit 283 in my home constituency of Winnipeg-Assiniboine. I am very proud to have been a member of this unit for the past 17 years. Its president, Joe Henderson, and his executive have done a great deal of invaluable work in co-ordinating the units activities on behalf of the community. Also, the manager of the club, Bob Delaney, and his staff have done an excellent job over the years. The club is lucky to have them.
The ladies' auxilliary also provides valuable services. They have dinners for senior citizens at the club. They provide Christmas hampers for needy people and give donations to high school groups. The ladies' auxilliary president, Mrs. Anne George, should be heartily commended for her co-ordinating work.
The army, navy and air force veterans also make regular visits to Deer Lodge hospital, one of the few veterans' hospitals left, to give candies and cigarettes to the residents. We are also proud to have the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association national president, Stan Stillwell, as a member of Unit 283.
It would take me more time than is available to a member in a debate of this sort to list all the unit's activities, but here are just a few examples. This coming Monday, May 24, Victoria Day, will see Unit 283 participating in Manitoba's annual Buffalo Barbecue and parade. Each year the unit enters a band which invariably adds to the parade's habitual success.
Here are other examples of the work of some of the unit's community work. Local 283 has financially assisted the following organizations: students attending citizenship courses; the Lions telethon; the Deer Lodge Hospital day care patients; the Manitoba Lung Association; St. Amanth Society; the shut-in fund on CJOB Radio; the variety club which raises funds for crippled children; the Girl Guides; the Timmy dance committee at Portage la Prairie; the Oddfellows; the Navy League; and the Manitoba Heart Foundation, to name a few.
Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans
Another program the army, navy and air force veterans are actively involved in is the citizenship training program which is designed to assist the youth of Canada to accept the challenge of leadership and acquaint them with responsibility and to gain a valid concept of the operations, goals, ideals and functions of the government.
Another is the leadership training program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario in which youths sponsored by the army, navy and air force veterans are taught to be the patriots and leaders of tomorrow. They are taught through the method of learning by doing.
The association belongs to the National Council of Veterans' Associations of Canada which is comprised of most of the leading veterans' associations and which makes representations to the government on behalf of all veterans. This group makes these representations even on behalf of those groups which do not belong to the association, such as the National Prisoners of War, the War Amputees, the Hong Kong veterans, the Jewish veterans of Canada and the Dieppe veterans.
The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association can be proud of its membership in the National Council of Veterans' Associations. Just recently, for example, the national council presented an excellent submission to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Among the many recommendations made in the submissions, three are of special note and importance to all Canadian veterans. First, the council expressed concern that there was an inequity in the way in which pension increases do not reflect the principle of parity with the average wage of five unskilled categories of public servants or the increase in the consumer price index, whichever is greater, and that this principle is not entrenched in the Pension Act.
Second, the council proposed that the phasing in of WVA-CWA rate increases for single recipients under the age of 65 be abandoned and that the benefits be increased immediately to the proposed income support level identified in Bill C-40.
Third, but not the last of their recommendations, the National Veterans' Council felt that a complete review should be carried out of the eligibility requirements currently in place which veterans must meet in order to take advantage of the aging veterans' programs.
These are just a few examples of what this group presents to the government each year. The many groups including the army, navy and air force veterans which make up the National Council are responsible for persuading the government to introduce much of the legislation it does. As a team, the National Veterans' Association, together with the Conservative party, have pressured governmental action, such as Bills C-40, C-82 and C-79. We are hoping for even bigger and better things in the future. I correspond with thousands of veterans each year and can safely say they appreciate the work being done on their behalf by the veterans' associations and other advocates.
Internationally the association is also a member of the World Veterans' Federation, which consists of veterans'

May 21, 1982
Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans
associations from every continent and has a total membership running into the millions. Among the principal aims of the federation are the establishment of permanent relations between associations of veterans, aid to veterans through the exchange of information on legislation and rehabilitation, and promotion of international peace and security through support of the United Nations Charter.
Working individually, through the National Council of Veterans' Organizations and on an international level, The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association deserves much credit. Without a doubt, work will be continued after the passage of Bill S-25. The government has been making slow but steady progress in dealing with the special needs of veterans. There is always work left to accomplish and new ideas to consider. The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association can and does contribute substantially to this process. Passage of this bill will guarantee that this constructive input both to community and veteran needs will continue.
This bill is simple in terms of legislative complexity, but it signifies a great deal to the army, navy and air force veterans. Their future depends on the passage of this bill. All Canadians will benefit from the continuation of this organization's fine work.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to say a few words on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party caucus on this bill.
As the House knows, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is in the House today and who wanted to be here because he knew this bill was being brought forward, has been a formidable fighter on behalf of veterans over the years to improve not only pension benefits for veterans, but to improve the lot of those individuals who fought so hard on behalf of Canadians and their families.
Veterans are a constant reminder to all Canadians of what true patriotism is all about and, in fact, what the meaning of Canada is. It gives me the greatest of pleasure to give unanimous consent on behalf of my caucus to this piece of legislation.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened to the explanation given by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie). I would point out that Senator Marshall, in his eloquent presentation, called for the passage of Bill S-25, respecting The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell), on behalf of the government, is enthusiastically supportive of Bill S-25, respecting The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada. I assure hon. members he would very much have liked to be present to express his personal support for this bill, but because of various motions, questions of privilege and so on, he unfortunately had to dash away to catch a plane. However, as his parliamentary secretary it is my pleasure to speak on his behalf and to try as best I can to express his support for this bill and his views on it.
I think the purpose of this bill is, above all, to broaden the conditions of eligibility for membership in this association, which makes it possible for people to join and support the purposes and objectives of this organization for generations to come.
This bill is more important than just another bill which brings about a change of name or extends membership. In reality, it is a bill which would assist us to hallow and enshrine the sacrifices of those who fought, as well as those who died, in wars throughout Canada's history. By passing this bill we are ensuring that membership in this association will be open to those who will carry on the name, the work and goals of this association as well as its memories, and also make us sensitive to our past and our future.
We know that we must do many things to ensure monetary respect, recognition, reparation and protection for our veterans. This is done through various efforts to ensure that pensions are provided and to ensure that there are war allowances.
We also know that the minister and the government have sought to test a new program entitled the aging veterans program. This new program is designed to take still one step further to promote awareness of the important fact that we have duties to aging veterans. We must make sure they are given the considerations and comforts necessary to allow them to remain in their homes so that they will not have to be institutionalized.
I am sure this kind of program and any other program we could undertake would be valuable. There are things we can do with money, but much more important than merely providing money is that we remember. That is why this bill is so important. It is a recognition that we remember those who fought as well as those who died. By widening the terms of eligibility for membership in this organization, The Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada, we are making sure others may join the organization and that others will help make sure we remember. When a society no longer remembers, it is a society which is beginning to die. It is a beautiful thought to know that we can be part of this today and vote for this bill so that we can recognize and remember the work of our veterans, both those who have died and those who are with us today. That, as well as recognition for their families, is ensured by making certain this organization can continue and that its purposes are widened.
There is a phrase "Lest we forget". By passing this bill we will take one more step in making sure we will not forget; and on behalf of my colleagues in the government and in the Liberal Party, it is my pleasure to support the passage of this bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is aware that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might like to make a few brief remarks. Is there unanimous consent for him to do so?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 21, 1982


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to support the statements which have been made by the representatives of each of the other parties, but I would like to let the House know that I am pleased to be here today, and I am very happy to support this bill which is being passed today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Paul James Cosgrove: that Bill C-91, to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-91, which we have before us today, provides for minor amendments to important statutes administered by the Department of Public Works, namely, the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act.
Before discussing the technical aspects of the amendments, I want to touch briefly on a couple of points. First, I describe the amendments as housekeeping measures. I say that because they relate more to procedures of Parliament than to the policies and practices of the department. The main reason I say that is that in part they provide a general authority in a statutory way for departmental procedures which have been in use by the department from time to time over recent years. They were formerly executed under the authority of individual vote word changes as each case arose.
I am sure hon. members will recall a ruling of Madam Speaker approximately a year ago pointing out that these procedures were, from an administrative and House point of view, not acceptable, and it is as a result of that ruling that the changes we have before us were prepared in the form we have them here today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister has it available, I wonder if he could cite the ruling so that I might look at it.
Public Works Act


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, as the debate on the bill progresses, I would be pleased to provide the hon. member with the ruling to which I am referring. I thought the reference I was making was commonly recognized by hon. members, but I will obtain the specific date of the ruling and make it available.
Having pointed out the context in which this legislation is introduced, I want to deal briefly with the proposed legislation. While I have said that, from a parliamentary perspective, they have been introduced-
Mr. Speaker, it appears that I should call it one o'clock.


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 2:00 p.m.
Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill C-91 which is before the House, a question was raised about the ruling of the Speaker to which I referred and a request was made that it be identified. I would refer hon. members to Hansard for June 12, 1981, at page 10546, where Madam Speaker said that Agriculture vote 30 and Department of Public Works vote L-70, among others, were not properly before the House and they were thereby ordered to be deleted therefrom. The effect of that ruling was that the vehicle for legislative support for the work which, as I have indicated, has been done for a number of years by the Department of Public Works had to be properly authorized by the House. Hence the amendments which are sought in this legislation before us today.
Before one o'clock I indicated that I was prepared to talk about the main body of the amendments that are sought. The amendments are minor from a parliamentary perspective, but they are nonetheless important to Public Works. They will ensure continuing progress in activities and projects affected by the legislation, and I hope without undue delay.
The first amendment to Section 9 of the Public Works Act will permit the department to perform work for other government agencies, including those which have statutory management of their own properties but may wish to use the services of Public Works. Although the department has for many years worked in such a capacity with many agencies, the incorporation of Canada Post highlighted a specific need, hence the legislation to clarify the role of Public Works. In order to allow Canada Post management and employees to concentrate on their particular mandate of efficient service, the corporation

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
intends to have Public Works manage and operate real property assets under an agreement between the two.
The second amendment to Section 9 of the act, Mr. Speaker, will permit the department to perform work on all properties adjacent to properties which are the subject of attention by the department and other ministries of the Government of Canada. It covers property not belonging to Canada but which, for example, may require an access road to a property in order to permit work and expenditure of moneys by Canada on those properties not owned by Canada. It goes without saying, of course, that such work would have to be with the consent of persons involved. This legislation demonstrates the need for continuing operational flexibility essential to the execution of contemporary complex commercial developments. I can think of many developments by the government in large urban areas where it is necessary to enter into arrangements with adjacent property holders in order for work to be done.
The third amendment affects both the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. The amendment permits the department to dispose of property which may still be required for public purposes under a lease-purchase arrangement. The federal government has since 1974 used lease-purchase on a very limited basis as a means of providing accommodation. Its use has been questioned on two occasions by third parties involved in the transaction; that is, in the financing. Doubt has been expressed as to whether land could be leased when it was still required for public purposes. In both cases the doubt was overcome by a special vote wording in the estimates. Our purpose in coming forward at this time is to comply with the ruling which I identified by page number in Hansard.
The lease-purchase process is an important tool of real estate development. It is widely used internationally both in public and private sectors. As I indicated, Public Works has used it since 1974, with good results based on a comparison of costs per square metre of space. But this is only one aspect of lease-purchase. Also important is the fact that lease-purchase is a means by which the department can harness the skills of the strongest real estate development firms in the country- Canadian firms, Mr. Speaker. They are recognized internationally as the best in the business, and we need them to assist us with part, but an important part, of the evolving program of accommodation plans by Public Works. In most cases this involves complex projects in commercial and central core areas.


Walter David Baker: Do you use the tender
system?


Paul James Cosgrove: The repeal of Section 39 of the Public Works Act and paragraph 4(1) (a) of the Public Lands Grants Act, and the substitution of the new provisions set out in Bill C-91, would enable the government to use federal property in order to facilitate lease-purchase of federal accommodation. I have already outlined that, although procedurally what gave rise to the legislation before you is in my opinion housekeeping, it does give an opportunity to talk about the development of the
very complex and always changing area of commercial construction, especially in the cities. I thought I should touch briefly on the thinking behind these two department policies, how they are necessary in the context of the department's responsibilities, why they benefit the taxpayer, and how they fit into this rapidly evolving field of real estate development.
The office accommodation policies and practices, including lease-purchase and adjacent property improvements, which have evolved over the past ten years must be viewed in the context of the department's mission, which is a varied one. First of all, it must manage the existing realty interests of the federal government, both those which it owns and those leased from others. Secondly, it must arrange for new accommodation for federal departments and agencies. Third, an integral part of its mission is the responsibility to contribute to social, economic and environmental objectives. I think, for example, of the leadership Public Works has shown in the conservation of energy in public buildings, which has resulted in the benefit of haiving this expertise transferred to the private sector. This aspect of our mission distinguishes us, perhaps, from the more straightforward responsibilities of a private sector real estate operator.
However, as a provider of federal accommodation we must also operate as part of a larger framework-the real estate industry and its markets, customs, constraints and evolving commercial practice, in particular the fast changing downtown office building side of the industry. The reason is that part of our requirements involve the provision of space for agencies and departments which must be located in these areas of major metropolitan centres to better serve Canadians. This side of the industry has experienced rapid change in recent years, as I am sure many members know.
For a long time Canada has been an international leader in downtown redevelopment, starting, of course, with Place Ville Marie in Montreal almost 30 years ago. That was among the first and largest projects of its kind since the war. I might note, Mr. Speaker, that this innovative project was executed under an instrument called an emphyteutic lease which shares some of the features of the lease-purchase I talked about. For a variety of reasons Canada has had the good fortune to have the strongest and most sophisticated real estate development industry in the world. A small number of firms, perhaps two dozen, some of them giant enterprises internationally active and recognized, are world leaders in their field.
I say all of this not necessarily in praise of the real estate industry and certainly not as my main motive, but I do not mind saying that it is an industry of which Canada is proud and it deserves recognition and credit. But as it relates to the fact that we are a partner in this complex and developing industry, we must move along with our techniques, modify them and be able to compete and co-operate in a varied and complicated developing industry. Our department, Public Works, has had to keep up with the technical changes brought about by the industry generally. It is this evolution which is the
May 21, 1982

root of at least one of the amendments to the act proposed in the legislation before hon. members this afternoon.
In conclusion, I would like to indicate again that the reason for the changes that are before the House today, from a procedural point of view, stem from the ruling of the Speaker to which I referred, as reported in Hansard for June 12, 1981. The opportunity does permit me to talk about the fast-evolving complex but specialized and successful industry, of which Public Works has been a part.
I would like to point out that Public Works has been moving with the changing industry. Indeed, there are projects in ridings from coast to coast where this legislation will be of assistance, not only to the ministry and to the clients we serve, but as well to Canadians in metropolitan areas and in smaller communities. I hope that will be recognized by members on both sides of the House as they entertain discussion in examination of the legislation.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here today. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and I were scheduled to be in my riding today, but I would much rather keep him here than allow him in my riding. There are not too many Liberals left in my riding and I would hate to have any pollution. As a consequence, I am delighted this bill came forward today.
First, I want to comment on a few of the minister's words. He talked about minor amendments. In my view, it is sad if the minister cannot read the legislation that is before us. However, I will deal with it. The minister talked about this bill being a housekeeping one. He said also that it was strictly a procedure for the chamber, and that we should get it right out of the chamber. That is the whole point. This bill removes the right of this chamber ever to get involved with these portions of the act. This bill takes the matter right out of the chamber. It is on this topic that I will be speaking very strongly.
The minister talked about Canada Post and having to get consent from Canada Post. There is no problem getting consent from Canada Post. All you have to do is tell the people they will not be getting their cheques next month. When it spends $600 million a year rising to $1 billion a year, they cannot say no. Therefore, that is a pretty poor argument of the minister's.
The minister got into a subject that we have been discussing here in the House the last few weeks. I thought it was amusing. The minister talked about how these lease-backs were building up the private sector. That reminds me of building up the architectural sector. I wonder if the same methods are used for selection of real estate companies, such as Bob Campeau's, as are used for architectural companies, such as Mr. Erickson's. It strikes me that the build-up in the private sector is nothing more than political pay-off. What it is is Liberal friends, Liberal pay-off. I cannot get too excited unless the minister can explain to us how the selection was made, whether it was done by tender or whether it was reviewed by committee and not cancelled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Public Works Act
We have lost a great deal of faith on this question of helping the private sector. It is not helping the private sector, it is just helping friends of the Liberal government. I was shocked that the minister would stand up in this House and state that; I think it is just a joke.
The minister talks about spending money to help the taxpayers. The taxpayers today are fed up with federal spending. They have had it right up to the eyeballs and more. This federal government has spent so much money that Canadians have been put in debt forever, including future generations of Canadians.
I will now deal directly with what this bill states. Clause 1 is an absolute disgrace. The minister knows my point of view about this. He agreed to an amendment and then backed off from it. The first clause reads:
1. Section 9 of the Public Works Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, incur
expenditures or perform, or have performed, services or work in relation to
(a)	properties belonging to Canada of which he does not have the management, charge or direction; or
(b)	properties not belonging to Canada."
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that that clause removes the need for expropriation? Let me expand on that point. I happen to come from a riding which was partially destroyed by this government several years ago. It expropriated land to build an airport which has never been built and will never be built. This government has really resolved the problem. It spent a lot of money buying the land at Pickering. This government can pick any site in Canada and build an airport on it. It is just tough bananas to the guy who happens to have an interest in that land.
The minister has acknowledged this and I would have thought he would have made a change with respect to that. The minister talks about consent but there is no consent in this bill. If I had a piece of property, I would have no rights. That is a good point because it begs the question: Does this follow through from our charter of rights where our government has not included property rights? When I see a bill like this it makes me very nervous. I think it is part of the government's plan. The government has put this bill before the House which says that the government can build anywhere, that it does not need to expropriate land. In other words, the government can build towers, airports, recreational centres, it can do anything, and the owner of the land has no rights. That coincides completely with the lack of property rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a very dangerous clause and our party will be voting against it.
The minister asked if we could get this bill through the House in one day. I asked him how could we, on behalf of Canadians, agree to pass this bill in one day? We cannot do that because it is a dangerous piece of legislation. It is giving far too much power to the monstrous bureaucracy in the Department of Public Works. This bill goes beyond all the

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
realms of possibility. It goes beyond the wildest dreams of Socialist International. It is taking away people's rights and property rights.
I get very upset by this type of legislation. Over the last two years I have sat in this chamber saying no many, many times. I have said no because every piece of legislation that goes through has a nasty, rotten thread running through it. It is a socialist thread to put all responsibility into the hands of the bureaucracy, to remove all responsibility from the Elouse and, in turn, to remove all rights of the citizens of the country. This is a serious error. I pray to the Almighty that there will be an election soon and that we rid the country of that rotten mess which is destroying it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I hear laughing and joking on the other side. Wait until they are on this side of the House; they will see the results of what they have done. Perhaps it is only three or four of them who are trying to destroy the country, but when they are on this side of the House they will realize what they have done. The country is a ship without a rudder; no one is running it. There is a triumvirate-Michael Pitfield, Ian Stewart and Mickey Cohen-who are running government. Backbenchers opposite are in no worse a position than the second row of cabinet ministers; they are being run by a bureaucracy which is destroying the country.
Clause 2 of the bill deals with Section 39 of the act. If we vote for it, we are not representing the people of the country. I feel very strongly about it. The argument of the minister was not factual. I have checked up on titles and mortgages and have found that his argument is not factual. I maintain that this clause was included in order to give the Department of Public Works total control. In part Clause 2 reads;
-the proceeds of such sale or lease shall be accounted for as public moneys-
We do not know where public money goes. When it is mixed up in the general accounts, we lose track of it. We no longer have the ability in Parliament even to challenge ministers or to find out the facts. Public accounts have become somewhat a farce. We receive part of the truth and there is a whole battery of bureaucrats to protect the ministers' butts. There is no justification in that clause alone. It continues:
-but such public work shall be so sold or leased by tender or at auction after public advertisement-
This is reasonable, but then it goes on to indicate the classic inclusion in every bill-that Michael Pitfield can authorize with a rubber stamp. It reads:
-unless it is otherwise authorized by the governor in council.
That wipes out everything.
We have a problem in the country today about which 1 am worried. There is a shortage of money, there is a shortage of cash. Dome Petroleum is bankrupt. It cannot pay its bills, so the federal government will set up a Crown corporation and inject $1 billion to save Dome. Government members may need to find that $1 billion. They could travel around Canada
and pick out particular office buildings-and there are hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space which could be sold-to be sold to Bob Campeau, at a very attractive price to him, and then lease it back. Some people would argue that that is a good solution, but it will increase the cost of government spending. It will increase the estimates, it will increase the debt, and it will get the country into more trouble.
I maintain that they cannot include such a clause and remove the one saving grace that they may not sell or lease land which is otherwise required for public purposes. If a piece of property is required for public purposes, it should be kept and used. They may be inefficient in the way they operate it, but we are straddled with that problem now. They should continue to use it. We should not give them the permission to sell any building they want, whether or not it is required; that is absolutely immoral and against the beliefs of every Canadian citizen. Heavens, the next thing they will do is go to the U.S.S.R., sell the Parliament Buildings to Russia and then lease them back. That could happen, that is their attitude; then we would be truly working in a communist hall. I am really worried about this. If a building is required for public purposes, I believe it should be retained by the government of the country.
Bill C-91 also refers to paragraph 4(1 )(a) of the Public Lands Grants Act, the pride of the country. We are talking about all the national parks which have been built over the years and all the land rights under the Parliament Buildings. We are also talking about Dorval, which I want to use as an example. There is nothing in the bill to prevent the government from going out and selling the land rights at Dorval. No one would know anything about it. There could be a one-year lease, and then the government would announce in the House that the problem with Mirabel had been solved because Dorval had been closed and all airplanes were going into Mirabel. This is how broad the legislation is. This is an indication of the kind of damage the government could do. Perhaps it is not such a bad idea because Mirabel is a white elephant.
Government members tried to impose the same thing on my riding, but fortunately there was the group known as POP, People Or Planes, to fight these monsters. They did not get their way and the land is still in its original state. I should like to touch on that question later.
I plead with the minister to pay attention because there are 700 farmers in Quebec and I have calculated-believe me, it is difficult to figure out government estimates-that it is costing somewhere between $250 and $500 per year per acre to maintain the 80,000 surplus acres in the area. Most of that land was bought for $80 per acre, and it is now costing somewhere between $250 and $500 to maintain it. These farmers were thrown out of their homes, thrown off their land. They pleaded with the minister. They sent delegations to Ottawa to see the minister and to see their Member of Parliament. They have had absolutely no co-operation. Their first ray of hope was when they attended the tenth anniversary of POP, of which, incidentally, the minister used to be a member. They
May 21, 1982

had spoken with people in my riding who told them to talk with me because I had solved their problem.
I feel as dedicated to those farmers as I do to my own constituents who were ill-treated and mistreated by government. The government should do something for these farmers; 1 may lead them down here. The land should be sold back to them; they should be given the first opportunity. It should not be sold to corporations set up by the federal government under DREE grants. It should not be sold to friends of the government, and the money should not be lent by the government. There is an inequity in that area and the government had better start to realize that. My friends around Mirabel are starting to realize it. Just like the people in Pickering, they did not want the airport. Unfortunately, the people of Mirabel were not as well organized. If I had been around at that time I think I might have been able to help them.
While I do not believe in expropriation, it is preferable to what is provided for in Clause 1 of this bill where expropriation is not required. The reason I do not believe in expropriation is that families who have lived on farms for up to four generations, whose ancestors were the pioneers of this country, are removed from their homes which results in destruction of a whole sector of our culture. Not only does the government expropriate the land from those people but it taxes them for the right to expropriate their land. It is immoral.
More specifically, it is the attitude of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) that the government can simply grab cash. The government's whole attitude is to get cash, it does not care about Canadians. The government only cares about itself and its friends in the ivory towers.
This bill is a typical example of a whole series of disastrous legislation. I hope we can get a large enough majority to wipe it all out. We will do it as quickly as possible under any means we can use.
This legislation gives the civil service a blank cheque with unlimited sums of money to spend. The reason there is an unlimited amount of money is that it comes from our cheques and will come from our children's and their children's cheques.
The people who are getting the power are those who have never had to earn an honest dollar. They have never had to get their hands dirty. We can use the people in Energy, Mines and Resources as an example. We have the finest experts in the oil industry sitting in Ottawa. They have never been in an oil field, have never been involved in the dirty work on the rigs and have never got their hands dirty. They are in their own esoteric world, learning the philosophies of the oil industry. They may have all the chemical and economic terms-which, incidentally, are all wrong-but they have never got their hands dirty.
My philosophy has always been never to ask someone to do something that I would not do myself. There are many members opposite who are asking many Canadians to go broke
Public Works Act
when they have never had to go broke themselves. This legislation only returns to the unacceptable legislation that those three who are running the country are imposing upon Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And now Jack Horner.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is one of the best examples. I could not agree more with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I must admit that I agree on occasion with the hon. member in particular. We now have three examples to boot around the hall; Erickson, Horner and Campeau.
At this time the government has only one choice to make, and that is to resign. It should resign and call an election because there is no question in my mind that the government has lost its mandate. It has lost the mandate given to it by the citizens of Canada. If this situation becomes any worse the government will never return to power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: Hon. members may laugh, but just talk to the people. They are hurting. They are going bankrupt. There are many people in the ridings of these members opposite who are being seriously affected by the National Energy Program. Those Liberal members signed their name to the document.


Mrs. Hervieux-Payette:: Many are employed by Petro-Canada.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Fine. There are many other people who do not work for Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada is a good example of people who have not really worked and got their hands dirty. I would like to see the chairman of Petro-Canada work on a rig in the west. That would be quite a joke. I do not think a rig would carry him, in the first instance.
Since the hon. member talks about Petro-Canada, I will stray from the subject of debate for a minute. We talk about Petro-Canada as the great benefactor for all Canadians. I suggest to hon. members that they talk to the small drilling contractors and the small service contractors to find out how much drilling Petro-Canada is doing in the west. That huge company of Petro-Canada is drilling three minor wells. I have nothing against the concept of Petro-Canada.
I would like to return to Clause 2 of this bill. I refer to the phrase "sold or leased by tender or at auction after public advertisement, unless it is otherwise authorized by the governor in council". I would call that phrase a pacifier with a hammer over your head. That is exactly how the government operates. It gives the people a pacifier and then suddenly hits them over the head with a hammer.
This legislation has gone too far and I do not know how much further the minister plans to go with respect to land. I know that many tourist operators would be delighted to purchase Parks Canada. There is nothing stopping the government from selling that land to Americans, Germans, Russians or whoever may want to buy it, because this bill does not contain the proper language and has been improperly drafted. So we can sell our parks to the highest bidder. Possibly it may

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
be an improvement to have them run by private enterprise, but the fact is that the parks belong to Canadians.
As evidence to show just how much even the provinces need more money, it costs more to go to a provincial park than to any privately-owned park in the United States. Therefore, it is my hope that the government does not use this legislation in the way I can see it being used, which would be to bail themselves out of the forthcoming economic disaster, unless the United States bails them out.
The government keeps saying that the United States has caused all our economic problems. However, when the United States interest rates go down the minister will not say that our interest rates will go down as well. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has used other people as scapegoats when he needs to, but he is not consistent.
I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the minister at this time. I realize that I could also make them to him in committee; however, I would like to relate them now for his consideration.
1 originally made a suggestion in a letter to him and his department co-operated. There was a consensus on the suggestion that no services or work may be performed in relation to properties not belonging to Canada without the consent of the owner thereof. 1 can accept that and he accepted it, and he indicated that if he has a one-day debate he will put it through.
I have a second amendment which 1 would like to introduce to Clauses 2 and 3, but I will not move it right now. I am simply proposing it to the minister in the hope that he will deal with it in the proper vein. I would accept his choice as set out in what would be Section 39(a), that it be referred to the public works committee-and not to the House. The same clause under Section 4(1 )(a) could be an extension of that, that it be referred to the Public Works committee. We are not being unreasonable. We are being reasonable in this instance. That is only one suggestion. I may come up with other ideas, but I would like the minister to consider this one as it is very important.
1 have one other question to address to the minister. The minister's predecessor, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), almost had in place an arrangement whereby the Department of Public Works could be turned into a profit centre. Isn't that exciting? It would no longer be a drag on the Canadian public. The Department of Public Works would assess rent to all other departments for the cost of service. It would have a zero budget.
A lot of the load in the budget and the cost of this government is landed on this minister's head when he is really only a maintenance manager. Therefore, I believe he should proceed with this proposal. The expenses should be charged to other departments and the Department of Public Works should have a zero budget.
The department could make a profit by charging a little more than the actual cost. This minister could say to other ministers that if he can show a profit, why can't they? Canadians would be very proud of him. We would finally have a department making money.
I would appreciate if the minister would consider and follow through what was started. Many members of the Department of Public Works are very positive toward this as they are always being criticized for being big spenders. Therefore, they would accept this proposal.
I could continue talking; I understand my time is unlimited. I think I have tried to stay with the subject, as I always do when you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I think I have done an excellent job. I thank you very much for this opportunity.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill. I am not the Public Works critic for the party; our critic, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), had to be ip his constituency today. I just want to flag one or two of the concerns we have about the legislation before us.
Before doing so, I cannot help but respond to my congenial friend from Ontario (Mr. Fennell). A number of the ideas he put forward in his remarks were not that bad, but he hurt his argument by using some very extreme rhetoric. He said that with the bill before us today, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) would have the authority to sell the Parliament Buildings to Russia and then lease them back and we would all end up working in a communist hall. That kind of rhetoric is very damaging to all of us as parliamentarians and to our type of political system.


Paul James Cosgrove: It makes him look like a clown.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The minister said it makes him look like a clown. My principal concern is that these kinds of extreme arguments do not do any good at all to help win a case, to endear people to this institution, to get people to put more faith and trust in the political process and Parliament as an institution.
The other argument that concerned me was the whole connection of the purpose of the bill being tied to the property rights in the Constitution of Canada and that it is one of the big, sinister plots. I remind the hon. member for Ontario that I was on the Constitution committee. I was there for the property rights hearings and heard the arguments of the provinces. I saw very clearly in the Constitution of Canada that property rights are under the authority and jurisdiction of the provinces.
It was the provinces, led by Premier Lougheed, as well as the Conservative Premier of Prince Edward Island and Allan Blakeney of Saskatchewan, who wanted to maintain property rights under provincial jurisdiction in the Constitution of Canada. It has nothing to do with the crap he is trying to spread about this being a sinister plot.
If the hon. member wants to look at some authority, he should look to Premier Lougheed. Mr. Lougheed is now going around Alberta saying that kind of thing in response to the
May 21, 1982_____________ COMMONS DEBATES
Western Canada Concept, the separatist rhetoric in Alberta and other parts of western Canada. It strikes me as rather strange that the member for the riding of Ontario would be using western separatist arguments to try to discredit a piece of legislation which has holes in it. You do not do that by resorting to some kind of nincompoop argument that does not hold water, even with prominent Conservatives in Canada such as the Premiers of Alberta and Prince Edward Island.
My good friend from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) muttered a second ago that this legislation goes beyond the wildest dream of Socialist International. Certainly it goes beyond the dream of Socialist International because democratic socialist parties are democratic. We want to have open government. We want government to be accountable to the people. We want to bring government closer to the people so that people can have a say about what happens in their lives. He said there is a socialist thread. I do not see a socialist thread. I see a Conservative thread. This legislation is basically set up for the contractors, the Campeaus of the world, the big boys, the big corporations.
My friend from Spadina (Mr. Heap) said to me privately a few minutes ago that, if anything, this bill is set up for the contractors, the big boys; it is very Conservative. If you look around the country and talk about centralized bureaucracy, I know of no province in this country with a bigger bureaucracy than Billy Davis in Ontario. He has a huge bureaucracy. Peter Lougheed has a huge bureaucracy.
Maybe that is why the Conservative Party defeated us in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government had a lean, fit, fighting and trim bureaucracy and a balanced budget that started back in the days of Tommy Douglas. We had a party that came in and promised the moon, the stars, the sun, no gas tax, free phones for senior citizens, a four-lane trans-Canady highway, a mortgage of 13'A per cent, etc. How do you get the money? You will probably have a huge deficit. Bill Davis has a huge deficit and a huge bureaucracy. Therefore, it strikes me rather strange that when we have a bill that shows some of these Conservative tendencies of huge bureaucracies, deficits and so on, we have these kinds of distortionist arguments made by the Conservatve Party of Canada.
It strikes me as a strange that they would see this kind of bill as a terrible, radical measure when one of the most eminent and sincere members of that party, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), one of the more principled, forthright and honest members of that party, and he has been here for ten years, said, as reported in The Globe and Mail:
There is, Mr. Oberle says, no intellectual basis to his party's policy. Tories talk only to Tories and very, very seldom to outsiders. The average student in the average political science class could not tell you the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal.
The Conservatives' motto is "Don't offend anybody with policy or principle, and try to be all things to all people," but that's not working. For those who feel Joe Clark does not measure up to Pierre Trudeau, there is no alternative attraction in policies or principles.
Public Works Act
He goes on-and this is very interesting; it was pointed out in the House today by my good friend from Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
-"when you've got people all the way from Genghis Khan to Karl Marx, you cannot expect them all to stand up behind the leader and support him."
I wonder if my friend from Yukon is a Genghis Khan or Karl Marx.


Mark Willson Rose: "Erik the Red".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It strikes me as very strange, and belittling of the parliamentary process, when we hear the kinds of arguments we have heard today in light of the fact that the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are the same. One of their most prominent members, one of the people who will be in an important leadership role in the years to come, said they are the same in principle as the party across the way.
That was proved yesterday with our good friend, "jumping Jack Horner". He was one of the most famous Conservative MPs to sit in the House of Commons. He was a leading spokesman for that party. He was the transport critic of that party and the chairman of the transport committee of the House of Commons for that party. He made a run for the leadership of the Conservative Party. He might have been leader of that party, and perhaps even prime minister. The Liberal Party named Jack Horner chairman of the CNR.


Paul James Cosgrove: A great westerner.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is very hard to understand the song and dance we heard from the hon. member for Ontario. I do not at all think it was a reflection on the people of Ontario when he said today that this bill is dangerous because the government can now sell the Parliament buildings to Russia, lease them back from Russia and we will all be working in a communist hall.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Sounds like Bill Bennett.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It might sound like Bill Bennett. I am not sure, but I would not want to reflect on the Premier of British Columbia.


Mark Willson Rose: You wouldn't? I would.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think we should take this bill seriously. For that reason I am looking forward to our members on the committee putting questions at the committee stage and speaking about this bill later on around the theme of making sure Parliament makes the government more accountable and makes sure ministers across the way will not have as much power as they have today to govern by orders in council.
I cannot recall how many orders in council we have, but I know that compared with other parliamentary democracies we have literally thousands and thousands more orders in council.


Mr. Kelly:: Why?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not know why. Perhaps it is arrogance. Perhaps it is because we have a government which has been in power too long.
17702

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act


Norman Kelly: We waste time in this chamber.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hon. members opposite have forgotten that they are responsible to the people. They think they govern by divine right, and perhaps it is time the party across the way was booted out of this House and booted out of Canadian politics forever. I think it is a sign of arrogance, but no matter what signals hon. members opposite get, they go on appointing jumping Jack Horners and appointing Arthur Ericksons to build embassies in Washington against the recommendations-


Jean-Luc Pepin: How do they do it in Saskatchewan?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will have an opportunity very soon to rise and make a speech.


Norman Kelly: Answer his question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Of all ministers across the way the Minister of Transport knows of what I speak. A few years ago the Minister of Transport and John Robarts produced an excellent report about the future of our country and the unity of Canadians. They made many recommendations about bringing this country closer together and making sure that politicians and institutions are more accountable to the people of the country. That minister's ideas have been slammed down time and again by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). He is losing many battles in the cabinet and in the country. I wish him very well in trying to get the Prime Minister to come to his senses with respect to making this place a truly democratic parliamentary institution.
Our main concern is that we have more accountability and a strengthening of parliamentary committees so that we as the people's representatives can make sure that billions of taxpayers dollars are spent properly. We as parliamentarians should not be here just as a bunch of people screaming, hollering and bellowing; we should have some input and legislative power over the direction of the government.
I know these ideas are really radical to hon. members opposite and to my right, radical because they are democratic ideas, but 1 think those are the ideas which will keep our country together. I noted yesterday a Gallup poll result, reported in the Toronto Star, which showed that confidence in Canada in terms of keeping our great nation together and in terms of Canadian unity is at a 37-year low. Gallup asked the question: "Do you believe Canada will stay together or break up?" Some 27 per cent of Canadians said our country will break up. That signals a warning politicians should take seriously. We must do whatever we can to try to bring the government to the people. The government must reflect the wishes of ordinary people. I believe that the Canadians values of equality, sharing, democracy and liberty exist. 1 believe those values are felt by the overwhelming majority, and 1 believe it is time the Government of Canada recognized that and governed for the people. In its contracting and leasing of government buildings the government should be more democratic and allow us as Members of Parliament to have an input so that the institutions of Canada, including the Government
of Canada, could be a mirror and reflect the great people of this country.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak in favour of this bill on three grounds. First, 1 will touch briefly on the need, in general terms, for assuring that the Department of Public Works can enter into and continue to carry out the types of activities described in the bill. These activities are a general requirement in order to execute its mandate, and I think it is prudent to set out its powers to do these things on a clear and explicit basis.
[Translation}
I shall then discuss more specifically the major role played by one of these activities, namely the lease-purchase arrangements, in the National Capital Region in establishing four major federal complexes on a solid economic basis.

Third, I will refer to certain of the authorities set out in the bill in so far as they relate to the Rideau Centre project-of which all of us in the Ottawa region are certainly very proud- by way of example, as another demonstration of why the bill should be favourably considered in this chamber.
I think the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) has provided a good outline of the technical aspects of the bill, the legislative need for casting these departmental authorities in a statutory form and the background of Madam Speaker's ruling on vote word changes. Some of my colleagues will set out the desirability of making explicit the statutory authority of Public Works Canada to assist the new postal corporation in the administration of its property and premises. I will just add that I think the logic is clear for Public Works Canada to continue the real property services which it formerly provided to Canada's postal service when that agency was a department. Surely it is advantageous for Public Works Canada to continue these services rather than impose on the new Crown corporation the responsibility of immediately forming a large real estate management unit within the corporation. This is particularly true at a time when it has only just been formed and is more than fully occupied with upgrading postal delivery and with its labour-management relations concerns. If Canada Post were required immediately to assume management of its 2,000 buildings and 800 leases, this could obviously be an unnecessary diversion from its main task, unnecessary in the sense that Public Works Canada, as the long-time manager of these properties, already has in place this realty management capability and organization.
Certainly we have to say that Canada Post's prime objective at this point in time has to be the improvement of postal service, and it is well on the way to achieving that goal.
[ Translation]
I would now like to come back very briefly to the first subject I mentioned, namely the general need for the department of Public Works to obtain, through a clear, explicit and unequivocal mandate, the power to undertake and carry out
May 21, 1982

the various property activities covered in this bill. Without discussing each of them in detail, I would like to make a few comments. There has been a considerable evolution since the time when the Public Works Act was passed, some 114 years ago, Mr. Speaker. No major amendment has been made to this legislation since. Of course, there has been a general evolution, but the changes which have occurred in the last 15 or 20 years only in the area of commercial or office buildings have been quite simply revolutionary. These changes include rehabilitation of urban centres, rational development of large areas with shared-ownership, the need to protect through new legal instruments ownership rights for new complexes, as well as the control by the owners, the wish to regroup multiple use premises in these complexes, such as offices, retail outlets, housing units and recreational facilities. These changes finally include the undertaking of marketing studies by promoters.
Because of the needs of the federal government for office accommodation, much of it in downtown and commercial areas, Public Works Canada is thrown squarely into the midst of a great variety of real estate activities which were never contemplated by the drafters of the department's statutes over a hundred years ago. It is not surprising, therefore, that many activities, now necessary for its mandate, are not explicitly provided in the legislation. We on this side want to ensure that these activities, even if not specifically precluded by the current legal provisions, are clearly authorized and set out in the legislation.
Having said that, let me illustrate the importance of using these new development techniques for the Department of Public Works and show how their use has already produced substantial measurable benefits. I refer to the four lease-purchase buildings in the National Capital Region: Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, L'Esplanade Laurier, the C.D. Howe Building on Sparks Street, and Place du Centre.
I will not go into detail on the principles of lease-purchase, its structure and its place in the spectrum of real estate development tools. I will leave that to my colleagues on this side.
Rather, I would like to focus briefly on these four cases. Part of my interest in them, like that of a number of other hon. members, goes back about five years when these projects and the method of lease-purchase received a great deal of attention in this chamber and also in the other place. There was much debate about these projects and their economy, as a method of providing federal office accommodation.

I recall that the debates were then rather stormy, and this, for several reasons. One of these reasons was that those buildings or complexes had not yet been operated long enough to make a proper assessment of their economic trend and their annual cost per square metre. Given the lack of sufficient data, doubts could only worsen because when the doors were thrown
Public Works Act
open these buildings did in fact cost more than if comparable "A" category accommodation had been leased through the conventional leasing procedure. Mr. Speaker, such was the situation a number of years ago. Nowadays the volume of evidence at our disposal is much more significant, based as it is on actual events drawn from the practical experience gained by Public Works Canada in the management and the actual costs of those buildings or complexes. It is important to compare those costs with the rates which Public Works must pay for accommodation leased in the usual manner, rates that have been recently under review. In 1981-82, the average cost of the four buildings or complexes built under the hire-purchase formula was $134 per square metre, whereas similar accommodation on the market can be leased for about $200 per square metre. If we apply the average savings per square metre to the total floor area of the four buildings or complexes, we find out that the annual savings amount to $23 million, Mr. Speaker.

I was glad, Mr. Speaker, to learn of this, because I was personally a bit uncertain about the merits of the lease-purchase system five years ago when we discussed this matter here at some length. Much of the confusion then, as I said before, arose from the fact that the initial couple of years under a lease-purchase were generally more expensive than the conventional lease market in the Ottawa-Hull region. I understand that the reason for this is that the cost structure of lease-purchase is more akin to ownership, and ownership costs are more expensive in the initial years but are cheaper in the long run, compared to leasing.

My third point is the Rideau Centre project, because it is a clear example of the complex aspects of present day real estate planning in general terms, and more specifically, of the participation of Public Works Canada in complex development projects. In fact, it demonstrates that the present act does not, but should, authorize Public Works Canada to operate in such situations. Mr. Speaker, I suppose a great many members of this House are well acquainted with this interesting and important project. However, it might be useful if I gave a brief overview of the project's background, structure and present situation.

You do not have to be an urban planner, or a retail market analyst to see that the central core of the Rideau Street area is badly in need of redevelopment. All you need to do is to have a look. This has long been recognized, since the early 1960s, going back to the study by John B. Parkin, the distinguished Toronto architect. This is the eastern downtown core, bounded on the west by the Chateau Laurier and the National Conference Centre, and it had been going downhill for probably a generation-a fate it has shared with many downtown core areas around the world.

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
For those who would require economic and statistical support for the evidence before their eyes, I have retail sales figures which demonstrate this trend in sharp terms. They show that since 1966, the downtown Rideau Street area's share of regional retail merchandise trade has declined steadily from 21 per cent 15 years ago to approximately 10 per cent today. This 50 per cent decline in the area's share of trade, needless to say, is reflected in the general lack of prosperity of the area, which in turn affects rental income, levels of maintenance, upkeep and so on, in a cycle of gradual deterioration over the years. The causes of this decline lie partly in the North American suburban migration of the last 20 to 30 years and the advent of shopping centres. There were 16 new major shopping centres built in the National Capital Region since 1971. The relocation of the Ottawa Union Station to Alta Vista also deprived the area of important trade.

Planning for the Rideau Centre took a number of years because of the scope and complexity of the project and the need to obtain the co-operation of various representatives of the public and private sectors. From the time cabinet approved the conceptual plan in 1973 until construction started last summer, eight years had passed, eight long years during which the project was sailing on very rough seas, appearing to be at times completely out of reach and at times a reality with a tremendous potential. From the very outset I have supported and promoted this project, and it was with great satisfaction and a sense of relief that 1 saw the concrete realization of this long process, when construction finally got under way last summer. The Rideau Centre is undeniably one of the most important projects undertaken in Ottawa since the war.
It will consist of four major elements, the first one being a 500-room hotel to be built and operated by Western International Hotels. The second element is a 250,000 square foot department store by Eaton's; the third, ancillary retail space totalling approximately 400,000 square feet; and the fourth major component is a full service convention centre, with a capacity of 4,000 people, to be built by the city of Ottawa. In addition to these main features, there will be a vast array of malls, pedestrian accesses, underpasses and bridges, parking garages and landscaped open areas and gardens.
If the physical scope and dimensions of the project are impressive, then the complex structuring of the over-all transaction is perhaps even more remarkable, that is, the order and disposition of the large array of interests and participants, both private and public, and the blending of retail and hostelry expertise, financial power and federal leadership.

I feel that it is necessary to stress the leadership role played by the federal government. It is, in fact, a federal project and has been since the very beginning, from the planning stage until its implementation. Public Works Canada and the
National Capital Commission, who orchestrated the project since the beginning, are to be warmly praised for their work. As planning progressed, co-operation between the various levels of government, namely federal, provincial and municipal, proved to be a vital factor. Essential to the project and the initiative taken by the federal government was the innovative use Public Works Canada has made of twelve acres of property it owned in the area, the department acting as a catalyst to bring about the participation of all parties concerned in creating this vast integrated complex. The property in question was transferred to the principal promoter, Viking Rideau, Eaton's real estate branch, and to the municipal government of Ottawa and the regional municipality, for the purpose of carrying out the project.

In addition, it was necessary for the Department of Public Works to contribute to the project its share of the cost of infrastruture improvements. Since the land on which the infrastructure was to be built had already been transferred to the developer, the Public Works contribution was in relation to improvements to the property of others. Because the statute does not explicitly provide for such expenditures by Public Works, the amendments contained in Section 1 are designed to ensure that they are specifically authorized.

As far as economic benefits are concerned, at the construction stage the project will create 2,000 person-years of direct employment in addition to 1,000 person-years of indirect employment, which is greatly needed by the Ottawa area. As I said before, the project will revitalize the downtown core, since the central section of Rideau Street is expected to recoup most of the losses it suffered in retail sales. But more important still, the project will create a vital and dynamic downtown core.

I have described this project in some detail for two reasons. First, it illustrates the complexity of contemporary real estate development and shows the necessary involvement by Public Works in such complex projects. More particularly, it illustrates the necessity of ensuring, in an explicit way, that Public Works has the statutory authority to participate in such projects. Section 1 of Bill C-91 as it now stands does not give explicit authority to the Department of Public Works to provide its share of the federal contribution to the project. This amendment is required in order to set out such authority clearly.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that hon. members consider this bill favourably and expeditiously. Delay is clearly our enemy in relation to such important projects as Rideau Centre.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this afternoon on Bill C-91, an act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. The bill is very small, some four pages, so there is
May 21, 1982

no excuse whatsoever for members not to have had the time to read it. However, after doing so 1 could not help but be appalled at the horrendous power which this bill seeks to transfer to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove). For example, in Clause 3 we see these words:
"(3) The Minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, incur expenditures or perform, or have performed, services or work in relation to
(a)	properties belonging to Canada of which he does not have the management, charge or direction; or
(b)	properties not belonging to Canada."
What a colossal fraud this bill hopes to perpetrate on the people of Canada! The government is now seeking authority to sell or lease any property, whether or not the government owns it and whether or not it is required for public purposes. This action reminds me of my air cadet training days when one of the men in our squadron had difficulty in landing without damaging the wheels or the tips of the airplane. On being reprimanded by our instructor, he replied, "Thank you, sir, but I am not worried. I do not own it and I am not going to buy it." That is about the way it is with this government in this bill. We do not own the property, we are not going to buy it, but we are going to claim the right to sell it.
My own concern is not so much with sales and lease-backs per se, but rather with the blanket authority granted in this bill to sell any land. It has already been said this afternoon what a horror story scenario that is. While the possibility of selling all the government property and any private property they fancy to foreign investors and then renting it back is highly unlikely to occur, in my opinion there still remains the need for parliamentary control. Unfortunately, this bill, if passed as it stands, is completely devoid of any parliamentary control. I say this because in Clause 2 it says that Section 39 of the act is replaced and the following substituted:
Notwithstanding anything in this act or in any other act, any public work may be sold or leased, under the authority of the governor in council, and the proceeds of such sale or lease shall be accounted for as public moneys; but such public work shall be so sold or leased by tender or at auction after public advertisement, unless it is otherwise authorized by the governor in council."
1 want this House and the people of Canada to know that in one brief paragraph the words "governor in council are repeated not once but twice. There is no mention in what I just read of the Parliament of Canada. Oh, no, it is simply the governor in council. I submit to you, sir, that this is simply too much power to place in the hands of one minister of any government. But then orders in council are, of course, the golden rule of this Liberal regime. For those Canadians not familiar with the term, an order in council is a device used by cabinet to approve certain regulations without subjecting the rule changes and new appointments to public debate. This device, if used properly and responsibly, can make the operations of government much more efficient. However, if it is used irresponsibly, the order in council method of government, I submit, can wreak havoc on parliamentary democracy. Three recent examples of improper orders in council usage are the VIA Rail cutbacks, the conversion to the metric system of measurement and the emergency planning order. These orders
Public Works Act
in council, unilateral government actions, have caused substantial public resentment and even anger. But since they were implemented through order in council, neither the public nor Members of Parliament had any recourse. 1 submit this is most important. People have no way of making their case at a public hearing or through parliamentary debate. The only way the government actions can be challenged is through the courts.
In my opinion, Canadians did not vote for a government that requires them, if they wish their views heard, to sue that government in a court of law. This would not be necessary if this government had any respect whatever for parliament and its members who are the people's representatives. However, this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues have shown and are still showing a contempt for Parliament through the excessive use of orders in council. This has already been referred to this afternoon. 1 checked on this matter and I found that in the years under the present right hon. Prime Minister's administration, there were 39,048 orders in council passed. Just let me repeat that number, 39,048 orders in council, which is an average of 3,254 a year.
1 say to the people in Canada, through you, sir, that Canadians should be wary of any government that abuses Parliament by misusing the order in council. But then we must remember that it was the present Prime Minister who held this entire institution up to ridicule when he said, referring to members of the opposition, "When they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer hon. members; they are just nobodies." 1 remind the Prime Minister of the words, "If you want to be respected, you must show respect." Unfortunately, his fuddle-duddle statements and his pirouettes in high places over the years would indicate that respect for anything is not his long suit.
And speaking of arbitrary rulings, 1 am pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his seat this afternoon, I received only yesterday another disheartening piece of news from the Department of Transport. It indicated that 136.60 miles of CNR tracks will not be used after August 1 to provide service between Liverpool and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. Obviously, no consideration has been given by this government to the enterprises and employment opportunities of the citizens along the south shore of Nova Scotia who will be affected by this retrograde, reprehensible action, and I must protest the destruction of the CNR service in my riding in the loudest possible voice. However, we have no recourse. It is an action that has been taken by the Canadian Transport Commission, obviously with the agreement of the minister. This government cares only about the people of Nova Scotia when their members are down there seeking votes. But now, picture if you will, an entire area from Liverpool, Queen's County, to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia with absolutely no rail service. This is frightening. For the life of me I cannot understand what those people and the industries affected will do. In that particular area there is a tremendous amount of heavy industry which requires the use of flat cars and the CNR service.

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
Let me return to the bill. As I read it, I cannot help but note that it will provide the government with authority to perform works on property not even owned by the government. What does this power do to the rights of private citizens? Is there any haven left where the average Canadian can stand and say, Though a large part of my earnings and savings have been taxed away by this government, at least my home and this land upon which I stand is mine"? The answer is it is not any more, Mr. Speaker, not if this bill is passed. If you doubt that statement, I will put on the record the explanatory note covering Clause 1 of the bill, which reads:
This amendment would empower the Minister of Public Works to be involved with properties belonging to Canada of which he does not have the management, charge or direction, and also with properties not belonging to Canada.
Many Canadians own property which, I submit, does not belong to the Government of Canada. As to the passing of this bill, their title to land will be as fragile as the fog which sometimes surrounds my native province of Nova Scotia. Speaking of Nova Scotia, where is the Minister of Public Works? I note that, unfortunately, he has had to leave.


Mr. Cullen:: He left temporarily.


David P. Smith: He is lucky.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member over there says he is lucky, Mr. Speaker. I suppose it is a joke. He is laughing, sitting in his seat. Is it a joke that two years ago this September a fire destroyed a wharf in Riverport, Nova Scotia, the only place where the big fishing fleet can land its fish? This government has been dilatory in taking any action to rebuild it. That is a joke to that member over there. It is a joke to all the Liberals over there because they have taken absolutely no action to make the repairs and to recognize the needs of those people. That is a joke to them.


David P. Smith: Keep your blood pressure down.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My blood pressure is fine and it is under control. But I tell the hon. member not to sit there and make interjections from his seat when I am speaking. I do not even interrupt him, and I ask him not to interrupt me at any time because I will not tolerate it.


Paul James Cosgrove: What about your party?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I do not interrupt any member when he is speaking. My record stands for 25 years. I am glad the Minister of Public Works has come back because I want to ask him, since he is responsible, when he is going to take action to build a federal public building in the town of Bridgewater, a building that was promised by the Hon. George Mcllraith in 1968. He is now a senator, but he promised that building when he was minister of public works in this House.


Norman Kelly: Spend, spend, spend.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He promised that to me in writing in 1968. We on the south shore know the meaning of Liberal eternity. I notice the hon. member on the other side is enjoying himself and he is interjecting again. I say to him, do not do it. It is not acceptable in the House of Commons. The hon. member
should learn some gentlemanly tactics and not be so rude. I am sorry, I will not name him but he knows very well to whom I refer.
I hope the Minister of Public Works will take my request seriously and take some action on a promise that has been delayed for 14 years. We have had no action for 14 years.
Generally, the powers of the federal government relating to the ownership of property are controlled by the heads of powers set forth in Section 91 of the constitution act of 1867, formerly known as the British North America Act. For example, the federal government, in the exercise of its power over navigation and shipping, something with which I am quite familiar, having operated a fleet of three deep-sea ships for 20 years. Under Section 91(10) could expropriate property in order to permit the erection of works for navigational purposes. It would seem to me that any federal ownership of land would have to be justified in relation to some head of federal power. If, therefore, the federal power to deal with land is limited to the subject headings in Section 91 of the constitution act of 1867, then the powers which are to be exercised under Clause 1 of Bill C-91 should also be limited by the subject headings of Section 91. However, as it is arguable that there may be a general federal land holding power unrelated to any of the subject headings in Section 91, it is possible that under this section the federal government would attempt to find the authority to make expenditures outside of the field of federal power, and by so doing possibly encroach on the provincial land-holding powers.
The powers given to the minister under Clause 1 seem to have no set criteria for their exercise. The decision of the minister is an arbitrary one and could have either a positive or negative effect upon properties not belonging to Canada. Because of the fact that it is a discretionary power, the property owner who would be the recipient of the services or work has no opportunity at all to contest the exercise of this power, and he has no forum in which to register a grievance. Furthermore, as no hearing is required, no complaint of the denial of natural justice can be made. This would seem to place a severe limitation upon the rights of the private property owner. His right of ownership could be interfered with in a negative fashion by the minister, and the owner has no recourse to a hearing under the amendments in question. This is considerably different from the case of the Crown interfering with ownership rights under the Expropriation Act. Under the Expropriation Act a public hearing may be requested by any person objecting to the intended expropriation, and the minister is under an obligation to order a hearing into the nature of the objection.
The implementation of this clause of Bill C-91 is an attempt-I do not want to impute motives-to circumvent the long proceedings required under the Expropriation Act, so that the minister may do as he wishes with a piece of property
May 21, 1982

which is privately owned, without the necessity of complying with the provisions of the Expropriation Act. It is also important to consider whether the newly-enacted Charter of Rights and Freedoms would have any effect upon this proposed legislation. There is nothing specific in the charter about the right to own property. However, Section 26 reads:
The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
If it is interpreted that the right to own property is a right which existed in Canada at the time of the adoption of the charter, I suppose it could be argued, therefore, that that right is protected.
The problem which the non-inclusion of property rights in the charter creates is that anyone suffering as a result of the infringement of these rights would not have the opportunity to utilize the enforcement section, Section 24 of the charter, or have the benefit of the courts interpreting the new law in accordance with Section 1 of the charter, which reads as follows:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
If property rights were specifically set out in the charter, the courts would then have to consider whether Clause 1 of Bill C-91, which gives the minister unlimited discretionary authority, is a reasonable limitation upon the right to hold property. At present, the only way in which property can be disposed of under the Public Works Act or under the Public Lands Grants Act is for the governor in council to declare that the public work or the public land is no longer required for public purposes. There are no criteria, as far as I can determine, as to how the determination will be made and under what circumstances property which is still required for public purposes will be disposed of.
Again, this is in direct contrast to the lengthy justification procedure to which the federal government is subjected if it desires to expropriate property for public purposes. The two major methods by which the government acquires property are through outright purchase and through expropriation. It seems unbelievable that the government should have to prove the necessity of acquisition for a public purpose after having made the acquisition through expropriation and then be entitled to dispose of the property, even though it may still be needed for public purposes, simply through a ministerial order.
On the information which is available to me and to the House at the present time, it is extremely difficult to determine the purpose of this particular bill. From what I have already stated, it is obvious that there are many matters contained in it which really deserve very, very close scrutiny. As I have stated, Clause 1 could be viewed as an invasion of provincial powers in relation to property and civil rights. There is absolutely no criterion in the exercise of the power contained in Clause 1 of the bill. Under this clause the minister can act in a total arbitrary fashion, as he is exercising a highly questionable discretionary power and there is no forum provided for the hearing of any objections which are made to the
Public Works Act
exercise of that power. If there is to be a forum in which a person aggrieved by the exercise of power as contained in either Clause 2 or Clause 3 of the bill may be heard, it would seem that the final authority for the exercise of that power should at least be given to Parliament. The people's representatives should have some say. It should not be done by order in council.
Perhaps the problems related to the bill could best be resolved by the establishment of a standing committee which could then examine and make recommendations concerning the exercise of power by the minister under the act. When Canadians realize the power the government is seeking through the passage of the bill, I personally feel certain that any confidence they may have left in Canada after the disastrous effects of the National Energy Program and F1RA will be wholly and totally shattered. Let us face it-the recession which led to the present depression has been triggered and intensified by a succession of federal measures and, to a lesser extent, by the provincial responses they evoked. Of course the breaking point came with the National Energy Program. When I hear the soothsayers of government attribute the present depression to the collective downturn of the business cycle in the developed countries of the world or, as we hear day in and day out, attribute it to high United States interest rates,
I ask why they ignore the dominant role of energy among our natural resources.
Before the government brought in its National Energy Program, the strongly rising volume of investment in gas and oil exploration and development had been driving our whole economy forward. Every dollar invested by the petroleum industry multiplied two or three times through the economy in purchase of equipment and of services. Since the National Energy Program, the industry's investment in Canada has been drastically reduced by 30 per cent or 40 per cent through 1981 and by at least that much again this year. These are now unrecoverable funds which have either been committed outside Canada or absorbed by government.
For the better part of the last ten years the government has been reaching out to capture key elements in our economy and to transform them into Crown corporations for implementing its vision of what 1 call the "corporate state", a country in which political authority is ensured by control over investment and production. Of course in another way this is what is happening under Bill C-91. It is putting further power and control into the hands of a limited number of people-the executive and, in this instance, the Minister of Public Works.
If one wants to see an example of the corporate state toward which the government is working, one has only to look back to Mussolini's Italy of the late 1920s and 1930s. I should not have to remind the House of what happened to the individual rights and freedoms of those unfortunate people, but today we can consider what the confiscatory policies of government have so far cost us in forfeited economic growth. In the 25 years until 1971 Canada had an average annual real growth in gross national product of 5 per cent. We were the envy of all western

May 21, 1982
Public Works Act
nations, with the possible exception of West Germany and Japan which at that time were rebuilding their economies. Canadian growth during those 25 years was achieved with an inflation rate measured by the consumer price index of an average 3.3 per cent per year. Unemployment, in spite of four recessions, averaged only about 4.3 per cent.
In the 1970s, as the numbed and befuddled hands of government extended deeper into our economy, average annual growth began to decline. During the last five years real growth has averaged only 2 per cent. As growth has slowed, inflation and its shipmate-a term we use in Nova Scotia-unemployment, has increased. In the last five years inflation averaged 10 per cent. It reached 12.5 percent in 1981.
In the last five years unemployment averaged something like 8 per cent. Today it stands at around 9 per cent, with approximately 1 'A million Canadians unemployed. The number is rising daily.
Many explanations for Canada's fading economic performance were given throughout the 1970s. The most persuasive was that the economy, having passed through its development phase, has now reached maturity and that policy emphasis should be put on redistribution of wealth rather than on creation of new wealth. In other words, instead of making more pies this government has been busy cutting the pie we have in ever smaller pieces.
Some credence was given to this concept by the impact of rising oil prices and the desperate vision of a world rapidly exhausting its oil reserves. What was completely ignored, at least by this government, was the greatly enhanced economic value such a vision imparted to Canada's own resources of oil and gas. In fact, growth was slowed by other clearly recognizable and acceptable developments. One of these was the growing rift in confederation and the enforced reduction of first private and then government investment in an effort to bridge them. In my opinion, if investment had been free to flow to where it would have attained the maximum return, the benefits to all parts of the country could have been greater than the costs since incurred by present government policy. The government has not learned. It still brings in bills such as the ones we are debating today. As I say, these are bills which seek even more power. Instead of realizing that centralization, confiscation, controls and bills such as C-91 are destroying confidence in our economy, our Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) daily blames high American interest rates for Canada's depression. I sometimes sit here and wonder if the Minister of Finance actually believes what he is saying, or are his statements comparable to those he made in the last election when he said, as he campaigned throughout Nova Scotia, "Vote Liberal. You will not have to pay the Tory 18 cents per gallon on gasoline." Well, I suppose this was the Liberal way of telling the truth. What he really meant was that the 18 cents which we proposed in the Crosbie budget was too little. What he really meant to say was, "Vote for us and once we get back in power we will lay it to you to the tune of 75 cents a
gallon or more." That is what we are paying today. That is the Liberal way of deceit and deception in order to get back into power.
Just for the record, Canadian interest rates had stopped well short of the high American rates during the early changes in American policy. But that was before the National Energy Program diverted foreign investment away from Canada and domestic investment fled this country.
The introduction of the National Energy Program in the budget of 1980, followed by the fuddle-duddle method of closing loopholes in the budget of 1981, did more than simply cause investment to flee from Canada. It strengthened this government's control over the uses to which any remaining investment funds could be applied.
However, none of this was mentioned by the Minister of Finance when he was raking the Reagan administration's economic policies over the coals when he addressed the Conference Board in New York. Like the mother watching her son in the army marching past, "everyone seems to be out of step but my Allan." It was quite all right for our Minister of Finance to go down across the border and raise Cain and condemn the Americans, but he was incensed when an American diplomat tried to put his views on the record as they applied to Canada's economy. It is all right for us to go down there but we do not want to have them coming up here to say how we should run our country. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
In the opinion of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the rest of the Liberal cabinet, they are right to pursue the policies of a corporate socialist state but, in their view, the rest of the world is entirely wrong if it does not try to help.
The emerging of the American economy from its recessions used to be the springboard for Canada's recovery. The United States is Canada's best market for our resources. Strengthening demand in the United States translates into new employment opportunities for our forest, mining and fishing industries whose products still constitute the largest proportion of our exports. However, I submit that strengthening American demands will not be enough this time to restore growth in our Canadian economy. What is needed are infusions of new capital in order to provide for new plant expansions, new machinery and new ships which are the sinews of development.
It is something with which our people can work, and that is what is required.
Where will this capital come from? It certainly will not come from Canadian corporations. Those which can still afford to do so are diverting their capital into the United States. Others cannot divert their capital because they no longer have any reserves. Taxes and inflation have taken too heavy a toll.
Every day this government is looking to the United States recovery to initiate our own. The government forgets that the
May 21, 1982

channels through which renewed American growth are diverted into Canada have since been blocked by the Foreign Investment Review Act and by new ownership provisions. More than anything else, this depression in Canada was brought on by the constant and continuing extension of federal intervention by this government in the Canadian economy. The depression is now becoming the justification for still more intervention, still more intrusions and still more involvement by the government under terms such as those we see before us today in Bill C-91.
In conclusion, 1 cannot support this bill for the reasons I have given. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that neither can my colleagues support it. At this stage I can only express the hope that my views will be given serious consideration and that this government will give serious consideration to withdrawing this particular bill, because if it is implemented it could be one of the final blows to one of our basic freedoms, namely the inalienable right to all Canadians to own property in this country.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair is obviously in the hands of the House. If it is the intent of the House to call it four o'clock, we should ascertain whether the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is calling it four o'clock with the intention of continuing his remarks.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, Mr. Speaker, I have finished my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps the Chair could extend the courtesy to the hon. member whom I see rising of recognizing him. Perhaps if I recognized the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), that will be indicative of the fact that he will have the floor on the next occasion.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from May 2, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benjamin:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing the Hall commission report, including major recommendations, to increase use of ports at Churchill and Prince Rupert, guarantee the Crow rate to the farmer, extend the Crow rate to the processed equivalent of raw materials, pay the railways directly for their losses, make the railways fix up their tracks and buy hopper cars, and give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) had the floor, but since he is
Transportation of Grain
not present, the Chair will look to such other hon. members who wish to speak.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the debate being resumed today from May 2, 1980, calls upon the government to consider the advisability of implementing the Hall commission report, including major recommendations, to increase use of ports at Churchill and Prince Rupert, guarantee the Crow rate to the farmer, extend the Crow rate to the processed equivalent of raw materials, pay the railways directly for their losses, make the railways fix up their tracks and buy hopper cars, and give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement.
As I said, the debate was begun more than two years ago. It is a simple motion calling on the government to implement the findings of the Hall report. As hon. members will recall, that report was written after one of the most extensive reviews of the grain-handling and transportation system in western Canada. It was prepared by former chief justice Emmett Hall, a man who has the respect and trust of Canadians across this country. This study more than any other previous study managed to tap the real needs and aspirations of users of the transportation and grain-handling system in western Canada. His recommendations are the most straightforward and realistic of any contained in the many reports and studies done before and since.
In reviewing what he said and what has gone on in the past few years, we note, as stated at the beginning of the motion, that some dredging has been carried out in the Port of Churchill. CNR tell us that within the next year the track will be upgraded to 100 pounds per foot rail. The problem of permafrost, which has always been a problem with the line to Churchill, is being studied. They think they may have some solutions and they propose to implement them within the next year or two.
In the interval since this debate began, there have been some developments at Prince Rupert. A site is being prepared at Ridley Island. We are presently awaiting the final decision of the consortium of grain companies which is proposing to add terminal space at that site. The Hall report recommended increasing the capacity at Prince Rupert to six million bushels of storage space so that it could become the second large grain port on the west coast.
The grain port at Prince Rupert is accessible throughout the year. It is fairly easy to get to that port which is at the end of the railway line. The mountain passes there have fewer snow slides. The weather permits year-round rail traffic service into Prince Rupert.
Some moves have been made with regard to building a tunnel through the Rogers Pass. Here is where we begin to see the difference between what Hall proposed and what this party supports and the approach that this government and the Tories before them appear to be taking.

May 21, 1982
Transportation of Grain
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) pretends that the New Democratic Party is reactionary when it comes to transportation and grain movement in western Canada. 1 want to compare what he is proposing and now doing with what we propose, and the listener can decide which is reactionary and which is forward thinking.
We agree with Hall that an electrification process should be carried out on 10,000 miles of mainline trackage in western Canada, particularly through the mountains. There are a number of reasons for this. We are in an era of fuel shortages. Petroleum fuel is in short supply. Electricity could be generated from the waters in the mountains of British Columbia. The surplus there could be used to power trains.
The advantages of electric trains for mountain transportation are fairly numerous. The mode of power would be lighter. It would reduce the amount of energy required to move a unit up a grade. The generators and fuel would not be part of the engine and the train unit. The fuel is water or other forms of generating electricity, and the generator would be located elsewhere. The electricity is transferred to motors on what are now diesel units.
Another reason for using electric power, especially in mountain work, is that the unit travelling through the passes would be lighter. In places where they have been used, it has been proved that the speed increases by up to 50 per cent. Instead of a unit travelling at 20 miles an hour through a mountain pass, an electric unit could travel at 30 miles an hour.
By using electricity, it would be possible to gain a benefit on the downgrade. The force of the train going down the grade could be recycled through the drive motors of the engine. Reversing an electric motor makes it into a generator. It could be used to pump power back into the system to be used when going uphill. Approximately 40 per cent of the power requirement could be recovered by that method and result in further savings.
There is maybe an even more important benefit when it comes to the digging of long tunnels through mountain passes, something that we are now in the process of doing. The use of electric trains would do away with the problem of ventilating diesel fumes. A tunnel nine, ten or 12 miles long requires a very expensive ventilating system. This is necessary for the survival of the train crew. The system being put in the Rogers Pass requires a large ventilator stack. The most logical place for that stack cuts off the view of Rogers Pass from the highway. A stack will be in the way.
This ventilating system will require a continuously operating 11,000 horsepower fan, which will require more power than is required to move a train through that tunnel. In order to ventilate the tunnel, it will require a great amount of energy. This could have been avoided by a more sensible, forward, modern approach of electrifying the trains on the mainline through the mountain passes.
Instead of taking a progressive, modernistic kind of approach, the government has opted for a neo-capitalist approach. It intends to go back to the old days, making the current technology limp along for a few more years.
The railways have been insisting on a cost formula which Hall found quite unacceptable. They have been insisting on a recovery of costs which will give them many times the current Crow rate, and in some cases the figures which have been generated would even exceed the current so-called competitive rate.
As Hall said in his report, we are also saying that any public funds pumped into the railways should be accounted for as part of the public contribution. That seems to be fairly straightforward and to make ultimate common sense, but that is not the route the department and the government seem to be following when they put forward their cost survey and cost formula.
We note that branch line rehabilitation has continued. The purchase of hopper cars by provincial governments, farmers and the federal government has continued, and we note with some pleasure that the switch to hopper cars will increase rail capacity by about 40 per cent. The limiting factor on current trains is not the amount of weight transferred but, more properly, the number of cars being pulled. If we can put 40 per cent more grain or any other commodity on a car, we are increasing the total capacity of the train. The move to hopper cars and the enhanced ability of branch lines to handle those hopper cars will increase grain hauling capacity by 40 per cent. We are saying that on top of that we could add another 50 per cent to the rate of rail movement by electrifying the trains.
We note that there has been a lot of delay in the progress of implementing the Hall recommendations. The government has chosen not to implement a subsidy program so that the railways can cover the so-called losses they are encountering. There has not been a policy to consider as equity financing the public funds which have gone to the railways. They are always considered by the railways as just gifts from the government. The people of Canada have contributed money to the railways to enable them to build up their hopper car fleets, to improve their locomotives a number of years ago, to rebuild branch lines, to build tunnels through the mountains and to upgrade the track in that area of the country. At no time have the railways considered that as equity financing, but we think that would make very good sense. We think it is a progressive idea for those government funds to be considered as equity financing so that when dividends are declared, those funds become part of company dividends, and the country receives financial benefits. In addition, the country would have more influence on the boards of directors of the railways, particularly the CPR, of which we have little control now.
In spite of the moves which have been made on the Crow rate over the past winter and the implementation and setting up of the Gilson inquiry-I suppose we could call it a process-and in spite of the leaks which have come out of that process which indicate that there will probably be a very vast change in the rate structure farmers in western Canada will have, if we can believe the news reports which came out of Saskatoon yesterday, implementation of the Hall report would
May 21, 1982

still be a progressive move for Canada's transportation and grain handling system.
In line with the motion presented by my friend, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), we say that Churchill upgrading should continue, that the storage capacity of Prince Rupert should be upgraded to six million bushels and that an increase in output by a multiplier of two to three should continue. We say that the branch line upgrading program should continue to be part of the system and that the hopper car fleet should be brought to its full complement of required cars. That process should be completed within the next three years if we continue to build 1,200 to 1,400 cars per year.
We also think that the Hall recommendation of developing the northern section of the railway system, particularly in northern Alberta and British Columbia, should go ahead. We particularly like the idea of electrification and the continuation of financing of the project, but on an equity basis so that the people of Canada who have done the financing will have some ultimate control over what happens to that financing.
As far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned, the main recommendation of the Hall report was to retain the Crow rate as it is. There will be a shortfall after the modernization of the railways is complete, but we must remember that modernization will make possible a 40 per cent increase in carrying capacity. Had the move to electrification been implemented, it would have increased by 50 per cent the volume of traffic moving through the mountains. The increase in efficiency would have been enormous had all of the recommendations of the Hall report been carried out.
Together with public financing, the increased efficiency which would have resulted had the recommendations in the Hall report been carried out would pretty well have covered the actual costs of moving grain. Instead, the government chose to go the old route, to stick with current technology and current economic thinking, which is simply to pass the costs on to the consumer, and to pay no attention to increased efficiency and reduced cost but, instead, to add the costs on to the charges the producer must pay. We think that is unfortunate. We still say it is not too late. The government still has time to implement the Hall report. Today we call on the government again to do so. We ask that the vote be taken immediately and that this motion be accepted by the House.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a very wide-ranging one which covers a number of issues concerning grain transportation and is important not just to western members but to all Canadians who are concerned about the economy in general. The motion also has implications for the Ontario manufacturing sector.
This particular motion was debated just over two years ago, and what I intend to do today is to demonstrate that some of the recommendations in that motion have already been acted upon.
In the past two years record volumes of grain have been moving to export, and this crop year gives every indication of being the best yet. Unfortunately, international prices are
Transportation of Grain
down, but volumes are currently running significantly higher than at any time in the past. In recent weeks record unloads of cars have been achieved on the west coast. This is even more impressive, given that most cars now are the larger, more efficient hopper cars. Currently, export and domestic grain clearances from our principal ports are about 1.5 million tonnes above last year's levels. This is good news for the western farmer but also for the Canadian economy in general. So is the recent announcement by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat board of the largest long-term agreement for wheat sales ever entered into. This is with the People s Republic of China, and it is valued at over $2.25 billion at today's prices over the next three years. Some of these results are being achieved through the collaboration of all participants in the grain transporting and handling system. I am pleased to say that this spirit of co-operation is also being reflected in meetings that have been taking place in Winnipeg during the past several weeks on the Crowsnest Pass rate. It appears that progress is being made toward reaching an acceptable solution of the long-standing and vexing problem of the statutory rates. This will not be easy, but the framework in which the meetings are proceeding offers the potential for protecting the interests of producers and it also provides sufficient flexibility to reach a broad agreement.
There has been a lot of talk about guarantees at these meetings and there has been some criticism that the guarantees being offered favour the railways but not the producers. It may be useful, therefore, to look at those guarantees.
The government is prepared to offer the following guarantees to the producer. First, an expenditure of $3.2 billion related to the movement of grain for the four-year period 1982-86; second, a minimum $700 million branch line rehabilitation program begun in 1977 and continuing to 1986; third, a guaranteed rail line network of over 15,800 miles until the year 2,000; fourth, a legislated commitment to pay annually from 1986-87 an amount equal to the 1981-82 railway revenue shortfall for moving grain or about $600 million; fifth, to provide 11,280 Government of Canada hopper cars for the movement of grain and grain products; sixth, a basis in legislation for determining future rate increases; seventh, no variable rates unless sought and accepted in negotiations by producer representatives; eighth, specific railway performance and service guarantees negotiated by producer representatives related to grain transportation; and, finally, specific railway commitments related to investment programs to be undertaken to guarantee sufficient capacity to move grain to market.
This is a most impressive commitment and it clearly demonstrates that the government not only cares about the interests of the western producer but is prepared to make real efforts to ensure that western Canada, and the nation as a whole, will have an efficient rail transportation system appropriate to its needs, and especially the very specific needs of getting grain to the coast.

May 21, 1982
Transportation of Grain
The announcement made on February 8, 1982, in Winnipeg by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) outlined a number of areas which this committee is charged with examining, including the future responsibility for paying grain transportation costs, the manner in which the government will spend its own contribution either to the railways or to the producers, the kinds of performance guarantees that should be sought from the railways and how they should be monitored, and the means whereby the economic distortions within the agricultural sector stemming from the statutory rates can be reduced.
The consultations are reaching a critical stage and I know that all members of the House will wish those involved well as they move toward achieving a just solution.
By implication the motion also referred to the branch line rehabilitation program insofar as the wording of the motion asks the government to "make the railways fix up their tracks". One of the most significant grain transportation programs is the branch line rehabilitation program. This ten-year program began in 1977-78 with a $30 million expenditure followed by allocations of $70 million per year until 1981. One of the concerns expressed at the time was that the work program only covered one year at a time and that this made it difficult to do sufficient planning.
Last year a multi-year work program was developed by departmental officials in consultation with the elevator companies and the railways. This should greatly facilitate advance ordering and preparation by the railways of ballast, ties, rail and other materials.
Last August the Minister of Transport announced that the government was prepared to enter into a three-year program of branch line rehabilitation work. Under this program the government has spent or will spend $77 million in 1981-82, $84.7 million in 1982-83 and $93.2 million in 1983-84.
The standard and quality of the rehabilitation work undertaken by the railways is being monitored in a number of ways. Under the direction of the Canadian Transport Commission, independent engineering consultants were engaged to review and inspect the work completed to 1980. The 1981 work program was also inspected and assessed under the guidance of the Canadian Transport Commission using both in-house and contracted engineering sources. The Department of Transport recently received a report it had commissioned from the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport of Queen's University. This study provides an assessment of operating and construction standards for the rehabilitation program. It found that the operating and construction specifications are for the most part appropriate for the lines involved but should be applied flexibly to account for local variations. This is in line with the findings of the CTC-engaged consultants and confirms that the work is being carried out to appropriate standards for the moneys involved.
In addition, a firm of auditors was engaged to carry out a comprehensive audit of the expenditures incurred under the first three agreements. This is now in the final completion stages.
When the present agreement terminates at the end of 198384, some 3,780 miles of line will have been worked on, of which 1,840 miles should be fully rehabilitated out of a total of 5,675 miles currently eligible under this program.
The motion also asks the government to buy hopper cars, and the hon. member who spoke ahead of me also referred to hopper cars. The government certainly supports this idea. During the seventies the Government of Canada purchased
8.000	hopper cars and it has a long-term lease on an additional
2.000	cars. These investments reflect the government's ongoing commitment to ensure that sufficient rolling stock is available to meet our growing export demands.
With the addition of 2,000 Canadian Wheat Board cars and
1.000	cars each provided by Alberta and Saskatchewan, there was an adequate supply of cars to meet requirements. However, with the growing volume of exports, and with normal wear and tear and aging, additional hopper cars will be required in the future. The office of the grain transportation co-ordinator assessed the need for additional hopper cars, and advised that an additional 1,280 cars should be purchased this year. These orders will be useful to the western grain producer, but will also give a needed boost to the car manufacturing industry in eastern Canada. It is expected that this order will create 2,250 jobs.
Another issue addressed during the past two years was that of abandoned railway rights of way. In 1977 the then Minister of Transport and the railways entered into a gifting agreement which transferred to the Crown the rights of way following the abandonment to that time of certain prairie branch lines. There are about 26,500 acres of land covered by the gifting agreement. In August, 1981, the Minister of Transport signed agreements with the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba transferring land to those provinces. Prior to the recent election in Saskatchewan an agreement appeared near, and one must hope that such an agreement could be signed with the new provincial government in the near future.
There was reference, Mr. Speaker, to the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert in the motion before us. The motion calls for increased use of these ports. The government's commitment to the Port of Churchill has been well demonstrated. Capital expenditure commitments of $20 million made for port development at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in 1973 have been fulfilled through two Crown corporations, the National Harbours Board and the Northern Transportation Company Limited. Grain branch line subsidies paid on the Churchill line between 1971 and 1980 amounted to $11.75 million. By the end of this railway construction season, approximately $21 million will have been spent on the CNR-Herchmer subdivision with a further $10 million committed to 1983 under the branch line rehabilitation program. CN is now determining the feasibility and costs of building the rail line to carry fully laden hopper cars, following completion of research into the particular problem of supporting a railway over discontinuous permafrost.

May 21, 1982
In utilizing the grain terminal in the Port of Churchill the Canadian Wheat Board is cognizant of its responsibility to producers to export grain in the most economic way possible. Exports through Churchill during its short shipping season present particular problems in grain assembly. The preference of the board's customers for type of grain and port of loading has to be respected in what is now a highly competitive world grain market. In recent years, with the exception of 1980, Chuchill has handled some 500,000 tonnes of grain annually. The Canadian Wheat Board's over-all export target for 198182 is 26 million tonnes, increasing to 30 million by 1985. Churchill should therefore at least hold its traditional grain tonnage. Every effort has been made to seek assurances from the Canadian Wheat Board's producer-elected advisory committee for the continuous support of Churchill through the export of grain. It appears essential, however, that other traded commodities should be handled through Churchill if the port is to become viable. Prairie provincial governments have been asked to encourage the movement of any traffic under their control through the port, for example, Saskatchewan potash and Alberta sulphur.
Turning to Prince Rupert, Ridley Island in the Port of Prince Rupert is being developed as a major ocean bulk commodity port, including a grain terminal. Three of four construction contracts let to date are completed. They were for waste disposal site containment dikes, a rail embankment test fill, and site clearing. The contract for site grading and rail embankments was awarded in August, 1981, and is scheduled to be completed by February, 1983. British Columbia and the Government of Canada, through DREE, are cost-sharing the construction of an access road scheduled for completion in June, 1982. Design of other infrastructure is being done by the National Harbours Board whose financial involvement in site development for the grain terminal is estimated at $37.3 million. The consortium of grain companies which will build and operate the terminal is now evaluating the construction contract bid.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, since this motion was last debated two years ago great progress has been made in the development and improvement of the grain transportation and handling system. The Government of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, the railways, elevator companies, grain handlers and producers together have performed extremely well over the past two years in producing, transporting and marketing Canadian grain. With the promise of higher prices the future looks bright indeed.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate and for that reason I would like to take this opportunity to refresh the memory of the House by reading the motion.


Dave Nickerson: You couldn't think of anything else to fill up the time with.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You have 22 minutes.


Norman Kelly: It reads:
Transportation of Grain
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing the Hall Commission Report, including major recommendations to increase use of ports at Churchill and Prince Rupert, guarantee the Crow rate for the farmer, extend the Crow rate to the processed equivalent of raw materials, pay the railways directly for their losses, make the railways fix up their tracks and buy hopper cars, and give the Canadian Wheat Board more power to control grain movement.


Dave Nickerson: Now read it in French.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, this omnibus motion has several interpretations. It could apply specifically to the Hall recommendation relating to the Crow, or it could apply to all the recommendations of the Hall commission. Let me assume the former for the purposes of this debate.
As you undoubtedly know, the Hall report has very little to say on the statutory rates: there is just over a page, found on pages 336 to 337 in Chapter 10, and four lines in summary on page 545. With such a small coverage, the actual conclusion is not clear. On page 336 of the report, it reads:
Regardless of what rate may be set for the transport of grain to export position that rate must be statutory not variable.
There is nothing in the February 8 announcement that would contradict this, although it is not clear if the whole interpretation of the term "variable rate" is the same as is used on the prairies today. I am sure the House could use the guidance of hon. members opposite to help us clear up that misinterpretation or differences of interpretation. On page 336, we find the following:
How the difference between the new rate and the Crowsnest Pass rate will be apportioned between the government and the producer is, of course, a matter for government decision. The Commission feels that the government must continue to subsidize the transportation of export grain and that the full cost, as deemed by the Commission on the Costs of Transporting Grain by Rail, must hot be imposed on the producer.
Again there is nothing in the February 8 announcement that would contradict this. It should be noted that the commission implies that the producer should pay more than he is paying at the moment. The government does differ from the Hall commission in one important respect, however, in that it has opened a dialogue with the producer for determining how the additional costs will be apportioned rather than impose them without consultation.
I would hope that last statement of mine would give the lie to some of the claims we have heard in earlier debates this afternoon by members opposite who accuse this government of ignoring the interests or the wishes of the electorate. This is an excellent example of how this government tries its very best in all issues to seek the guidance of the public and in particular of the interests affected by the decision before that decision is made.
On page 337 of the Hall report, it states:
The Commission recommends that the difference between the Crowsnest Rate and the rate determined through costs found by the commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail should be paid directly to the railway, and not to individual farmers.
17714___________________________
Transportation of Grain

May 21, 1982
Let me ask the hon. member who spoke this afternoon on behalf of the New Democratic Party and who asked us to implement the recommendations of the Hall report, is that a conclusion he would support? Is he asking us by implementing the Hall report, to pay the subsidy directly to the railway companies and not to the farmers? I would ask him, if this debate is reintroduced in the House at a later time, to clarify his position on what I think and others believe is the seminal issue of this re-evaluation and reshaping of the Crow.
If I may continue to quote the Hall report, it reads:
The very idea of sending out cheques to 160,000 farmers is appalling.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You have got it.


Norman Kelly: The hon. member says that I have got it. I assume then that the money should be paid directly to the railway and not to the farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Let the farmers set the rate.


Norman Kelly: I would point out that the west does not speak with one voice on that issue. There are others in the west who would disagree with the decision of the member opposite.
In an editorial which is found on the last page of the Alberta Report, written by Mr. Ted Byfield, who, I am sure, is as authentic a spokesman for the west as the hon. member opposite is, the author argues the very reverse. He argues that we should not be paying any money to the railways but we should be paying the money to the farmers. He believes that as adamantly as does the hon. member opposite believes in his argument. I quote now from the Alberta Report, dated May 10, 1982, as follows:
-Mr. Pepin could choose instead to pay the subsidy, not to the farmers, but to the railroads, requiring them as a condition to leave the old Crow rate in place and thus continue working the ravages it has wrought in the past. This, of course, might appear politically attractive. But it would remain economically calamitous.
1 have several other points on the Hall commission report. In an earlier section of the Hall report the statement quoted earlier from page 337 appears at variance with the suggestion that the producer should pay more to move his grain. Second, the question of payment to the railways or payment to individual farmers is again one that the government feels should be decided jointly with the producer, and this is another reason for establishing the Gilson process, the process I hope the hon. gentleman opposite will support whatever the conclusions might be.
We believe on this side of the House that potentially it is not a difficult task to send out cheques to a large number of people. It is not an option that we should disregard before the Gilson process has rendered its decision. We believe that because the Canadian Wheat Board already does this in the form of final payments, while family allowance cheques represent another good example of multiple mailings to many households.
Finally, the summary on page 545 of the Hall report indicated:
The commission recommends:
(1)	The retention of the Crowsnest statutory rates.
(2)	That the difference between the statutory rate and the cost of transporting grain be paid directly to the railways.
This supports the statement on page 337 which, as has already been noted, is at odds with the earlier comments on the subject.
Depending upon the interpretation given to the Hall commission comments, it could be argued that the government is taking account of its recommendations in its policy on grain transportation as announced on February 8. The government has already stated clearly, precisely and firmly, that there will be statutory guarantees. The government will continue to subsidize grain transportation. Variable rates will not be allowed unless the producer agrees that they will not be prejudicial to his interest. Whether payment is made to the farmer or to the railways will be determined following consultation and negotiation with the parties involved.
Everyone in the House would agree that the comments of the Hall commission must be read taking into account the purpose of the commission. The terms of reference of the commission make it quite clear that the primary purpose of the inquiry was to examine the prairie railway branch line network and to make recommendations as to its disposal-either to be retained, abandoned or otherwise disposed of. The bulk of the commission report addressed this issue, and the Hon. Emmett Hall and the other four commissioners should be congratulated, having carried out such a comprehensive and exhaustive examination of the prairie rail network.
It has even been suggested that the comments on the statutory rates were in effect outside the terms of reference of the inquiry. This could be a somewhat harsh interpretation, although an examination of the terms of reference would suggest that the only part which could be used for comment on the statutory rate is No. 8 on page 11 which reads as follows:
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing the commission may make supplementary recommendations which could relate to:
(8) other matters which could relate to other matters relevant to the inquiry.
The Hall commission report contained a good chapter on economic development and pointed out the effect of a number of transportation distortions. It did not link these directly to the Crowsnest Pass rate, however. The conclusion and recommendations reached by the commission-and again they should be read in relation to its terms of reference -were by no means clear. For example, page 534 dealt with the flour milling industry as follows:
that the flour milling industry in Canada be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in western Canada.
Page 535 dealt with the rapeseed crushing industry as follows:
May 21, 1982

__that freight rates on rapeseed and its derivatives be set at levels which do not
discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie rapeseed crushers.
__that inequities in freight rates, such as those that exist on the movement of
rapeseed meal through Vancouver and Thunder Bay be eliminated.
It should be noted that the federal government has a program which partially assists rapeseed crushers in the amount of $3 million annually. Page 536 dealt with the livestock processing industry as follows:
The commission recommends that freight rates on livestock and meat be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie livestock producers and processors.
Unfortunately it is not clear what this means. There was no indication of the cost of this proposal, which could be extremely expensive and would not solve the root cause of the problem.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder whether the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Skelly) would permit a question.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I would enjoy very much answering a question, but I ask the hon. member to wait until 1 have completed my remarks. If there is any time remaining, I will certainly do my best to answer his question, in the full knowledge that 1 have of this particular topic.
Finally, page 536 dealt with the malting industry as follows:
The commission recommends that:
__the malting industry be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic
advantage of locating in prairie Canada.
That is the point I wanted to make, and that is why 1 illustrated my argument exhaustively with these examples. Each one of the foregoing recommendations is related, to some degree, to the statutory rate. They are wide-ranging, and it is difficult to identify exactly what the Hall commission had in mind. In any case, 1 would suggest to hon. members that it would not be prudent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member could complete his remarks.


Dave Nickerson: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If there is not unanimous consent for the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) to continue his remarks, there may or may not be consent for the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) to pose his question. Is there unanimous consent?


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker. I had only one more sentence before concluding, and once I have done so, 1 would gladly answer the question of my colleague, if I have the unanimous consent of the House.
Transportation of Grain Mr. Nickerson: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but perhaps, as he has noticed himself, he does not have unanimous consent of the House. 1 assume that he does not have unanimous consent to answer a question by the hon. member for Chateauguay.


Norman Kelly: The hon. member opposite wants me to answer the question.


Dave Nickerson: No, I do not. Question.


Norman Kelly: The only way the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) can obtain an answer is if I am allowed to continue my remarks for the next minute or two. Would that be possible?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I appreciate the point of the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, but the fact of the matter is that he has at least twice been refused unanimous consent either to continue his remarks or to answer a question. The Chair is bound by the decision of the House in that regard, and I do not think it would be fair to put the question to the House again.


Norman Kelly: Would the hon. member not relent?


Dave Nickerson: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Should 1 put the question? The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for being willing to undertake an attack on this historic perennial weakness in our railway system. It seems to me that the minister is bringing an extreme illness in the system under control and is providing a rail service which will offer a moderate costing service to Canadians throughout the west, regardless of the commodity they produce.
1 should like to carry on with my comments a good deal further, but I see the day has ended. When the motion comes back before the House, I should like an opportunity to develop my argument further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, May 25, at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). Best wishes for a good weekend.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 25, 1982