1983-06-29

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is the Chair's understanding that the Government wishes to proceed with Government Order No. 165. As this Bill was reported from committee yesterday, the Standing Orders require that the 48-hour notice requirement must be met before the Bill can be considered by the House. With unanimous consent, however, this requirement can be waived. Is there unanimous consent to proceed with Government Order No. 165?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion) moved: that Bill C-165, to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Regional Development be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: When shall the Bill be read a third time? By unanimous consent now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward C. Lumley: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on third reading of Bill C-165, an Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada. Of course everyone in the House wants industrial development in all regions of Canada. I thank the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn) for letting me jump ahead of him in the line, so to speak, and open the debate, because I have other commitments later today. If I leave later, I do not want it to be seen as a discourtesy to the Hon. Member or to the Minister.
[DOT] (mo)
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) is present in the Chamber this morning. He has been here at every stage of the debate; he has answered all our questions. I must be careful in what I say because I do not want to give too much applause to the Minister, but I think it is fair to say that he has done quite a good job in getting the Bill through the House and in working with the Opposition on this important matter. I think it shows in the way the Bill has proceeded through the House.
I am a new person in the area of regional development. Previously I was energy critic, so this has opened my eyes somewhat and I have a little way to go. I want to make some comments on the Bill because I think it is really important for individual communities in Canada. It is not really that complicated when we get through all the letters, the little short forms, and so on. Basically it has some 17 Clauses. Like the majority of Government Bills these days, most of the job is done in the regulations over which we do not have control.
In general the Bill sets out a new system of awarding financial assistance for industrial and regional development. It works on what is a tier system, four tiers of arranging constituencies by census districts for qualification for grants. The Minister explained this in his speech. It is interesting because it is an attempt to bring together a number of government programs and put them into one program and make it what I think the Minister called a fast-tracking system, or a one-stop system, or whatever is the bureaucratic language, to indicate that it will make it easier for companies and individuals to apply for grants and financial assistance for economic development in Canada. Of course we are all in favour of that.
The problem with the Bill is really an old one, the problem of establishing an equitable system for giving grants. There has been much criticism of the old DREE program. I hesitate to use the word, because when I used "patronage" in committee, there were "oohs" and "ahs" as if patronage did not happen in Canada. Of course it does. The old system at least gave the aura of the possibility of patronage when the Minister really had to make decisions on pretty well his own criteria. That is simplifying matters, but this Bill tends to set out criteria. That is what I want to bring to the attention of the House.
We in the New Democratic Party are supporting the Bill. We are in favour of industrial and regional development. We would like to see the matter simplified and made less bureaucratic. We would like to see the system work a little fairer, and especially see it applied in a better way to the region where many of us have our seats, namely, western Canada. For those reasons we have tried to expedite passage of the Bill. However,

June 29, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
we want to keep our eye on the Bill and on the system when it becomes law. I understand that it will be law by July 1. When I thought of all the work we were doing in committee, it made me laugh to think what would happen if we had changed things in committee; the forms might have to be changed and so on.
1 want to focus on the key to the Bill. It indicates that in order to obtain aid one has to fall into one of four tiers. One qualifies for more aid in Tier 4, a little less in Tier 3, and so on down to Tier 1. It is based upon a development index, which I think is the next part of the system. The index is based upon a per capita level of income, the level of employment in the district, and the capacity of the Province in which the district is located to raise revenue. As I stated before in committee, this is a problem for British Columbia because we have a higher per capita level of income. The average weekly wage in British Columbia is $464.15, as opposed to $341.66 in Newfoundland. We are more unionized. Our unions have forced good wages in British Columbia.
In many ways the tests that are in the Bill may make it more difficult for some regions to qualify in order to reach a higher tier, and, therefore, more aid. There is the term "capacity in the Province in which the district is located to raise revenues". Alberta has a Heritage Fund, and so on. I am told by the departmental officials, who have given me some papers, that they are trying to rationalize all these tests. I say that will be difficult. We will have a look at this Bill in about a year or so to see whether this development index is really working.
The Minister may not be aware of the kind of problems we have in my area of western Canada. I will just spend a couple of minutes on this. A headline in the Vancouver Sun for Thursday, June 23, 1983, reads, "Federal red tape the only product in Port Alberni". The article talks about the old ILAP program which applies to Port Alberni, as it is one of the designated areas. The article states there was to be a Christmas present of $15 million to the town. Six months later unemployment in that town is still running at 20 per cent, and the community leaders are still trying to unwrap the red tape in which the $15 million gift was wrapped. I believe they received only $1.4 million and only 133 low-paying jobs were created.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, ILAP is rolled into this Bill as one of the programs contained in it. It is very interesting, because the first paragraph in the newspaper article reads;
A federal Government program designed for the manufacturing East is not working among the woods of the West.
It shows the kind of problems we have in getting industrial development in different regions of Canada. Port Alberni on Vancouver Island is a beautiful place. It is a town dominated by MacMillan Bloedel, which is the main employer. The main employer is automating and putting technological change in its
plant. There are 2,000 fewer jobs than in April, 1981. That, together with the recession, has resulted in some real problems.
Many of the other jobs in the community come from servicing the main employer, the forestry industry. ILAP was supposed to be a program to help that area. However, instead of receiving $15 million, they received $1.4 million, which resulted in 133 temporary jobs with a pay rate of $175 per week, not exactly a booming pay rate.
It is interesting to see what is happening in the community. I use Port Alberni as one example in all the regional areas of Canada. The local Manpower manager there said that he has
2.400	people collecting unemployment insurance. There are
2,000	other people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits or are collecting social assistance, welfare. There are
1.400	others working part-time instead of full-time. This is out of a labour force of 13,000 people. It is typical of a lot of towns in the regional areas of Canada.
A business woman, Paula Anderson, was asked about this. She replied:
We cannot get manufacturing here. We are not in the Ontario heartland, we are on Vancouver Island and that has to be taken into consideration before it can have an impact on new industry. We want the program to be extended to primary industry.
That is part of the problem with this Bill. Let us look at the development index. The Minister was kind enough to have his officials give us a list of all the different ridings in which the tiers will apply. I have the list before me. When I look through it, I find it difficult to understand. I know that it is supposed to be fair, but I know that the Quebec constituency of Mount Royal is in Tier 2. Who represents that constituency, Mr. Speaker? The constituency of Saint-Henri-Westmount is in Tier 2. I am sure that this was done using an objective standard, but Regina East and Regina West are in Tier 1. Athabasca in northern Alberta is in Tier 1. In other words, these constituencies are in a less favoured category than are those two urban ridings in Montreal. Part of Comox-Powell River is in Tier 1.1 have never been there, but that is another area that is like Port Alberni. Port Alberni itself is in Tier 2.
The problem is that it is perceived, and it may be true, that the program will still benefit the manufacturing East and the central heartland more than it will benefit the regions. That is the problem that Port Alberni is faced with when it tries to develop. It is not a problem with an easy solution. How will industry be attracted to Port Alberni when it is really dependent on a resource based economy? Of course, that is part of the answer, but I just point out that some of these areas will not benefit as much as we hope they should.
It is interesting to note that in a Vancouver Sun interview of the Organization of Unemployed Workers-I have noticed that these organizations have grown up all over the country-a Mr. Brian Demorest was asked about ILAP and the programs for Port Alberni. He said that while the temporary jobs have
June 29, 1983

helped some people, as a family man he is better off on welfare. Then he said something very interesting. The article in the Sun reads:
He says he cannot see manufacturing industry of any size coming into town. Instead the OUW is calling for a six-hour working day (preferably at eight hours' pay but subject to negotiation) to be legislated throughout the province and the country.
This would create another shift and would take up some of the slack in unemployment.
Of course this is what the Government of France did as part of its industrial strategy. The Government of France, which these days has been much knocked, shortened working hours. This is probably what we will have to do in Canada, together with implementing programs for part-time work, and adopting other ways of coping with technological change.
1 am saying to the Minister that we are prepared to give the Bill a chance. We are prepared to pass it today, but we want to look a little more closely at these tiers. We appreciate that the Government is trying to be objective in the sense of a development index, but we wonder if development really can be attracted to the Port Alberni's of the country under this program.
There are three other comments I would like to make before I conclude. First, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), raised the matter of native employment, a matter which is very important in the West. The Minister answered the question, and I appreciate that, by saying that that matter is not really being dealt with under this Bill, as I understand it, but would be dealt with under another program. I note that answer.
The second matter I raise is that the Minister talked about decentralizing, and 1 am a little suspicious of this. I think that there is a lot of centralizing in this Bill, in the sense that the federal Government, because it has been burned by the Provinces, and the Provinces have taken credit for some of the things the federal Government put money into, is, as a political strategy, trying to do things more directly.
I am a little worried about the effect some of these programs might have on federal-provincial relations because 1 do believe deeply that co-operative federalism is the only way to make Canada work. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has failed absolutely in bringing some of the principles of co-operative federalism to the West.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Hey, hey!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member pooh-poohs that statement, but he is not the one who gave the Salmon Arm situation in the interior of British Columbia to the people out there.
There are other problems with the program that we would want to examine. There are certainly some questions about some of the Government guarantees that have been picked up in this Bill, such as guarantees to Canadair, Maislin, and other companies. Canadair is a Crown corporation in need of reform. Some of the other programs smell a little of the
Industrial and Regional Development Act
corporate welfare that has been handed out fairly indiscriminately, but I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that score. I think he is really trying, and he believes in industrial development. He is from Cornwall, a small town, and I think he is concerned with getting industrial development established.
We cannot have this policy in isolation, Mr. Speaker. We need an industrial strategy for Canada. The example that I used of Port Alberni brings out the fact that there are areas with primary industry only, and no manufacturing base around it. Manufacturing still takes place in the heartland of the country, and that is a real problem for the West and the Maritimes. So much of our industry is foreign owned and controlled that, as well as a regional development strategy, I think we need a whole new Canadian development strategy.
In January a press release was issued about the reorganization of the Minister's Department, Bill C-152. It was accompanied by a big wad of briefing papers which showed it was based on an industrial strategy which was a spin-off from megaprojects. That strategy has gone by the board and the Government has admitted that, so it is looking for another industrial strategy but so far it has not found one.
In subsequent speeches in the House on industrial development I will suggest that the industrial strategy be based on a regional stance and ways of upgrading the regions by means better than those set out in this Bill.
I know the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has a much more detailed mind than I have, and he knows this area very well. Tom Axworthy, the Prime Minister's principal secretary, was talking about these Government development programs and he said that we want to move in on the West like the little bird that sits behind the elephant's ear. I can tell him, Mr. Speaker, that he will find that it is like the elephant who danced among the chickens and said, "Let's make it fair- every man for himself." As a chicken, he is going to have a problem among all those western elephants.
The New Democratic Party supports the Bill, Mr. Speaker, but we have concerns about whether it is going to reach the Port Alberni's of the country. I look forward to the Bill's record receiving committee examination about a year from now. We will find out then if we have really made progress in something that every Member of the House wants, and that is regional industrial development. We must have a fair system all across the country from which everyone can benefit in this great country with the industrial system that we have.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with third reading of Bill C-165. I want to say at the outset that while this Bill does not go in the direction that this Party would go in dealing with industrial development of the regions of Canada, particularly those that are disadvantaged, it is an improvement on what has been happening, and so we support it fully.

June 29, 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
I was very pleased with the way the Minister responded yesterday in committee, accepting w'hat we feel were important amendments to define the eligibility of persons entitled to apply. The report on the IRD program will be made immediately after June 1 each year, so that when we determine the new tier levels on July 1, Members on the Committee for Industrial and Regional Development will be able to make some contribution suggesting how the program might be altered in the ensuing year.
The Minister was quite responsive to the sunset clause. This is the kind of legislation that should always contain sunset clauses. It is a grant contribution guarantee type program administered by the Government, in an effort to solve a problem. It may not solve the problem however. It is certainly not a permanent solution to anything. I think the Minister would agree that it is a temporary effort to get at a headache, and that the remedy for that headache should be reviewed from time to time. The sunset for this legislation is five years. In our view that is an important clause, and I thank the Government for accepting our suggestion and amending the Bill in that respect.
This Bill has one other advantage in that it stops some of the alphabet soup. The Bill is intended to replace the EDP, the I LAP, RDIA and the STEP programs. Therefore we now have IRD replacing EDP, ILAP, RDIA and STEP. Unfortunately, there are still five other programs. They are SERB, SAP, IERD, SPLA, and the FDBD.
It is about time that the various programs of the Government were amalgamated, in the sense that this Bill amalgamates programs, puts the bureaucracy which manages programs under one roof, reduces that bureaucracy, makes sure that individual bureaucracies are not competing one with another, and makes it easier for the business community, who may want to apply for the grants, loans, contributions or what have you, which may be available under this program. They at least have one-stop shopping, certainly for the four items which are amalgamated under the new IRD Program.
We would not have proceeded this way. First of all we believe that it is most difficult, well nigh impossible, for people in the Public Service to understand properly the motivations which inspire people to build plants, create new jobs, create new wealth, the motivations which put new people to work on new programs and new projects. The entrepreneur works on the basis of hopes and dreams. He thinks on the basis not of what the steak looks like, but what sizzle, sound and smell are in terms of profit, gain or reward. It is difficult to put that type of thinking into a brief and have that brief examined by unseen and unknown persons in a Government office, and somehow come up with something which really makes the country grow.
What we would have done, therefore, would have been to turn the matter over to the tax system. As we proposed in the last election, we would have a tax credit scheme. In areas which are depressed, where there are no jobs, and where there needs to be development, we would say to the investor who goes into those areas that not only can he get his money back
completely before he pays a nickel in taxes, but he can get 150 per cent or even 200 per cent back before he pays a nickel in taxes.
He still has to put his money, his ambition and desires up front, because we say, "We are giving you the carrot, the carrot of an opportunity to make a profit. It is not a cheap loan, not a guarantee and not some sort of percentage contribution based on some mythical unemployment rate in your community or lack of development in your community. It is an opportunity to make a profit, to put your money up. And you will really make a profit on that basis if you go into a depressed area, because when you invest in that depressed area you will be able to get your money back, perhaps even doubled, without the tax man taxing you." That is the opportunity. That is the sizzle. That is the drive. That is the offer.
What do we have here? We have money coming up front, albeit, but coming from a bureaucracy which really has no way of properly judging the spirit, the entrepreneurship, those subjective things which make one person a super businessman and another person a failure. Business is that way. All of the education, all of the training, all of the work which go into a business where you might say on paper the credentials look good, do not really matter. What we are really talking about is that inner spirit which makes some people succeed in business, an inner spirit which makes some people grow and go, and gives some people the ability to put their neighbours to work, to build a country. But some people have not got it.
The problem with the system whereby we have those in the bureaucracy judging applications, is that there is no way in which they can put on paper or justify in a committee meeting that inner spirit which makes success a possibility. So we say, get the Government out of it. Get the Government out of it, but leave the big carrot there. If you really want to build an area which does not have much going for it, put the carrot there, the tax carrot, the allowance. Give these people the ability to make a real profit, because that is what makes our system grow and go in the market place. That is what motivates people. People are not motivated for altruistic reasons. They do not work day and night for altruistic reasons. They go out and work because they want to build for themselves and their families, and because they want to get ahead, and if you offer to them a better opportunity to get ahead in one place in the country than in another, they will go to that place where they have the best opportunity.
One other problem with this piece of legislation is that I, personally, am afraid that in spreading the wealth in terms of the money which is available for Government assistance to business across the entire country, we may have inadvertently-and I give this as a word of caution to the Minister and the Government-hurt some of those areas-the Alberni's of which my friend was talking-in terms of their ability to grow and go. Because what has been done is to make it possible for every area in Canada to get some form of Government assistance in terms of a loan, a grant, a contribution, or in terms of a guarantee of some kind.
June 29, 1983

Mississauga will get assistance in the same way as Cape Breton. You might be able to get more assistance in Cape Breton, but you can still get assistance in Mississauga. As an Hon. Member from Mississauga I have no objection to that. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), who is in the same position, also has no objection to that. However, I would like to say this to you, Sir, and to the Minister, that there is only so much money, and I suggest that the Minister and his officials are looking for success. If they can back a project in an area where success is likely, they will back it there. It is sometimes easier to back a project in Brampton or Mississauga than it is in Cape Breton. Statistically, the chance of success may well be far higher in Brampton or Mississauga than it is in Cape Breton.
[DOT] (M40)
The Minister is likely to see a situation where his officials will find applications coming from some of the top Tier 1 areas which are very likely to succeed and will make the officials in the Department look good. Those applications are likely to take up the money. Applications from areas in the country where the chance of success is not near as great are not likely to get as much money as they might ordinarily get, because again there is only so much in the till.
1 am not saying we are opposing the Bill. We think it is good and should go through. While 1 suspect that the Minister, even though he is a pretty good one, is not going to be a Minister of the Crown very much longer-the people of Canada are going to make sure that he and his colleagues find some other place to work, and perhaps they will need the advantage of some of these programs-I say to the Minister that in his management of the Department he had better be very careful to make sure that the limited money available is used to get rid of some of the existing inequities and disparities in this country as opposed to the politically and bureaucracy pleasing support of propositions from areas where the success rate is very likely to be much higher.
I will now deal with the question of tiering, Mr. Speaker. For the purposes of this Bill the country is divided into tier areas. Tier 1 covers a good part of the country; most of the major cities are tier 1 or, at the worst Tier 2. Then there is a whole series of criteria which determine Tier 2, Tier 3 or Tier 4 areas. One of the concerns I have with the Bill and the proposed regulations is the contribution the Government can make to a project. It is higher in Tier 4 than in Tier 3 or 2 or 1, and the level at which the program kicks in is lower in Tier 4, 3 and 2, than it is in 1. But the effect is to have virtually the same element of subsidization in all four tier areas.
For example, if the Government is going to give a contribution to marketing of a manufacturer's product in the Tier 1 zone, it could go up to 50 per cent of the cost. But even in Tier 4 zones the maximum is 75 per cent. Bearing in mind that the Tier 4 zones are the areas of the worst unemployment, the worst possible disparity in the country, and bearing in mind that the Tier 1 zones are the most prosperous areas in the
Industrial and Regional Development Act
country, the variance is between 50 per cent and 75 per cent. I say to you, Sir, that is not much of a variance.
Perhaps the Minister might take a look at that because, while I know he wants to make sure his Department is dealing right across Canada and that there is no discrimination in the country, the whole nature of regional economic development is that we discriminate in the less developed, less prosperous parts of the country. The concept is that you help a person in a weak area more than you help a person in a wealthy area. But the regulations do not clearly make it less attractive in a wealthier area. To put it the other way, you put just about as many bucks in Mississauga as you do in Cape Breton. If that is really the intention, and I suspect it is not, then perhaps there should be some change in the proposed regulations.
As I said previously, we would not have proceeded this way, but we are pleased to support this Bill because we believe it is progressive and a better way of handling the problems than we have had so far from this Government. On that basis 1 commend the Minister for being prepared to accept amendments and allowing the Members in committee to make valid input to the legislation. If we had that type of co-operation from other Ministers, for example the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) on the Export Development Corporation Bill, that Bill could move ahead too. But when we have a Government Department which stonewalls the Opposition and any effective and proper suggestions, then you do not get matters moving ahead in this Parliament. This Minister is cooperative. The Bill was introduced about a week ago; hopefully it can pass today before noon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair should draw to the attention of the House that the Minister is now seeking the floor. As mover of the Bill he had the option to make a speech and he chose not to do so. The Chair suspects it was to accommodate other Members of the House. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to make a statement at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for allowing me the opportunity to wrap up third reading of this Bill on behalf of the Government. I also want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), and the Official Opposition critic, the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), for their constructive criticism and comments with respect to regional development, in the Standing Committee on Regional Development from whence came a lot of the ideas incorporated in this Bill.
I want to address a couple of the issues, Mr. Speaker, that the two Hon. Member have raised today, as well as a brief summary of the Bill. Members of Parliament are all busy these days in committees as well as carrying out our responsibilities to our individual ridings that I think it will take a while before

June 29. 1983
Industrial and Regional Development Act
the full impact of this Bill is realized by all Members of this House, and particularly how it affects all parts of the country. This is the first time in almost 15 years, since the Department of Regional Expansion was initiated, that the Department has gone through a thorough re-evaluation and reorientation of its regional development programs.
I think it speaks well of Parliamentarians in general that, of all, the three Parties support the Bill. That has not happened too often during this particular Parliament. Second, there was the non-partisanship. I have been on the Committee on Regional Development for eight or nine years. I also happened to be chairman of the Committee at one time when I first came to the House. I think that non-partisanship is attributable to the importance that each and every Hon. Member, regardless of his or her political persuasion, attaches to regional development.
I would like to summarize some of the most important parts of the Bill. For the first time in Canada's history we will have a consistent measure to gauge regional disparity in Canada. The arbitrariness of the Minister of the day or of the Government of the day deciding which area of the country receives what level of assistance with respect to industrial restructuring and regional development, is past.
We have spent a great deal of time in putting the development index together. 1 appreciate the constructive input we have had from Hon. Members on ail sides of the House, from the private sector, and from provincial Governments, with respect to the development of this index. It is not perfect. I doubt very much if there is such a thing as a perfect development index. However, I think that we are well along the way toward developing an index which, as the Hon. Member said in their second reading speeches and in committee, is as equitable, as objective, and as fair as any that has ever been previously developed.
I would like to address the second most important part of the program. It is no longer a question as to whether one particular area is designated or not. It is now a question of degree of designation. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South said that he could receive almost the same assistance for Mississauga as one can receive for Cape Breton. On the contrary. If one looks, for example, to the most important part of the regional development, in other words, the basic program element upon which DREE was originally initiated or founded, one finds that it was the establishment of new industries, the diversification of the economic base of the regional disparity areas in Canada. One sees that in areas in the most developed 50 per cent of the country, unless their unemployment population ratio exceed by 1 per cent the national average for six consecutive months, there is no financial assistance from the Government of Canada for new establishments. Yet in the Tier IV areas, those companies applying for assistance to start new ventures are eligible for up to 60 per cent of capital costs to undertake these ventures.
Forgetting for a second southern Ontario, or the southern part of British Columbia, but take a Province like Nova Scotia, one finds that it was very difficult to try to develop certain areas like Cape Breton when the same financial assistance was applicable to companies in the Halifax area. Now there is a differentiation even within individual regions. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there are substantial degrees of economic disparity within your own particular Province. Now that we have a consistent measure for regional disparity, it will be much easier to differentiate between those various areas.
The other comment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, and I think it was a justifiable one, concerned success. What our officials are after is success in terms of the number of jobs we will create in every region of the country as a result of the program. We are quite prepared to take a much higher risk for projects in the more disadvantaged areas of Canada than we are in the most developed regions.
The third element that I consider to be so important with respect to the Bill is that, for the first time, we have a manageable number of programs that can now be delivered on a regional basis. With my background as a small and mediumsized entrepreneur and as a mayor of a community which once had the highest unemployment rate in Canada, I have always felt that if one really wants to reach out, if one really wants to solve regional disparity, one must bring all the economic tools of Government to bear. It does not just require one program or two programs. It requires all the programs. From now on, all the economic development programs, the direct delivery programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, will be available in every region of the country.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway spoke of the Port Alberni's of this world, the single industry regions, and of the difficulties that one faces in trying to diversify the economic base of those regions that are resource-based and so dependent on one single industry. One of the elements by which the Bill will facilitate in the diversification of the economic base in these areas is through regionalizing the financial assistance for innovation such as design, research and development, et cetera. In other words, we will try to encourage more of these single industry communities to carry out more research and development, to expand their product lines or expand their processing. This is one of the avenues that has really not been addressed to any degree in terms of regional development potential for the past 15 or 20 years.
The other element mentioned by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway was decentralization. This really is decentralization. I think the previous concept of decentralization was sharing the responsibility with the Provinces.That is just one element and we will still do that with the general development subagreements with the Provinces. However, I think the key with this program is that we not only decentralize the delivery mechanism to reach out to the small and medium-sized entrepreneur in every region of the country, but we also decentralize the processing of the applications so that
June 29, 1983

there is a regional perspective in the assessment of the individual applications.
If we were preparing a headline, in the creating of a PR program to promote the program, I would say to every small and medium sized entrepreneur, "You no longer have to come to Ottawa for financial assistance. We will reach out to you". We will ensure that the small and medium-sized entrepreneurs in Canada, who obviously make up the backbone of economic development in Canada, will receive their fair share of all the programs which have historically only been available to most of the major corporations in the most developed regions of the country.
I also want to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), the Hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane who, for two and one-half years, was the Minister responsible for DREE before the reorganization. Since the inception of DREE, he is really the first Minister I have known, and I think I have known them all, who has really tried to address the issue in the most sensitive way, the issue of regional development. Many of the provisions that are incorporated in the Bill I was able to obtain from his previous work in this regard.
The other element of the Bill which we have not discussed to any degree concerns industrial restructuring. If there is one message that came home to me loud and clear during the two and one half years 1 spent as Trade Minister, in travelling to over 50 countries around the world, was the fact that the competition Canadian industry will face over the balance of this decade and of this century will be tougher than we have ever faced before. Therefore, that tells each and every one of us, regardless of our position, that our industries will have to maintain their international competitiveness. That is an undeniable fact. If we are not competitive, we will not survive economically. If we do not survive, not only will we not create the new jobs that are necessary in Canada, but we will not maintain the ones we already have, either.
This industrial restructuring element of the program is as equally important as the regional development priority of the program. That is the reason why we think it is so important to have this national program sensitized on a regional basis. Even in the industrial heartland of Canada there are a number of industries that need financial assistance from the Government to undertake expansion programs, modernization programs or innovation programs to ensure that their companies will be internationally competitive. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway who probably expressed it best on behalf of all of us in the House the other day on second reading when he said, "What is in this Bill is almost too good to be true . I think that is really one of the reasons we have not truly digested its contents, the fact that for one of the few occasions when we have a program in which all Members of Parliament have had some input.
I welcome the amendments brought forward by the Opposition. I think that together, we should not wait until the end of the year when the program will be reviewed. Yesterday, I
Industrial and Regional Development Act
made a commitment to the committee that any changes in the regulations would be brought to the committee's attention. I believe that the more input we have in this particular area, the better the program will be.
In conclusion, perhaps the best indication that we have done something constructive and positive as Parliamentarians is the fact that we have received no press coverage with respect to the program. That is usually the best indication that we have done something constructive and positive. If the Opposition would have stonewalled the Bill or objected to it, this legislation would probably have been on the front page of every paper in the country and the First story on television and radio news. But the fact of the matter is that we have all agreed on a program which provides financial assistance of anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion a year to manufacturing, processing, tourism and related service sector industries right across the country. Since we have received no publicity, it is probably the best indication that we are on the right track.
1 also want to thank my provincial colleagues. I discussed this particular program with my provincial colleagues even before it was passed through the Cabinet. I think their input into this Bill has been very important.
At a time when some 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, I do not think there is any Member of the House who would not agree that a concerted effort is needed toward strengthening our industries. I do not think any Member of Parliament, regardless of his or her political persuasion, will rest easy until such time as we have full employment in this country.
In my trade days, we had a very cohesive effort between the private and public sectors, whether it was management, labour, federal or provincial Governments. There was a very co-operative effort. I suggest that is one reason why Canadian exports were able to not only maintain but increase their market share and Canada was one of the few countries in the world to achieve this goal during the international recession of the last three years.
I feel very strongly that if we are to be successful with this program, solve the problems of regional disparity and industrial restructuring and create the needed jobs that we want in this country, we will need that cohesive effort by management and labour, the federal, provincial and municipal Governments. I think Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated that co-operation in their input into this program, and as Minister responsible I want to say thank you to each individual.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act

Edward C. Lumley: that Bill C-95, an Act to provide for Government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this third and perhaps last opportunity to put some final comments on the record with respect to Bill C-95. Needless to say, as I have said so many times before, I view the impending passage of this legislation with mixed emotions. On the one hand it is an abysmally bad piece of legislation. I am positive, and the Opposition is just as assured, that it will return to haunt the House at a later time. Yet I am left with the feeling that because of the great amount of public relations expended in Government advertising, there is the possibility that at least some of the beneficiaries named in this Bill may reap some benefit.
We on this side can take some pride in our efforts to improve the Bill. I refer to the amendments which we raised in committee and discussed very briefly earlier this week. I will comment on those shortly, but before I make those comments,
I want to point out some of the existing conflicts and pressures which exist in the House at this time.
Against those conflicts there is one prevailing matter that seems to have been raised consistently by the Government side. It is the obvious, outspoken, obnoxious desire of the federal Government to get back into the lottery business. We have opposed this re-entry of the federal Government into the lottery business from the very start. No individual, group or Province can fault the efforts and sincerity of a great number of our Members who have presented their arguments in the House in opposition to the re-entry of the federal Government into the gaming business.
Our difficulties with Bill C-95 are deeply rooted and have been long lasting. It would be only appropriate to review the record and set matters straight after a lengthy and controversial exchange.
In 1976, our Party had to make a very difficult decision with respect to Loto Canada. The Montreal Olympics had incurred a deficit of approximately $1 billion and the federal Government was pressured by Montreal to get it out of the quagmire in which it found itself. The federal Government promised to assist in the reduction of that $1 billion deficit which Montreal faced.
That was a fair and perhaps reasonable undertaking by the federal Government because the Montreal Olympic Games were a source of pride not only for the people of Montreal and the Province of Quebec but for all Canadians as we reflected in the glory and success of the Montreal Olympics. It was an event which Canadians of all ages and from every region enjoyed and participated in in whatever way possible. It was an event of national and international significance.
As is the case today, the Liberal Government of 1976 was short of cash. Therefore it insisted that whatever help it gave to Montreal would have to be met by non-government revenues, so it said. Therefore the federal Government introduced a federal lottery. For many good reasons, the Opposition of the day was opposed to the introduction of Loto Canada. First, it was said that lotteries were a matter of provincial jurisdiction. But notwithstanding our objection, the federal Government remained adamant; it was Loto Canada or nothing.
In committee we extracted a promise from the federal Government, and particularly the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), that Loto Canada would have a fixed three-year term and would be conducted primarily for the benefit of the Montreal Olympics. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a great show of his distaste for lotteries and of his desire to help Montreal. The same Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was full of enthusiasm at the prospect of being able to turn lotteries back to the Provinces at the end of that three-year term.
On the strength of the Minister's comments, the Progressive Conservative Party voted in favour of supporting Loto Canada. Our support was not for Loto Canada or any other lottery, bookie operation or gambling racket, but for a Canadian city hosting the Summer Olympic Games. That is why, with respect to the sports pool, we as a Party support the allocation of federal funds to the City of Calgary so that it might adequately host the XV Winter Olympic Games.
All Hon. Members know the story of Loto Canada and how scandal-ridden its life was. Everyone knows how the Loto Canada corporation with all its hangers on became the haven of patronage, resulting in much mismanagement and many misdemeanours. My colleagues the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) and the Hon. Member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) spelled out some of these disreputable and disgraceful instances in the debate earlier this week. Loto Canada was one of the greatest pork barrels of all time.
Despite that record and despite the present Minister of Energy's assurances given in 1976, the 1979 Liberal Government proposed that Loto Canada be continued in perpetuity. I would have thought that any government with any reasonable ounce of conscience would have said that it had had enough of Loto Canada's reputation hanging around its neck as it faced an election. The extension of Loto Canada's life, Mr. Speaker, was something totally unacceptable to our Party.
The long and the short of the matter is that the federal Government has no business in the lottery or the gaming business. While the tendency of the Liberals is to hide issues at election time, we campaigned as a Party right across the nation during the 1979 election compaign to put an end to the sorry chapter of the Liberal Government's participation in the gaming business. There was no equivocation in our position, and it was a campaign promise that we kept.
June 29, 1983

The sale of Loto Canada remains controversial simply because too many people, including the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), just simply refuse to look at the facts. Loto Canada was not the success that government advertising leads the people of Canada to believe. The facts show very clearly that there was a decline in returns over the years of its operation. Loto Canada's very best year was 197778 when it netted $74.3 million. But by the following year that net had declined to $62.5 million, and even if Loto Canada had had a full year of operation in 1979-80, it would not have netted $62.5 million. Loto Canada was, therefore, clearly in decline.
These facts notwithstanding, we still hear the Minister of State for International Trade talking about Loto Canada yielding $80 million to $100 million a year in revenue.


An Hon. Member:: Net.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: That is right, net. Where will the Minister gain the revenue of $300 million to return that $80 million to $100 million in net profits or gains to the beneficiaries as enunciated in this Bill? The Minister in his heart knows better. He knows that the sports pool is doomed to failure. The only salvation he will have is that if he gets back into the lottery business then we will be back in competition with the Provinces as we were before. We will be back in competition in the news media. Each one will be vying for the same thing with an expenditure of dollars, the likes of which we have never seen. Even though Loto Canada was once known as the greatest advertising spender in the whole country, that will be nothing to what it will be if Loto Canada gets back into the games business.
The 1979 Progressive Conservative Government had a difficult time disposing of a failing product, an asset that was declining in value almost daily but certainly monthly. My colleague from Edmonton North went into some detail on Monday night explaining the results of that sale and the benefit to this country of that sale. Not only did the Hon. Member get a good deal for the Government of the day, but he provided a fixed annual return for arts and culture and fitness and amateur sport. As at the end of this month the federal Government will have received approximately $102.5 million from the Provinces pursuant to the 1979 agreement.
Again, the Minister of State for International Trade chooses to ignore the facts and mocks the value of that agreement. Show me any deal in which the federal Government can get over $32 million a year at absolutely no cost, Mr. Speaker, and I will show you a deal that we should grab and grab quickly. After all, we are talking about the need to fulfil a commitment of $200 million from non-tax revenue for the 1988 Calgary Olympics when that 1979 agreement would have solved the problem.
Between 1983 and 1988, assuming 6 per cent inflation, the Provinces will have paid to this Government $220 million. Why could that money not have been used to fund the Calgary games so the organizers could have in advance adequately planned a successful games venture? Unfortunately, the federal Government has seen fit to spend the money from the lottery agreement on other items. The federal Government
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
says that fitness and amateur sport and arts and culture are getting increased benefits through the ordinary budget system. But no one knows for sure because the money from that 1979 lottery agreement goes into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The Government has not been able to explain that away, either in committee or during Question Period.
However, the important factor in all of this is that the federal Government has a binding agreement with the Provinces not to re-enter the lottery field. This Government may miss the good old patronage days, but that is too bad. Bill C-95 is nothing more than an end run around the 1979 federal-provincial agreement.
I opened my remarks by saying that the legislation before us is bad. It is worse than that, Mr. Speaker. In committee and earlier this week we tried to improve upon it. First, I know of no other country in the world which distinguishes in the gaming business between a lottery and a sports pool.
Second, there may not be a court in the land-and this was tested in one of the Provinces already-that will see a difference between the federal Government's re-entry into the sports pool and a re-entry into the lottery or gaming business.
Third, the legislation, as contained in Bill C-95, provides a Mack truck clause because it contains a simple clause that allows the federal Government to get back into any other lawful game. Once this Bill is passed, who knows what kind of a game the Government will become involved in, because the legislation will permit the Government to become involved in any kind of a game. The Government will be able to legalize any game, as it has this one. It is make it illegal for anybody else to play in that game but the Government of Canada. It will be the sole gambler and the sole host of a gambling nest of games-lottery games, sports, pools, video tape games, electronic games, even perhaps an electronic game of chess and you will be betting against yourself.
Fourth, Bill C-95 makes it possible for this to happen and lists every beneficiary known to the Minister of State for International Trade without honouring a commitment to any one of them, including the Calgary Olympics, because the Bill does not make any allocation of funds among those beneficiaries with any degree of certainty, by percentage or otherwise.
Fifth, the proposed sports pool corporation will not be subject to the kind of scrutiny and audit demanded by Canadians. We are sick and tired of Crown corporations running wild. The Auditor General has pointed out that Crown corporations are almost a sub-parliamentary group subject to a little bit of accountability to none at all. And here we are talking about establishing a new Crown corporation dealing with the games business. As we mentioned yesterday, the odds against Canadians participating in this game is bad enough without their being subjected to the abuse and error they were earlier with Loto Canada. That should not happen again. We should attempt to protect Canadians by having the Auditor General audit the books of the corporation and set up the appropriate systems.
26912

June 29, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
The Government has refused to table any marketing studies to indicate that sports pools are saleable or marketable. On the other hand, the Provinces have provided to date the only facts and figures relating to sports pools. They indicated very clearly in committee that the game is doomed to failure and that we are about to lose our shirts by entering into competition with the Provinces.
Bill C-95 is ostensibly all about the aggressive marketing of a federal sports pool, yet it provides the sports pool corporation with a start-up grant of SI0.5 million to run a gambling business and a line of credit of an additional $20 million, with no obligation on its part to repay those advances of taxpayers' money. If the Government is so sure of success in the sports pool game, why does it not make provision for repayment of the start-up funds provided by the taxpayers of the nation to the corporation? It could make repayment from its revenues, especially if the Government is sure that the sports pool will be successful. No ordinary Canadian wanting to open a business could get a deal like that one.
The Government has still not responded to the points made by the Inter-Church Committee on Lotteries as to the detrimental effect Bill C-95 will have on our society. The Committee pointed out that the games business, including lotteries, is the greatest social disease of our time. I am sure Hon. Members of the House and the public have read recently about the addiction of certain persons, for example the $175,000 which was stolen by a bank teller because of her desire to continue to buy tickets. At one time the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) were both vocal in their opposition to lotteries, but neither saw fit to raise those concerns during the debate on Bill C-95. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) saw fit not to speak in a debate despite, as she said, her loathing for such activity.
Finally, Bill C-95 will contribute to the steadily deteriorating relationship between the federal and provincial Governments. No effort was made by the federal Government to discuss what arrangements could be made with the Provinces to assist in the Financing of the Calgary Olympics, and the Mack truck clause mentioned earlier is nothing short of a red flag to the Provinces because they view it as a deliberate attempt by the federal Government to get back into the lottery business in competition with them.
The position of the Progressive Conservative Party on the subject of federal involvement in the games, lottery and gambling field is clear and unequivocal. We are opposed to the re-entry of the federal Government into the gambling business. Our opposition is made much easier in the context of Bill C-95 because it is a bad, ill-conceived Bill. There will be no end to the controversy, and I suspect the Government will have its hands full trying to account for this new Crown corporation, just as it had its hands full with Loto Canada. Had our amendments concerning the Auditor General and the elimination of the Mack truck clause been accepted, it might have been a
little easier and perhaps more beneficial to the Government. Nonetheless, democracy must take its course, but to what end?
There is only so much an opposition can do to save a government from its own folly. I am extremely appreciative of the support and concern shown by my colleagues and their participation in the debate. I thank them publicly for their participation and for echoing their concerns, just as I have echoed mine. Having fought the fight, the good fight, I naturally want to wish the sports pool corporation well. I trust the Calgary Olympics, the Winter Olympics, will soon benefit from whatever game the Government proposes to introduce. To that end I have to allow that modest acceptance of the position now taken by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. McDermid:: They are finally putting up a speaker.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I hear the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). It is not a matter of "finally"; it has nothing to do with that. It is that we stated our unequivocal opposition to the Bill on second reading. I think our position on balance is somewhat clearer than the position of the Conservative Party inasmuch as it is not a structural opposition to the nature of the Bill in terms of the way it has been drafted, whether it has been drafted well or otherwise. Our opposition is not simply to the federal Government's participation. It is not an opposition which indicates that somehow or other the federal Government opted out of the lottery business and therefore to opt back in would be wrong. Our opposition is that we are opposed to lotteries of this type and to further institutionalizing gambling in this way.
There are sufficient opportunities for people to engage in games of chance all across the country without adding to the number. I am as convinced of that as was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) some years ago when he spoke similarly on the introduction of lotteries and gambling. I am as convinced today as I was many years ago when I was in the Legislature of the Province of Ontario that the introduction of gambling turns out to be a tax on the poor and to be more attractive to those people of very limited means than it is to those of considerable wealth. The chance of victory, of winning fabulous wealth, is remote. "Remote" hardly describes it: "virtually non-existent" might better describe the situation. The chance of victory is a lure which people of little income find almost irresistible. I believe the Government does the country a disservice by introducing at this point in time the particular proposal for a sports pool.
I have listened with interest over the course of the last few days, in fact at every turn when the Bill came before the House of Commons, to the arguments put forward. There was a suggestion that somehow or other it was based upon a game of skill. I cannot help but think that anyone who would believe that is naive in the extreme. There is no game of skill involved; it is a game of chance. It is just like any other game of chance.
June 29, 1983

One has an option and picks between teams or among teams a combination of victors and losers, the end result of which is that one's chance at winning is so remote that one might as well give away the money to the first poor person on the street. That would do more good than going through this process which the Government has established.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we are unalterably opposed to the passage of this Bill. We were opposed to it at second reading. I went into some detail at second reading as to why I felt it was inappropriate. In fact, with a little bit of humour I dealt with my then recent visit to Las Vegas. 1 had taken my son to Las Vegas just to see the place. At that time 1 pointed out the despair that I saw on the faces of those who walked out of the gambling casinos, the haggard faces of the gamblers who had sat there-


Mr. Siddon:: How much did you lose?


Ian Deans: I lost absolutely nothing. I never bet, as you know. I saw the haggard and unshaven faces of those who became hooked on the slot machines and the blackjack and poker tables that were there.
Over the years concern has been expressed to me by the families of those who have become addicts. Just as people become addicted to drugs and alcohol, they become addicted to gambling. They become addicted in such a way that the income from their job becomes insufficient to meet their addiction. Family homes are lost because of this as well as the family incomes which are necessary to provide for their day to day well-being.
While I do not pretend for one moment that the purchase of a lottery ticket will necessarily make that financial and substantial difference, I do not believe that the Government should be in the business of promoting further gambling.


Mr. Regan:: Including the Government of Manitoba?


Ian Deans: Including the Government of Manitoba; I do not make any distinctions. When 1 am opposed to something, I am opposed regardless of who does it. I will be blunt here; 1 was opposed when the Government of Ontario brought in Win-tario. I said so in the Legislature. I might say that I was in the minority, but 1 stood and said that I was opposed to it, that it was wrong and it was not the direction to go. I would say the same to any government, regardless of its political leaning, that that is not the appropriate direction to go.
If we want to fund something like the Olympics, if a decision is made after careful consideration that it is important for Canada to host the Olympics or some other major sporting event, we then take on the concurrent responsibility to raise the money through normal channels to ensure that the funding is available.
What worries me about all of this is that we are looking at a set amount of money. I hope it is a set amount of money. There are just so many dollars available for the purchase of lottery tickets. All kinds of lotteries are being conducted from coast to coast. If we add a new lottery to the existing myriad of
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
lotteries, we just further distribute the money. It is not new money. Other lotteries which supposedly provide money for local events, such as amateur baseball, amateur hockey, and in the case of Ontario and some other Provinces medical research, no doubt worth-while purposes, there will be fewer dollars available to those institutions as a result of our entering the field.
The end result will be that amateur hockey, baseball, lacrosse, and charitable organizations that attempt to provide recreation in many communities in this country will find that there are fewer dollars available to them; therefore they will not be able to meet their commitments. Children in every part of this country will not have the same degree of access that they have had in the past.
From my point of view, it seems to fly in the face of everything we believe in. I do not often use this kind of term, but frankly, I consider this to be morally wrong. It is wrong to be in the business in the first place. From a practical point of view, I also consider it to be wrong. It takes away from existing charitable funding that is so necessary in many communities. In many ways it is a further enticement to those who can ill afford it. They use the few dollars they have in the fond hope of that elusive prize, a prize which escapes almost all of them.
I urge the Government that it consider these arguments. I understand that they are not powerful arguments and that they have been made before; they are really just a response from my own experience with this. If it is the desire of the Government to fund whatever major undertakings we deem necessary for the enchancement of Canada's way of life and the enhancement of Canada on the international scene, we should do that legitimately. There are various means available to us now through the existing tax structure and the appeal for donations which are tax deductible and, therefore, beneficial to those who can afford to make them. However, we should not add further to the ongoing problems that develop as a result of encouraging people to believe that somewhere at the end of all this there is a pot of gold that they can reach for and thereby get something for nothing. You get nothing for nothing. Lotteries tend to sell on the basis of that theme. You do not get anything in this world without putting some effort into it. You will not become rich quickly from the purchase of a lottery ticket.
If people want to make contributions to the ongoing events of Canada, whatever they may be, they should do so according to their ability and their desire. Surely it should not be on the basis of the hope that they will derive some financial reward in the end, that they will become fabulously wealthy, because that financial reward eludes all but a few. The financial reward causes suffering even to those who win.
Even at this late point 1 urge the Government to reconsider and to agree that what it is proposing is not appropriate. To suggest that somehow or other it will enhance the sporting events of this land is ludicrous. The proper way to build a society is through a fair and equitable means of raising money,

June 29, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
not through a get-rich-quick scheme based on the sale of lottery tickets.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the Hon. Member during his remarks but 1 did have a question for him. I accept at face value the sincerity of his commitment to the work ethic and to the fact that we ought not con people into believing that they can get something for nothing, and I agree with him about the immorality of the whole gambling scheme that the Government is venturing into. I cannot help but remember, however, that the New Democratic Party's constituency association in my riding of Surrey-White Rock-North Delta holds the franchise to sell the provincial lottery tickets. It may hold it in other British Columbia ridings as well.
1 would therefore like to ask the Member whether he is opposed to what the Party is doing in British Columbia in this area. Without wanting to interfere with his own Party and with its convention this weekend in Regina, would he plan to try to get the New Democratic Party out of the lottery business in British Columbia?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that hardly deserves an answer. However, I think I might as well rise. I believe that what I have said and put on the record is an adequate indication of how I feel about lotteries. I would ask the Member in return if he thinks that the perpetuation and growth of the lottery system by the Conservative Government in Ontario enhances [DOT] the lifestyle and quality of life for the people of Ontario or in any way enhances the use of the systems that are so necessary for day to day life.
I believe the Hon. Member spends more time worrying about the New Democratic Party than he does about the problem itself. 1 am sure that if 1 were to look closely, although I have not bothered to do so, 1 would find Conservative organizations that do things that I do not like either.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
1 was going to begin by commending the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for the sincerity of his remarks because he certainly expressed many views that have been expressed by Members of this Party, although rather infrequently by some Members of his own Party, during the course of the previous debate. In light of the question asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), I am not quite as assured of the sincerity of the Party which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain represents, but nonetheless, his response seemed to be sincere in that he adheres to his position, which is, as I understand it, that governments in the country should not be participating in the gaming rackets.
As has been very capably expressed by many of my colleagues and especially by our spokesman in this debate, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), I too believe that the Government's re-entry into the gaming area is a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the Liberal Party opposite. I would like to say that I think it sets a very poor example when Members of the Crown, those who are appointed to take charge and accept
responsibility for the major problems in our society, which are principally unemployment and inflation, the management of Government and the maintenance of respect for law and order, set such a retrograde standard for all Canadians to witness.
This is particularly true, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the example set by for young people by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan), who is pushing this Bill through the House on behalf of his colleague in the other place. Our young people are hopefully being brought up in a society which establishes law and allows people to pursue their own adventures at their own risks, but society must set certain standards for the people of the country to follow. I would like to assert again that I believe this Minister and the Government are helping to contribute to the degradation of the values that many of us in the country hold dear.
The valuable time of Ministers of the Crown is being taken to participate in the kind of gambling that we do not allow many other groups in the country to participate in. We are rigorous in terms of %ur enforcement of laws with regard to off-track betting. We regularly instruct the RCMP to raid the gambling houses of many Chinese Canadians who for centuries have participated in their traditional games of chance. Yet under the Criminal Code those games of chance are outlawed and people participating in them are prosecuted to the full limit of the law. I think that it is reprehensible when the Government comes to the House with a piece of legislation which would amend the Criminal Code to suit its convenience while it continues to prosecute people who operate games of chance without its sanction.
I do not know what the current practice is, but in fact, in the past charitable organizations that have run various types of raffles and lotteries and bingo games for various good works in the community have been punished and treated virtually as criminals by this Government and many of its predecessors. Yet now it is setting a new standard for our society.
The stated purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to raise funds for so-called good works in our nation. It is to provide financial assistance for fitness and amateur sports, arts and culture, and medical and health research, as is stated in the list that is contained in Clause 18 of the Bill. Finally, and low on the list, comes the provision of funding for the Calgary Olympics.
The people of Canada are being told by Liberal Party Members and all of their paid publicity backs that we on this side of the House are holding up this Bill and therefore jeopardizing the conduct of the Calgary Olympics. Yet this Bill does not even establish a priority in terms of access to available funding for the Calgary Olympics. It puts it as the last item on the list. The Government has refused to accept our second amendment to this legislation which would make the Calgary Olympics the sole beneficiary of this initiative. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that belies the credibility of the Government's pronouncements outside this House that the poor people of Calgary and western Canada will not get the same kind of treatment that Montreal did in terms of the previous Olympics
June 29, 1983

if Conservative Members keep digging in their heels and opposing the Bill.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that we believe the Calgary Olympics can be funded and that the federal Government has a responsibility to share in the cost of those games, but there are various ways of financing such initiatives. The best and most direct means of doing so in the case of something as important and prestigious to Calgary and all of Canada as the Olympics would be to introduce a tax credit system that is the same as the one that operates in the financing of political parties in the country.
The Government could have allowed a 75 per cent tax credit on all contributions up to $200 from Canadians at large who would contribute to the Calgary Olympics. Then we would not have had to award patronage to all friends of the Liberal Party who want to build computer machines and earn commissions and set up stands in shopping centres. We would not have had to spend all of that money on advertising. We would not have had to con the Canadian people into thinking that they can get rich quick, therefore setting a standard of moral corruption on the part of the Government which runs in total contradiction to all of the progressive measures of taxation legislation that this Government and many of its predecessors have established over the years.
By a mere admendment to the Income Tax Act, the Government could attract millions of dollars for the Calgary Olympics and other worthy causes. This simple amendment would make it possible for people who contribute to charity to opt between sending a significant portion of their dollars to Ottawa or to some worthy cause. I guarantee that this would eliminate a whole layer of unnecessary bureaucracy here in Ottawa. It would allow Cabinet Ministers to take charge again of the important tasks for which they are responsible instead of wasting their energies on such corruption as a sports lottery.
I believe the Minister should hand his head in shame because, in fact, what he is doing runs totally contrary to the whole thrust and intent of the Family Allowance system, the Child Tax Credit system, our federal-provincial agreements on welfare payments, the Unemployment Insurance system, the old age pension system, the guaranteed annual income system for those in need, and all of our social support systems, Mr. Speaker. In particular, the very progressive nature of our income tax structure as represented in the tax table is being contravened by this measure that will get the Government of Canada back into the lottery business. We reject this initiative without equivocation even though, as the Hon. Member for St. Catharines pointed out, we cannot go on obstructing all summer. If this is the Government's only way, in its obstinan-cy, to see to it that the people of western Canada are not left carrying the can for the Calgary Olympics, then I suppose we will have to let the measure go through.
Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, just as Loto Canada failed, just as Loto Select failed even before it got off the ground after the Government wasted $37 million on that boondoggle, this sports pool corporation will also fail. My colleague has wished
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
it well, but if I have anything to say in the next Government of Canada, I will ensure that this type of corrupt initiative is replaced with proper and progressive amendments to the Income Tax Act. We must ensure that volunteer organizations are again funded by Canadians giving of their own free will and not by those who want to get rich quick by taking a chance on a lottery ticket.
In the course of the debate many statistics have been produced to show that those who buy lottery tickets are people at the low end of the income scale. The Minister shakes his head but he knows full well that those who are most careful with their money, the shrewd investors in society, the successes in society, do not buy lottery tickets. He knows that it is the people who get a welfare cheque who buy lottery tickets. They think they have a chance because they see on television or read about some elderly couple who won a million dollars and so they tend to feel that they too have chance, even though the odds are something like 10 million to one against their winning. The odds against happiness after winning are great as well. Nonetheless, the Government is enticing people who can least afford it to buy tickets. Every time they walk into a shopping mall or go to a sporting even or turn on the television, they are coerced and persuaded by the Government of Canada, with that nice, neat, official Liberal logo, to buy lottery tickets. That reflects the moral bankruptcy and corruption of this Government.
When we couple this move with the introduction of electronics into gaming and see the potential for abuse-for outright fraud by people who know how to write computer programs- and when we connect that with some of the people who will be licensed to sell tickets, we see the potential for harm. The concessionaires with license to sell the tickets are usually good friends of the Liberal Party. When we couple that with the people who get the contract to build the systems, like a constituent of mine who is looking for the contract to build these systems and happens to be a former Liberal Cabinet Minister by the name of Cafik, we see the potential for abuse if there is no requirement for public accountability.
I suggest there is the possibility of a major scam being perpetrated, not in the Government's official name, but by people who would stoop to that. The system can be rigged, Mr. Speaker. We have not been convinced that there will be control over the issuance of vouchers. Anyone can program a computer to spew out a lot of extra tickets. There will be no control on the odds; they will just keep selling tickets because they want to raise money for worthy causes.
If the wrong people intervene in the system-and here we are getting into the area of computer crime-a lot of money can be siphoned out of the system. That is why one of the amendments put forward by this Party asked that the books and accounts of the Sports Canada Corporation should be fully audited and scrutinized by the Auditor General. We find it strange that the Government rejected that amendment, just as it rejected our amendment to ensure that the funds would go first to the Calgary Olympics. The Government also rejected

June 29, 1983
our amendment which would have assured that this move could not lead to a wide open promotion of a myriad of electronic games. We are already plagued with these in our communities. Our kids are hanging out at the electronic pinball palaces, where they run into people who push drugs and commit petty break and entry in order to pay for their habit. We read about that in society today.
The Government has rejected our amendment which would have restricted the scope of this kind of lottery, so there is nothing to prevent it from going into all kinds of electronic gaming and distributing these things in our communities where they can corrupt our children. This can all be done with the nice red and white Liberal Party logo stamped in the corner- "officially on behalf of the Government of Canada".
I think that what the Minister is trying to put over in the House smells to high heaven, Mr. Speaker. I put a question in the House to the former Minister who had responsibility for Loto Select. That boondoggle had ordered $17,000 worth of foil-wrapped chocolate candies to be given away as a promotional gimmick. It had leased space in a building in Vancouver, hired a lot of people and entered into a contract with General Instruments of the United States, without going to tender, for
2,000	slot machines as part of the Loto Select initiative. At the end, the whole thing was written off at a cost of $37 million, including severance allowances and $10,000 compensation for over 50 employees.
This all happened under the aegis of that other great prominent Liberal, the former Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sports who came from Skeena and who now presents herself as President of the Liberal Party of Canada and perhaps future candidate for the leadership of that Party. In answer to the question I put to her in December, 1978 about the corruption, scandal and lack of control over the Loto Select boondoggle, she said that Canadian lottery winners are extremely intelligent in their investment in Loto Canada because they are able to maintain most of their dollars in their bank accounts.
Such stupidity, Mr. Speaker; such utter, unadulterated stupidity. This was the reply of a Minister of the Crown who was giving all her time to promoting Loto Canada. She was running around smiling, jumping over barricades and pretending to be a fitness freak when she should have been attending to Government business in some important economic portfolio. We are going around in that same old circle again, Mr. Speaker, with the present Minister who is not destined to sit long in this House. But he wants to go out in flames of glory and leave something that we will have to eliminate when we take office.
The former Minister said that Canadian lottery winners are extremely intelligent in their investment because they are able to maintain most of their dollars in their bank accounts. What about the losers, Mr. Speaker? The losers are the ten million who buy a ticket and do not win. What about the investment in
their bank account? They are spending household money at the rate of $40 per capita. If we were to examine the weighting toward low-income Canadians, I wager that many of them would be spending $100 per capita. What about their bank accounts? Is it so intelligent for the Government to encourage them to spend money that should be spent on children's shoes and clothing, mortgage payments and all the things they need in times of tremendous economic difficulty? It smells of moral bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite clear that Members of this Party will vote against this measure. All the indications are that the revenues predicted cannot possibly be realized. If the Quebec hockey lottery is any example, the Government will be lucky to raise $10 million or $20 million, not the $80 million or $100 million that was predicted.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the people of Canada will remember this and demand some changes. Already they are demanding a return to family values and respect for all the things that government should do as an example to our children. I for one will do everything I can to eliminate the sports pool operation when it comes before the next Government of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on third reading of Bill C-95. May I call it one o'clock before I start my remarks and continue after Question Period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Madam Speaker, today, on behalf of all senior citizens groups in the riding of Verdum-Saint Paul, I wish to speak out against the statement made in France by Mr. Rene Levesque. I think the Premier of Quebec must have been out of his mind to make such a shameful statement, in which he said that he would win the
June 29, 1983

next referendum on Quebec's independence, because today's senior citizens would have disappeared and would no longer be able to vote against the proposal. Personally, I want to join the thousands of Quebecers who respect the senior citizens who built this beautiful country called Canada, and I find it incredible that this Premier does not even think twice about the disgraceful way he is treating these people, and keeps cutting the services to which they are entitled as he has been doing for several years. A number of senior citizens in my riding have expressed their displeasure with the Premier's statement, and 1 hope that all senior citizens associations in Quebec will see it as their duty to write to the Premier and let him know they will have the last word in the next provincial election.
 * *



WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, one of the most significant gatherings of this decade will take place in Canada from July 24 to August 10 when the Sixth Assembly of the World Council of Churches convenes at the University of British Columbia. Nine hundred and thirty delegates from 304 member churches around the world, representing 440 million people in over 90 countries, will be affirming "life", in a world that faces life-denying forces each day. The Assembly theme, "Jesus Christ: Life of the World", has been chosen to focus prayer and discussion on justice and peace, on threats to human survival, and on violations of human dignity.
All Members of the House of Commons will want to relay their warm greetings and prayers of success to the Assembly through the 25 Canadian voting delegates, who represent the following member churches: Anglican, Disciples, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, Assyrian Catholic, Quaker and United. Four Canadian Roman Catholics have been appointed by the Vatican as official observers. Also observing will be representatives of other major faiths: Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist. Joining the delegates will be 2,000 observers and staff. A 1,000-member international press corps, supported by live satellitle transmisssion, will interpret the Assembly's work to the global community. The welcome decision of the CBC to carry the proceedings live on the parliamentary channel will enable Canadians to share in this sixth global ecumenical assembly.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an issue of importance to all Canadians. We are all aware of the positive
long-term effects of the technological revolution, particularly increased productivity and greater wealth generation. However, Madam Speaker, resistance to technological change is increasing, and will continue to increase if we do not dramatically increase our collective efforts to deal with the major negative outgrowth of the technological revolution, job displacement. For just as low inflation is a prerequisite for low interest rates and real economic growth, job security is a prerequisite for an economic environment which promotes a rapid adoption of technological advance as opposed to growing resistance.
Last week, in my riding of Kitchener, 300 workers from three textile factories, Forsythe, Arrow and Bill Klein Ltd., marched down Main Street with a message for me to take back to this House of Parliament. Their plea, Madam Speaker, was for job security.
Increased profit and production provide little solace to people who cannot look with any kind of security to their future. Promises of greater wealth and benefit cannot mitigate the fears of Canadians concerned for their jobs. We must realize that as output increases, the required manpower input does not necessarily increase-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House a matter which is not only of intense local concern in the Township of Flambor-ough, in my riding, but is an example of what can happen when powerful federal agencies make critical decisions affecting communities without listening to the people. Ottawa's National Energy Board has approved a big propane transfer station on a stretch of Highway 6 in Flamborough, without any input from the citizens whose safety and property values will be endangered.
There are three facts which have caused strenuous objection by my constituents to the Interprovincial Pipeline Limited plan to locate a propane transfer station at Harper's Corners. First, the stretch of Highway 6 being selected is known as "the killer highway" because of scores of traffic deaths due to freaky weather conditions. Second, some 45 school buses turn on and off Highway 6 each school day. Add to that the frightening fact that at least 60 propane tanker trucks will be wheeling on and off the same killer strip 24 hours a day at the proposed location which is approved by the NEB. Third, no written communication with residents in the area, prior to Interprovincial Pipeline's application being promptly approved by the National Energy Board, is anywhere on record that the Township of Flamborough, or I, can find.

June 29, 1983
Clearly, Madam Speaker, something has gone haywire with the required consultation process between Interprovincial Pipeline, the National Energy Board, and the people. The NEB says it is "very sensitive to the feelings of the communities concerned". Very well, let the Board prove it in this case.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, the mandatory affirmative action program which was announced by the Government this week is certainly better than nothing, but the victims of discrimination, intentional, systemic, or whatever, must be wondering why it took so long and whether it is enough. The largest group affected are women who have been under represented in the upper echelons, over-qualified and underpaid for years. How many people will actually benefit from the proposals, with economic restraint and hiring freezes?

The new program is a dream for public servants and a nightmare for activists. Let us note that the Government is not expected to do anything before the next election. Reference is made to guidelines and numerical objectives, but the latter have not been set. The action program will not even be implemented before 1985.
[English)
The inquiry into Crown corporations, the choice of the companies and of Judge Abella, are commendable, but why now only another study? The Royal Commission on the Status of Women back in 1970 recommended that Crown corporations establish means to institute their recommendations and otherwise improve the situation of women in employment. Finally, let us be clear that the proposals are only to move women up the corporate ladder, not to improve the situation of the large numbers of women not promoted. Contract compliance measures to extend equal pay for work of equal value into the private sector are still needed.



CANADA DAY


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in celebration of Canada's 116th birthday on July 1 of this year, I wish to encourage all Hon. Members of this House, and all Senators, to encourage their respective constituents to fly the Canadian flag during Canada Day celebrations on Friday, July 1, and during Canada Week. It is a time to emphasize the benefits of national unity, to encourage a greater understanding among Canadians, and to encourage pride in our country.
The allotment of 75 large Canadian flags, 400 table flags, and 3,000 Canadian flag lapel pins, which each Hon. Member receives annually, was never meant to be kept in drawers or offices. The Canadian flag, in whatever form, was meant to be flown or worn, particularly on Canada's birthday, and I again encourage all Hon. Members, Senators and their constituents, and indeed all citizens of this great country, to fly and wear these Canadian flags during the celebrations of Canada's birthday.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, being a son of Saskatchewan I have long watched with interest and fascination the activities of the CCF and the New Democratic Party. The steady decline in the support of the Party to my left in the polls, particularly in the West, has no doubt raised concerns about the political future of its members, their policy positions and leadership. Indeed, they have every right to be concerned when it is so clear that the hopes and aspirations of western Canadians are best represented by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Some of the prominent western members of the NDP issued a statement of principles, a new Regina Manifesto, which they want to see debated at the upcoming national convention in Regina. Former Premier Blakeney, and Mr. Notley of Alberta, seem to be concerned with the federal NDP's capacity to come down consistently on the wrong side of each issue.
Many people in the West had a good deal of respect for the CCF and its leadership. It appears, though, the western faction of the NDP feels the current policies and leadership of the Party will lead it into the political wilderness. It is because of my deep concern for the NDP, and my sadness at seeing a political movement disintegrate at this time in Canada's history, that I make this suggestion. Perhaps the Party's problem is its leadership. Perhaps the person who has been calling the shots should go. Perhaps Dennis McDermot of the CLC' the real leader of the NDP, must go.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, the Centre for International Policy, a U.S. research organization based in Washington, claims that the Reagan administration has basically succeeded in its campaign to make international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank,
June 29, 1983

cut loans to Nicaragua but multiply aid to El Salvador and Guatemala. As an exemple, the Inter-American Development Bank is now considering building two bridges to span the Lempa River in El Salvador, both of which are of strategic importance to the army in the civil war which has lasted for over three and a half years.
The Washington institute states that, "in the last half of 1982, the United States was able to squeeze $205 million out of the international financial institutions for El Salvador, limit Nicaragua to $34 million, and brush aside vigorous congressional opposition to Guatemala." All this has been done even though the international lending institutions have non-political charters forbidding discrimination against member countries, and requiring that loans be decided on economic grounds alone. Actually, the U.S. support for an Inter-American Bank Loan to Guatemala is significant, because it was the last right wing country on which U.S. human rights voting policy was in effect. Now the law is being applied only against leftist dictatorships like South Yemen.
In light of this, I call upon the Government to take to heart the proposals of the Canadian Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility, a group representing the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant denominations, to oppose IMF loan applications from countries engaging in or condoning "consistent and gross violations" of human rights.




Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, on numerous occasions I have risen in this House to criticize the Soviet Government for their suppression of human rights of Soviet citizens, and in particular their steadfast refusal to grant exit visas to those wishing to leave the Soviet Union for religious and intellectual freedom or to be reunited with family members in the West.
Earlier this week the Soviet Union allowed five Pentecostal members of the Yashchenko family to emigrate. I have today sent a letter to Mr. Yuri Andropov to commend his Government on this action, and urging him to issue exit visas to other Soviet citizens wishing to leave for legitimate reasons. There are over 350,000 Pentecostal believers in Canada who welcome this good news about their fellow believers.
Soviet officials should know that if they wish to improve relations with Canada and our allies, and establish good will with Canadians, we need to see more action of this nature. Unfortunately, the Yashchenko family are the exception, not the rule. Thousands of Soviet Jews have been refused permission to leave. Hopefully, however, this is a sign of a reversal in Soviet policy, and I wish to commend Mr. Andropov on this decision and urge him to grant the same treatment to the thousands who are still waiting and hoping.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS



REGRET AT ABSENCE OF MOTIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF STANDING ORDER 21

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to make a statement against statements. Since January, when we adopted new rules, I believe that there has been a great undercutting of Members of Parliament because we now cannot put motions which will cause action to be taken over the words we say in the House. I believe it is quite irrelevant whether we talk of the equality of women, native rights, or the release of Jews from the Soviet Union, if individual Members of Parliament cannot attach to their comments a motion requiring action. It was for that that our constituents sent us to Parliament. To give pretty speeches which have as much effect as if you had given them under a full moon, at midnight, at the bottom of Lake Superior, is no different than having a public speaking competition somewhere out in Boy Scout or 4-H Club country.
I simply say that the time honoured right of Members of Parliament to make a motion to cause action needs to be returned to this House, especially so in light of the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult-and I understand the reasons why-for Members to make Private Member's Motions. For those reasons I simply urge my colleagues in the House, when this experiment is over, to take a strong look at the matter of statements and to remember that action is more important than words, because Parliament needs to be accountable.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who spoke to the unreal world of television last night. Here we have to deal with reality, because he did not deal with it last night. Indeed, it was a cruel way to treat the two million unemployed Canadians when he said, "This is not a time of crisis. I speak of a time of rising hope."
How can the Prime Minister say that to the two million unemployed in this country? How can he say we have come a long way this year when, in actual fact, from last May until this May we have 265,000 more Canadians unemployed-
87,000	women, 91,000 young people, and 92,000 heads of families? Where is the rising hope, where is the lack of crisis the Prime Minister spoke of on television last night?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Hon. Member did not hear or watch
COMMONS DEBATES _________________June 29, 1983
Oral Questions
the television program or, if he did, that he switched it off much too soon. I did point out quite clearly we could not talk of a recovery in the true sense when there were still a million and a half Canadians unemployed. I made that point very emphatically. That is why I enjoined Canadians to continue to keep inflation down. We all know that, if inflation is down, investment will proceed, and if investment proceeds, jobs will proceed. In fact that is sustained by empirical evidence. I gave the figures of the last four months when new employment was created at a record-breaking rate. That, Madam Speaker, is because the recovery is beginning to be in sight and investors are beginning to realize they can plan for a more prosperous future. That creates jobs and tends to reduce the number of unemployed.
It is not a very complicated message. Its essence, if I can simplify it for the benefit of the Hon. Member, is that we must continue to do as we have in the last year in keeping inflation down. That is the essence. I dare the Hon. Member to take issue with that statement and say that, on the contrary, we should let inflation go up again and somehow this would help the unemployed.


PURCHASING POWER OF CONSUMERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I do take issue with that statement. How can the Prime Minister and his Government expect employment to continue to grow when, as the first quarter GNP figures show, the real purchasing power of Canadians continues to decline? It has in fact declined by 3.3 per cent, whereas in the U.S. it has increased by 2.7 per cent. Interestingly enough, unemployment in the U.S. will soon be below double digit, whereas we are told by the Minister of Finance to continue to expect double digit unemployment in this country until the end of the decade. How can we expect employment to grow in this country, how can the Prime Minister offer any hope to the unemployed in this country, when that is the reality we have to deal with in this place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, first of all the Hon. Member is misquoting the Minister of Finance. Second of all, he asked how I can offer any hope. I think that is really a partisan question. We on this side of the House believe there is hope for Canada, those on the other side do not believe in hope. That is the whole difference between us, and I will never be able to convince them that this country does hold out hope for Canadians.


INCREASE IN LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to take the Prime Minister's word. I would like to know where the hope is. What hope can I offer to the long-term unemployed of this country who have risen by 262,000 since last
year? As of May we have 795,000 Canadians who are considered to be long-term unemployed, an increase of over
260,000	over last year. Real purchasing power continues to decline. Canadians will not continue to spend their savings. Where is the job growth the Minister talks about? Where is the hope he talks about? I ask the Prime Minister, now that he is in the House of Commons, to deal with reality.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks how consumers will continue to spend and have hope if this situation is as bleak as he said. He need only consider the statistics. Housing starts are up. Job creation is up. Consumer demand is up. Industrial production is up. Investment is up. Obviously-


Mr. Stewart:: Gallup Polls are up.


Mr. Oberle:: Your time is up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, Madam Speaker, there is no time when everything is perfect anywhere.


Ian Deans: Unemployment is up. Bank profits are up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are always some negative signs that one can see, and that is the reality of Government. There is no time that is perfect. However, there are two approaches to the present situation. One is to consider only the negative signs and to say we must therefore be ruined as a country, and the other is to balance the negative and the positive signs and see if things are more positive on the other side and, if so, legitimately to hold out hope for the people of this country. That is our approach as opposed to that of the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: There will be hope if you leave.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Victoria.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I forgot to mention-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but I recognized the Hon. Member for Victoria.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. First,
I would like to compliment St. John Shipbuilding on the well deserved win of the frigate contract.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: keel is laid. Could the Minister tell the House if this long delay is due to cash flow problems within his Department?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think that delay was due to cash flow. 1 expected the Hon. Member to congratulate not only St. John Shipbuilding and Drydock but also the Government for having taken this important decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Since the Hon. Member was Minister of National Defence I think there have been many important decisions taken by this Government concerning incorporation and modernization of our equipment in the Armed Forces. These decisions could perhaps have been taken by the former Minister much sooner, if a decision had been taken when he held that position.


Mr. Wilson:: Three years ago. That's pretty weak.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: This question of modernizing our naval fleet is one of great concern to us. As I said this morning in my speech, this is the first batch of six frigates which will be in operation by the 1990s. That does not mean that over the course of the next few years we will not look again to a second batch, and perhaps a third batch, so that by the year 2000 we will be able to have a fleet which is fully modernized, well equipped and, at the same time, meets all our commitments to NATO. This is the aim of the Government in accordance with the financial resources that we will have at our disposal.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: There must be a statute of limitations on when the Minister must quit blaming the preceding administration for things. In three years, he should have learned.


RATIO OF INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS ACCRUING TO WEST
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the background information kit indicated that in the distribution of benefits from this program, the West will receive only 6.5 per cent of the industrial benefits. This follows a disappointing 9 per cent of the long range patrol aircraft benefits, with B.C. receiving 1 per cent of those benefits, and western Canada receiving 3.5 per cent of the benefits of the F-18. I would like to know if the Government considers this to be fair. Will it ever be fair to western Canada in the distribution of benefits from these major projects?


Ian Deans: Of course not.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would ask him to note that I have not even mentioned the $650 million refit for Tribal Class destroyers which seems to be going to Davie Shipyard without benefit of any competition.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that there will be $158 million for western Canada in terms of the
Oral Questions
contract itself. However, I would also point out that during the press conference this morning, recognizing that because there was no bid coming from western Canada and the Pacific shipyards, and that there had to be a distribution of shipbuilding benefits, we directed that the 1200 series icebreaker, which is worth more than $100 million, will be kept reserved for West Coast competition only.


Mr. Forrestall:: What about Halifax?


Mr. Blais:: As well, the hon. gentleman knows that there are two 1100 series icebreakers that will be directed to western shipyards, involving close to $100 million of additional work.
Within the very near future I will be announcing Department of Fisheries and Oceans vessels, one 69 metres and another 72 metres, that will be awarded to West Coast shipyards. As well, there is repair work that is going into the West Coast shipyards. Last month I announced the multiship refit which is valued at more than $50 million.
Madam Speaker, I know that you are becoming impatient and I will therefore stop reciting my list at this time.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, to continue with the Prime Minister's litany of things that are up, I would remind him that shall business bankruptcies are up, personal bankruptcies are up, corporate bankruptcies are up, farm bankruptcies are up, ranch bankruptcies are up, youth unemployment is up, seniors having difficulty are up, the ire of most Canadians is up, and the index finger of most Canadians is now going up.


Mr. Dawson:: The NDP is down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is directed to the Prime Minister in response to his discussion on television last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my father was a farmer on the Canadian Prairies in the 1930s.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: His daily income was 50 cents a day because of the Depression, when he could buy a meal for 15 cents as a result of the Depression. In other words, the cost of living had decreased as a result of the depression-like conditions in Canada.
Did the Prime Minister not feel a wee bit like a phoney last night when he was taking credit for the decrease in inflation when, in fact, he knows full well that the de-escalation in

June 29, 1983
Oral Questions
wages and salaries has been a result of the recession-depression, and that the de-escalation in price increases has also been a result of the recession-depression-like conditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must not have listened to the program, either. I did not take credit for any reduction in inflation. I said that the Canadian people should be congratulated for having, by an act of national will, brought inflation down.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was asking myself how both Opposition Parties would greet the news yesterday that inflation had been cut by more than half in one year-


Mr. Stevens:: It is still double the American level.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -when, last year, everything we heard from the other side of the House, and, indeed, much of the legitimate complaint of the country was that inflation was too high-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: So it was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that interest rates were too high-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: So they were.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and that they should be brought down-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: So they should.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in order that jobs be created. I knew that they would find an answer. I did not know what it would be, but I knew it would be certain not to recognize that it was a good thing that inflation came down. They would find something else, and they did.


An Hon. Member:: And not very well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And not very well, as my colleague says. The fact is that inflation was cut in half. The fact is that a year ago the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party were complaining about inflation being double digit and being too high. All of this has come down in the space of the year. I think the Canadian people can take credit for that, no matter what the opposition says.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I welcome that clarification. Just so that we all understand, the Prime Minister is saying that the six and five program of the Government had nothing to do with the deescalation in inflation. 1 think that has been clarified, then.


REQUEST THAT MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS BE CONVENED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it became clear from the Prime Minister's speech on television last night that the further actions of the Government will not be to create long term meaningful jobs, because of its obvious inability to do so, but to continue with more wage restraint. He
indicated a call to the Finance Ministers to discuss the issue of continuous restraint.
Considering the fact that two million people are still left jobless, by his own admission last night, would the Prime Minister not consider it more appropriate to call a meeting of First Ministers to discuss the issue of how to get Canadians back to work, as opposed to discussing further ways of trying to restrain public servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is obviously rhetorical. If the Hon. Member is asking about what I said last night, the message was not essentially one of restraint but one of coming prosperity-
More importantly, the message was that if we wanted prosperity to continue coming we had to keep inflation down. That is the view of this side of the House. If the other side want to argue that that is not important, that we can shoot inflation up again and everything will be okay, let them take the responsibility for that policy. I would suggest that it is not the policy of the new Leader of the Conservative Party nor, hopefully, of the Leader or new leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Once again, I challenge the New Democratic Party, as I challenge the Tory Party, to state that the fight against inflation is over to the point where we do not have to worry about it again and the Minister of Finance does not have to discuss that subject. Perhaps the Parties opposite feel that inflation has definitely been wrestled to the ground, but I am not sure that is true.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. He should know about wrestling inflation to the ground. He has been in the ring with it for 14 years.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is again commenting on the answer. Members must proceed right to their question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is so tempting, Madam Speaker.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that the reality of the situation is that we have to deal with the unemployed? We have 1.5 million unemployed. For example, what do I tell my people in British Columbia today when the Prime Minister refuses to award a shipbuilding contract on a regional basis? There is no work for those yards out there. There is no work for a lot of other people in other industries.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree with what Premier Pawley said, and call a First Ministers' Conference on what everyone in the country is concerned about, which is not inflation but unemployment?
June 29, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member wants to know what he should tell his constituents. He could tell them to look at what 1 said last night. Sixty-eight thousand jobs were created in May, and these are seasonally adjusted. The absolute figures would be immensely higher than that. Another 68,000 were created in April, and more than half of these jobs went to young people. This is something he can tell them.
Instead, he could take the usual NDP negative view, of gloom and doom, by saying, "Well, inflation is cut in half but that ain't good enough. We should worry about something else."
I repeat that cutting inflation in half was stated by those Parties opposite last year as the essential precondition to bring interest rates down and create jobs. All I said last night was that this had happened. I never said that we had worked miracles. I said that it had happened. The real jobs to be created are ahead. That is why I said we are at a crossroads. We can throw it away if we want.


Mr. Fennell:: Always in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this side we move one step at a time. We cannot do everything today for everybody at the same time.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of Supply and Services. 1 would like to ask whether the Minister could confirm the news about the contract award announced today, involving $2.3 billion, which will create a high-tech center to the Province of Quebec, as a result of transfer of technology from Paramax and Vickers Versatile.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Yes, Madam Speaker. There are two major factors here. As the Hon. Member is aware, the frigate has an arms system consisting of anti-submarine missiles and equipment, and Paramax, which is a branch of Sperry, will be responsible for integrating all these systems. This means that a staff of about 400 people will be located in Montreal. In addition, Vickers will be the main subcontractor for Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., for the purposes of construction of three of the frigates at the Marine Industries shipyards. The company will also be based in Montreal, which means a transfer of some 140 employees to this metropolitan area.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He will know that concern still exists regarding the long term financial stability of Maislin. These concerns were further heightened by the recent closed door shareholders meeting held in Montreal.
A year ago the Government guaranteed a loan of $34 million to Maislin on the basis that the Government would be allowed to appoint a director to the board of directors in order to protect the taxpayers' interest. Is the Government going to appoint such a director, or not?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, we have not been able to find an individual with the expertise in that industry who is willing to sit and who does not have a potential conflict of interest sitting on the board of directors at this point in time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is sort of like being appointed first mate of the Titanic.


PROTECTION OF TAXPAYERS' INTEREST
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, Maislin's losses over the past two years have totalled the amount of the loan. In fact in the first three months of this year the company lost over $4 million. Yet there has been no Government director appointed to protect the taxpayers' interest. In view of that failure, what steps has the Government taken to protect the taxpayers' interest with respect to the company's assets, especially the rolling stock, to make sure that it stays in Canada?


Edward C. Lumley: First, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that we are not shareholders of the Maislin Corporation. As I said on several occasions in the House-and the Hon. Member who is a chartered accountant knows the role of directors-the role of a director is to ensure that the company protects the interests of the shareholders of that company. The Government of Canada is not a shareholder of that company at this particular point in time.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday

June 29, 1983
Oral Questions
the Minister of Transport said, as reported at page 26853 of Hansard:
it would be normal for Mr. Pitfield in his former capacity to write to me or to other Ministers expressing his views or the views of the Prime Minister on matters of this kind.
Did the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Pitfield the development of the McGill College Avenue area before Mr. Pitfield wrote to the Minister of Transport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did discuss with Mr. Pitfield the fact that Air Canada was thinking of building or purchasing new quarters in Montreal. I did indicate to Mr. Pitfield that I would want to make sure that that decision was not purely a corporate decision taken for the convenience of Air Canada but that the Minister of Transport was brought into this discussion so that the Government's input could be made known.


ROLE OF AIR CANADA CHAIRMAN
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House that, in view of his concern, the Minister of Transport perhaps was not involved in some of these matters, and that his interest was stimulated by the Chairman of Air Canada, Mr. Amyot, in representations which the Chairman made to the Prime Minister or to Mr. Pitfield?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my interest was essentially to make sure that Air Canada would make a decision which was good for the unemployment situation in Montreal-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Come on, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that they would be looking, as the Government is, for hopes of an economic renewal in that city, and that any decision made by a major Crown corporation, like Air Canada, would be in some way compatible with such economic recovery.


INDUSTRY AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last December the Government announced an Industry and Labour Adjustment Program to the tune of about $15 million for Port Alberni, which was experiencing 25 per cent unemployment. In the six months that program has been in place only 133 temporary jobs have been created, paying $175 a week. With regard to that program, which is basically set up to deal with central Canadian manufacturing industry, will the Minister review the criteria for the program so it
would more aptly apply to a primary resource industry in Port Alberni, such as forestry, fishing and tourism, so that jobs can be created from the $15 million promised for the workers of Port Alberni?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be pleased to know that I have just received a report from members of my advisory council whom I had asked to do an examination of the labour adjustment programs that we have established. Mr. Emile Vallee, who is a member of the CLC and also a member of that council, visited Port Alberni, has just given me a report recommending certain changes. He pointed out that the difficulty with the program is that we tried to deliver it through the auspices of the local community where we brought together community leaders, municipal authorities, and officials. Under that program we are trying to work up a system where local people would be the primary sponsors of new programs. He has recommended it to me. I hope to be able to visit Port Alberni this summer to go over those recommendations presented by the advisory council. After those recommendations are implemented, I am sure the program will achieve the objectives we established for it.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF QUALIFYING PERIOD
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, with regard to the Minister's answer, I might add that the established criterion for ILAP is a one-year period. In Port Alberni we still have 2,400 people on unemployment insurance, 2,000 people on social assistance, and 1,400 people who have only part-time work. Could I have some assurance from the Minister that the period for qualification for those funds can be extended past the one-year period, considering the utter failure of the program up to this point?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if I might be permitted I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that he examine very closely the kind of program proposals contained in the legislation that has just been passed by this House under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion which do set out a number of special programs by which communities like Port Alberni can develop special assistance programs for industrial development. In the meantime, the labour adjustment part of ILAP will be continuing to provide for the ability of workers in communities such as Port Alberni, to maintain and develop new job alternatives, retraining programs and others.
It is with the new program, under the new industrial regional development system that has been established by the passage of the Bill, that I think we will be able to provide particularly effective targeting assistance for communities that have gone through the kind of difficulties that Port Alberni has experienced.

June 29, 1983


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE BUDGETING RESTRICTIONS ON SERVICES FOR ELDERLY IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the fact that the Minister's Department does a great deal for senior citizens and in view of the statement made in France by the Premier of Quebec, a statement that appeared in a magazine, Le nouvel observateur, and was broadcast on the Radio-Canada news, namely, that the next referendum would be won if more than 100,000 senior citizens were no longer with us, I should like to know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in view of this sensational and disgraceful statement by the Premier of Quebec, could make some enquiries and provide statistics going back to 1980, to find out whether there have been budget cuts affecting staff and services in senior citizens' homes in Quebec.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the Hon. Member is actually directing his question to the Premier of Quebec and making him pay for his past sins, because of that unfortunate remark concerning 100,000 senior citizesn. These people who were already senior citizens three years ago would supposedly no longer be with us at the next referendum. Well, this means there will never be another referendum, since the Premier seems to have forgotten that the life expectancy of Quebecers at birth has increased steadily, and therefore these 100,000 senior citizens are going to haunt him for the rest of his days.
 * *


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last night the Prime Minister agonized about how to handle prosperity while millions of unemployed Canadians were agonizing about how to buy food and pay the rent. I would like to ask the Prime Minister about unemployed students.
In the Kingston area there are 1,500 more students unemployed this month than last month, 1,000 more than were unemployed last year. What is happening in Kingston happens in every community across the country. Student unemployment is up 30 per cent this year. Since the Prime Minister was able to commandeer the airwaves to talk about 6 per cent and 5 per cent, why did he not use some of that time to talk about the enormous increase, the 30 per cent increase, in student unemployment, and to put forward proposals to alleviate that grave situation?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, last fall I remember the Opposition complaining bitterly that I had "commandeered the airwaves", to use the Hon. Member's phrase, for three nights in a row. Now she is suggesting that last night my statement was not long enough and that I should take to the airwaves another time in order to deal with another problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I obviously could not in 15 minutes cover everything that the Government is doing and will want to do, including creating jobs for young people. More than $1 billion this year is being spent in order to create jobs for young people. As I said last night, of 63,000 jobs created in May more than half of them are for young people, those under the age of 25. But I could not put everything in the same speech, Madam Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: How about making a speech in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to go to the CBC with the Hon. Member's suggestion that I have another couple of evenings so I can cover all these subjects too.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Had the Prime Minister utilized the television facilities of the House of Commons he would have been able to speak for much longer than that, and deal with some of the country's very critical issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But obviously he wanted to ignore, and still wants to ignore-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have again reminded Hon. Members today that they need not comment on answers but that they should simply ask a question. I would urge the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands to ask a question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the 30 per cent increase in unemployment among young people. I am speaking about the students in this country who are without jobs, without unemployment insurance, without income, and who do not have the money to get back to school in the fall. The Prime Minister is jeopardizing their future. Does he consider that they are beneath the concern of the Government to deal with when he talks on national television, or will he put forward proposals that will meet this very grave situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, how can the Hon. Member truthfully say that these young unemployed are "beneath" our concern, to quote her again.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Don't you realize the increase?

June 29, 1983
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Listen and learn.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have budgeted more than $1 billion in order to create jobs for young people.
As to using the time of the House on television, the Hon. Member and her colleagues are giving the answer. There is no way in this House that you can give a message of hope and a positive message to Canadians without the group opposite- both groups opposite-trying to say how terrible things are and will continue to be in Canada. That is the reason. The people of Canada do not want to hear only negativism. That is why half the time spent in this House of Commons is wasted on the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is the democratic way, Pierre.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF CENTRAL NOVA BYELECTION DATE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 1, 1948, in order to accommodate the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, a riding was vacated; the Prime Minister directed the warrant be issued to the Chief Electoral Officer the same day; and the writ was issued the following day, November 2.
I provided the Acting Prime Minister yesterday with the Stanfield precedent in September, 1967, which saw the lapse of only one day between the vacancy and the calling of the election. In accordance with the practices and customs of this place, could he now announce the date of the by-election in Central Nova to accommodate the election of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Mulroney?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I attempted to deal with that question earlier this week when I indicated that I expected to bring the matter to Cabinet this week, or next. 1 will bring it to Cabinet tomorrow and, if a decision is made, I will make the announcement at the next sitting of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: It is understandable to hear the howls of glee from the back benches of the Government Party; they really do not appreciate the practices and traditions of the House of Commons.


CITING OF PRECEDENTS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when the Prime Minister is considering doing the proper thing, will he also have regard, in addition to the precedents I have already cited, to December 27, 1921, when the resignation of the Hon. Member for Grenville, Ontario caused a vacancy? Again the warrant was issued on the same day as the declaration of the vacancy, and the writ was also issued on the same day, December 27, 1921?
Perhaps, if he is not convinced by that precedent, he might have regard to the most recent one of July 2, 1981, when the then Hon. Member for Spadina, Mr. Stollery, was appointed to the Senate. On July 2 that seat was declared vacant; on July 2, the same day, the Prime Minister caused the warrant to be issued; and on July 3, the very next day, the writ calling the election was issued. Will the Prime Minister cease this game of chicken, abide by the practices established in this place, and announce the by-election today or, at the very latest, tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I said from the outset that we hoped a chance would be given to the new Leader of the New Democratic Party to take a seat in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are thinking of the wrong convention.


Erik Nielsen: Don't anticipate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You know something we don't know?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, those two Parties opposite are so united in their negativism that I confuse them sometimes. But I did say that we hoped an occasion would be given to the new Leader of the Conservative Party to contest a seat in this place very soon, and that is still my intention. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Yukon wants to hold me to a matter of days. I tell him that we began from opposite points of view in this matter. We on this side were rather happy with the present Leader of the Conservative Party; apparently he is anxious to ditch his job and go on to better things. We will try to accommodate him as soon as possible. I am sure everyone in the House will share his view that he should leave very soon.


PENITENTIARIES
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. He knows that we are very concerned to see post-secondary programs in Canadian penitentiaries being continued, programs which have been more successful than any other the Department has tried.
June 29, 1983

Would the Minister tell us the results of a study he commissioned by the Bureau of Management Consulting on the feasibility of charging fees to inmates of penitentiaries? Will he now admit that this is not a realistic option, that inmates will not go into debt to take courses, the value of which they cannot possibly appreciate until they have in fact been rehabilitated?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact the Bureau of Management Consulting has not completed its work, but it has told me something which I guess would surprise the Hon. Member, that in a survey it did of inmates participating in the program in British Columbia, over 70 per cent said that they would be prepared to borrow a reasonable amount of money to permit those courses to be continued. 1 do not have the final results of that study, but I will make them public as soon as I do.
I have indicated-and I am glad to have the opportunity to repeat it in this place-that those courses will be continued in the meanwhile. I have instructed the Correctional Service of Canada to continue the university courses as it has in the past until a loan program could be worked out. I have more faith in the willingness of the inmates to participate in the program on the basis I suggested than does the Hon. Member.


Lynn McDonald: We have heard about hope; now we are hearing about faith.


REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder whether the Minister would concede that of these same inmates, the majority of whom said would be willing to pay for programs, a majority said that they would not have been willing to pay at the time the course started; that this improvement in motivation only occurs after being in the program; and that in the study there was no canvassing of inmates who had not taken programs and who are, after all, the population we would like to see involved? Would the Minister comment on the whole principle of rehabilitation? We do have hope to offer, there are possibilities, but penitentiary inmates are not the same as university students outside. Would he not agree that we have to get them into programs-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the rehabilitative programs available in the Correctional Service of Canada. I believe that they bear favourable comparison with any programs in this country, in any provincial institution, or in any State of the United States.
Canadians invest a fortune in the rehabilitation of inmates in the correctional system of the country which is maintained within my Ministry. I do not think they take a second place to
Oral Questions
any. The university programs are good ones. We found a way to continue them. I do not see any reason why a person who has been convicted of an offence should be given a program which free Canadians outside institutions have to pay as much as they do in society now to receive. I do not think it is a bit unreasonable to ask inmates to put their credit, as do free students, behind their own university education.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will know that in the April budget the Youth Internship Program was announced, but here we are several months later and we still do not have any program; in fact we do not have any details. When can we expect some kind of information on this program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as 1 have explained several times in the House, the program is scheduled to start in September. The reason for the three-month interval was to put the program administration into place so that its implementation could be brought forward without any hitches or difficulties. Because the program in particular is aimed toward working with the private sector to provide an opportunity to help young people obtain employment and on the job experience, we want to ensure proper preparation. Rather than doing as the Hon. Member would suggest, running it in a hasty way, we are prepared to do it in a careful and cautious way to ensure that the program works.


Albert Glen Cooper: We seem to be having big announcements with big money, but no action. It is now three months later and nothing has happened.


MAKING OF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the question remains that if we want to find out what programs will be announced, do we now check the CBC booking sheets?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would hope that because of the importance that this Government places upon the ability to provide employment programs for all Canadians, our public network, along with others, would pay proper attention to the important programs we are providing as a contribution to job creation in this country.

June 29, 1983
Electoral Boundaries PETITIONS


TABLING OF REPORTS OF CLERK OF PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, June 28, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: I announced the other day that some objections filed for the Province of Newfoundland have been filed late. I suggested to the House that, if it were to give its unanimous consent, we would consider that they could be accepted. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the filing of the objections from the Province of Newfoundland?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
It is my duty to inform the House that objections signed by the Hon. Members for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead), Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), Burin-St. Georges (Mr. Simmons), Laurier (Mr. Berger), Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and Sudbury (Mr. Frith) have been filed with me.
I also have objections filed with me by the Hon. Members for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), Regina East (Mr. de Jong), Win-nipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper), Kootenay-West (Mr. Kristiansen), The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), Spadina (Mr. Heap), Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller).
[ Translation]



FILING OF OBJECTION TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), Joliette (Mr. La Salle), Labelle (Mr. Dupras), Dollard (Mr. Desmarais), La Prairie (Mr. Deniger), Pontiac-
Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), Levis (Mr. Gourde) and Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), has been filed with the Chair pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Ninth Report of the Subcommittee on Computer Crime, of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


AGRICULTURE-PRESENTATION OF TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


TRANSPORT-PRESENTATION OF FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifteenth and sixteenth reports of the Standing Committee on Transport. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the sixteenth report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
June 29, 1983


PENITENTIARIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table, in both official languages, the Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator which covers the period June 1, 1981, to May 31, 1982.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to lay on the table a copy, in both official languages, of the annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, in conjunction with discussions that I have held with the members of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure recommending that all terms of reference under which parliamentary standing committees, special committees and sub-committees operate, address and provide for status of women considerations, I am tabling the research documents prepared by the Council as outlined in the Annual Report.
Hearings on the estimates have already given Members of this House an opportunity to examine the mandate and budget of the CACSW and members of several other House committees have had the benefit of the expert advice provided to their committees through Council members and their reports on such issues as prostitution, native women's rights and pensions.
It is my hope that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs will take advantage of this reference to examine the Council's reports on reproductive hazards at work, better day care for Canadians, and the study of sex equality in Canadian sport, and their associated recommendations.
Likewise, the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration will now have the opportunity to examine the issues outlined in "A Working Majority: What Women Must
do for Pay"-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister is going far beyond what we can accept.
Petitions


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 64(1), I wish to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means motion to apply the Customs and Excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada, and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.


TABLING OF FIRST REPORT TO UNITED NATIONS RESPECTING ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION
Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to table the publication of Canada's first report to the United Nations under the terms of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,575 people in the Georgian Triangle area of Collingwood, Ontario, in the riding of Grey-Simcoe, who have expressed their desire for the construction of a 400-metre drydock at the Collingwood shipyard, assistance for which has been long promised by both the federal and Ontario Governments. They hope the two Governments will at long last get together to make this dry-dock a reality, not only for the construction of larger ships but as well to drastically increase ship repair facilities, with the additional jobs that will be created.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Fraser Valley East. The purpose of the petition, signed by members of the Clayburn Women's Institute in Clayburn, B.C., is to register their opposition to the adult erotic entertainment being planned by First Choice Pay-TV on the grounds that such programs are an assault on human dignity and a violation of generally accepted standards of decency. Permitting such telecasting results in the demeaning of women, in the degrading of man and the destruction in children of a wholesome and responsible attitude to the human sexual expression. They have included in their vigorous opposition Red Hot Video stores and similar establishments that are licensed sources of pornography.

June 29, 1983
Petitions
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to insist that public broadcasting be required to observe a code of ethics that will enhance the highest level of ethical and moral standards and that licensed public retail outlets will be required to promote the highest rather than the lowest levels of morality and human decency.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present a petition on behalf of 222 grade nine students at John Barsby Secondary School. The undersigned humbly sheweth that they demand that Canada urge an international treaty to be signed promising never to be the first one to fire a nuclear weapon on another country; that Canada call for a nuclear free zone between all nations; that Canada never help develop nuclear weapons; and that Canada lead the way in turning the world into a nuclear free zone.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition to the House signed by some 512 people mainly from the Battlefords area. The petition was originated by the Batt-lefords Association for Nuclear Disarmament.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, 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 testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to disallow the testing of the Cruise missile on any Canadian soil; and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, 1 also have the duty and indeed the pleasure to present this petition signed by some 50 or 60 constituents of Regina East concerning the testing of the Cruise missile. The undersigned petitioners are now exercising their right to present their grievance that the proposed testing of the American Cruise missile at the Primrose Air Weapons Range sets a dangerous precedent jeopardizing both our Saskatchewan environment and the prospects of world peace.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel immediately Cruise missile testing negotiations with the United States.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition today which is similar to the first petition I presented but is from another area. It is from a group of residents who are concerned about nuclear disarmament and the Cruise missile in the area of Lloydminster. The undersigned residents of
Canada, 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 testing of the Cruise missile in Canada escalates the nuclear arms race and is therefore a serious threat to world peace.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to disallow the testing of the Cruise missile on any Canadian soil; and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present another petition today. This one is from unemployed workers in Port Alberni. The undersigned residents of Port Alberni in the Province of British Columbia do 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, and humbly sheweth that whereas massive lay-offs in the country are creating hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers; whereas these workers are unemployed through no fault of their own; and whereas the federal Government has failed to protect existing jobs; we the undersigned hereby demand that Unemployment Insurance benefits be extended to cover the full term of unemployment, and Unemployment Insurance benefits be increased to 90 per cent of insurable earnings.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I have also received a petition signed by farmers and some ranchers who live in the Swift Current-Maple Creek area. They are concerned with the proposed changes to the statutory Crow rate. The undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan do now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance to the House of Commons, and that grievance is, Madam Speaker, that the Crow rate is non-negotiable.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate; and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) to introduce his Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 29, 1983


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-689, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Vaudreuil.


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in the same way, 1 would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to present my Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-690, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (sports franchises).
He said: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a Bill today that would amend the Combines Investigation Act. The House will recall that on May 19, 1983, upon my suggestion, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) instigated an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act of the refusal of the NHL board of governors to transfer the St. Louis Blues to Saskatoon. As a result, the Restricted Trade Practices Commission will hold a hearing on July 12, 1983.
I have had some concerns about the strength of the Combines Investigation Act and its application to the granting, transfer and operation of sport franchises. These subjects have been specifically excluded from the freedom of trade section in the Act. This Bill would correct that problem and thus would hopefully ensure that a professional sports league could not unreasonably restrict the transfer of a franchise, particularly when it is contrary to our national interests.


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

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have three motions about which discussions have taken place with the other Parties in the House and I believe there is unanimous consent to deal with these without debate.
The first relates to small business taxation. It is an order of reference.
Motions
Ordered-That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the taxation of small businesses and that the Committee be empowered for this purpose to engage the necessary expert staff to assist in its work.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that it appoint a subcommittee to consider the aforementioned matter and that the subcommittee and members of the subcommittee have the power to adjourn from place to place inside Canada for a period of two weeks and to travel outside Canada for a period of one week; and that this travel be only on days when the House is not sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the next motion relates to the status of foreign bank subsidiaries and it is also an order of reference.
Ordered,-That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to review the report to Parliament dated May 31, 1983, prepared by the Inspector General of Banks and entitled "The Status of Foreign Bank Subsidiaries" and to include in its report the Committee's views as to whether or not conditions have changed sufficiently since the present Bank Act came into effect to warrant an increase in the eight per cent ceiling specified in subsection 302(7) of the Bank Act and, if appropriate, the extent of the increase proposed.
That the Committee be empowered for this purpose to engage the necessary expert staff to assist in its work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I also have a motion which relates to Ways and Means motions and is an order of reference.
Ordered-That the Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, tabled in the House on April 19, 1983, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the Committee shall report its Findings not later than September 30, 1983; provided that, if the House is not sitting when the report has been completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I should like to move that the sixteenth

June 29, 1983
Order Paper Questions
report of the Standing Committee on Transport, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(n)	Pacific Petroleums, Inc.	Since April 8, 1982 has not been an interest of Petro-Canada's.(o)	Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd.	Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,706, 4,708, 4,749, 4,834, 4,835, 4,842, 4,843, 4,901,4,915, 4,919, 4,945 and 4,951.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	On what date did the Board of Directors of (a) Aquilla Holdings Ltd. (b) Arctic Islands Resources Ltd. (c) Asher American, Inc. (d) Big Eagle Oil and Gas Ltd. (e) Cal-Jet Holdings Ltd. (f) Canertech Ltd. (g) Commodore Oils Ltd. (h) Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd. (i) G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd. (j) Merit Oil Co. Ltd. (k) Opal Oils Ltd. (I) Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd. (m) Pacific Petroleums Espanola. S.A. (n) Pacific Petroleums, Inc. (o) Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd. (p) Pacific Pipelines, Inc. (q) Pay-N-Save Gas Stations Ltd. (r) Petro-Canada Consulting Corporation (s) Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. (t) Petro-Canada International Inc. (u) Petro-Canada Norway A/S (v) Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc. (w) Petro-Canada Products Inc. (x) Petro-Canada Resources Inc. (y) Petro-Canada (U.K.) Ltd. (z) Petrofina Canada Inc. (aa) Petroleum Transmission Company (bb) Petron Petroleum Ltd. (cc) Rocair Ltd. (dd) Tri-Mountain Petroleums Ltd. (ee) Value Serve Stations Ltd. (ff) Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A. (gg) Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A. last meet to discuss the financial affairs of the Corporation?
2.	Did any of the Boards of Directors of the Crown Corporations in part I not meet in the past eight years and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
(p)
(q)
(r) <*) (0
(U)
(V) (w) (X)
<y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(88)
Pacific Pipelines Inc.
Pay-N-Save Gas Stations Ltd.
Petro-Canada Consulting Corp.
Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.
Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation (Narre was changed from Petro-Canada Intersational Inc. on November 9,
1981 i
Petro-Canada Norway A/S
Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc.
Petro-Canada Products Ltd.
Petro-Canada Resources Inc.
Petro-Canada (U.K.) Ltd.
Petro-Canada Enterprises Inc.
(Name was changed from Petrofina Canada Inc. on September 1, 1981.)
Petroleum Transmission Company
Petron Petroleum Ltd.
Rocair Limited
Tri-Mountain Petroleums Ltd.
Value Service Stations Ltd.
Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A. Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A.
June 30,1982
Incorporated into Petro-Canada on October 5, 1981.
October 27, 1982
December 14, 1982
January, 1983
Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.
June 30, 1982
October 25, 1982
July 7, 1982
December 29, 1982
October 25, 1982
June 7, 1982 June 30, 1982 May 3, 1982 June 7,1982 June 30, 1982 Not active.
Not active.
2. See reply to part 1.
Date of last
	Company	Board meeting
(a)	Aquilla Holdings Ltd.	June 30, 1982(b)	Arctic Islands Resources Ltd.	June 30, 1982(c)	Asher American Inc.	June 30, 1982(d)	Big Eagle Oil & Gas Ltd.	June 10, 1982(a)	Cal-Jet Holdings Ltd.	July 26, 1982(0	Canertech Inc.	November 24, 1982(8)	Commodore Oils Ltd.	June 30, 1982(h)	Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd.	June 30,1982(i)	G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd.	Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.6)	Merit Oil Co. Ltd.	Since October 1, 1981 has not been an interest of Petro-Canada's.(k)	Opal Oils Ltd.	June 30, 1982(1)	Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd.	June 30, 1982(m)	Petro-Canada Espanola, S.A. (Name was changed from Pacific	September 10, 1982
Petroleums Espanola, S.A. on June 17, 1981.)


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Who sits on the Board of Directors of each of the Crown corporations listed in question no. 4,706 of February 4, 1983?


David Charles Dingwall: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
	Company	Board of Directors
(a)	Aquilla Holdings Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(b)	Arctic Islands Resources Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(c)	Asher American Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(d>	Big Eagle Oil & Gas Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien
June 29, 1983

(e)	Cal-Jet Holdings Ltd.	Graham Fraser Glenn Sundstrom(0	Canertech Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper David P. O'Brien Lome Dyke(g)	Commodore Oils Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien<h)	Fifth Pacific Stations Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(i)	G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd.	Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.(j)	Merit Oil Co. Ltd.	Information is unknown to Petro-Canada.00	Opal Oils Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(0	Pacific Petrochemicals Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta William A. West David P. O'Brien(m)	Petro-Canada Espanola, S.A.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien Manuel Fillol Ciorraga(n)	Pacific Petroleums, Inc.	Information is unknown to Petro-Canada.(o)	Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd.	Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.(P)	Pacific Pipelines Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien(q)	Pay-N-Save Gas Stations Ltd.	Incorporated into Petro-Canada on October 5, 1981.(r)	Petro-Canada Consulting Corp.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta Sam Stewart(s)	Petro-Canada Exploration Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien Sam Stewart(0	Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation	Peter M. Towe Wilbert H. Hopper George W. Tough William J. Jenkins Frederick G. Rayer<u)	Petro-Canada Norway A/S	Information is not available because records are kept outside of Canada.(V)	Petro-Canada Petroleum Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien James M. Stanford(w)	Petro-Canada Products Ltd.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien William A. West(X)	Petro-Canada Resources Inc.	Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien
(y)
(z)
(aa)
(bb)
(cc)
(dd)
(ee)
(ff)
(gg)
Order Paper Questions
Petro-Canada (U.K.) Ltd.
Petro-Canada Enterprises Inc.
Petroleum Transmission Co.
Wilbert H. Hopper Michael C. Johns David Dixon David P. O'Brien
Wilbert H. Hopper Jean-Claude Hebert Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien David McD. Mann Jean-Pierre Amory J. Van Vytvanck Baron D. Snoy
Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien Sam Stewart
Petron Petroleum Ltd.
Rocair Ltd.
Tri-Mountain Petroleums Ltd.
Value Service Stations Ltd.
Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A.
Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A.
Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien
Sam Stewart David P. O'Brien Muriel Rhynes
Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien C. Francis Murphy
Wilbert H. Hopper Edward M. Lakusta David P. O'Brien
Not active
Not active


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In 1982, what was the amount of the tax expenditure in sales tax foregone in the publishing industry?
2.	What percentage of publications sold in Canada are considered to be foreign?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of Finance and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	Sales tax revenues foregone by the exemptions in the Excise Tax Act for newspapers, magazines, and books is in the range of $260 million per annum.
2.	Information for the year 1982 is not yet available, however for the year 1981, in terms of dollar value, 73.7 per cent of all books sold in Canada were imports.

June 29, 1983
Order Paper Questions YUKON ADVISORY COUNCIL


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Northern Pipeline Agency Yukon Advisory Council and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Council (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Council publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Economic Development is concerned:
1.	The Yukon Advisory Council was established by the Governor in Council in February, 1979, and eight members were appointed for two year terms. In April, 1981, five of the original members were reappointed and two new members were appointed for two year terms, (a) Reappointments to the Council are proceeding at the present time, (b) (i) and (ii) see above, (c) Under its terms of reference, members of the Yukon Advisory Council shall be paid a fee of $125 per day for each day spent in attendance at meetings of the Council. The Chairman shall be paid $175 per day for each day spent in attendance; the Vice-Chairman shall be paid $150 per day. Members' travel expenses are also paid by the Agency. For the term of their respective appointments, previous members received the following remuneration, inclusive of travel, salary and incidental expenses:
Name	Background	Appointment Term	RemunerationClifford Geddes	Businessman & Member of the Yukon Water Board	February, 1979- April, 1983	$11,782Raymond Jackson	Chief of Champagne/Aishihik Band	February, 1979- April, 1981	$ 7,216Joanne Linzey	Active in community affairs	February, 1979- April, 1981	$ 8,533Wayne Palmer	Official of the Union Teamsters' Union	February, 1979- April, 1981	$ 3,599Donald Roberts	Principal of Selkirk Street Elementary School in Whitehorse	February, 1979- April, 1983	$15,286Dale Stokes	Businesswoman and active in women's organizations	February, 1979- April, 1983	$ 8,290Robert Stubenberg	Local businessman	February, 1979- April, 1983	$11,660Charles Taylor	Retired businessman; former Territorial Councillor	February, 1979- April, 1983	$ 8,343Paul Birckel	Chief of Champagne/Aishihik Band; Member of Special ARBA Board for DREE	February, 1981 - April, 1983	$ 2,531Hector MacKenzie	Wilderness guide; Member & former treasurer of the Yukon Conservation Society	April, 1981-April, 1983	$ 4,258
(d) The NPA has provided the Council since its establishment with other funds totalling $12,949 for the provision of office supplies, secretarial assistance and administrative expenses in association with the duties of the Council. It should be noted that pursuant to Section 29 of the Northern Pipeline Act all expenses of the Agency are recoverable from Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd.
2.	(a) The terms of reference of the Council are listed below.
(b)	In fiscal year 1982-83, the Council considered issues related to: (i) status of Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline Project; (ii) proposed routing of pipeline through Yukon; and, (iii) socio-economic plans required under proposed terms and conditions.
(c)	In fiscal year 1982-83, the Council met five times. The Council met less frequently in this fiscal year than previously as a result of the announced delay in the completion of the pipeline project. There is no requirement for the Council to meet a special number of times.
(d)	The Council did not publish any reports or recommendations in 1982-83.
Order Respecting the Yukon Territory Advisory Council Short Title
1.	This Order may be cited as the Yukon Territory Advisory Council Order.
Establishment of Council
2.	There is hereby established an advisory council to be called the Yukon Territory Advisory Council, hereinafter referred to as "the Council".
Terms of Reference
3.	The Council shall, in accordance with such rules of procedure as it from time to time establishes, assist the Minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline in carrying out the objects of the Northern Pipeline Act by giving advice and providing recommendations to him in all areas related to the Yukon portion of the Alaska Highway Pipeline, including:
(a)	ways to minimize any adverse social and environmental effects of the project and to maximize social and economic benefits including employment opportunities from the construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline; and,
(b)	advice on local and regional interests related to the pipeline and measures to facilitate effective consultation and communication with groups and communities affected by the pipeline.
Publication of Reports
4.	In carrying out its activities within the terms of reference set out in Section (3), the Council may, from time to time,
June 29, 1983

Order Paper Questions
publish reports of recommendations in such manner as it Sidney Cooper	Former Mayor of Dawson Creek	November, 1982 to
deems appropriate.	p1''5"'1
Remuneration
5.	(1) Subject to Subsections (2) and (3), each member of the Council shall be paid a fee of $125 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.
(2)	The Chairman of the Council shall be paid a fee of $175 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.
(3)	The Vice-chairman of the Council shall be paid a fee of $150 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.
(c)	Each member of the Council will be paid a fee of $125 per day for each day spent in attendance at meetings of the Council. The Chairman (ie., Donald Edwards) shall be paid $175 per day for each day spent in attendance; the Vice-Chairman (Jack Hannam) shall be paid $150 per day. Members' travel and incidental expenses that are related to their official duties are also paid by the Agency.
From the time of their respective appointments, current members have received the following remuneration, inclusive of travel, salary and incidental expenses:


Mr. Mazankowski: Edwards			 $8,514 	 4,830	Woolley			 $5,960
		 6,278		
		 8,414		
Summer			 9,705	Cooper			
1.	Is there a Northern B.C. Advisory Council and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Council (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Council publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In so far as the Ministry of State for Economic Development is concerned:
1.	The Northern B.C. Advisory Council was established in September, 1980 and members were appointed for two year terms. In November, 1982, seven of the ten members were reappointed and three new members were appointed for two year terms, effective September 27, 1982.
Previous members received the following remuneration, inclusive of travel, salary and incidental expenses:
Name
Appointment Term
Remuneration
Mel Burke George Miller Jim Voight Patrick Walsh
Sept. 1980-Nov. 1982	$10,012
Sept. 1980-Jan. 1982	4,564
Sept. 1980-Nov. 1982	13,522
Sept. 1980-Sept. 1981	2,504
(d)	The NPA has provided the Council with administrative funds totalling $38,732 for the provision of office space, supplies and secretarial assistance in connection with the duties of the Council. It should be noted that pursuant to Section 29 of the Northern Pipeline Act, all expenses of the Agency are recoverable from Foothills Pipelines (Yukon) Ltd.
2.	(a) The terms of reference of the Council are listed below.
(a) Name	(b) Background	Term of AppointmentDonald Edwards	Businessman and Alderman	September, 1980 to presentAmy Gauthier	Member of native community; Band Councillor for Salteau Band	September, 1980 to presentJack Hannam	Rancher and cattleman; Chairman of Peace River-Liard Regional District	September, 1980 to presentLeo Rutledge	Retired guide and outfitter; naturalist	September, 1980 to presentEleanor Summer	Community worker; active in support of women's issues	September, 1980 to presentJed Woolley	Local contractor	September, 1980 to presentElizabeth Todrick	Businesswoman; active in community affairs	September, 1981 to presentClifford Calliou	Active member of the United Native Nations	November, 1982 to presentCharles Pete	President of local United Natives Nations in Lower Post	November, 1982 to present(b)	In fiscal year 1982-83, the Council considered issues related to: (i) local business opportunities, (ii) manpower training, (iii) status of Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, (iv) native opportunities, (v) community benefits.(c)	In 1982-83, the Council met on five occasions. The Council met less frequently in this fiscal year than previously as a result of the announced delay in the completion of the pipeline project. There is no requirement for the Council to meet a specified number of times.(d)	The Council did not publish any reports and/or recommendations in fiscal year 1982-83.
Order Respecting the Northern British Columbia Advisory Council Short Title
1. This Order may be cited as the Northern British Columbia Advisory Council Order.

June 29, 1983
26936____________________________________
Order Paper Questions Establishment of Council
2.	There is hereby established an advisory council to be called the Northern British Columbia Advisory Council, hereinafter referred to as "the Council".
Terms of Reference
3.	The Council shall, in accordance with such rules of procedure as it from time to time establishes, assist the Minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline in carrying out the objects of the Northern Pipeline Act by giving advice and providing recommendations to him in all matters related to the Northern British Columbia portion of the Alaska Highway Pipeline, including:
(a)	advice on ways to minimize any adverse social and environmental effects of the project and to maximize social and economic benefits including employment opportunities from the construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline; and,
(b)	advice on local and regional interests related to the pipeline and measures to facilitate effective consultation and communication with groups and communities affected by the pipeline.
Publication of Reports
4.	In carrying out its activities within the terms of reference set out in Section 3, the Council may, from time to time, publish reports of recommendations in such manner as it deems appropriate.
Remuneration
5.	(1) Subject to Subsections (2) and (3), each member of the Council shall be paid a fee of $125 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.
(2)	The Chairman of the Council shall be paid a fee of $175 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.
(3)	The Vice-Chairman of the Council shall be paid a fee of $150 per day for each day spent in attendance of meetings of the Council.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Were tenders called for the construction of a new divisional headquarters for J Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if not, on what date will tenders be called?
2.	Will construction of the headquarters still begin in the fiscal year 1983-84?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Tenders have not been called for "J" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Fredericton. Tender call is scheduled for March 15, 1984.
2. Construction will not begin in the fiscal year 1983-84.


Mr. Howie: By rank, how many men and women were serving in the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces as of (a) April I, 1982 (b) August I. 1982 or the most recent month for which statistics are available?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Data for April 1 and August 1 are not readily available from the DND computer program and would have to be assembled manually. Therefore data in response to the question are given for March 31, 1982 and July 31, 1982 respectively in table below.
(a) March 31, 1982	(b) July 31, 1982
Rank	Male	Female	Male	FemaleGen	2	2	LGcn	9	9	MGen	24	33	BGen	75	84	Col	327	3	342	3LCol	940	7	1003	8Maj	3018	50	3050	57Capt	5713	376	5953	390Lt	1544	166	1382	2002Lt	710	94	815	75OCDT	2127	250	2241	295CWO	862	1	866	1MWO	2240	5	2239	5WO	4447	36	4519	39SGT	9973	243	9917	264MCpI	10688	514	10653	553CpI	12718	1638	12811	1681PteT	4450	751	4770	833Pte B	13852	2366	14605	2361PteR	2340	209	949	10Totals	76059	6709	76243	6775


Mr. Sargeant: Since the inception of the Defence Industry Productivity Program, which companies received assistance through the Program for the production of components for nuclear weapons systems and, in each case, how much assistance did the company receive and what components did it produce for which nuclear weapons system?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: one company, Litton Systems Canada Ltd.,
June 29, 1983

$48,868,123, to produce guidance system components for the Cruise missile.


Miss MacDonald: 1.	For the fiscal years 1978-79 to 1982-83, what was the total amount of salaries, expenses and other remuneration paid under contract with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to Ryan C. Googoo, former Chief of the Whycocomagh Indian Reserve in Nova Scotia?
2.	Is Mr. Googoo now working under contract for the Department and, if so (a) what arc the terms of his present contract (b) what salary, expenses or other remuneration is he receiving under the terms of the contract?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I. 1978-79:	none.
1979-	80:	none.1980-	81:	none.1981-	82:	$805.1982-	83:	none.
2. No. (a) and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was a cloakroom open at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa on the evening of May 6, 1983 and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Is it intended that patrons carry or wear their coats to a performance?
3.	Was the price of a ticket on this evening $17.50?
4.	What is the approximate daily revenue from the cloakroom when it is open?
5.	Did the management of the Arts Centre apply to the Department of Employment and Immigration for a grant to provide employment for students as cloakroom attendants?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the National Arts Centre as follows:
1.	The cloakroom at the National Arts Centre was not open on the evening of May 6, 1983 due to a lack of public demand attributable to favourable weather conditions.
2.	Patrons choose whether or not to carry coats to a performance during the fall and winter months and no complaints have been received during the summer months when cloakroom service is not provided.
3.	Ticket prices ranged from $10 to $17.50.
4.	The average daily revenue of $75, when the cloakroom is open, barely covers the cost of service, whereas, during the period May 1-8 the average revenue was $16 when the cloakroom was open four nights because of weather conditions.
5.	No.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce notified of the opposition by Canadian truckers to the imposition of 12 per cent duty on importation of heavy duty reefer units?
2.	Will the Minister instruct the Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board to be discretionary in granting Canadian truckers remission of duty on importation of such units and, if not, will the Minister conduct an investigation to determine the effect upon the Canadian truckers of the 12 per cent duty?
3.	Is the Minister aware of concern expressed by Canadian truckers with regard to after-sales service on heavy duty reefer units and, if so, will the Minister instruct the Board to ensure reliable and easily accessible after-sales service on such units?


Edward C. Lumley: 1.
Yes.
2.	The Machinery and Equipment Advisory Board has examined carefully the capabilities of the new Canadian manufacturer of truck refrigeration units and is satisfied that it meets all requirements of the Machinery Program. The Board is monitoring the progress of the company in establishing itself in the marketplace. The trucking industry has been advised that quick action can be taken to re-establish duty remission, when appropriate, in the event that the Canadian manufacturer is not able to supply the demand placed upon it.
3.	Yes. The Board is satisfied that the Canadian supplier has the capability to service these units. The company currently has service centres located in nine major cities across Canada.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Was the Consul General for Canada listed in the Boston City Guide under "Visitors Information" as "Consulat General du Canada, 500 Boylston Street, 267-9330"?
2.	Was the advertisement placed only in French in Boston, an English-speaking city, and, if so, for what reason was it not placed in English and French?
3.	Who was responsible for placing the advertisement and under whose direction was it done?
4.	What was the cost of placing the advertisement?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It is correct that the Canadian Consultate General in Boston is listed in the Boston City Guide solely in the French language. However, the listing was done without any consultation with the Canadian Consultate General in Boston, and no payment was made by the Consulate General in connection with the listing. The listing was made solely by decision of the editor of the Boston City Guide who obtained the information from the French language listing of the Consultate General in the Boston Telephone Directory. (The Consultate General is listed in both English and French in the Boston Telephone Directory.) The Consultate General has advised the editor that its listing should be in both Canadian official languages and the editor has agreed that this will be done in future publications.

June 29, 1983
Motions for Papers


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 4,814, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,814 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canada Council Advisory Arts Panel and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Panel (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Panel publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the cup of joy has run over the Hon. Member yet and if he has been able to get me an answer to question No. 2,329 which was tabled on April 2, 1981.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, my enthusiasm is as buoyant as ever. I regret I cannot advise the Hon. Member that I have received an answer from the Minister but I did advise him of the concern of the Hon. Member and press him for an answer to that question.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all
notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the Notices of Motions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order that I am sure will be accepted by all Members of the House. I think most of us anticipate that this will be the last day of this particular semester of this session.
During the course of this session we have been served by a number of young people in the House of Commons who have performed duties well beyond what was necessarily required of them. They have served us well and cheerfully. They have put up with us in those times when we were less than courteous. They have seen the House of Commons operate at its best and at its worst. I think it is fair to say that they have been a group of young people who have well represented other young people in Canada, both before the public who came to the House to view its operations and before the television public all across the country.
Therefore, Madam Speaker-
[ Translation]
-on behalf of all the Members of this House, we should thank the pages for their good work.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, 1 should like to associate this Party with the remarks of the House Leader for the New Democratic Party. We thank the pages who are in the House and ask that they carry our thanks to their colleagues. We wish them the best of luck in their future endeavours.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to join in the sentiments expressed by the House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties. Not only have these young people provided us with friendly, courteous service in the House, but in doing so they have had a unique opportunity to add to their education and their understanding of the operation of the parliamentary system beyond that which many people in the country attain.
I join my colleagues who have already spoken in congratulating them on their efforts, wishing them well in the coming summer and in the continuation of their studies and eventual careers.
June 29, 1983


Madam Speaker:: I was going to mention the devotion of the pages at the sitting tomorrow but I get the impression that perhaps this is the last sitting. Unfortunately, the Chair always seems to be the last to know what is going on! I do not begrudge that as I love these little surprises.
In the name of all Hon. Members I want to thank the pages for the service they have given to the House of Commons and to each of us individually. We are always happy to see the new pages come but we are also very sorry to see the others leave as we become attached to them. We know they are going on to bigger and better things and we accept that as a fact of life. We certainly wish them well in all of their new endeavours.

On behalf of all the Members of this House, I would like to thank the pages for the excellent work they have done for the House of Commons and its Members, and I hope that the time they spent with us will have been worthwhile. I must say that we have followed their initiation to political life with affection and interest. There is no doubt that working as a page in the House of Commons is an altogether exceptional introduction to political life, to Parliament and to the game of political strategy that is inherent to all Parliaments. I trust that they were edified by what they saw and heard, and I am sure that they learned a great deal and will share their knowledge of politics with their fellow students at the universities where they will be going now.
We wish them every success with their future plans, and we are sorry to see them go. We like our pages very much and all Members always have a very special feeling for the pages in the House. We wish them every success in their careers, and we hope to see them back often, since the pages have made a habit of coming back to Ottawa from time to time to work a few hours in the House of Commons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lumley (for Mr. Joyal) that Bill C-165, to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have moved from a worthy subject to an unworthy subject, that being Bill C-95, an Act to provide for the Government to operate pools systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code. This would mean it would not be illegal for the Government to run the numbers racket and to change the Income Tax Act so that people who win-and also people who lose-will not be in violation of that Act. That is one of the interesting things
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
about the Income Tax Act; if you win money you do not pay tax but if you lose money you cannot write it off.
I want to sum up the discussions that have been going on regarding this disgraceful Act. The first thing it does is establish another Crown corporation. That in itself is a disgraceful act because the record of Crown corporations established by the Government has been less than sterling.
I must admit that every time I see this Government establishing a new Crown corporation, I can see a brand-new bureaucracy being developed; a brand-new area wherein it can appoint its friends, and take care of them; a brand-new area in which to raise taxes in a sneaky way. And that is exactly what this is; it is a sneaky way to raise taxes. It is a disgraceful act because it is using very worth-while projects to raise money, almost to the extent of blackmailing these various organizations into encouraging Hon. Members of Parliament to pass the Act so that in fact they can receive some of the returns from this numbers racket which this Government is going to set up.
Another reason why this is a disgraceful act is the whole question of morality. The federal Government is getting back into gambling. This time it will say that it is not a lottery. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan)-old "come fly with me"-tries to tell us that this is a game of skill, that people will have to sit down and think about that hockey game, baseball game, or whatever sport is involved. One must sit down and think very carefully about not only who is going to win that game, but what the exact score will be. The Minister says this is going to take a great deal of skill; therefore, this is not a lottery, it is not a numbers game, it is a skill game. I believe that kind of representation by the Minister is disgraceful.
The Minister also made some other statements. For example, on March 18, 1982, the day after my 42nd birthday, he made this outlandish statement: "It is important that funds become available soon so that the planning and preparation of facilities can begin". In other words, he was saying: "Look, if this lottery is not established, if this 'numbers racket' is not established, if we cannot get it underway, the XV Winter Olympics will not get underway". That in itself was extremely misleading. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-95 is going to be a very unfortunate piece of legislation coming in these times. I believe we will all be sorry a year or two years down the road that this Bill was even brought into the House, let alone passed by the Liberal Government.
I would like to make some predictions. This corporation will turn into another Liberal patronage machine; there is no question about that. Canada's greatest athletic supporter sits there and shakes his head no, that is not true. He knows full well, however, that it will become another Liberal patronage machine, probably one of the greatest it has. It has started already. The Minister provided a list and it is obvious.

Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
Dr. Martin O'Connell, a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, a former Minister of Labour, just a couple of years after he was defeated-and rightfully so-was given $3,500 regarding the definition of financing and accounting systems, but Howard and Associates were also paid $297,000 to do the same thing. Who is being kidded?
Goldfarb and Associates, a very well-known Liberal organization, were given $16,000 for research. The Minister will not even come clean with the committee or the House. He will not tell us what the research report said. He tells us what his interpretation of the research report is, but he will not produce it. He will not let us see the type of research which the taxpayers' money paid for. He will not show it to us. So we do not know if he is telling the truth or if he is dreaming up his own figures on this great boondoggle which he is bringing to the Canadian people.
My second prediction is that it will be a Crown corporation which will spend money unwisely, just like Loto Canada, which wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on things which it should not have. It will spend money like it is not its own. It will spend money like it was handed to it and it does not have to account for it. We, in our involvement in the report stage and in committee, suggested that each year this particular Crown corporation should be audited by the Auditor General. Oh, no! The Government said no; it did not give us a reason why. It just said no, that it will appoint its own accounting company to take care of the books. Well, the Government appointed its own accounting company to take care of the books of Canadair and we all know what came out of that.
Let me predict what this Crown corporation will not do. It will not reach the predictions, those outlandish predictions which the Minister of State for International Trade has made about the net income of this corporation. It is just not going to happen. The competition today is much stiffer in the lottery field. It is much easier to buy a lottery ticket for $1, $5 or $10 and not have to work at it than it will be to buy a ticket at whatever price is going to be put on it-that has not yet been established-and sit down and try to figure out who is going to win games. It is a game of skill, the Minister said. I can tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that because of the competition in the lottery business today, his figures are completely wrong. The goals which have been set will never be reached.
In addition, for the Minister to say that this lottery must go through to support the XV Olympics in Calgary is really misleading this place. The reason I say that is because I do not believe it is going to make itself the $200 million by the year 1988, which has been committed to those volunteers, those people in Calgary who have spent such a great deal of their own time and money putting this excellent presentation together. I do not believe the Government is going to make it with this program. Not only that, it is going to have to add to it to make up that $200 million commitment. While that is going on, those activities which we are talking about, fitness and amateur sports, the arts and culture, and medical and health research, will not receive anything. They will be left out there to dry.
The Minister says that these are very worth-while projects, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, they are very worth-
June 29, 1983
while projects. There is no question about that. However, how can they do any type of planning, put any kind of program together, a one-year, two-year, three-year, four-year program, when they are relying on gambling money, when they are relying on income from a "numbers racket"? They will have no idea how much will be coming in. They will have no idea how much they are going to receive even on a percentage basis from the funding. They will have absolutely no idea if they will receive anything out of it or if the money will all be eaten up in prize money or if, in fact, it will go down the tube.
What is it costing to set this up? According to the Bill, it is costing $10 million, plus the Corporation is allowed to borrow $20 million. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation for Ontario estimates it will cost $90 million just to set up this particular game which the Government is proposing.
We are opposing this Bill, Mr. Speaker, for numerous reasons. I mentioned the morality of it. I mentioned the porkbarrel aspects of it, and it will be a dandy, you can bet your boots on that. It will be a real dandy. I can see the Ministers now standing there handing out the cheques. I can see the appointments to the boards. I can see the chauffeur-driven cars and another permanent suite like Loto Canada had at the hotels. I can see these kinds of things coming in again with another Crown corporation. I am predicting now that this whole program of getting into the "numbers racket" is going to be a complete and utter failure. It was ill-conceived from the start. It will continue to be a drain on the public purse and especially on the poor people of this country who we all know are the ones who support this type of activity.
I will close by saying we will vote against the creation of a new Crown corporation. We support the Olympics wholeheartedly, but we do not feel worth-while projects should be funded through gambling money and we abhor the immorality of the federal Government getting back into gambling once again, amending the Criminal Code to make it legal for the Government to gamble but not for anyone else. It is a complete shame and I feel very badly that I have to stand up and debate such a Bill. I am completely and unalterably opposed to it and will vote against it on third reading.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to end the debate on the Government's intention to institutionalize gambling by means of a numbers pool, purportedly to help the Calgary Olympics. If it was meant to do that and that alone, the Bill would limit the exercise to the funding of the Calgary Olympics and stop there. Actually it is a Bill to institutionalize this system in the Canadian way of life.
We need to look at the signals this Bill is sending out. The fact is that the Government, in order to introduce this gaming practice in Canada, has to include in the legislation amendments to the Criminal Code. That ought to send a clear signal to all of us that something is drastically wrong with the entire
June 29, 1983

proposition. Presumably this matter has been included in the Criminal Code for all these years because society has felt there is something wrong with the practice. It had to be illegal because it presumably creates hurt and damage to society. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that making it legal does not make it right. While what was illegal now becomes legal; what was hurtful still remains hurtful.
We have to ask ourselves what is wrong with the entire proposition. First of all, gambling always depends for its success on the fact that most people who participate will lose. The whole system will fail if you have more winners than losers. Gambling is not going to be "a successful" business venture if there are more winners than losers. As other Members have pointed out, there is something morally wrong with government institutionalizing a system which requires more losers than winners. There is something morally wrong with a government which wants to profit on the backs of losers. This is reprehensible and diametrically opposed to the Canadian way of life and the Canadian code of morality.
It is wrong also because it violates patterns of human satisfaction. I think all of us will agree that man is inherently creative, that creativity is man's greatest instinct. I will not deny that all of us get a temporary kick out of a bonanza. We all enjoy a windfall. But that is something quite different from getting satisfaction.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is in our nature to be creative, then it seems to me that for us to be happy we have to have satisfaction rather than simply a kick. The only way we can do that is by satisfying our creative instinct, by unleashing our creativity. Therefore, man's greatest satisfaction comes from accomplishment, not from bonanzas. Inherent in this proposal is the attempt to enhance the desire within man to short-circuit the path to satisfaction. That is a disservice to the Canadian people and a denial of the human experience.
What we will end up with, Mr. Speaker, is the Government promoting illusions of instant wealth which will rob people of the inherent human satisfaction experienced when we create something with our own hands. We will have a population directed more and more towards the illusion of instant wealth, when of course the fact is that life is not that way. Most of the time we have to work for what we get. I point to the advertisements for Super-Loto. They show the symbols of wealth, obviously successful people lounging around the yacht club. The obviously wealthy people come in and sit at a table and one successful person says to the other: "Textiles? Shipbuilding?" The answer is: "No, Loto Can". You do not have to invest any more. You do not have to work any more. You do not have to develop your ingenuity any more. You do not have to take risks any more. Just buy a ticket to instant wealth, the leisure class and to acceptability.
We are building these illusions of instant success. We are saying to the unemployed that the way to get wealthy is to buy tickets. We used to say to the young people of Canada that if you will begin early and invest, you can build security. But we are now saying to people that if they will put aside a few bucks and buy a ticket on Loto Select, a sports pool or Loto Canada, they will have a chance of instant wealth. But we never give
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
the odds. We never say it is a million to one, or, as a speaker pointed out yesterday, that you have more chance of being hit by lightning than of winning a large cash prize.
I remember years ago, Mr. Speaker, when I worked at Fraser Mills as a teenager, that I worked alongside a young man of my age at the time, 18 or 19 years old. He had been working at the mill for some years and when he was 19 years old he was building his third house. I imagine that by today he is probably quite successful, but my friends on the left will ask how he got so wealthy, he does not deserve all that money. Well, the fact is he started early and he saved and he worked. Through the system which the Government wants to introduce right now, it wants to undercut that kind of ethic, that kind of working for success. It wants instant solutions. The program is wrong because it builds an unhealthy world of fantasy and illusion.
Third, it is wrong because it overtaxes low income groups. We see the duplicity of the Government working out programs to help low income groups, whether through UIC, grants or any other program-the Government is always on a grant kick to help low income groups-and at the same time there is now a process by which it can take its money away from the low income groups, because as other Hon. Members have mentioned, statistics regularly show that the loto system is mostly supported by members of the lower income groups in our society.
I see the Minister sitting here, the one who is foisting this Bill on us. It is instructive to notice that one does not see Loto Canada kiosks in the lobbies of banks. One does not see them in the malls right in front of the banks. One does not see these kiosks in the glass tower, high-rise business buildings. Where does one see them? One sees them directly in front of or maybe even inside grocery stores or in the shopping malls. The focus is on impulse buying, not on investment. The focus is on a sense of immediate gratification rather than on building and planning one's future. These operations know very well, and the Government knows very well, that they will not do very well if kiosks are placed in banks or directly in front of banks, because people who go there are planning. They are not looking for instant gratification; they are looking for a return on investment. They are looking for work.
The fact that these kiosks are always situated where people are most vulnerable to impulse is pretty well an indication of where the success will lie. The immorality of the whole system lies in the fact that the Government wants to victimize the group that can least afford to be victimized. If the Government would sell the program to those who made $50,000 a year or more, then we would say: "Let those people take a risk". But right now, the Government is victimizing those who are in the low income groups.
We are now in the dying stages of this session. Perhaps the fact that the legislation comes at the end of this session is symbolic of the morality of the Government. This legislation is

June 29, 1983
Athletic Contests and Events Pools Act
being foisted on us in this session's dying moments, and the country will pay in more ways than we care to know for the legislation that is now before us. That is why my Party is voting against it.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a moment of the time of the House. I want to thank all Hon. Members who have participated in the debate. I regret that I am unable to agree with many of the views that they have expressed.
I want to remind Hon. Members of the House that many of the points and concerns that they have expressed are certainly worthy of careful examination and we have sought to do that. However, what we have before us here is not a question as to whether there will be sports pools and lotteries in Canada, but, rather, whether they will be run so that the benefits are available only to the provincial level of Government or whether there will be funds made available to federal Governments to meet their responsibilities that must be met from a non-tax source.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has just mentioned where kiosks are placed by Loto Canada. He perhaps does not realize that Loto Canada has not existed for the last four years as an operating entity out in shopping centres, and that the kiosks are all provincial Government lotteries that he sees located in those places.
It is unfortunate that Hon. Members in the debate seem to have been taking two standards. The New Democratic Party at the provincial level has been and is involved in operating lotteries, and the Conservative provincial Government of Ontario is indeed unduly aggressive in the way in which it operates a provincial lottery. Therefore, I do not think it is a question as to whether these will exist. I think that the legislators have decided that in the past on the basis of federal laws that make it possible for provincial operations to take place. Rather, what we have here is a question as to whether the national Government will be able to support occasions like the Calgary Olympics.
1 came into this question because of my commitments to the Calgary Olympics. However, there will be other occasions that will be worthy of support beyond those. That is why it is not limited only to those reasons. My colleagues felt that we should make a provision that payments could be made to culture and to medical research as well as fitness and amateur sport. I want to assure Hon. Members that every effort will be made to carry on the sports pool in a tasteful manner, much like the British soccer pools.
I finally want to say that our statistics show that sports pools do not appeal to people of low income, but have an appeal to a very different clientele than those who use lotteries.
Once again, I thank all Hon. Members. I urge the House to vote for the support of this positive Bill which will enable the Government of Canada to support very worth-while causes to a greater degree.


Mr. Nickerson:: Why don't you put slot machines on the JetStar, Gerry?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I put the question, may I point out to Hon. Members that there is a small procedural problem. There is a Standing Order of the House to the effect that the constitutional Bill relating to aboriginal rights should be commenced at four o'clock. It seems to be reasonable that if we now call in Members on the subject of this Bill, we would not want to call in the Members and then advise them at four o'clock that we must proceed with the aboriginal rights Bill. Therefore, I think I had better seek the view of the House.


Mr. Pinard:: We will vote first?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Vote first and then proceed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the House wishes to call in the Members, then we would proceed with the vote as soon as the whips appeared, but that the one and three-quarter hours allotted to the constitutional Bill would still remain available for that debate.


Yvon Pinard: We would like to vote first, and I think that if Your Honour seeks consent, provided we agree to a maximum of one hour and 45 minutes of debate on the resolution after the vote, you will find unanimous consent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the proposition of the President of the Privy Council. It appears that there is agreement. Accordingly, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 368)
++YEAS
Messrs.

[Stage Direction]
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Bussifcres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (Cardigan)
Chenier
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin
De Bane
de Corneille
Deniger
Desmarais
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Dionne
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Francis
Garant
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argentcuil-Papineau)
Guilbault
Harquail
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Lang
Laniel
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
++NAYS
Messrs.
Lumley
MacBain
MacGuigan
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Masse
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Pepin
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Regan
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Smith Tessier Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-109.
Althousc	Hawkes	MurtaBeatty	Heap	NeilBenjamin	Hees	NickersonBlenkarn	Howie	NowlanBloomfield	Huntington	OgleBradley	Jelinek	ParkerCardiff	Kempling	PattersonCarney (Miss)	King	ReidCook	Kristiansen	(St. CatharirCooper	Lawrence	SchellenbergerCorbett	Lewis	ScottCossitt (Mrs.)	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-VDeans	(Kingston and the islands)	ScottDick	Malone	(Victoria-HaDo mm	Manly	ShieldsElzinga	Mayer	SiddonFennell	Mazankowski	SimmonsFor restall	McCain	SkellyFretz	McDermid	SpeyerFriesen	McDonald (Ms.)	StewartGamble	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TaylorGreenaway	McGrath	ThackerGurbin	McKinnon	TowersGustafson	McKnight	VankoughnetHamilton	McLean	Waddell(Qu'Appelle-Moose	Miller	WilsonMountain)	Munro	WiseHargrave	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Wright-76.
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


ACCEPTABILITY OF TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Madam Speaker:: The tenth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was tabled earlier today. I am afraid I must intervene and make a few observations on the content of that report and on a committee's function when considering Bills referred to it by the House.
On Wednesday, March 6, 1983, as Members of the House may recall, Bill C-653, an Act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, was given second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In its tenth report tabled today, the Committee has made observations and substantive recommendations to the House. The Committee did not report back Bill C-653.
I want to remind Members of all committees considering Bills referred to them by the House of Citation 783 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition:
There is no authority that a committee of the House, when considering a bill, should report anything to the House but the bill itself.
Speaker Lamoureux, who ruled on a similar procedural difficulty on December 20, 1973, stated the following:
The situation is quite different when the committee has before it a general reference, such as an annual report of a department when there is greater latitude in the submitting of substantive recommendations to the House. With respect, I suggest to Hon. Members there is no authority to support the contention that a committee of the House when considering a bill should report anything to the House except the Bill itself.
Speaker Lamoureux in the same ruling went on to quote Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 304(2):
A committee is bound by, and is not at liberty to depart from, the order of reference. In the case of a Select Committee upon a Bill, the Bill committed to it is itself the order of reference to the committee, who must report it with or without amendment to the House.
The Chair's principal concern in this case is that Bill C-653 is still before the Committee and that concurrently the Committee is attempting to place before the House questions related to that same Bill.
Hon. Members will agree with me that such recommendations and observations as contained in the tenth report of the Agriculture Committee would be highly irregular if they were proposed in the Committee of the Whole or at the report stage. There are other procedural avenues for the consideration of such substantive proposals, but this cannot be done by way of a report from any committee studying a Bill.
I have, therefore, no other option but to declare the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture out of order and consequently it cannot be received.

It being past 4 p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, June 23, 1983, the House will now proceed to consideration of Government Business, namely, motion No. 119 which is
26944

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
deemed to have been reported by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 27, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:
That:
Whereas the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
And Whereas the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freedoms that it guarantees;
And Whereas, after a gradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status of an independent and sovereign state, Canadians have, as of April 17, 1982, full authority to amend their Constitution in Canada;
And Whereas historically and equitably it is fitting that the early exercise of that full authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;
Now Therefore the House of Commons resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Paragraph 25(6) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(6) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
2.	Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons".
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 35 thereof, the following section:
"35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
(а)	a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and
(б)	the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof, the following Part:

[Stage Direction]
37.1 (1) In addition to the conference convened in March 1983, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first within three years after April 17, 1982 and the second within five years after that date.
(2)	Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(4)	Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 35(1)."
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:
"54.1 Part IV.l and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983."
7.	This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, fellow Parliamentarians, the resolution before us today is the culmination of a dialogue that has been going on between the aboriginal people of Canada and political leaders since the Royal Proclamation of 1763. If that seems to overstate the significance of the resolution that calls primarily for a continuing dialogue between native leaders and First Ministers, I ask my colleagues to remember the nature of our historic relationship with Indian and Inuit people in Canada.
Before Confederation, Canadians were engaged in a purposeful search for indentity as founding members of a new order in an unfamiliar land. The preoccupations of the day involved war, survival, wilderness and disease. Challenges were met head-on and dealt with directly. All the while the promise of peace and plenty was like a powerful magnet drawing upper and lower Canadians into the twentieth century.
It was in this context and with strong momentum that Canadians faced and resolved the great issues of the day. When it came to creating a new dominion, linking its regions by rail or fashioning ties between cultures, Canadians did what I trust we will always do, the best we can do in our time.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, aboriginal peoples and the new settlers tried to find some reasonable accommodation between their various needs and the contending forces. Native people were often displaced from one part of the country to another. Treaty arrangements were struck on an as needed, ad hoc basis; some of them before Confederation, the majority after.
June 29, 1983

Indian/non-indian relations were characterized by a whole set of special, sometimes contradictory legal arrangements. It was a complex and difficult situation, some vestiges of which linger with us to this day. Yet out of that same process came certain provisions and protections for Indian people. Two hundred and twenty years later, contemporary Indian people still recite the recognition of their uniqueness in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as a basis for new arrangements.
The Constitution Act of 1867 recognized a special relationship between Parliament and aboriginal people which they cherish to this day. Significantly this special relationship described in Section 91(24) of our first Constitution forms today an important element of the Accord signed at the close of the conference in March.
This open door to the federal Government is the basis for continuing discussions with my federal colleagues and myself in parallel with the ongoing constitutional process. Indian people have insisted on this form of insurance based on many decades of experience.
As I suggested earlier, the most fundamental arrangements we struck in the past, those which found expression in the Royal Proclamation and the Constitution Act as it was proclaimed in the last century, still serve us well in the present.
Once again, the future rests on Canadians doing the best they can in their time, only now, we all have more experience. In the 1980s there are still other priorities. We have explored the wilderness, we have built the railways and overcome most of the diseases that plagued the pioneers. The centuries have seen these challenges replaced by others.
But something happened as a result of the March Constitutional Conference that should inspire new hope. By establishing an ongoing process of three similar First Ministers' Conferences over the next four years, we have ensured that the concerns of the aboriginal people, Inuit and Indian, are at the top of the national agenda. That fact alone should make a world of difference to the way we proceed this time.
The focus for the special relationship has since 1867 been the Parliament of Canada. It has taken more than 100 years for the leaders of the aboriginal peoples and the elected leaders of Canada to sit down in one room together and talk openly face to face. In 115 years this has never happened. We have never responded in such a way to an agenda devised by native people. First Ministers and native leaders have never talked in a collective way across one table as common citizens of one country.
Those are but some of the reasons I feel this House must support the resolution that is before it in this debate. It is a momentous debate. When the Parliament of Canada and the provincial assemblies ratify this resolution under the Constitution, a new dialogue will begin. It will be one that is based on an attachment to this nation and all the people who live here. That is what the next three conferences will be about. With this resolution, we can begin to fashion a new sort of future.
The Constitution
The future will be based on how we Canadians, Inuit, Indian and non-Indian, perceive problems and possible resolutions. It begins with the Accord which ensures that native leaders will participate with the First Ministers in a constitutional conference before any amendments are made to those parts of the Constitution dealing exclusively with aboriginal peoples. This is not a formal consent clause but it gives aboriginal peoples a unique and permanent political say in constitutional change of special concern to them.
The Accord also gives past and future land claims settlements a new status and security by including them among the "treaty rights" recognized and affirmed in the Constitution. This should yield a greater incentive for early resolution of many of the outstanding land and related claims of aboriginal peoples. In addition, the Constitution will be amended to ensure that the aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed equally for men and women.
Perhaps most important of all, we have established that negotiation on a national level is the way to decide on relationships and rights. This time discussions will be based on real negotiation, not just consultation; not mediation but a process of free and open discussion among parties, each of whom has something to offer and something to gain.
The Accord was signed because all the parties, including Quebec, even if that Province did not sign, found common ground. This happened because everyone said what they thought in a spirit of respect and with a genuine desire to understand and reach an accommodation. The Accord, then, represents not only agreement on certain specifics; it is a powerful symbol of a new mode of open negotiation between aboriginal peoples and Governments. Second, it has become a sketch of where we can expect future negotiations to take us.
One of those directions is the issue of aboriginal selfgovernment. In his opening address at the First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that issues concerning aboriginal government are "the heart of the matter, the crux of our efforts to improve the conditions of aboriginal peoples". He also said that between the unacceptable extremes of assimilation or absolute sovereignty, there is a broad range of negotiable possibilities that could yield various forms of self-government.
I myself see this in my role as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a daily basis. Between the extremes, most native groups are struggling to hammer out a form of local control based on economic and cultural independence. I see this on the level of social services where in Manitoba, New Brunswick and Alberta band councils are assuming control of child welfare. In these Provinces bands will receive child welfare services equal to those offered to other citizens in their respective Provinces for the first time.
I see this on the level of economic development where band councils are coming forward now and saying that they want the means with which to become economically self-sufficient. They are saying that they want the means with which to reduce welfare rolls. This involves difficult new bilateral and tripartite negotiations. But the difference between the old and

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
the new is clear. Indians are moving toward controlling their economic destinies instead of being controlled.
I see the struggle for control of individual destinies on the level of Indian policing and education. The strength and independence of the Indian and Inuit cultural movement is also reflected at the grass roots level. This resolution, by the way, acknowledges the cultural distinctiveness and diversity of Canada's aboriginal peoples. It demonstrates an awareness that aboriginal lifestyles, languages and customs must be protected.
The Constitution is the focus of Parliament's attention today, as well it should be for it is also the focus of Indian and Inuit aspirations throughout the country. Those aspirations depend on more than success at the constitutional table, important as that is. I have tried here to outline some of the dimensions of those aspirations that I see in my role as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In the long run, if we continue to succeed it will mean a new type of Indian legislation rather than the Indian Act.
1 do not propose to speculate here exactly how the Act will be changed, but if native communities in Canada are to move forward with new, effective powers to plan, initiate and deliver programs responsive to their needs, then some of the old relationships simply must change.
This is one dimension of the problem that constitutional conferences and native national organizations will have to struggle with in the near future. That will be a challenge every bit as difficult as the one we have just been through. I trust that the Special Committee on Indian Self-government will be a key resource in helping us arrive at some answers that will effect the kind of changes we will want to see happen in the near future. 1 trust this Committee, established in a climate of non-partisan agreement and with unprecedented latitude in its terms of reference, will be a major asset in our search for solutions.
Another important direction I can see negotiations taking in the future is the involvement of the Provinces and the Territorial Governments. The constitutional discussions introduce for the first time in a formal and fundamental way other Canadian leaders to the developing relations between aboriginal peoples and Government.
While the federal Government will always have a special relationship with Indian and Inuit people, it had become clear that the Provinces and Territories should join in the debate. Now they have. This is a key element in maintaining the momentum towards reforming the system that we presently have, for we are at a crucial period in the development of Canadian native communities. Never has the opportunity for innovative reform been so propitious. This is the message that I have been carrying to Indian and Inuit leaders in my capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have the spirit for constructive change coming from so many
different directions-from native communities, from native national and regional organizations and from Parliament.
If you remember, Mr. Speaker, when I asked Parliament on August 4, 1982 to create the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, there was all-Party agreement. This is not a phenomenon we see every day. I believe the same non-partisan spirit is here today. I believe we will find new, workable relationships between Canadian native people and the Canadian Government. The first step toward that new relationship is to ratify the Accord agreed upon at the First Ministers' Conference. 1 ask the House to do that today.
As evidence of the spirit of non-partisanship, I met today with my colleagues in the Official Opposition who are on the Indian Affairs Committee. Last night I met with Members of the New Democratic Party who are very much concerned with aboriginal affairs. This is evidence of a new spirit of nonpartisanship designed to achieve the aspirations of the aboriginal people in Canada.
We are on the threshold of a new opportunity to act like Canadians in the face of yet another challenge-that is, to do the best we can for our time. We have experience, we have commitment, we have a workable process, and we have for once accorded aboriginal peoples the priority required to make a real difference to their circumstances. Opportunities like the one before us today arise only occasionally in the lives of men and women. Let us join together to make the best of it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). The other day when the resolution first came to the House, as 1 am sure he will have read in Hansard, there was very warm support for the changes to our Constitution through this resolution. This support was voiced particularly by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). That indicated the degree of support the Progressive Conservative Party has given to the measures before the House in this resolution. The changes, though limited in scope, are welcome.
I have a particular interest in this subject. When 1 first came to the House of Commons in 1972, I was appointed this Party's critic for Indian affairs and northern development. It was in that position of responsibility that I had the privilege on April 11, 1973, of raising the matter of aboriginal debate in this House. I just want to read a few comments that I made at that time. They say something about the approach of people in this House to the vast question of aboriginal rights. At page 3207 of Hansard for April 11, 1973, these words are recorded:
The subject we are discussing today deals with the concept of aboriginal title. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the first time this vital matter has been debated in the House; the first time in over 100 years that it has received the attention and consideration of the House as a whole. Why is this? Is it because it was not considered of significance and importance in our earlier history? No, indeed. It is because this is the first time a government has failed to recognize the concept of aboriginal rights and has rejected the concept outright.
Previous governments may have failed to fulfil their obligations to the hundreds of thousands of Indian people, but they never questioned the principle. Not until 1969, following the introduction of the government's white paper on
June 29, 1983

Indian policy when the minister stated that aboriginal claims to land were not realistic, was a Prime Minister of this country to say of this question, and I quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau): Our answer, it may not be the right one and may not be the one which is accepted .. . our answer is no.
That was what triggered the debate at that time. There was a rejection of the concept of aboriginal title. We have come a long way since that day. We have come a long way since that debate and much has been accomplished. The perseverance and determination which has been characteristic of the native peoples of this country throughout their history have once again proven to be the major instrument in bringing about much needed reform. Nowhere was that more evident than in the Conference of First Ministers and native leaders which took place in March this year. The country was able to see how our native people conducted themselves in negotiations of such a critical nature.
As others have said, this is only a beginning; much remains to be done. I hope the conferences in the years ahead which are being provided for in this resolution will fulfil the expectations of our native peoples which have been there since time immemorial.
There is one aspect of this resolution which is of particular importance to me. Section 2, subsection (4) reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
That is a big step forward. Some of us in the House have been fighting for the removal of Section 12(l)(b) from the Indian Act for a good many years. It calls for the discriminatory aspect that when a woman of Indian status or Indian background marries a non-Indian, she immediately loses her Indian status and so do any children of that marriage. I have a Private Member's Bill in the House of Commons at the present time which would bring about the complete removal of Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act. The former Government headed by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) undertook to do away with that discriminatory section. I presume that once this amendment to the Constitution is enacted, those who now claim Indian, Metis or Inuit status will be treated equally, whether male or female. That is, those people presently covered by the status of Indian, Metis or Inuit.
I have a concern which does not seem to be addressed in the discussions that have been going on and certainly it was not addressed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) or by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this debate. It has not been included in any resolution or legislation to date. It is that those who suffered loss of status in the past, as a result of the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, are still without status. They are outside the pale. They are still non-people as far as the Indian Act is concerned. They are not entitled to claim their share of aboriginal title. They are not entitled to take their place as Indians in an Indian society, either for themselves or for their children. There are many, many people in this category in Canada today. The names of some of those who have lost their Indian status are almost household words, Sir. Jeanette Lavell took her case all
The Constitution
the way through to the Supreme Court of Canada and was still denied justice. Sandra Lovelace of the Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick lost her Indian status in 1970 when she married a non-Indian. Since she knew that the Supreme Court would probably treat her case and render a judgment on her fate in the same way that it had decided upon the fate of Jeanette Lavell, she took another route to try to seek justice. She went to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. She appealed to it in saying that her human rights had been denied. Her case is upheld.
In September, 1981, the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations told Canada that it should clean up its act. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised at that time that that would be done within a year.
Another case which is very well known is that of Mary Two-Axe Early. A number of us have had occasion to speak to Mary, have listened to her case, have seen her battle over the years for the rights of those women who are denied Indian status. She is a person who has battled long and diligently, not just for her own rights, but for those of all Indian women and children who are denied their rightful status as Indians. Mary told me in one conversation which I had with her some time ago, "It is easier for a dog to be buried on the Caughnawaga Reserve, my Reserve, than it is for me, a full-blooded Indian, who has been stripped of my rights." She is denied burial there. A dog is not.
Those are three cases: Jeanette Lavell, Sandra Lovelace and Mary Two-Axe Early. Their cases are known far and wide and they have been cited often. However, if you look at the number of cases elsewhere in the country, Mr. Speaker, you would find, going back in the records, that it is estimated that since 1920 a total of approximately 15,000 women have lost their status following marriage to a non-Indian. That is an estimate. Since 1965, the Indian Registry has recorded the number of women who have lost their status as a result of marriage to a non-Indian, and I have those figures. I believe in fact they have been produced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The number of women who have lost their status as a result of Section 12(1 )(b) "marriage to a nonIndian", since 1965, comes to approximately 8,000. The estimated number of children born to Indian women who lost their status because of marrying non-Indian men is, according to the figures I have before me, 37,700.
There are other women and children who have lost their Indian status not because of Section 12(1 )(b) "marriage to a non-Indian", but because the Indian husband and father in each case voluntarily chose to give up his Indian status. As a result, the mother and the children automatically lost their status as well. These injustices are permitted to continue in our society. They are permitted to continue today and we hear nothing about rectifying them in the future. Until they are corrected, we cannot say that the Canadian Charter of Rights is being honoured either in spirit or in practice.

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, when he was speaking, made reference to the Subcommittee on Indian Self-Government which had been established, and the very fine work which had been done by that subcommittee. He neglected to mention that there was another subcommittee which also had been in operation at the same time, and which had done equally fine work. That was the Subcommitee on Indian Woman and the Indian Act. That subcommittee unanimously made four recommendations, four themes, in their report. They recommended, first, the removal of all discriminatory provisions in the Indian Act, but not so as to remove Indian status from those who gained it on marriage; second, the reinstatement of all Indian women who lost their status on marriage, and their first-generation children. That is a very critical and key recommendation, a unanimous recommendation, of that all-Party subcommittee, to reinstate Indian women who lost their status on marriage and their first-generation children. Third, they recommended that there be no future gain or loss of Indian status, or loss of rights such as band membership on marriage; and fourth, Band control of membership.
I make mention of that report, Mr. Speaker, because it is critical that the Government respond to the report of that subcommittee. That is surely the action which should now ensue from the subcommittee report. Back on July 7, 1980, in response to a question which I raised in the House of Commons directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), he said that he hoped that this matter, that is, the loss of status which had already taken place, would be rectified within one or two years at the most. That one or two years has now passed, and nothing has been done for the women and the children whose rights lie outside the scope of today's resolution.
As we know, there is no retroactivity to the resolution before us. In November, 1981, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women said that she hoped that the necessary steps to redress the situation would take no more than a year to pass. That year has come and gone. Still no action has been taken to deal with the plight of Sandra Lovelace, Mary Two-Axe Early or Jeanette Lavel, or the thousands of other women in circumstances similar to theirs. The Government will be compelled to address this problem once Section 15 of the Charter of Rights becomes fully operative in 1985. However, why not show its good intentions now by taking immediate action rather than risk being dragged into the courts, kicking and screaming, when that three-year grace period elapses?
I know, Mr. Speaker, there will always be argument, and I know there will be reluctance on the part of some to face up to this matter squarely. However, the problem, Sir, is not going to go away and it is not going to become any less acute just because it is being ignored. In passing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, let us resolve that the unfinished business of those individuals who continue to be denied their rightful place, their rightful Indian status, is dealt with and dealt with justly and fairly once and for all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak for my Party with regard to the motion which is before us to amend the Canadian Constitution. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) said on Monday when the motion was introduced, our Party supports the Accord, but we have many concerns about it. When we look at the Accord we see it as a minimal achievement. However, it is an achievement and, therefore, we are supporting it.
In the few minutes I have this afternoon I would like to address the substance of the Accord and then look at the process for future debate. There are several minor improvements which tidy up the language concerning treaty rights and agreements. As the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has mentioned, there is the clause guaranteeing aboriginal rights equally to males and females. That clause is extremely important to all Members of our Party because all of us are very much aware of the pain and suffering caused by the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act, in particular Section 12(l)(b).
That can be looked at in several ways. First there are those women who lost their status because they married a nonIndian. Then there are their children. There are those women who might have wished to marry a non-Indian person but because they did not wish to lose their status, they gave up the relationship and suffered thereby. There are those women who do not want to give up a relationship and lose their status so they live common law, and they continue to suffer along with their children from whatever social stigma still attaches to that situation. So we see that Indian women have suffered in countless ways.
In addition, Indian women, families and communities have suffered from the division this Section has brought. We believe it is important to recognize that the major source of this discrimination has been non-Indian legislation imposed on the Indian people without consent. Indeed, in many cases it was against their expressed opposition.
The Indian Act reflects a patriarchal, Victorian attitude in both its colonialist assumptions and its racist and sexist assumptions. It is interesting that in the testimony presented before the special joint committee of 1946, 1947 and 1948 which was looking at the revision of the Indian Act, representatives of the Department indicated that one of the reasons for this kind of provision was that they wanted to reduce the number of Indian people. That would lower the federal Government's financial responsibility to them. You can compare Section 12(l)(b) with some of the earlier Sections of the Indian Act which automatically disenfranchised any Indian person who went to university or became a lawyer or clergyman. The whole attitude of the Government was to get as many people away from Indian status as possible, because it was regarded as an inferior status, which Indian people themselves rejected, but mainly because of the financial implications.
June 29, 1983

Today, as never before, Indian people are asserting the importance of their status and they want it maintained. Indian women have the right to maintain their status regardless of their marital status, and I would urge the Minister to bring in legislation as soon as possible to deal with the recommendations brought out in the subcommittee's report on Indian women in the Indian Act. When the Minister appeared before the second subcommittee in December he promised he would bring in that legislation with considerable haste. Seven months have gone by since then and we still have not seen the legislation. 1 remind the Minister, the Government and the House that it is important that this legislation be tabled so that Indian leaders and groups as well as Members of Parliament can study it and make respresentations. It is a very complex subject, it is not going to be dealt with on a Friday afternoon by all Party agreement, so it is important to do it right when we do it.
I regret that some misunderstandings surrounding the equality clause when it was introduced have arisen. Many of the groups representing the aboriginal people thought the wording in the final Accord was not the wording to which they originally agreed. It is important to note the basis for this understanding is Section 35(1), which talks about existing aboriginal and treaty rights. It is that word "existing" which limits the equality clause, just as it limits the whole application of aboriginal and treaty rights. It is the word "existing" which causes Indian, Inuit and Metis people to feel very uneasy about the real intentions of this Government.
A third issue dealt with in this Accord involves an invitation to the aboriginal people to a constitutional conference to discuss any proposed amendment which would affect their aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a first and welcome step but it is a long way from proper provision for the aboriginal people to enable them to defend their rights against any attempted tampering by the federal and provincial Governments. It is important to recognize that we have in our Constitution Section 43 which protects the rights of the Provinces. An individual Province affected by constitutional change has the right to veto the change. If an aboriginal right exists and our Constitution says that it does, well, then it has to be basic to our Constitution. It should not be subject to the whim or even the determined policy of the federal and provincial Governments even if they all act in concert. If aboriginal rights exist, and we believe they do, then the aboriginal people should have the final say about those rights, and it is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that our Party strongly supports the idea of a consent clause.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as to substance, there is provision for an ongoing process through a series of First Ministers' Conferences which will continue to work at the agenda set before the First Ministers by the aboriginal peoples. These ongoing conferences are necessary. Indeed, this is one of the major reasons why our Party is supporting the Accord. Most of the agenda items which the Indian, Inuit and Metis people laid on the table last year continue to be outstanding. No progress has really been made in defining the rights of Indian people with
The Constitution
respect to aboriginal title or treaty rights or Indian Government. Their hunting and fishing rights continue to be under threat from provincial Governments and courts. So it is essential that we begin to make progress toward a further definition, clarification and entrenchment of these peoples' rights.
In connection with the future conferences, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few suggestions regarding process. These suggestions come out of the hearings the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development held with respect to this motion when the different aboriginal groups appeared before us. First of all, I think it is important to recognize the need for a bilateral process. Indian people have always been very proud of the fact that their relationship is with the federal Government, not with the Provinces. This is enshrined in Section 91(24) of our Constitution. To involve the Provinces has, in fact, been a divisive factor. It can be pointed out that there are some 70,000 Indian people who were not represented at the First Minister's Conference in March. They were not represented because they did not want to appear at a forum in which there was provincial involvement. They felt that their relationship was with the federal Government and they want that basic relationship to continue.
We are dealing with a situation, whether we like it or not and whether the Indian people like it or not, in which the provincial Governments are involved. However, the suggestion has been made that there should be a series of bilateral meetings between the federal Government and the Indian people to draft some very clear proposals. Once basic agreement has been reached between the federal Government and the Indian people, then the federal Government can take it to the Provinces and to the First Ministers' Conferences for ratification. However, I think it is important, if we want to see progress on these agenda items, that there be a move toward a bilateral process. In conjunction with that thought, it is important that we recognize that Indian people, Metis people and Inuit people are all separate peoples. They have separate concerns and needs. They have separate agendas that they want to see addressed at these First Ministers' Conferences. Therefore, it is important that in the preliminary discussions there be separate tracks for each of these peoples instead of trying to bring them all together and persuading them to compromise and agree to some common agenda which, very often, leaves out some items of importance.
I regret that the Government has not moved more in recognition of the role of the Native Women's Association of Canada so that it can have some direct input at the First Ministers' Conference instead of requiring it to deal through the other national organizations.
It is important that Indian political leaders, in preparation for future conferences, be able to deal at the political level and not be relegated to dealing with bureaucrats, because what we are dealing with here is policy, and it is important that politicians who are able to speak for the Government be involved in

June 29, 1983
Adjournment Motion
making decisions and reaching basic agreements with the aboriginal peoples' politicians.
With regard to process, it must be increasingly recognized that there is a very complicated process, that there are numerous stages of discussions and reporting back to parent bodies and to constituencies. If the aboriginal peoples' organizations are to be enabled to do a proper job, they will have to receive adequate funding, more than just enough to come to a First Ministers' Conference once a year. They will have to have the kind of funding that enables them to report back to their own constituencies and allows for the kind of consultative process throughout their own constituencies that is so necessary.
At some of the preliminary meetings that were held last year, it seemed as though the federal Government was mainly interest in smoking out the position of the aboriginal groups that were there. It is important that the federal Government declare its position in some detail so that these people will know what they are up against. There must be a two-way process of laying cards on the table so that people know what is involved. The federal Government expects the aboriginal groups to be up front with their positions. It is only legitimate that they should be able to expect the federal Government to do the same.
Finally, we have taken, in the accord, a small first step, but we have a long way to go. We support that first step, but we urge the Government to get on with the long journey toward proper recognition of aboriginal rights.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Freedom of Information-MacBride commission report, (b) Government policy; the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Veterans Affairs-Request that commemorative medal be struck to honour Dieppe veterans; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)- Grain-Cash Advance payments-Request for increase, (b) Request for assistance to farmers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Mac-Guigan:
That:
Whereas the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
And Whereas the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freedoms that it guarantees;
And Whereas, after a gradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status of an independent and sovereign state, Canadians have, as of April 17, 1982, full authority to amend their Constitution in Canada;
And Whereas historically and equitably it is fitting that the early exercise of that full authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;
Now Therefore the House of Commons resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
2.	Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons".
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 35 thereof, the following section:
"35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
(а)	a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and
(б)	the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof, the following Part:
June 29, 1983

[Stage Direction]
37.1 (I) In addition to the conference convened in March 1983, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first within three years after April 17, 1982 and the second within five years after that date.
(2)	Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(4)	Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 35(1)."
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:
"54.1 Part IV.1 and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983."
7.	This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in this debate on an amendment to the Canadian Constitution which concerns the first people who settled in this country. I think that today, on June 29, 1983, we are truly making history. This is the first time, since the Canadian Constitution was adopted, that Parliament is proposing amendments. The nature of this motion proves that the Canadian Government is extremely aware of the issue and that it will do everything in its power to ensure that in the coming months and years, the genuine aspirations of native peoples will now be discussed on equal terms.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Manicouagan, a riding that has a large population of native peoples, including Montagnais, Naskapi and also the Inuit on Ungava Bay, I am proud to be able to stand up in the House and express my support for the motion moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). Often when we talk about native peoples, it seems almost like an abstract concept, although we know they are there across the country. However, anyone who has been in close contact with these people realizes how great their contribution is to Canada's culture, and when we talk about the founding peoples in referring to the English and the French, we must never forget that the first people who populated this country are the native peoples. Today, by amending the Constitution in order to start major negotiations with the native peoples, with the provinces and with the federal Government we are proving that the debate on the Constitution in 1982 was not a mass of meaningless words and that it is now becoming a reality that
The Constitution
will make it possible for native peoples to truly participate in the affairs of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the nine provinces who have already agreed to sit down with the native peoples and the Canadian Government, in order to amend their own provincial legislation so as to embody therein various amendments regarding native peoples which the Canadian Government wishes to include in the Constitution. 1 hope that the Province of Quebec, which has not yet agreed to negotiate with the Canadian Government and with the native peoples will do so in the near future, because the issue here is to establish clearly the rights of native men and women. I therefore call once again on the Province of Quebec to sit down as soon as possible with the nine other provinces and the Canadian Government, so that at last our native peoples will be able to live on equal terms with all Canadians, whatever their origin may be. This is a fundamental principle.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what should be emphasized today is the fact that the Constitutional Conferences that will be starting shortly will now be held on a truly legal basis. Before, native peoples were practically obliged to negotiate from scratch every time, on the basis of ancestral treaty rights or rights acquired through various pieces of legislation adopted since 1931, while now, through the Constitution, the Canadian Government and the native peoples will be negotiating on equal terms. It is truly a new beginning for these people who had to work extremely hard to obtain recognition of their status and their rights. Often, legal distinctions have been made regarding the nature of a treaty, compared with an Act or the rules of custom, and often the legal experts, and here perhaps I might point out what the Department of Justice has done at the federal level to bring about the entrenchment of all these rights but, before, tradition was more or less ignored. The usual comment was: Listen, it is not a statute, and it is not something that is recognized by the statutes. With the various constitutional conferences, what used to be called traditions or vested interests will now become a daily reality well supported in our statutes, and that is the important thing because we were too inclined in the past to leave the matter open without ensuring that native rights were truly recognized in legislative, legal and judicial terms. The resolution introduced by the Minister of Justice will now allow us to do so.
As I said earlier, I am especially happy to support this resolution because it is the first time that the Constitution approved by the House of Commons is amended, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Justice on being first to propose an amendment. It could have been amended in other areas, but the change was made directly for the benefit of our native people, and in this regard, the concern of the Minister of Justice for human rights, which are at the very root of our Constitution, should be singled out. I therefore believe that both sides of the House should congratulate the Minister of

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
Justice on amending the Constitution in favour of our native people at an early opportunity.
Another point that I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the importance of updating quickly the rights of the native people. 1 say this because in my own area, Manicouagan, which borders on both Labrador and Quebec, for strictly provincial reasons, the right to hunt, fish and trap of Quebec Indians on Labrador territory has been restricted if not withdrawn completely, and I had to contact the Newfoundland Premier several times to ensure that Quebec Indians have the same rights in Newfoundland-owned Labrador. When a caribou wanders about Labrador or Quebec, it is still the same caribou, but we, the white men, have passed laws which allow the Indians to hunt this caribou in Quebec, but not on Newfoundland territory, and the same applies in various provinces. Where the Inuit live, there are a number of conflicting laws which prevent the Inuit and other native people from following their traditional way of life. This situation is due to conflicting statutes and regulations which restrict the daily activities of the native people.
When I say that the provinces, the Indians and the Inuit have to sit down with the Federal Government in the near future, it is because the native people must be allowed to live as they have always done. We often forget to mention the significant contribution of these people to Canada. To acknowledge that fact, Mr. Speaker, you really have to live in areas where there are native people. When reference is made to native people in this House, the city dwellers often come to mind, but most of them live in northern Quebec and Canada and in frontier areas. They are the first guardians of the country. They are the ones who allowed French, British and Canadian explorers to travel across our country safely, because they know it like the back of their hands. These exceptional guides have enabled our oil and gold mining companies to make important discoveries for the economy of Canada, but this fact is rarely mentioned.
However, the amount of tax dollars spent by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is often mentioned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all the native people will claim at future constitutional meetings is the right to self-government and to economic self-sufficiency so that they will no longer be dependent on the central government. Mr. Speaker, native people are asking for equal rights, of course, but they also want an opportunity to develop within this country without losing their identity. We should keep in mind that equal rights and equal legal entity does not in any way wipe out the identity of an ethnic group. Native people do not claim to be better than Canadians generally, they are not concerned about being treated as inferior human beings as they have been in the past, but they certainly want to be part of the day-to-day economic activities and thus give their younger generations a chance to
prosper with the country without forever depending on Government laws and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the best way to sum up the initiative taken last Monday by the Minister of Justice would be to say that we are aiming at the eventual disappearance of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that, once and for all, native people will be full-fledged citizens like the rest of us with their own brand of Government to take matters in their own hands. Essentially, that is the take over which the Minister of Justice was advocating last Monday when he introduced amendments to the Canadian Constitution. I think that is wonderful.
In certain regions already, and I have in mind my friend Charlie Makiuk of Fort Chimo, or Joseph Guanish of the Schefferville area, the Naskapi chief, those people are pressing ever harder to be free on their own territories and to develop them as they see fit, with due respect for the rights of white people and other Canadians. They want to spur their economic activity and give a chance to their future generations to go on living as free and prosperous men and women. That is what the native people are asking for and that is indeed what the Minister of Justice paves the way for by introducing amendments to our constitutional resolution of 1982.
That was the second point, Mr. Speaker, namely to make sure that we will have more constitutional conferences to bring current laws and regulations up to date to give native people an opportunity to develop and manage their own affairs.
My third point, Mr. Speaker, has to do with information. Native people need to have more information and more training if they are to be looking after themselves. In that respect, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is to be commended for what it has accomplished over the past twenty years or so, but a lot of ground remains to be covered when it comes to information and training.
Anyone attending the various House committee sittings where Indian affairs are dealt with can see for himself that an increasing number of native people have become experts in many fields and that they are now quite capable of assuming administrative, social and civil responsibilities on behalf of their own people. We have seen it again in the Fort Chimo area since the signing of the James Bay Agreement. The Makivik corporation which has replaced the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is now managing the assets granted under the James Bay Agreement.
In the Ungava Bay area, Air Inuit is now operated by the Inuit themselves. It is now necessary, Mr. Speaker, during the various constitutional conferences that we make sure that training and information are not only available but that means are taken to enable the young people, because there is not such a large native community and it is essential that a greater number of young people attend our schools, colleges and universities in order that these leaders may be in a position to engage in discussions on the same footing as their countrymen.
June 29, 1983

That is most important because even, if we have bills of any constitutional resolution entrenching those rights, it is essential that such rights be defined, considered and upheld by the native people themselves with the same degree of learning as those around them.
When we look at the negotiations carried on with the Indians, either the Montagnais, Naskapis or Denes we cannot but see their cohort of white lawyers. And often when we have discussions directly with the first inhabitants of this country, we realize that finally their demands are quite simple but everything is tremendously complicated in the legal system with which we deal. I am not sure that those lawyers, either men or women, seek any speedy settlement of the native problem. I think that we should make sure that our young and older native people are trained to discuss directly with the white people, to actually deal on a personal basis by mutual agreement without having any inferiority complex, Mr. Speaker. This has often characterized our discussions with the native people. We had a superiority complex as white people and we were always dealing from a superior point of view with them so that our relations were thwarted from the beginning. Now if we want to maintain those relations, we will have to be at the same status level and have the name degree of learning. And this calls for information and training, Mr. Speaker.
There is a fourth aspect I would like to deal with, even though time is moving fast, and this is local geography. When travelling through the Manicouagan riding and across Canada with the Transport Committee and different other committees,
I have always noted how much the native people have been able to shape this country with their culture, their traditions, their own characteristics. It is very important for the sake of the discussions that will take place and with the motion introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), that native people be allowed a lot of room in this country. I am not certain that the current reserve system is the best formula. The native people themselves should be asked what they want in that respect, because reserves were established with the thought that they might be good to keep native people in one place. But the white man's traditions and ways of life were forced down their throats, and this has imposed upon them a culture that is not theirs.
Sure enough the native people who live in Caughnawaga or who can live in the Huron Village or in other places in Vancouver or in Alberta, those who have become city dwellers, may have adopted our style of living. But if we are to preserve the rights and the characteristics of the native people, if they really insist on protecting their traditions, their heritage and their sociology, we will have to ensure that the Canadian territory is available to all native people. This is very important. This does not mean that either they or we have to forego the rights or lifestyle that we share in common. It is simply a matter of having complementary ways of life. I am thinking here of the various rivers where they go fishing for salmon and other species, the hunting of various species of game. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute anomaly that in this
The Constitution
country we should have very restricted territories with an unbelievable number of licenses that a native must carry if he wants to do hunting, fishing or trapping for his livelihood. What the native people are asking us, and I remember two years ago the Montagnais from La Romaine were caught 300 miles north of La Romaine, in Labrador, and we had to send Canadian Forces' helicopters to get them out because of abnormal winter conditions, that is too little snow and bad seasonal temperature causing the game to get rather scarce, and indeed the Indians went short of food and they had to be flown down fast. Those Indian people are forced to comply with all kinds of regulations, to get all sorts of licenses to live as their ancestors did, and it is my view that within the constitutional talks that will start we should be very, very cautious to ensure that the native people have the freedom to lead lives of fulfillment as far as hunting, tradition, medical care and their crafts are concerned, and this is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.
I will conclude on this because my time is up, but 1 would simply commend once again the Government, the native people and the provinces who have now succeeded in agreeing to initiate complete discussions on the constitutional level, respecting the rights of native men and women. I commend the nine provinces who have already taken part in this initiative, but I hope that Quebec will follow suit and very soon. And I hope that these talks will lead to a better life for all native people which will serve the best interests of Canada as a whole, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair should now see a Member to its left. However, I should inform the House that the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has already spoken in the debate. He may contribute additionally with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: I appreciate the House giving me a few minutes, and I will take only a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. In my remarks 1 want to bring a few of the observations from the standing committee which received this resolution on Monday. We worked with it on Monday evening and through Tuesday. I think it is important, not only for this House but for the Senate, to recognize that the aboriginal groups want this resolution passed as quickly as possible.
I appreciated the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) and the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) on this Bill. I know

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
the Hon. Member for Manicouagan will be very interested in the report of the special committee on Indian self-government because that report will address many of the issues that he brought forward in the debate regarding the aboriginal people, the way that they relate to the people of Canada and to the Government of Canada. The protection of their lifestyle and culture is tied to a land base and that land base is very important to them. We will address that in our report.
I must say again that this Party and I approve of this resolution, the amendment to the Constitution. We want it passed with all haste. There are, however, some legitimate concerns that have been brought forward by Members of all Parties in this House and as well by various groups which appeared before the committee.
Let me quote the words of national chief Ahenikew who appeared before the standing committee on Monday night. I think his remarks really reflect some of the concerns that Members have regarding the process by which this amendment has been brought to the House. He said:
If you stop to think of what is really happening here, Parliament has been put in a similar position to the Indians. You-
Meaning Parliament.
-have a choice of rubber stamping an accord in which you have had minimum, if any, participation.
That is true. Members of Parliament have had very little participation in this whole process. In fact, we were not able to get any of the Government papers before the actual constitutional discussions were going on at the Conference Centre across the street. We had no idea what positions the national Government was taking to that conference. I hope in the future that can be amended. I know the various aboriginal groups were very forthcoming with their positions. They were putting them before Members of Parliament and before the country constantly. We really had no idea of the positions of a number of the Provinces and of the federal Government. What we, as Members of Parliament, are being asked to do today is, in fact, either to approve or to reject this process. If we amend it, we will have to go through the whole process again because the Provinces are involved in the amending process.
I agree completely with the statement which the National Chief put before the committee on Monday night. He went on to say:
Or, you can refuse to do so and see the constitutional process fade out of existence. Parliament should have been involved in an overseer role, from the beginning, to see that the process which produced the Accord was just and equitable, and in which the first nations had a determining voice. The entire process to which we were subjected caused divisions among the first nations. We cannot afford to be divided. Those who decided not to participate in the constitutional talks were as concerned as those who did. We did not divide ourselves. It was the process that divided us. What happens this year cannot allow that division to continue. In that respect, I must emphasize to you that my wish that the resolution be approved should not be interpreted to mean that I approve the participation of the Provinces. Nor do I approve the process. Nor do I mean that the rights of those first nations that did not participate should be disregarded.
Basically the National Chief was saying that Indian, lnuit and Metis people are very concerned about the participation of the Provinces. They recognize that their rights flow through the Indian Act to the federal Government and, as a result, are very concerned that some of the rights they have attained could be passed off to the Provinces and their way of life could be lost. There is great concern regarding the process. They would far rather there be discussions between the aboriginal people and the federal Government and then the results of that discussion taken to the Provinces so that each and every party knows exactly the stands being taken before they go into a public forum with television cameras, the Premiers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a number of officials.
It is very difficult when negotiations take place before the entire country and television cameras for people not to play to the country. Therefore, there is often a question as to whether true negotiation can take place in such a forum. Aboriginal groups brought this concern before the committee, as they were asked for their ideas.
Also there seemed to be lack of direction. The agenda was set and a great number of items were placed on it. The groups were not sure which item would be chosen for debate. This caused some difficulties. The term "aboriginal people" in a Canadian sense as well as in the world sense is one about which we have to be concerned because it does not distinguish one troup from another. The Constitution indicates that aboriginal people are Indian, lnuit and Metis. They are concerned that there may be an over-emphasis on one group as opposed to another and suggest that we ought to start identifying them individually rather than as a group, which makes sense.
The process in the past has been that various aboriginal groups deal with bureaucrats in ongoing discussions before they actually get into the forum of discussion with the Provinces and the Prime Minister. The various groups that appeared before us were very concerned about this process and hoped that they could have discussions directly with Ministers as well as with the various officials, although the officials on all sides play an important part in the process.
The lnuit who appeared before us felt that politicians should be more involved in the process than they were in the past. They made a very firm recommendation that there be more information and more involvement by various political Parties in and before the next constitutional conference. Again and again each group appeared before the committee and indicated their concern that they did not know what was the position of the federal Government; they did not know on which of the agenda items there would be concentration in the next constitutional conference. It is very easy for the federal and provincial Governments, with their officials, to prepare themselves for all agenda items and then, with the give and take of the conference to concentrate on the one which seems to be in order, the one the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister wish to discuss.
Aboriginal groups are given specific funding by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) to prepare themselves for all the
June 29, 1983

issues. They would much rather see us concentrate on one or the other. These are some of the concerns which were raised before the committee. I commend the House for it will be passing this resolution today. Also I commend the nine Provinces that will pass similar resolutions, and 1 am pleased that my Province of Alberta was the first one to deal with this.
In conclusion, I would like to place two more quotations on the record because I think they are very important. The first quotation is by the National Native Council and the second one is by the Inuit Council for National Issues. They both indicated to the committee that while there are difficulties with the process, such as some of the matters which I mentioned today, this resolution must pass and must pass quickly. The first is a quote from Mr. Smokey Bruyere who represents as well the Native Women's Association of Canada. He said:
The statement that I am going to make is designed to express some very real anxieties that we, as aboriginal leaders, are hearing from our people. But these statements should not be interpreted or used by any Member of any Party to delay the passage of this critical Bill.
I think that remark was also directed to the attention of the Senate. The next statement which 1 will quote was made by the Inuit Council for National Issues before the Committee last night. It said:
It is our understanding, however, that the equality provision is a priority agenda item for the next First Ministers' Conference and we realize that the only way to pursue this issue further is through the ongoing process. We would prefer to deal with the matter in this way rather than place in jeopardy passage of the resolution.
On being questioned they again said that they were pleased with the progress and with the section referring to land claims and they thought that the resolution ought to pass.
I thought it was important to have on record those statements by the four groups that appeared before us in the last day and a half so that all Parties of the House, the Government, its Ministers and the Senate will attempt to pass the resolution and take cognizance of the various problems of these groups with the process. 1 am very pleased to have been given an opportunity to speak again on the resolution. This is an historic debate because it is the first amendment to the Constitution, and there is no need to have it ratified by any other Parliament.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be disposition for me to table certain documents, and I seek permission to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to table certain documents?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Constitution



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of a report entitled, "Canadian Position with Respect to Conventions and Recommendations Adopted at the 66th and 67th Sessions of the International Labour Conference" held in Geneva in June 1980 and June 1981. In conformity with the new Standing Order, I suggest that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:
That:
Wheareas the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and resolutions of the legislative assemblies as provided for in section 38 thereof;
And Whereas the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freedoms that it guarantees;
And Whereas, after a gradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status of an independent and sovereign state, Canadians have, as of April 17, 1982, full authority to amend their Constitution in Canada;
And Whereas historically and equitably it is fitting that the early exercise of that full authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;
Now Therefore the House of Commons resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows:

[Stage Direction]
1.	Paragraph 25(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired."
2.	Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1983
The Constitution
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons".
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 35 thereof, the following section:
"35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
(a)	a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and
(b)	the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 37 thereof, the following Part:
"PART IV.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES 37.1 (1) In addition to the conference convened in March 1983, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first within three years after April 17, 1982 and the second within five years after that date.
(2)	Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the government of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussion on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(4)	Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 35(1)."
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 54 thereof, the following section:
"54.1 Part IV. 1 and this section are repealed on April 18, 1987.
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
"61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983."
7.	This Proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983.
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, in the closing moments of this debate, and I am very much aware of the cogent points that have been made with respect to this accord, I want to take a few moments of the time of the House to say, from the point of view of a Member of Parliament who was part of the federal delegation, a Member of Parliament who has for a number of years sat on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and who has since 1980 chaired that committee and is presently involved with his colleagues in sharing the task force on Indian selfgovernment, what a proud moment it was for me to sit in the Conference Centre and see the process work in a most acceptable manner, leading to a satisfactory conclusion after only a few days.
It was less than a year since our Constitution was patriated when this meeting in March, 1983 was held. It was fitting that the Government of Canada should have chosen for the first
constitutional amendment to deal with the aboriginal peoples of this country, the Indian, the Inuit and the Metis.
The true partners of Confederation were there: the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), the Premiers of the Provinces, the Leaders of the Territorial Governments, the Leaders of the Indian peoples, the Inuit and the Metis. The proper, correct partners of Confederation were there. Although I agree with much of what has been said by my Hon. friends on the other side, I cannot agree that the process was incorrect. The process was the right one because the aboriginal peoples of this country know that the future for them lies by way of constitutional recognition, by way of constitutional guarantees.
I want to say also that the opening statement made by the Prime Minister at that conference was one of the most remarkable speeches on the subject of aboriginal peoples I have ever heard. I say it was remarkable because, although it was delivered by the Prime Minister, it was not just the product of his own thinking. It is true that Dr. Ahenikew on Tuesday evening lamented the fact that parliamentarians had not been as fully involved in the process as he would have liked. I must say I give Dr. Ahenikew full marks for his respect for Parliament.
The Prime Minister's speech was the product of a great deal of discussion which has gone on among parliamentarians, Inuit leaders, Indian leaders and the representatives of the Metis people. Thousands of hours of dialogue have taken place at the Indian Affairs Committee and at meetings with parliamentarians in their offices on the aspirations and the hopes of aboriginal peoples. Those many, many thousands of hours of discussions and honest exchange were reflected in the Prime Minister's statement. That is why I applaud this document. It does represent for me the participation of parliamentarians over a long period of time.
I said that I was proud, I sat as a member of the federal delegation at that first constitutional conference, but I want to be very clear about the basis of my pride. I was proud because the Government of Canada had agreed that this was going to be the first action that we would take now that the Constitution was fully in our control. I was proud of that. I was proud that this was a new beginning for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. However, as I saw the Indian leaders, the Inuit leaders and the Metis leaders, 1 was not proud at all of the besmirched past which had brought them to this point.
It is not necessary in this debate to go over all of that, but there is testimony in the thousands of pages of the proceedings of the Standing Committee and of the task force which I am presently chairing which tells just how dark and shameful is that past relationship between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of this country. It is not a relationship of which any of us can take any pride. Therefore I want to be very clear that I was proud because it was a new beginning. It was a start for a new relationship that is going to make the aboriginal peoples full and complete partners in Confederation.
June 29, 1983

In the opening paragraph the Prime Minister said we had a Constitution that still needs to define the place of our aboriginal peoples in Canadian society. This was only the beginning, but it was a beginning that will reject some of the totally unacceptable approaches of the past; the approach of what sometimes is termed assimilation or termination, an attempt to absorb aboriginal peoples into the mainstream of Canadian society and cause them to lose their identity and distinctiveness. The statement categorically rejects that approach. We know that in the past this has been tried by a variety of means.
The opening statement also rejected the possibility that we could have in this country complete, total sovereign enclaves existing in isolation from the rest of the country. That, of course, is not realistic, and it offers no real hope for aboriginal peoples. The real hope is to become full and complete partners in Confederation. Therefore, the Prime Minister indicated that it was something between assimilation on the one hand, which had to be totally rejected, and something else on the other hand which has been described as sovereignty and which has no basis in realism. It is looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses.
To allow the aboriginal peoples to become full partners in Confederation also means that there will be an end to the paternalistic approach to these people, as if their affairs need to be managed by someone else; that there needs to be an entire department of well-meaning people who are going to be sure that Indian people are not alienated from their land; to be sure that Indian people are going to be able to look after their capital trust funds and that they will be doled out in amounts they will be able to manage, that we will not actively encourage independence by way of economic development-how much better it is to dole out small amounts of money and keep a half million people or more dependent upon the Government of Canada through social assistance. To become full partners in Confederation means the end of all of that. It means a new beginning.
The Prime Minister went on to say very clearly in his statement, reflecting what parliamentarians have been hearing for a long time, that the heart of the matter is to come to that moment in the constitutional discussions within the next few years when we will recognize the right of aboriginal peoples, Indians, Inuit and Metis, to manage their own affairs.
The task force hopes to define for Parliament and explain to the people of Canada exactly what Indian self-government means. We do emphasize that it means above all that they are going to be part and parcel of the Canadian Confederation. They are going to participate in it along with the Premiers, the leaders of the Territorial Governments, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice at conferences which are going to define and describe their future.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be enough as we forge ahead toward that definition based on this very admirable Accord, an Accord which is just a beginning. I compliment the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), and I share the sentiment of all the other Members of the House
The Constitution
who have praised him for his good work at that conference, but it is a beginning. The next step must be the recognition of aboriginal peoples' ability to manage their own affairs. Along with that, Sir, must go the economic wherewithal to manage their own affairs.
Under Section 36, Parts I and II of the Constitution, we have provided for the Provinces the economic base to manage their own affairs within the jurisdiction assigned to them. That same step, Mr. Speaker, must be taken when we recognize Indian self-government. To simply recognize it and let it lie there as a constitutional right and to allow the present arrangement, relationship and dependency to be perpetuated will not be satisfactory. We must follow the example set by the agreement we have with the Provinces by saying: "We recognize you, we will negotiate your jurisdiction and we will provide you with the economic wherewithal so that you can realize your own destiny, so that you can establish your own priorities and so that you can give the leadership to your people that you have always wanted to give but that has been frustrated for hundreds of years because of the domination of one level of Government over your governments."
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply saying that I think we have made a remarkable and amazing beginning and I applaud and commend the Minister of Justice and the Government of Canada for setting us off on the right road. 1 look forward to seeing where this process will lead us in the next decade and beyond.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I will not keep the debate going for very much longer, but as the representative of the Sarcee, Stony and Blackfoot reserves I do want to make one or two comments on this historic occasion.
As so many Members have said, this is the beginning, and that is really all that it is. It is the beginning of negotiations. I would like to make some suggestions in regard to the continuation of these negotiations.
When I was with the Department of Highways in Alberta, I had the responsibility of negotiating with the Stony Indians for a right-of-way for the TransCanada Highway through their reserve. I spent many, many hours listening to the elderly chiefs in the band councils. One of the things that sticks in my mind is that time and time again the elderly chiefs outlined, sometimes in their own language which was interpreted and sometimes in good English, how the white man had deceived them. That was the biggest obstacle we had to overcome. They had learned to disbelieve white men because they had been deceived so many times.
I would like to suggest to those who do the negotiating now that we must be honest with our Indian friends, we must be honest with our Metis friends and we must be honest with our Inuit friends. There has been too much deceit on the part of white man in order to take advantage of these people. I believe that should be the base upon which we start to build a new relationship with native people of the country.
I remember one chief who must have been 90 years old. He had a tremendous memory. I think they called him Chief Buffalo Robe. He was a very religious man who was converted

June 29, 1983
The Constitution
by the MacDougalls in the early days. He lived a wonderful life, but one of the things that irked him most was the fact that the white men always talked down their noses to him. He was never accepted as an equal. We must realize that Indian, Metis and Inuits, each with their own cultures, were created by the same God who created us. They bleed when they are pricked as we do. Their women cry when their children die as our women do. We must treat them as equals.
We must recognize their cultures. We should not be trying to make white men of them. We have a culture of which we are proud and have every reason to be proud. I think we should develop our culture, but let us also recognize that the Indian people have a culture as well, a culture that is older than ours. Part of our culture is intertwined with the Indian culture. The Metis people have a culture, a culture that came from Scotland, Ireland, England, France and China along with the Indian culture. Those marriages that brought the Metis into the world had a culture of their own as well. Metis people are not to be considered vagabonds or illegitimates. They must be considered as men and women and recognized as equals. They have the desire to live as we do, to live well.
I would like to speak for a moment about self-government. I see that I only have three more minutes to do so. Our selfgovernment should be an example to the Indian people. When Government Ministers refuse week after week to meet a delegation of Indian people, that does not set a very good example. When the Government refuses to unfreeze the capital moneys, so that Indians have to go out and borrow money to be paid back out of their grants, that is not something of which we can be very proud. When we give money in the form of grants to the Indians, as we did in October for a sewage system and then wonder why the money is wasted, the Indians lose respect for our way of Government.
Yes, I do believe in self-government for Indians, but it should not be imposed upon them. Let them accept it. Let them develop their own particular brand of Government. I must say that when I visit band councils I am amazed by the wisdom of the men and women. There are both men and women on band councils, but my heart bleeds when I see Indian children half-fed and half-clothed, when I see 27 of them in one house which should only accommodate five or six, when I see the standard of living we have subjected them to by closing them off and treating them as unequals. Then I go to our prisons and find that the greater percentage of the prisoners are Indians, many there for trivial matters. I pay tribute to Chester Cunningham of Edmonton, an Indian himself, who is trying to get Indians a proper deal in the courts by helping them to understand what is right and wrong and not trying to shove them into jails for trivial matters. If they do some great wrong, certainly they expect to be punished, but certainly the great percentage of them should not be there.
I welcome these negotiations as well, and I hope this will be a new day with a new, honest approach to Indians, Inuits and Metis people.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 6:19 p.m., pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today and the order made Thursday, June 23, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Motion (Mr. MacGuigan) agreed to.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1983 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 22, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-152, an Act Respecting the Organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been very interested in the Bill we are dealing with today with respect to the DREE program.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created in 1969 to combat regional disparities in Canada. A 1972 review of its policy showed that its programs were often limited in scope and focused on isolated problems. This led to the decentralization of the Department in 1973-74 and the signing of the general development agreements with the Provinces. These agreements provided for the federal-provincial cost sharing agreements which have worked since then.
When this Department was created, I had great hopes that it would be of assistance to areas such as my riding of Victoria-Haliburton. As the years have progressed I lost all hope of that. Consistently, when businessmen in my constituency have come to me for assistance I have gone to bat for them. I have had some successes in getting them sources of funding, but never from the regional and economic expansion program.
Last Fall, I approached the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley)-and I remind the House that the legal name for that Department is still Industry, Trade and Commerce-to help a promising constituent firm and representatives from local councils. The response I got was that there was no use even asking for a meeting with Department officials as Victoria-Halburton was not considered to be a designated area. The Minister told me that his hands were tied and that there was no use whatsoever in even discussing the matter. I must admit that my opinion of DREE was not enhanced by that experience.
It is very difficult to tell eager businessmen that even though the unemployment rate in our area is 14.4 per cent, a full three points above the provincial average, the federal Government
June 29, 1983

does not consider us as a priority area for assistance. I could enlarge upon that but there is no point in naming other ridings now. Similarly, I have had to tell many older employees, laid off due to technological change, that even though their entire plant has closed they are not eligible for benefits under the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program. They are not eligible because Victoria-Haliburton is not a designated area.
This area was settled as a rural agriculture and logging area. From the beginning, immigrants from many lands have seen it as an area of vast resources and challenges. It quickly became a mirror of rural Canada. Considerable foresight on behalf of our residents resulted in the creation of industries subsidiary to the agriculture and forest industries. They realized that diversification was necessary to maintain a stable economy. Now Lindsay, the largest community in the area, boasts many small businesses and the very fine campus of Sir Sandford Fleming College. Our students may remain in the area to complete their education. I am very proud of the progress we have made, yet we have retained the caring nature in the community which is characteristic of most of Canada's mixed rural and urban constituencies. This is why I have been so disappointed in the responses I have been given in the past by DREE officials.
The community wants to be productive and vital. Our students do not wish to be forced to find work outside the community because there is no incentive to local businesses to hire them. Businessmen want to continue to compete with their peers in other constituencies.
One good example is a local firm which bid on a contract to manufacture fish traps. It made a bid on a Government contract. The Department of Supply and Services chose another applicant it said had considerably underbid the local firm. That is fair ball if everything else is equal. However, deeper investigation showed that the firm that won the contract is in a constituency which is designated under DREE. In fact, the firm had originally been set up with the assistance of the Government and its transportation costs continue to be subsidized. The local firm would have had to absorb all transportation costs to compete. Thus, it lost the contract because it did not have the same availability of Government subsidization.
I hope the new Minister of Industrial and Regional Development will eliminate this kind of discrimination. I have been very pleased with the way he has conducted things so far.
The Bill will give most people an opportunity to apply for assistance at one level or another under this program. As I said in committee yesterday, I have seen more constructive policy come from this Minister than any other in my experience, regardless of which Government was represented.
I think one of the new Ministers in charge of this program has shown great promise for constituencies such as mine. When I drive home through another constituency that probably has a rate of unemployment no higher, or perhaps as high as my constituency, and see beautiful buildings going up while my people are denied the same thing I am somewhat irritated. With the reorganization of the Department and the tier
Government Organization Act, 1983
system, I hope that constituencies such as mine will have greater opportunities. I look for great things from the Minister in charge of the Department.
The Government agreed to consider each of these objectives in a separate Bill. Bill C-152 was drawn up to deal with the reorganization of the Departments of Regional and Economic Expansion, Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs and Parliamentary Secretaries. The Government then proceeded to implement the changes in Department structure. It did this despite the fact that it did not bring the Bill back for second reading until May 27, 1983. It proceeded without legislative authority, and without consultation with the Provinces; it simply ignored these two key elements of the process.
The announcement in this House on Monday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that most of my constituency, as well as others, would benefit from the highest enrichment levels of anywhere in Ontario was encouraging. I have always respected this Minister for his honesty and dedication, and I was not surprised to note yesterday that indeed three of the five census divisions in my constituency will be at tier three level. Naturally, I would prefer to have all regions above Tier 1 level. I do understand however from the committee meetings yesterday that even Tier 1 areas will be available for the ILAP program which may be of some additional benefit.
Initially, I had some skepticism about the development index. I had prepared a speech in which I dealt with the possible inequities that could be created by using the census data. In the past, programs based on such statistics have ignored the chronically unemployed, those who stopped looking for work, and students who did not try to find work because they knew none was available. This year's Summer Canada Program was a prime example. In Victoria-Haliburton, only $4,000 was added to last summer's allocation due to the use of the student surplus rate. Upon the publication of yesterday's list of allocations, I am prepared to forgo these objections. At first glance it does appear that the index may be fair and equitable, as the Minister stated on Monday.
It still concerns me a little that all the Tier 4 areas are in Quebec and the Maritimes, but perhaps it is asking a lot to pick out specific trouble spots in the other Provinces and exclude the rest. I believe the Minister has made every effort to make these allocations equitable.
Let me tell you a little bit more about the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton. Those who have never been there do not know what they are missing. Tourists flock to our lakes and campgrounds in the summer and winter. It is known in Toronto as "cottage country", a haven for tourists and city dwellers alike. That is why I get so perturbed when the Government promotes policies which discourage the tourist trade. The national energy plan was a disaster to the industry and the Government's failure to prevent price gouging by oil companies is further hurting tourism.

June 29, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
As a Member of our caucus committee on tourism, I have mixed emotions about the inclusion of tourism in the duties of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. We have been asking for sometime now for the creation of a separate and independent minister of tourism. I hope that the inclusion of responsibility for tourism and small business in the duties of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will result in an increased onus on these two vital sectors. It will be wrong if it only applies to the Tier 3 and Tier 4 funding level constituencies. This will make for two classes of tourist and small business facilities. The goal should be a much higher level of equal support for all.
Bill C-152 will add four more parliamentary secretaries and expand eligibility to include Senators. As I look across at the Government benches I can see why this Government needs more parliamentary secretaries. It needs a plum to give to more backbenchers to keep them from crossing the floor. What I cannot understand is why Government thinks it needs Senators as parliamentary secretaries. Surely it is difficult enough now for the Opposition to force a Minister to answer a question. Is this an attempt to ensure that even the parliamentary secretary is not accessible? Or, is there some plan to move an MP to the Senate with the promise of the additional staff and salary of a parliamentary secretary?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate the Minister, and his Department officials. I feel they have done a real good job. I believe he is one Minister who will deal with this Bill with fairness and justice. As a Member of the committee, I certainly wish him well.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that by speaking I will wrap up the debate. We need unanimous consent.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I understood that we were awaiting word from another place, and that that is about to happen. I would like to participate in this debate very briefly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I would like to determine whether or not the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has indeed spoken in this debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, he has.


Yvon Pinard: I moved the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, should the Chair recognize the President of the Privy Council that would end debate. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be relatively brief. I understand the difficulty of the Government House Leader during the last two or three days. I understand his anxiety to remove himself, if not all of us, from this Chamber. As I understand, this will be the last matter before us, other than matters which might arise from the other place.
Before we do in fact depart from here for the summer, there . are one or two points with respect to this Bill which I believe have to be made. They relate to the fact that in the beginning
it was recognized and has been succeedingly recognized by the Leaders of all Parties and all of our institutional groups, that in fact disparity is a major problem in our diverse, geographical and cultural community. In fact, Governments have a real responsibility to address these disparities with meaningful programs.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), has had this problem for 15 to 20 years in his part of Ontario which is suffering marginally. It has never been able to claim any of the benefits under any of these programs which flow directly from promises by Governments to rid this nation of disparity between the regions of our country. We have now an attempt to spread the program to all regions of the country, tiered as it is. Some regions will receive more, but the Government can still claim, as it has that in fact some regions will be entitled to greater levels of assistance than other regions. The fact remains, however, that all regions of this nation now in fact can turn to a singular program as opposed to four or five programs, and can in fact qualify and take advantage of that program.
That is not why I rise to intervene at this time. I do not intervene for that purpose at all. I intervene to remind a sick and lazy Government that it has abandoned its cause with respect to disparity in this country. I want to remind it forcefully that it has done that. If it thinks for one minute that this is a great measure, a great piece of legislation, let me say that in spite of the fact this Government has been consistently in office and in power since 1963 under a couple of Leaders, both of whom have vowed their allegiance to ridding this nation of disparity, this Government does not give a damn about disparity. This afternoon in this House it went to the porkbarrel. It reserved for Davey, for Dome Petroleum, for Jack Gallagher, and for whoever owns the shipyard, $650 million worth of work-reserved without tender. Everyone else was cut off. Who over there is going to stand up and tell CN to put its ships and ferries into the Halifax shipyards? I suggest no one.
I want to make two or three observations with respect to disparity. It is the responsibility of all the Members of this Chamber to address themselves to the question of national disparity, disparity between the regions. It is not our responsibility to talk about it, but to do something about it. If this particular Bill-Good afternoon, Mr. Minister, nice to see you here. I would smile too if I got $4.5 billion worth of work this afternoon.
I have some tables, Mr. Speaker, showing examples of the approximate increase. These are fairly accurate, but published tariffs never accurately reflect the cost of moving a given product. A tariff is one thing, but an individual arrangement between a producer and trucker is something else. Let me tell you what the Maritime Transportation Commission in the Atlantic Provinces says with respect to the movement by this
June 29, 1983

Government which will simply never let the left hand know what the right hand is doing.
The Government moves to this great universal program and does it at exactly the same time it is reviewing, with a view to eliminating, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Rates Assistance Act. A manufacturer in St. John's, Newfoundland, will pay 26.4 per cent more to move his competitive product into Montreal; 24.9 per cent to Ottawa; 22.3 per cent to Toronto. Because of economies of scale the further he goes the cheaper it is, and he will wind up paying only about 10 per cent more to get it into Vancouver. His market is in Montreal, Toronto, in the heartland where the buyers are. These figures are on the basis of the removal of the basic 30 per cent subsidy, which in fact is already a reduction in the carrier's published rates. There is no relationship whatsoever to what in fact is charged or what in fact it costs.
The shipper will pay 24.6 per cent more to ship from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, to Montreal; to Ottawa, 22.5 per cent; to Toronto, 19.3 per cent. And so it goes across the country, reducing to about 8 per cent to get to Vancouver. You have, for example, in my own metropolitan urban area of Halifax, a 22.9 per cent increase in the cost of every manufactured product we have to send to the central market in order to survive. That is what we are going to achieve. I have the figures here and my friend from the north shore of the river knows it.


Mr. Breau:: Baie Comeau.


J. Michael Forrestall: Baie Comeau.


André Maltais: Where Mulroney will not run.


J. Michael Forrestall: Brian Mulroney will run in Baie Comeau and my friend will welcome it because he will go to the Senate. He is not worried about it.
I have more figures, Mr. Speaker. It will be 26.4 per cent more from St. John's, Newfoundland; 25 per cent from Corner Brook; 24.6 per cent from Yarmouth; Sydney, 24 per cent; Halifax, 22.9 per cent; Charlottetown, 22.5 per cent; Moncton, 21 per cent; Bathurst, 20 per cent; Edmundston, 15 per cent.
I will tell you what are the figures resulting from the removal of the basic 30 per cent and the additional 20 per cent subsidy on selected commodities which applies as a reduction from the carrier's published tariffs. Let someone over there tell me what the relationship between the right hand of Government and the left hand is.
When you include both the selected commodity rate and the MFRA rate, from St. John's, Newfoundland it is 26.4 per cent under the basic rate; 53.4 per cent when you include both; from Corner Brook it is 50.5 per cent; from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, 49 per cent; from Sydney, 47.6 per cent; from Halifax, 45.1 per cent; from Charlottetown, 44.1 per cent; from Moncton, 40.3 per cent; from Bathurst, 38.4 per cent; and from Edmundston, 27.8 per cent. That is just into Montreal. What manufacturer, processor or producer can afford that kind of
Government Organization Act, 1983
impact? Does the Government not communicate from department to department? Is it not clear that while there are enormous benefits to be gained for this nation in what is proposed, in fact you are allowing another branch of Government to undermine all of that good?
We do not have a lot of time left today, Mr. Speaker, and 1 am not at all that certain about how interested most Members are, but I want to very quickly go through some selected comments with respect to the impact of the Government's proposed action with respect to the MFRA.
The Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce urged retention and strengthening of the program. The source for that was their annual meeting in Digby, Nova Scotia, on May 30, 1983, according to the Telegraph-Journal and Chronicle-Herald of June 1. Atlantic Canada Plus, one of our successful programs, said:
Any reduction in freight subsidies will have severe repercussions on business here. Withdrawing the subsidies is then one of the most ill-conceived blows against Atlantic industry.
That was a statement by Harvey Webber, the president, as reported in several newspapers in late May of this year.
The Canadian Manufacturer's Association passed a resolution urging the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to guarantee the intent of the subsidy program, and that additional assistance be provided, if necessary, to meet the intent of the program. That was reported in a number of newspapers.
The Maritime Lumber Bureau passed a resolution urging retention and expansion of assistance programs.
The Annapolis Valley Affiliated Boards of Trade have stated they support efforts:
-to hold off any reduction in transportation subsidies paid to Atlantic area businessmen to help them compete.
The New Brunswick Federation of Labour said:
-more plant closures will follow elimination of the transport assistance programs.
The Pictou County Research and Development Commission
Many of our local industries may not be able to absorb the higher costs if the complete removal of these subsidies is implemented which will result in higher transportation costs-
That was from a statement by Bill MacCulloch, executive director, as reported in the Chronicle-Herald of May 3, and also June 7, 1983. Yes, shrug your shoulders. It does not matter a damn to you, does it, my friend from the St. Lawrence River? Not a damn.
The Maritime Farmers Council-laugh at them Minister, if you will-passed a resolution urging that the assistance program be retained and strengthened.
The Voluntary Planning organization said:
-companies would have a tough time operating and probably find it was more advantageous to shut down.
Is that what you want to do, get rid of jobs?
The resolution of the Canadian Industrial Traffic League, Atlantic division, was as follows:

June 29, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
The elimination of the subsidy will probably mean the closure of many Atlantic area companies which have been established as a result of this and other Government funds that are made available to make all regions equally competitive in the national marketplace.
The statement of the Chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission was as follows:
A reduction or elimination of westbound freight subsidies could be critical to the existence of Atlantic area companies trying to compete in major Canadian markets.
That is our problem.
As reported in the Telegraph Journal of May 20, 1983, T.S. Simms, Jr., of T.S. Simms and Co. Ltd., stated:
Review of the subsidy program is " ... a serious threat to the economic health of the region. On the one hand, the federal Government says it is interested in promoting economic development and creating (a) good environment for business and then on the other hand they initiate this kind of review."
The M.W. Graves Company is internationally known. Its President stated:
The M.W. Graves could not survive the loss of the federal freight assistance program and would be forced to move its Nova Scotia operations to Central Canada if Ottawa opts to do away with the transportation subsidy.
How is the Government to answer that one? What does it have to say? Yet it goes with it.
As reported in the Telegraph-Journal of June 10, 1983, the Marketing Services Director of Atlantic Sugar stated:
If the federal Government lifts the transportation subsidies, "the future of the Saint John plant would be in jeopardy".
Campbell and Burns stated:
The removal of the federal transportation subsidy would mean industries in (P.E.I.) Province could no longer compete for business outside the Maritimes.
The President of Ganong Bros. Ltd. stated:
The cost to Ganong Bros. Ltd. if Atlantic freight subsidies are lifted will be substantial. But the greater, long-term costs will be felt provincially and regionally and will mean the loss of Maritime jobs.
Mervyn Dickie of Crossley Karastan Carpets stated:
-oppose any change in the freight rate subsidy. With suppliers next door, Ontario manufacturers have a definite edge while Atlantic firms must bear the transport costs of bringing raw materials in and shipping the manufactured product west.
Lock-Wood Ltd. is a substantial company which has gone to great pains to try to develop industry in Atlantic Canada. This is its position as reported in the Telegraph-Journal of June 10, 1983:
The Maritime freight subsidies are important to (Lockwood's) business. Removal of the subsidy would make it more difficult to send goods at a competitive price. But even with the subsidies, the company is still facing higher transport costs than its Quebec competitor.
This refers to its Quebec competitor with regard to certain of its specialized markets. The report continues with a statement by its sales manager as follows:
Reduction or removal of the westbound subsidy threatens competitiveness in Ontario and Quebec markets. While interested in further expansion, "we may have to make some hard choices. We might have to locate outside the Atlantic region. The choice is very real ... not knowing what is going to happen ... means people have to put plans aside".
Over the last two or three days there have been indications of several millions of dollars in plant expansion with the probability or likelihood of new job creation plans being put aside while the Government contemplates what it will do with
respect to MFRA, and it is a fait accompli, a foregone conclusion.
1 remind the Government that this summer it will hear from Atlantic Canada, from Members of its own Party who are from Atlantic Canada, I would suggest even the Ministers, with respect to the hardships that will be imposed on Atlantic industry if the Government tinkers with MFRA and the intraregional subsidy program. The intent of that was not to subsidize or distort the marketplace but, rather, to encourage the location in Atlantic Canada of industries so that they might compete in our limited marketplace here in Central Canada. If the Government carries out its intention of eliminating these grants, these subsidies, it will make it even more difficult for those industries in Atlantic Canada which look offshore for their markets. The Government must remember that we must bring into our region the raw materials for processing for re-exportation. The Government speaks blandly and wonderfully. I welcome the program. It helps friends. It helps people across this country.
The Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) has just told us of the difficulty he has had over a long period of time. I am saying to this Chamber that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians, especially those who are Government Members, not to bury the question of regional disparity under a motion and a Bill that, in fact, is not a bad move. We welcome the move. However, I remind the Government: do not ever let the right hand, through a Bill like this, forget or not know what the left hand through other motions or other movements, is in fact doing.
If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) now wants to go home for his summer vacation, as far as I am concerned, he can rise. However, I admonish him with respect to this matter. His friends from the North Shore and from the Gaspe region are affected. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) knows well the impact this will have on Atlantic Canada. I am happy that the Minister has not intervened in the sense that the Bill is probably a good Bill, nationally. However, I will try to extract a promise from him and other Ministers, and I pray to them not to overlook the question of intraregional disparity in this country, or we will never have the kind of national unity that is born of goodwill, born of the belief that we live and prosper in Canada, equal to all with respect to opportunity. Please be aware; please act to ensure that while the Government puts a good program into place it does not allow, by the other hand, another act of Government to undermine it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions or comments? [Translation]


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be taking part in the debate on Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. My comments will be mainly concerned with Part II and Part III of the Bill, and
June 29, 1983

Schedule II, which appears on page 21. My reason for doing so is that these particular parts are specifically concerned with the issue of regional economic development and federal structures in that area. There is also the matter of the political will, at the federal level, to deal with development issues in general, whether we are talking about development requirements in areas under federal, provincial or even municipal jurisdiction.
Since 1969 and even before then, when a start was made with the ARDA and FRED agreements and these development tools were first introduced, the federal Government expressed its intention to analyze the general economic situation in certain regions and to identify regional problems and needs, to see how government aid, whether federal or provincial, could be used to maximize regional resources and to create projects to deal with the situation in disadvantaged regions. Industrial development is one thing, but regional development is a different thing altogether. Industrial development means that we want to promote industries existing in certain regions. Some examples are mining, forestry and fisheries. Industrial development means that we are going to take a look at an industry that is typical of a given region, and see what we can do to improve it. Regional development however, is directly concerned with the general situation in a region, and the purpose is to change that situation. Such changes may sometimes be unfavourable to a given industrial sector or policy, because, as I said earlier, they are aimed at improving the general situation in the region.
Mr. Speaker, especially since 1969, the federal Government has somewhat modified its policy. Instead of the ARDA and FRED agreements we had had since 1965 or 1966, and even before then, maybe as early as 1964, a decision was made to create a department, namely the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It would have its own budget like other federal Departments and would conclude agreements with the Provinces on economic development and would also administer legislation on industrial incentives. The latter can be done without consulting with the Provinces, because it consists in providing assistance to individuals or businesses.
Thus, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had two functions.
Part of the Bill refers to agreements with the Provinces. Obviously, it was essential to enter into agreements with the Provinces, because in order to promote regional development, it is necessary to explore all possibilities, especially in the less well-off or smaller provinces. We cannot say: This should be done by the federal Government and that should be done by the provincial Government, and let both parties do their share. It is absolutely necessary to make use of all the resources available at various government levels through development
Government Organization Act, 1983
agreements. That is what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was trying to do in connection with its responsibility for regional development.
Today, we have a Bill that is supposed to change this Department by amalgamating the section responsible for industrial assistance with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As far as this aspect of the Bill is concerned, I am entirely in favour of the proposal. I think it is an improvement. There is or was no valid reason, at least after DREE had been in existence for ten years, to have parts of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that were responsible for industrial development competing with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which dealt with regional interests. I think it is far better to put those parts of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that could be called the vertical parts of industrial sectors together with DREE, in order to give the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce a better awareness of regional needs. So that part is an improvement. There is also the other part which deals with agreements under which investments could be made in various infrastructures, such as roads, industrial parks and municipal developments in certain cities. In other words, under those agreements, we could do everything that governments should do, and it made no difference whether the need came under federal or provincial jurisdiction.
Of course, the general development agreements signed since 1974 are not affected by this Bill, since they did not come under the statute which established the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The agreements are therefore still in force and the Government has said that it will renegotiate them with the provinces when they expire. However, there are some concerns about this aspect of the Government reorganization. Of course, reorganization is already a fact from an administrative point of view, even though the Bill has not been passed. There are some concerns, and I know that several of my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces on this side of the House, as well as some Members on the other side and many provincial Premiers, Ministers and MLAs also believe that it will be a good thing to have, at the federal level, a Ministry of State for Economic Development which, instead of acting like a Department, will act as a secretariat and try to make all federal economic departments aware of the problems so that federal agencies in various regions will be better co-ordinated. There are co-ordinators in each province who are working on this. I have no objection to the Federal Government trying to promote better co-ordination among economic departments, that is the Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and so on. I have nothing against that, quite the opposite.
I am happy to see that one of the benefits of this reorganization will be that a secretariat or group within the Federal

June 29, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
Government will try to bring about a better co-ordination of federal efforts. That is fine.
I admit that the old system was far from perfect, but one of its advantages was that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had the duty and the responsibility to carry out, on an on-going basis, analyses of regional economic needs and of existing opportunities, and kept in touch with the industrial boards, the provincial Governments, and in some cases the Federal Departments, but, most important, a Minister was responsible under the Act to deal specifically with these matters and to ensure that his Department would focus its attention on the needs of certain regions. This can continue with the reorganization under the Ministry of State for Economic Development. However, 1 have examined very closely the administrative organization of the new Ministry of State, and I doubt that it will have the necessary administrative resources in the provinces and here in Ottawa to ensure the same degree of attention by the Federal Government to the needs of those regions which, in some cases, have been slow to develop since Confederation. Although federal agencies will be more centralized, I doubt there will be the same focus on regional requirements in areas where it is not directly a federal concern and where it is not up to a single federal department to help when there is a need for every available government resource at the provincial, municipal and federal levels.
Mr. Speaker, I am from a riding that is affected by slow growth, a riding where we have always had chronic unemployment and where the economic situation is not only a historical reality but is also related to the region itself. It does have certain natural advantages, but there are also certain disadvantages because we are far from the major markets. We have no large urban centers, so there is practically no local market, and everything we produce has to be exported to the United States or Central Canada, Europe or Japan. As far as Europe and the United States are concerned, in some cases it is an advantage to be near the ocean, and we are, of course, only 100 miles from the U.S. border and the very rich Atlantic Seaboard market. However, as a member of Parliament representing such a region, I am concerned about the situation and I shall follow very closely the committee proceedings on this Bill when the officials will appear before it, or the Minister of what will now be called the Ministry of State for Economic Development, in order to determine whether this new Ministry, which I like to call a secretariat, will really have the administrative resources required to deal with what used to be the second part of the responsibilities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, in other words the promotion of regional development. We have never spent that much time discussing and defining the precise meaning of regional development.
I shall therefore follow closely committee proceedings. In summary, 1 support this Bill because, as I said earlier, there are some benefits in ensuring a better co-ordination among Federal Departments. It is also an advantage to merge the services of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce
which provide assistance and analysis of industrial sectors with their counterparts in DREE. As I was saying, this will improve the services provided by this Department and make it more aware of industrial adjustments and regional needs. It will a big improvement. As for the general matter of infrastructures, economic analysis and regional needs, and especially infrastructures such as roads in the case of my region, for instance, if we want to develop our tourism industry, it will be essential to get the municipal and provincial governments to agree on a comprehensive approach to regional development needs. That aspect of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was most worthwhile and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that there is a lot of concern about this issue. Several Members of the Atlantic Liberal causus are concerned about this issue even though they generally support the changes because they will be beneficial.
We are going to look very carefully when this Bill is before the Committee. We are going to see the new MSERD as it would be called, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for Regional and Economic Development (Mr. Lumley), together with the new co-ordinators in the Provinces and the extent to which they will have the administrative capacity to carry out economic analyses and to get involved with the Provinces and municipalities in identifying opportunities and projects on a continuing basis. While there were things wrong with that aspect of DREE, I think in some cases that aspect of DREE had become-I hate to use the words-a little fat, and I believe a lot of federal officials along with provincial officials were acting as a government within a government. To some extent that is okay and it is advantageous. But I do not deny that there was a need to streamline and weed out what is going on in that part of the bureaucracy
That aspect of reorganization is good. But the approach of the Government in the reorganization of development agencies reflects a difficulty we have in this country in dealing among Governments. The whole question of federal-provincial cooperation and federal-provincial relations concerns me very much. I am concerned with the way in which some provincial Governments carry out their relationships with the federal Government either substantively or politically. I am also concerned sometimes with the way in which the Government carries out its relations with the Provinces. I think we have to separate the politics and the substance. We have to be able to find ways, regardless of the political stripe of the federal Government, to carry out mechanisms of co-operation in regional development between the Provinces and the federal Government. The question of political credit, I believe, is important. I do not blame provincial Governments for the fact that the federal Government did not have credit for many programs. Sometimes provincial Governments were at fault. But on many, many occasions-and I have been here 15 years
June 29, 1983

and some days-my frustration was with the federal bureaucracy and with Ministers within the federal Government who did not do as politicians should do, and that is to make sure there was political credit for the federal Government.
1 believe political credit is extremely important, not only because of image or glory, but because the citizen, the voter, has the right and the responsibility to know and to find out what his Government is doing for him or her in his or her region. A citizen must make a judgment as to what the federal Government does and as to what the provincial Government does. The question of which Government is responsible for carrying out a program is extremely important in a democracy. The way the whole area of federal-provincial relations is going with regard to regional development is something which should concern many Members. The electorate in regions of slow growth, areas of the country that need to develop their economies, will not tolerate its politicians at different levels of Government bickering and destroying mechanisms of cooperation. It seems to me, in the case of my Province, that in some cases both Governments have been at fault. They have not differentiated between negotiating objectives and seeing where agreements or disagreements are. That is the substantive part. We have not differentiated between that and the politics of the situation.
I hope that when this Bill and this reorganization is complete we will have found ways to improve and to meet the concerns that I know some of the Members in the Liberal caucus have on this Bill.
Generally I think we all support the Bill. I certainly support it because there are some good things in it. There are some things wrong with the system as we know it and some things will be improved. I have made some proposals to the Government as to how to meet these concerns. They are being discussed, and I hope that we can improve the legislation in committee to ensure that we have a better system of meeting the needs of the slow growth regions of the country. We require more co-operative effort at both levels of Government to meet the needs of these regions and to ensure that they can plan their future so that there will be economic development and improvement in the standard of living in these areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments. Debate.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Bill I hope to be very brief because I know there are other Hon. Members of the House who have comments to make. For example, I am sure the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) would want to talk about DREE and what it failed to do for Simcoe County, particularly the Orillia area. I know he is anxiously preparing notes at the present time to participate in the debate between now and the time the Senate completes its deliberations. I know as well that other Hon. Members are anxious to participate, if given the opportunity.
Government Organization Act, 1983
I want to depart somewhat from the discussions which have taken place to date and concentrate upon other aspects of the Bill. First I want to deal briefly with Part IV which amends the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. There are probably other elements in the Bill which have captured the attention of the public more than this particular section. As Members of Parliament we should be very concerned about the growing lack of responsibility within Parliament for actions taken by the Government. Anyone who has sat in the House of Commons during Question Period knows that there is no greater frustration than trying to ask questions about an area of concern and discovering that the appropriate Minister is not even a Member of the House of Commons, that in fact he is a Senator and is not properly accountable in the House of Commons.
Every one of us accepts that it is both necessary and in some cases desirable to have Members of the Senate represented in Cabinet. It was useful for us when we were in Government and had few Members from Quebec to ensure representation from that portion of the country through using the vehicle of the Senate. The present Government which has only two Members of the House of Commons elected in constituencies west of Ontario has no choice, if it is to have western representation, but to appoint some Members of Cabinet from the Senate.
It leaves us in an invidious position in the House of Commons when important portfolios are given to Senators who are not accountable in the House of Commons. On a day-to-day basis when we attempt to obtain answers from Ministers, we find that the Ministers who have the information are simply not present. That problem will clearly be compounded if the Government gives itself the authority to appoint Parliamentary Secretaries from the Senate. Instead of simply running into problems where Ministers are not available and are not accountable in the House of Commons, Cabinet has devised a formula which will allow Parliamentary Secretaries to be drawn from the Senate as well and will prevent them from doing their job, the job that is necessary, as Parliamentary Secretaries in the House of Commons itself.
Were I a Member of Government, were I a Government backbencher, certainly I would be very concerned about the prospect of parliamentary secretaryships which currently reside in the House of Commons being transferred to the Senate, with the commensurate loss of authority within the House and the commensurate decline in the ability of Government Members of Parliament to have influence in what is happening at Cabinet level.
Nowhere is the lack of responsibility more apparent than it is in the case of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, a Bill which is currently before the House of Commons. The Minister responsible for CDIC is in the Senate, Senator Austin, yet the Minister responsible for the Bill in the House of Commons, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres), is incapable of giving answers. On occasion after occasion when we have asked him questions, we have found that he is simply incapable of giving answers and that decisions are not being made by him but by a Minister who resides in

June 29, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
the Senate. For example, within the past few days I, among others, have raised questions about whether the Auditor General would be permitted to audit the books of CDIC. It is clearly appropriate that the Auditor General, who is Parliament's auditor, should be the one given access to the books of CDIC which will be the largest holding company in Canada, will have the authority to spend vast amounts of tax dollars and will be largely unaccountable to Parliament. It is clearly appropriate that the Auditor General be given access to those books and be responsible for alerting Parliament if tax dollars are not being well and prudently spent.
In the past few days we have also gone through an experience with Canadair and de Havilland. In the case of Canadair we found that that Crown corporation ran up the largest corporate loss in the history of Canada of $1.4 billion. The response of the Government, both in committee and to Hon. Members in the House, has been to claim that it was simply unaware of what was happening, that somehow it was the fault of management, and that the Government did not have any responsibility. Canadair and de Havilland will now be subsidiaries of CDIC which will have the responsibility of ensuring proper management, notwithstanding the fact that the management of CDIC has had very little, if any, experience in the private sector and is being asked to run the largest holding company in the history of Canada. Also, the Minister responsible for CDIC is in the Senate instead of being in the House of Commons. That Minister has a responsibility which dwarfs the responsibilities of many Ministers who are in the House of Commons.
That sort of situation leads to a position of impotence on the part of Members of Parliament in doing their job in holding the Government to account, in examining the Government's activities and in making suggestions on a day-to-day basis on how improvements could be made. We find as well a sense of frustration among the people of Canada when they find that they have a Government which has grown remote and a Parliament that is incapable of doing the job for which Members of Parliament were elected. With this Bill the Government would just remove that much further from the House of Commons, the elected representatives, the ability to obtain answers and to hold the Government to account. This is why, more than any other reason, I feel this provision of the Bill is one that is not healthy and should be struck out.
If the Government is to proceed with other elements, let it go ahead, and we will consider them on their own merits. But certainly it would be completely wrong for the Government to go ahead with proposals to put Parliamentary Secretaries in the Senate and to have them totally unaccountable to Members of the House of Commons.
I have cited one case, the case of CDIC, where there is clear irresponsibility at the present time, but there are others as well. What we have found as Members of Parliament-and no doubt, Mr. Speaker, you have found it during your tenure in office-is a growing tendency on the part of Government to remove itself from Parliament's scrutiny and to allow decisions, which should properly be made by Parliament itself, to be made by administrative boards and tribunals. Nowhere is
that more apparent than in the case of the CRTC. The Government has given the CRTC vast grants of power to determine what Canadians will be able to watch on their televisions and will be able to listen to on their radios. That Commission, which is largely unaccountable to Parliament, does not find its estimates rigorously challenged by Parliament. It has in the Broadcasting Act a tremendous grant of authority to do whatever it wants. It has taken unto itself a tremendous amount of authority to make decisions about what Canadians will see and hear, to determine the shape of Canadian culture for the future, to determine the future of a multi-million dollar industry and to affect in some cases international relations, all without guidance from Parliament and all without the proper input of elected Members of Parliament as to what should be the policy.
It is just another example of how Government has grown remote and how it has been removed by one further degree from the elected representatives of the people. If the Government goes ahead with the proposal it is making in the Bill before us now, Government will become that much more remote.
Any of us could cite other examples of where Government has grown distant from Members of Parliament and where this Bill would simply complicate that particular problem. Another example could be found by returning to the question of Crown corporations. The Bill which the Government has before the House at the present time gives authority to create a limited number of new Crown corporations. Throughout the span of your tenure in office, Mr. Speaker, and the time that I have been here, the vast majority of major Crown corporations have been statutory corporations. Legislation has been introduced in Parliament which has been debated here. We have had the opportunity to discuss the elements of the Bills and to discuss what was good about them, propose amendments and suggest ways in which improvements could be made. This has been healthy.
In the case of Petro-Canada, for example, we had a long and very spirited debate in Parliament in which Members of Parliament were able to express their view and the views of Canadians at large as to what the proper course of action would be. However, we find new provisions and new legislation which would provide that the Government could incorporate an unlimited number of new Crown corporations without ever going to Parliament, as long as they were subsidiaries of existing Crown corporations. That particularly would be the situation in the case of the Canada Development Investment Corporation which could buy or sell any company in Canada without a bye-your-leave from Parliament, without a moment's debate here in the House of Commons. Surely that sort of irresponsibility, that use of tax dollars, that intrusion by the Government in the marketplace without proper accountability in Parliament and without the ability of the elected representatives of the people to do their job and to hold the Government to account could only cause concern for ordinary Canadians
June 29, 1983

who already believe that Government has grown too large, too remote, too costly, and too intrusive in the day to day lives of Canadians.
I was just getting warmed up, but I get the feeling that we are being called away. Perhaps I can pick this up in September when we return.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 thank the Hon. Member. Before we proceed any further, I have some matters of which I must inform the House.
Royal Assent
Bill C-165, An Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada;
Bill C-167, An Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada and to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971; and
Bill C-95, An Act to provide for Government-operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty to inform the House that a number of objections to the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports have been filed with the Speaker. Since they are numerous, if the House agrees, the texts of the objections will be printed as appendices to Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate requesting this House to appoint a committee to act jointly with a Senate committee already chosen, if the House deems it advisable, to examine and consider the subject matter of Bill C-157, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-24, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and certain other taxes, without amendment.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills, without amendment:
Bill C-166, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act;
Bill C-119, An Act to repeal certain Statutes that have ceased to be enforced or have become unnecessary;


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House, Ottawa,
Sir:
June 29, 1983
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. R. McIntyre, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of June, at 7.30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General.



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
['May I say the same thing. On behalf of Madam Speaker and the other occupants of the Chair, including the Deputy Speaker, may I extend to all Members of the House our thanks for the privilege of serving in the course of the past year.', 'On behalf of Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the Chair, I wish you all a very pleasant vacation, if I may call it that.', 'I know it is not only a question of a vacation but for many of us a question of work as well.\nMotion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.\nAt 7.53 p.m. the House adjourned until September 12, 1983, pursuant to special order.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-151, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority-Chapter 151

June 29, 1983
Summer Recess
Bill C-85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada-Chapter 152
Bill C-148, An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)- Chapter 153
Bill C-147, An Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act (No. 2)- Chapter 154
Bill C-161, An Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act (No. 2)- Chapter 155
Bill S-24, An Act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and certain other taxes-Chapter 156
Bill C-166, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Federal Court Act- Chapter 157
Bill C-167, An Act respecting the Tax Court of Canada and to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Chapter 158
Bill C-l 19, An Act to repeal certain Statutes that have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary-Chapter 159
Bill C-l65, An Act to provide for financial assistance for industrial development in all regions of Canada-Chapter 160
Bill C-95, An Act to provide for government operated pool systems on combinations of athletic contests and events and to amend the Criminal Code and the Income Tax Act-Chapter 161
Bill C-l64, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1984- Chapter 162



Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleagues, the House Leaders, and, provided that both of them rise and say that 1 am correct in saying that there is unanimous consent, I move that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until September 12, 1983, without prejudice to Standing Order
4.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this Party, the Official Opposition, I am prepared to give unanimous consent. I know that my colleague, the Government House Leader, would probably want to move on to the property rights amendment debate and I know that the House Leader for the New Democratic Party would want, in the splendour of his tuxedo, to lead that debate on behalf of his Party. We would probably not get the required unanimous consent, however.
I should like to take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues on both sides of the House and the staff a welcome respite. I think it is important that we all get back to our ridings, have a little rest and see our constituents. We will be back on September 12 when the House resumes.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that in my non-partisan fashion, I am wearing my Tory blue shirt. I wear it in the hope that they will learn something from the debates that have occurred in the last few months.
Of course I am delighted to join with my two colleagues and agree that we should not sit tomorrow but should rise tonight until September 12.
I also join my colleague in the Conservative Party in wishing that everyone will have a good and healthy summer. I hope they will put it to good use canvassing their ridings and meeting their constituents, particularly in the case of the Liberals in western Canada, in order that when we come back to debate the Crowsnest Pass freight rate changes they will have learned that those in the Prairies do not want the change.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, since I was very brief in moving the motion, I would now like to congratulate all our Parliamentarians on the work they have done in the past year. I also wish to thank all members of the support staff of the House of Commons and I would like to wish everyone a pleasant stay away from Parliament. Hon. Members are aware that these are not real holidays, since the Summer recess gives us an opportunity to go to our ridings and fulfil our duties as Members of Parliament and elected representatives by consulting with and informing our constituents. So we are not rushing off to go on holiday but to do a different kind of work that is nevertheless part of our duties as Parliamentarians, and I am sure that Hon. Members will carry out those duties very responsibly as they always have done. We shall return on September 12 to continue our legislative duties in the Parliament of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I say the same thing. On behalf of Madam Speaker and the other occupants of the Chair, including the Deputy Speaker, may I extend to all Members of the House our thanks for the privilege of serving in the course of the past year.

On behalf of Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the Chair, I wish you all a very pleasant vacation, if I may call it that.

I know it is not only a question of a vacation but for many of us a question of work as well.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.
At 7.53 p.m. the House adjourned until September 12, 1983, pursuant to special order.


END OF VOLUME XXIII