1985-02-11

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday 1 had spoken for some eight or nine minutes on Bill C-26. Today I would like briefly to conclude my remarks.
The main point on which we were speaking at that particular time was not whether or not Hon. Members were against the provisions of Bill C-26 but that provisions of Bill C-26 do not extend to all people in need who are between the ages of 60 and 65. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree that it is not fair that some people be excluded from the provisions of Bill C-26.
On Friday we were speaking of a potential situation in which a widow would be eligible under this Bill while a single person of the same age and living under the same financial circumstances would not be eligible. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Government does not insist on providing all people in need who are between the ages of 60 and 65 with the same kind of benefits. To discriminate against people because of their marital status is extremely unfair.
The other day we were discussing the fact that the Government, in its wisdom, has chosen to make certain people ineligible for this benefit. That is most unfortunate. We were also discussing the fact that the Government has decided that it has other priorities for its funds. I am sure that Hon. Members across would agree that the Government's spending of some $40 million or $50 million on coloured uniforms for the Armed Forces is a rather strange priority when those funds could be used to ensure that there are adequate benefits available for all people in need who are between the ages of 60 and 65. [Translation]
Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, we were talking about the fact that, in his speech, my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie
(Mr. Malepart) had compared three different persons: the first was single, the second was separated or divorced, and the third was widowed. Their financial status was identical, but not their benefits. For the purpose of his speech, my colleague had decided to call his three constituents Mrs. LeBlanc, Mrs. Legris and Mrs. Lebrun.
Friday, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out to you that I had a picture which had been given to us by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates), showing a Mr. LeBlanc, a Mr. Lebleu and a Mr. Legris. Messrs. LeBlanc, Lebleu and Legris are in the Armed Forces, and the Government found enough money to buy uniforms of different colours for those three gentlemen, but not enough to help the needy and the underprivileged.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that is a rather strange priority for a Government which went on the campaign trail promising just about anything to anybody for any reason.
But it did make a commitment to the elderly-higher benefits. In that respect, I must say that the Conservative Government has once again hoodwinked the Canadian people by failing to provide similar benefits to Canadians whose needs are similar.
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that, in its approach, the Government has certainly neglected the Canadian people. And I am not the only one who says so, because in an article published this morning in a Toronto daily newspaper, Mr. Jeffrey Simpson refers to the Government priorities, a Government which has seen fit to buy uniforms for the military instead of helping needy Canadians.

The article to which I referred indicates in part that we should buy coloured uniforms for politicians if that is to be the priority rather than give funds to the needy. According to the author of this article, we could buy a uniform for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) in the colours of the American flag. That would be appropriate for that particular individual. For the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) we could buy a uniform made of pigskin. That would be good as it would indicate an intention of fulfilling one campaign promise that was broken by the Government. I will not bore you with all the other details, Mr. Speaker, but I will say that the author is of the view that we could have sheepskin jackets for all the Tory back-benchers who follow the Government so blindly and who do not have minds of their own on various important issues.
It is quite obvious that the provisions of Bill C-26 need to be examined very seriously. I invite the government back-benchers who are heckling at this particular moment to rise in their

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
places and tell the single people between the ages of 60 and 65 that they cannot have those benefits. 1 invite them to rise and say that the Minister is right, that we should buy coloured uniforms instead of giving money to the needy. If that is how he feels, he should tell the House and his constituents. They would be pleased to read that in Hansard, and they would treat it accordingly at the next election.
Obviously, the priorities of the Government are completely backwards. I would like briefly to describe a situation today which I described in the House last Friday. The situation involves a widow or a widower who is 60 or 61 years of age. In most cases it is the widows who are in financial need. However, the people who are in need, whether they be widows, widowers or single people, require benefits. In some cases widows receive survivor benefits from the Canada Pension Plan. However, divorced or single women do not have that benefit. So we can see that in certain cases the provisions in this legislation could be construed as being completely backwards.
It is obvious that a large segment of the population has been forgotten. I think that all legislators, before the end of this debate, will agree that the legislation must be modified. In addition, the Canadian population should seize the opportunity, when the House recesses next week, to tell their Members of Parliament that this law needs to be amended in order to ensure that no one is left out.
Another issue with which I have some difficulty is the way in which eligible individuals are determined. We could say that it is easy to determine, because we all know the definition of a widow. However, I do not believe it is easy and I would like to cite a few examples of how this issue could be complicated. If a woman's husband is deceased, of course she is a widow. But what happens if a widow remarries? Of course, if a widow remarries we could say that she is no longer a widow.


Mr. Grise:: What do you expect?


Don Boudria: I invite my hon. colleague on the other side of the House, who seems to be so smart on these issues, to answer the following question. What happens to the widow who remarries and subsequently divorces? Is she or is she not eligible for this pension? I would say that no one in the House has the answer to that question. According to the information which I have received, a person who remarries and subsequently divorces returns to the marital status which they had prior to the last marriage. That person would again have the widow's status which she had before. If that is the case, would she be eligible for this pension?
One thing is obvious. The Government House Leader, who is nodding, like myself recognizes that this legislation is impossible to administer in its present form. Being the objective, non-partisan person that he is, he will recognize that the only way to make the legislation work is to have it apply to all people between the ages of 60 and 65 who are in need.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Let's get it into committee.


Don Boudria: Now that the Government House Leader has understood this, I am sure he will run off to tell his Cabinet colleagues that the law should not be passed in its present form. It needs to be amended to ensure that all Canadians in need will qualify and that there will not be discrimination based on marital status.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's speech?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent a great deal of time discussing the cost of these new uniforms. Has he any idea how much it has been estimated it would cost to restore the old uniforms? I understand that cost is equal to the cost of replacing the present uniforms.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 will give that matter all the attention it deserves. As far as I am concerned, the military are presently wearing uniforms and they can keep on wearing the ones they have. I put a question on the Order Paper months ago asking this Government what the value is of the stock of old uniforms we have on hand. The Government refuses to answer that question because it will embarrass the daylights out of it if we find out that we probably have millions of dollars worth of the old uniform stock which we can't get rid of right now. That is an embarrassing situation for this Government, Mr. Speaker. The last thing we need is a Government which intends, as its priority, to spend money on military uniforms of different colours-as colourful as they may be- for no apparent reason at all other than to satisfy some preconceived idea that the military had a long time ago about how cute they once looked when they had different coloured uniforms. Instead, I believe the Government should put that money towards meaningful social programs. I don't apologize for thinking we should put our money where it is needed, towards the seniors of this country, instead of into that kind of a scheme.


Mr. Dick:: Then why didn't the Liberals do it in 20 years?


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have heard that some people in the military ranks, upon looking at the military expenditures, feel that the money could be better spent on refurbishing some of their equipment which is inadequate. In other words, there are more urgent and more useful ways of using these dollars, even if the dollars are to be used in the military sector. I am wondering if the Hon. Member has heard these same kinds of comments from the military people?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is a very excellent question indeed put by the Hon. Member. I have had numerous conversations with constituents who are in the Armed Forces and 1 have yet to meet one who has told me that this investment- and I use the term generously-in new uniforms is worth while. All of the military people I have met were unanimous in saying that this is the last thing they need. They are of the view that putting the money into social programs, or even into other investments within the Armed Forces, would be prefer-
February 11, 1985

able to what is being proposed. There are other questions they want answered; I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has had the same reaction from military people in his own constituency. For instance, if a military person works part of the year at the Canadian Forces base at Ottawa North, which is the airborne type of military, and the rest of the year he works in another area of the Armed Forces, would that particular person have to switch uniforms twice a year because part of the year he is with the air force and part of the year he is with the army? So we will have people in fact having to have more than one set of these particular uniforms in order to satisfy the ridiculous idea of the Minister of National Defence.
To answer the question, Mr. Speaker, yes, the money would be far better spent elsewhere, even elsewhere in the military. As far as I am concerned, we should take that money and put it into the social programs represented by Bill C-26 so that the Bill can be enhanced to cover more people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no more questions or comments we shall resume debate with the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted to have an opportunity today to address a few comments to Bill C-26 which will provide spouse's allowance to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65. I am told there is something like 85,000 of those people right across the country.
It is very difficult to know what sort of impact legislation, this legislation in particular, will have on one's own riding. However, as you may be aware, my riding encompasses parts of two of the six municipalities which make up Metropolitan Toronto; the City of North York and the borough of East York. The City of North York has a relatively young population. Only about 8 per cent of the population are 65 years of age or over. However, the portion of North York included in my riding contains the original community of Don Mills and Victoria Village, both of which were developed in the 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore the population in those particular areas is somewhat more advanced in age than is generally the case in North York as a whole.
As far as the East York portion of my riding is concerned, it is quite clear that this legislation will have a very significant impact. The borough of East York has a seniors population second only to the City of Victoria, British Columbia. In fact, depending on the study you look at, the population of seniors in the East York part of my riding is either 16 per cent or 20 per cent, and as high as 22 per cent for those 60 years of age or over. That category has been growing very substantially in recent years. Between 1971 and 1976 it went up by 1 per cent. Between 1976 and 1981 it went up by 2 per cent. A recent study by the planning department of East York indicates there is something like 6,000 people between the ages of 60 and 65 in that community, and of that about 1,000 would be single people living on their own. We have 282 ridings in this country
Old Age Security Act
and roughly 85,000 people who will be in a position to take advantage of this legislation. That works out to approximately 300 people per riding. If I have 1,000 people in my riding in this category, that means my constituency will potentially benefit about three times as much as any other riding. So there will be a very substantial benefit to the people of York East.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we could have much better pensions. I do not think anyone on either side of the House, including Ministers, would not agree in their hearts that we could have better pensions if we had enough money. There are all sorts of things we could do. We could extend this spouse's allowance to cover single people as well as those divorced or separated. That goes without saying. We could also make this a universal pension. I might say that during the last election campaign there were a lot of people in my riding who pointed out to me that this is something the Government should be looking at. We should be looking at reducing the pensionable age to 60. They suggested we drop it a year at a time, starting with 64 and going down until we get to an old age security pension starting at age 60. They pointed out to me that this would have at least two dramatic effects. The first would be that all people in that age bracket who are now unemployed and cannot get a job because of their age would benefit and be able to withdraw from the labour force. Second, it would be an added incentive to people now approaching that age to retire early, therefore making jobs available for younger people. That is another reason we should be looking at improved pension benefits.
Another aspect is clearly the amount of spouse's allowance that we are considering. We are considering a benefit of just over $500 a month. That will total approximately $6,500 a year. Recent studies by the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council indicate that it costs a single person in the senior citizen category living on their own in a home or apartment somewhere around $10,000 a year to support themselves. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while this will be of great benefit, it will actually fall short of the money needed to live above the poverty line.
There are a number of benefits that we should be considering and a number of improvements that could be made to the old age security system. I think the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) put it quite correctly a few minutes ago when he said that this is much better than what we have now. It is fine to suggest that we do all of these things, and I would like to see us do all of these things, but we are facing a rather horrendous deficit. We have government expenditures for the coming year in the neighbourhood of $100 billion. Our revenue from all sources will be in the neighbourhood of $63 billion. That leaves us with a $37 billion shortfall. As much as I would like to see the benefits for seniors and near seniors extended beyond what we are suggesting today, it is obvious that this is a great step forward in light of the deficit which we face.
It is quite clear that if we want improved benefits for our senior citizens we must get our economy moving again in order

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
to generate the wealth to provide these benefits without interruption. We must also ensure additional benefits, such as a universal pension for everyone over the age of 60 and improved pension benefits to ensure that everyone lives above the poverty line. In that regard we should ultimately be aiming at something like a guaranteed annual wage. Of course, that guaranteed annual wage must not discourage people who have saved for their retirement. It must protect them at the same time as protecting those people who need help.
Parliament should be aiming at all of these things, Mr. Speaker, but they will all depend on the generation of more wealth in the country. Today we should be applauding the Government's move for improving the spouse's allowance benefits. All Members of the House should be dedicating themselves to getting the economy moving again, getting people back to work again, and turning people into taxpayers rather than welfare recipients so that they can generate the tax money in this country to provide for the things we are talking about today-a much better social security system and social safety network in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since we have been debating this Bill for eight hours, speeches are now limited to ten minutes with no questions or comments afterwards.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The Act extends the spouse's allowance to low-income widows and widowers between 60 and 65 years of age. Single and divorced people in that age group are still excluded, according to the Bill.
While the New Democratic Party will support this legislation, I think our members have indicated a number of weaknesses in the Act which we hope the Government will address when the Bill goes to the committee. The main weakness is one which has been well documented and presented to the House. The benefits are extended to a very arbitrarily defined group. Their application is not universal at all and there is no intention for it to be universal. The Bill does nothing for low-income people between the ages of 60 and 65 who were never married or who are divorced. The fact that this legislation discriminates against a certain group is unacceptable in our society and this matter should be dealt with in the committee so that the Bill can be changed before it is enacted into law.
The other weakness that has been pointed out to the House is that if those in this particular age group are suffering financially at this time, then this Bill should be put into effect immediately instead of September, 1985, if it can be passed quickly. The fact that people need this help now means that they should receive the benefits of this legislation as soon as it can be passed. Therefore, we would like to see this legislation become effective immediately on the date of its enactment. If we recognize the need there is no reason why we should not act quickly.
The measures in this Bill are partly a response to the recommendations of the Task Force on Pension Reform which reported in December, 1984. Our member on that commission was Ted Miller, a member in the previous Parliament. He also made a minority report. He recommended expanding the general public program of Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan by making them available at age 60. I believe our ultimate goal should be to have a universal program for all people.
Although some members of the Liberal Party in the House agree that such a change would be beneficial and should be implemented, the previous Liberal Government made no attempt to implement any of the recommendations brought before it by the Pension Reform Committee in 1983. Except for the two-stage, $50 per month increase in the guaranteed income supplement, the previous Government was content to leave pension changes to those that did not help lower income people but definitely helped the upper income groups in Canada. We support this Bill and are willing to discuss it in committee where we might be able to convince the Government to make some changes so that it will be less discriminatory.
Pensions have a very interesting history in Canada. The first old age pension legislation in Canada was introduced during a minority government in 1926. At that time the real impetus behind that particular move for pensions was instigated by J. S. Woodsworth who was the Labour Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre. The measure was opposed by the Conservatives in the House back in 1926, then blocked by the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Senate.
Following the election of that year, when it became a campaign issue during the election, it was reintroduced by the King Government and passed the House and the Senate with very little difficulty. It is very interesting to note that that particular pension was $20 per month and very strictly means tested.
That particular period of history is very interesting as far as social welfare legislation in Canada is concerned and I would commend members in the House and other Canadians to read it. It shows the ability of one determined man or a group of seven Members in the House who were able to change the direction of social welfare legislation in Canada to a direction that has not changed perceptibly since that time. We have added to that legislation on several occasions.
The CCF conducted a considerable amount of policy discussion and development. When Stanley Knowles was elected in 1942, he immediately took up the responsibility of his predecessor from Winnipeg North Centre, J.S. Woodsworth, and called for pensions as a fundamental right and free from the humiliating means test. In 1952, ten years later, after considerable pressure from the CCF in the House, the Government introduced universal old age security and made it payable at age 70.
I am reviewing this history because since 1926 until now we have made inroads into taking the responsibility for senior citizens, recognizing their contribution to our country and that
February 11, 1985

we, as representatives of the people of Canada, have a responsibility for their dignity in old age with a lifestyle that is free of want. Consequently, we implemented the guaranteed income supplement, old age security, senior medicare programs as well as dental programs. Now we should be looking at the extension of these services to as many people as possible in that particular age group. Our policy suggestion has always been that if we cannot move the applicable age down to 60 universally, then what we should do is make the allowance available at age 60 for anybody who is not in the workforce. That is what we will attempt to do in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Continuing debate. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy with this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-26, to amend the Old Age Security Act. Under this legislation, next September the spouse's allowance will be extended to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 and living on low incomes. They will benefit from this allowance regardless of the age of their spouse at death.
Those Canadians will receive up to a maximum of $536.26 per month, to be indexed quarterly to the cost of living. More than 85,000 Canadians will benefit from this new measure.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should applaud this new proposal which will help consolidate and upgrade the old age security program. During the last election campaign, I met with groups of widows and widowers in my riding who took advantage of the opportunity to inform me about their extremely precarious situation. In many cases the sudden death of a spouse had left them without any significant income, often with dependents, either directly or indirectly. Those people had high hopes in our plan to upgrade the old age security system, and I am sure that today, they will be able to point with pride to their new Progressive Conservative Government that is going to "deliver the goods" and provide them with a significant measure of assistance.
The House will recall, and 1 think this is important considering certain arguments that have been made recently, that the implementation of this new proposal will involve additional spending of $190 million, and over $350 million in 1986-87 when the program has been in existence for one year.
Mr. Speaker, of course our Government would have liked to have done more for all individuals in the 60 to 64 age group by extending its program to those who are single, divorced or separated, as the opposition parties have insisted that we do. Unfortunately, the disastrous financial situation we have inherited from a series of previous governments precludes committing the $1.5 billion that would be involved in extending this program to all people on low incomes in this age group. Of course, the fact that previous governments saw the public treasury as a well that would never run dry is now
Old Age Security Act
preventing this Government from extending the program to all widows and widowers between 60 and 64, and this obviously leaves us very little room to manoeuvre and to do everything we would like to do to provide a decent standard of living for all these groups. It is also obvious that if we were not facing a deficit that will reach nearly $200 billion this year, our Government would be in a position to consider a far more generous old age security program.
1 think we must regenerate Canada's wealth before we can share it. That is the objective and that is the position of the Government that was elected on September 4 of last year. We must stabilize the Government's financial situation. We are working on it very actively and we have no choice but to succeed unless we want to be haunted once again by the spectre of brankruptcy that threatened this country until September 4 of last year.
Meanwhile, although this measure is not a panacea for all the problems facing the elderly in general and widowed individuals in particular, the 85,000 Canadians who are anxiously waiting for Parliament to adopt this new measure will have cause to rejoice. I think that our Government and Progressive Conservatives and in fact the entire House will have cause for rejoicing, and I am delighted to see that this Government, as it said in the Throne Speech, is delivering the goods and is trying to gradually improve the old age security program, and I think this is a very significant measure that the House should approve.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the debate and hear the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) sing the praises of this Government, but 1 am rather disappointed that the Hon. Member did not ask himself whether this measure was fair and equitable, whether this kind of discrimination was acceptable in a free and democratic society, and whether, now that we have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we can tell people: We are going to make a distinction on the basis of your marital status. Whether we can say, in a society like ours: Mrs. So-and-So, you are widowed and you are entitled to the allowance, and, to a single woman: You are not entitled to the allowance, when they are both in the same financial situation.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the previous speaker is not worried about the inherent injustice of this legislation. 1 think Hon. Members on the other side of the House are well aware of the fact that this Bill discriminates on the basis of religion. I see the Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) who is aware of the situation of nuns in Canada, especially Catholic nuns who, unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, are not allowed to marry, according to their religion, and who will now be discriminated against because they have decided to dedicate their lives to God, and although they "marry" God, they are not likely to be widowed.

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that our religious orders must be asking themselves some very serious questions about this Government. I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote). 1 know he has nuns in his riding to whom he will be hard put to explain the fact that since they are not widowed, they will not be eligible for the allowance when they turn 60.
I would also like to mention the case of people who are divorced. What does the Progressive Conservative Party have against people who had an unfortunate experience in their lives and who have had to suffer the heartbreak of a divorce? Mr. Speaker, do we, as the Parliament of this country, have the right to discriminate against those who are divorced? Does our society not accept divorce, unfortunate though it may be? We should recognize the needs of these people. I realize the same applies to people who are separated. 1 fail to understand why this Government has decided to commit itself to meeting the needs of widows and widowers. I agree that widows and widowers have needs, but certainly not any more so than people who are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, does poverty have a marital status? What this Government is trying to do is to treat marital satus as a basis for discrimination, and I am sure there are associations that will protest and take this decision before the courts. In Section 13, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives all Canadians the right to equality. I am positive that in the months and years to come, many cases will be registered with the courts.
When I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who sat with me on the Committee on the Constitution and made some excellent speeches against discrimination and now, the first Bill tabled by the Minister in the House contains all the elements that contravene Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in the weeks to come, Government Members will be put under pressure by those who are separated, divorced and single, and members of religious orders, and they will realize that the Bill is discriminatory and lacks the justification referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Section 1, and I quote:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
And to this day, after all the speeches we have heard from the Government side, no one has been able to show that that kind of discrimination is justified except by harking back to the deficit problem.
Mr. Speaker, there is no court of law where the point made by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix would hold. No court of law would tell him: Yes. in view of the deficit problem you may get away with discrimination. And this is the question in my view that the Government Members should ask themselves.
They should go to their constituencies and ask those who are single, divorced or separated: Do you think this is fair?
Everybody will tell them: No, Mr. Speaker. We all agree that if the Government had been faced with a financial problem, certainly the solution would have been to progressively lower the age of entitlement. They could have said age 64 or 63, but the same should apply to everyone.
And this is what I am concerned about in this Government's philosophy: they selected one group, without any economic justification unless there is one in the briefing books of the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand). But I am anxious to hear her. She took part in televised debates, but then she was unable to substantiate her point.
That is the question that must absolutely be asked here, today. And I hope the Hon. Members opposite will be asking it too. I know, Mr. Speaker, that being a distinguished lawyer you have asked yourself that question, and surely you are in doubt as to whether in these circumstances discrimination is acceptable.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that in upcoming minutes, upcoming hours, upcoming days, and hopefully in upcoming weeks, when this legislation is discussed. Conservative Members will manage to convince the public and the House that they have a right to resort to discrimination. It is against the spirit and the letter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And certainly the courts will tell you that, Mr. Member of Parliament for Charlevoix. I am sure that within the next few months, this will be proven in court.
Now they say: Yes, that will cost millions and millions of dollars. I hope that Hon. Members can convince the Minister of Defence not to spend $54 million on uniforms. Speaking of choice for the Government, I feel it is more important to help our seniors than to change the colour of military uniforms. Mr. Speaker, our military personnel already have all the clothing they need but our senior citizens are hard put to buy clothes. And we know how destitute our citizens aged 60 to 65 and living alone can be. This is why the Government cannot hope to get off the hook by saying: "We have no more money:" They have money for new uniforms, for new cars. They want to buy guns and what have you, ships galore, and of course everything the Americans wish to sell them. But when it comes to our older people, they say: "We have no money!"
This is an argument the Opposition will not buy. We welcome the first parts of Bill C-26, but we know it is a piece of legislation that was hastily put up together. Of necessity they could not think of everything. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who certainly has an innate sense of justice, certainly will reconsider his position at the urging of his Parliamentary Secretary who knows the real people, who certainly can tell him that in her constituency religious orders are not at all happy with that. She can tell him that in her constituency, separated or divorced people should
February 11, 1985

not be stigmatized for the rest of their lives, but should benefit now from the provisions of the legislation.
As I said, this is why, Mr. Speaker, we will try to convince them during the upcoming weeks, we will try to win them to our side. Indeed, backbenchers like the Hon. Member for Charlevoix, instead of trying to rationalize this Government's Bill, should tell the Minister: "We were elected to be fair and just." He should tell him that the separated, divorced or single people in his constituency also want this benefit and need it. This is what he should be doing. Not that 1 feel any urging to repeat what was said by the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne). But hearing the speeches made up to this day, that is the impression which one gets from the work of some Members. As we know, the Hon. Member for Champlain did not mean it as a compliment when he said his colleagues were "deuces of spades".
But I am anxious to hear him rise and tell the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the errors in the legislation should absolutely be rectified. I feel certain we would have a unanimous response from the House if tomorrow the Government were to introduce such an amendment. He could even make sure that this would be implemented now rather than in September, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in today's debate on Bill C-26. This Bill is indeed an important piece of legislation, aimed to extending the protection of the spousal allowance program to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64. As has already been well documented, the proposal would affect approximately 85,000 Canadians and thus add to the 94,000 Canadians who are currently already enjoying these benefits.
It is on the whole, I believe, a positive step which builds on the strength, the vision and the courage of legislation initiated by a former Liberal Government in 1975. In this regard I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). As a new Member of Parliament in this House, I have come to respect his abilities as a parliamentarian and, perhaps more important, his caring attitude as an individual.
Much has been said in this House about Bill C-26, but I would like to focus briefly on three important realities which I believe flow from this piece of legislation. The First is that of the 85,000 recipients, 72,000 or 87 per cent are women. Second, this Bill declares as ineligible over 80,000 Canadians between the ages of 60 and 64 who were never married, are separated or divorced. Third, there are countless couples between the ages of 60 and 64 who are facing severe Financial pressures largely because their employment marketability is severely undermined by the traditions of our society. Their concerns are also unanswered by this Bill.
These are important realities which Bill C-26 does not address. The obvious question that Canadians are asking is, why not? While the Bill, I repeat, needs to be applauded for what it will accomplish, the legislation also speaks quite loudly
Old Age Security Act
about the matters that it does not advocate or will accomplish. Therefore, as parliamentarians, while we need to recognize the advantages offered by this legislation to Canadians, we cannot allow its limitations to be overlooked or forgotten.
We need to ask ourselves about the plight of Canadians who are between the crucial ages of 60 and 65 and find themselves alone with little financial security. We also need to come to grips with the harsh realities facing women within this age bracket. We need to understand the many faces of poverty and admit that they do exist with all too much frequency in our communities and across this country. We need to face those realities and we need to act. We therefore need to discuss and subsequently implement matters of pension reform, matters of homemakers' pensions and improved benefits for part-time workers.
In his speech on this Bill the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke about poverty and the fact that widows in particular are among the poorest in Canada. He then touched upon the employment shortfalls:
Let's not kid ourselves: in most instances, the 60 to 64-year old widow is not the one the personnel manager will hire. Why hire someone who might have only a few years until retirement while there are other young and perhaps better educated people competing for job openings available today?
The Minister was correct in his analysis. It is shared, I believe, by all Members of this House, but the scope of this analysis was all too narrow. The single, separated or divorced 60 to 64-year old is also fighting for economic survival. The single, separated or divorced 60 to 64-year old also faces employment discriminations. There are also 60 to 64-year old couples who face increasing difFiculties. The situation where the husband or the wife is laid off and the salary of the other partner becomes a single salary and quite inadequate to make ends meet, also warrants a concerted effort on our part. This Bill does not make that effort.
Just last week I visited a couple faced with such a dilemma. The husband is 62 years old and has worked all of his life in construction. He was recently laid off but construction work has been his only employment experience. Thus he is seeking a similar job. His problem, and he realizes it, is his age. He too is the first to admit that perhaps a younger person would be more physically suited to that position. His wife, who is one year younger, has worked for 30 years cleaning and scrubbing other people's floors. She too is at the point of being physically worn out and she too feels that it would perhaps be appropriate for her to step aside in favour of a younger person in need of work. The question, however, is how can she do so?
I am not suggesting that this is the definitive experience of all Canadians. However, there are too many similar real-life cases. There certainly are enough such cases to justify a change and enough for us to realize that people in the age group of 60 to 64 merit special and careful attention from Parliament and indeed society.
During the recent federal election campaign and subsequent visits and discussions with my constituents in York West, the

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
most often repeated concern from old, middle and younger-aged alike was the matter of old age pension eligibility being 65 years of age. My discussions clearly indicated to me that this threashold age is in need of urgent reform. Canadians are looking to other countries that currently provide pensions for men at 60 and women at 55. These countries have undertaken this progressive legislation despite the fact that they have less resources and wealth than our country.
If the Canadian couple I illustrated earlier did have access to pensions at the ages of 60 and 55 respectively, would it not ease their lives? Would it not permit the wife to stop scrubbing floors? Would it not permit the husband to ease up and perhaps pursue a hobby rather than look for more mortar and bricks on yet another construction site? Would it not allow the couple to live a happier, less hectic and less pressurized lifestyle? Would it not also allow other younger individuals seeking work a far better chance of finding that work? It is my opinion that Canadians share this concern and that the answers to those vital questions would be in the affirmative.
Quite often our country's status among other countries is measured in terms of wealth or economic output. While this is a valid and accepted form of comparison, this measurement should also be complemented by a social indicator that would reflect the type of lifestyle that Canadians lead, the benefits they enjoy from their Government and at what age these benefits come into force. If we followed such a practice, we would be surprised to learn that while some other countries trail Canada in over-all economic production, the sum lot of the individuals in those other countries is in some cases superior to that of Canadians.
An important facet of this social equation concerns the elderly and near elderly in our society. Earlier in this debate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), reminded the House of an old proverb which says that we can judge a society by the way it treats its elderly. I believe that that proverb is a very real and accurate one and one that is central to any discussion we are to have on Bill C-26. This legislation, as I indicated at the outset, moves in the appropriate direction but it definitely needs to be strengthened in order to make up for its shortcomings and it needs to be embodied as one component of a larger and more comprehensive policy thrust.
I hope and Canadians hope that Bill C-26 is but the beginning. While this legislation will no doubt improve the lives of some 85,000 Canadians, what do we say to the other hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are asking themselves: "What about me?" What do we say to the single, divorced or separated men and women of our country who are between the ages of 60 and 64? What do we as a country say about the over-all state of affairs for Canadians approaching their sunset years? We cannot afford to leave these individuals behind. If we do, we cannot truthfully say that Canada works well and fairly for everyone.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. I would
like to make three or four observations in the short time available to me. My first observation is that I acknowledge that this Bill is a step in the right direction in terms of recognizing one of the many problems that were outlined in the report presented by the Task Force on Pension Reform in December, 1983.
Just to preface my remarks, I would say that I am listening with interest to my colleagues and friends from the Liberal Party who rise to ask why the Government is not recognizing these problems. I would point out that the report commissioned by the Liberal Government through the task force hearings was tabled in 1983. If members of the Liberal Party were concerned about what was happening to the seniors of our country, there were ample opportunities to introduce legislation, particularly after the task force report laid out its recommendations so very, very clearly.
The member of the New Democratic Party who was on that task force, a member who came from British Columbia, wrote a minority report because he did not feel that the task force went far enough. He felt that there were a number of things on which the Government should act immediately. Just to put today's comments made by members from the three political Parties in some context, I think that that was an observation worth making.
We have some concerns about the legislation but we are certainly not going to hold it up. We will be raising these concerns at the appropriate time in committee. However, let us recognize that the benefits provided by the Bill, which basically extend the spouse's allowance to all low-income widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 65, leaves single and divorced people in that age group excluded from consideration. It is a very arbitrarily defined group at which this increase in pension is aimed. The Bill offers nothing for low-income people who are between the ages of 60 and 65 who have never married or presently are divorced.
As well, it is useful to point out that the amendments, once approved by the House, will not come into effect until September of this year. We are hearing good arguments from all spokespersons that there is a need to move with some haste. I would like to think that we need not wait until September of this year before action can actually be taken.
As the person who last spoke indicated, how we treat the elderly of our society is a pretty clear reflection of how advanced, mature and civilized we are as a country. I think that there is a good deal of room to move in that respect. There is much that can be done.
There are two issues to which I would like to see some thought given on behalf of the seniors of the country, recognizing the contributions they have made to our society, and one of those is the issue of senior citizens' housing. In many communities across the country, both large and small, there is a growing need for senior citizens' housing of a variety of types.
I might say that in the province from which I come, the Province of British Columbia, while the allotments of money are somewhat limited as compared to the federal Government,
February 11, 1985

such housing does exist. However, the provincial Government, in the name of restraint, has decided that it will not build any more senior citizens' housing units in the Province of British Columbia because it is not a priority and the Government simply cannot afford to do so. I think it is a very cutting comment to say that the Government cannot afford to provide decent housing for the senior citizens of the Province of British Columbia. That tells us a great deal about where the priorities of the Government of British Columbia lie. We must look at ways and means of providing better housing for our senior citizens in the country.
As well, we should use this debate as an opportunity to flag an issue that should be dealt with now, and that is the matter of providing more opportunities for early retirement. On Friday we learned that the unemployment figures had leaped significantly higher than they had leaped for a considerable length of time. The number of unemployed in Canada appears to be growing. We heard from the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and from many of the spokespersons in that Party that the young people are the ones who are being particularly hard hit during this time of recession or virtual depression-like conditions.
Those people who have the means and the will to retire at an age other than 60 could take an early retirement option and that would provide opportunities in the workplaces of the country for young people to access the job market.
This week a major report in one of the metropolitan newspapers indicated that many seniors have been fortunate enough to put money aside and are financially prepared for their retirement years. Those seniors are prepared to retire at an age other than 65 or, perhaps, 60. They will be able to live the rest of their lives with enjoyment and satisfaction. That early retirement will enable those seniors to do a variety of things which they have looked forward to during their working lives. Rather than paying UI or, indirectly, welfare benefits from the federal coffers, we could provide a pension for people who are considering retirement at an age earlier than the traditional age, and that would provide much-needed jobs for the young people in our society.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we will be supporting the principle of the Bill at second reading. However, we look forward to committee stage in order to consider extending the group that is involved, which has been arbitrarily defined. We will also make an effort to have this legislation become effective prior to September of this year.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that no other Member is interested in speaking on this legislation at this particular moment. Of course, I am sure that there are Members who wish to speak and, during the ten minutes which are allotted to me, I am sure other Members will come into the House to express their opinions.
I have listened to the debate and, when I was not able to be in the House, I read the debate in Hansard. I think we must
Old Age Security Act
realize one thing. When we pass legislation such as this we must be careful when we say that the legislation will benefit x number of people. In any social security legislation which is passed by the Parliament of Canada, we must be very careful when we say that it will benefit, for example, 85,000 people, as has been stated in this Chamber.
There are certain people who will qualify under this legislation. They will receive a cheque, but they will not be allowed to keep one penny. They will not benefit from the legislation. That is a very unusual statement for a Member of Parliament to make. I am referring to the thousands of people who are in institutions, or who are in government-subsidized nursing homes, senior citizens' homes or homes of special care. I bring this up today to make an appeal to the Government of Canada and to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). There are certain standards in Canada which are not being maintained. It requires a strong arm on the part of the federal Government in dealing with provincial authorities and regulations. I am referring to the whole question of the social security safety net.
I would like to illustrate a situation. Suppose a person was about to retire, without money, and that person was going into a senior citizens' home, a nursing home or a home for special care, and had a choice in which province they would retire. Where would that person retire? It is an important question. Under this legislation, with a person between the ages of 60 and 65 who is in an institution which is being subsidized under the Canada Assistance Plan and through the provincial departments of social services, it would depend on which province that person decides to live in that determines the amount of money which will be made available to them. I find that absolutely incredible.
If we looked at the comforts allowance that a senior citizen or a person between the ages of 60 and 65 is allowed to keep out of the cheque, we would find that one province in western Canada will only allow that person to keep $34. However, if that person was not receiving the cheque, they would still receive $34 from the provincial department of social services. Of course, that $34 is cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan and comes from the federal Government Department which is introducing the legislation. In another province that person would be allowed to keep $115. In Ontario, if the person is between the ages of 60 and 65, they would receive $77. However, if that person is older than 65 years of age, they receive $105.
Who determines on a national scale how much money a senior citizen requires to buy birthday or Christmas presents for their grandchildren, to buy pipe tobacco if the person smokes, or to buy a bottle of brandy once a month? Who determines how much money senior citizens are allowed to keep from their comforts allowances? As a policy, it is a decision of the provincial Government. No one in this Chamber can say that a measly $34 a month is adequate for a senior citizen who is living in a senior citizens' home.
We must also realize, under the Financing arrangements with provincial Governments, that the deficit on the operation

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
of senior citizens' institutions is cost-shared monthly with the federal Government on a 50/50 basis. In other words, a person between the ages of 60 and 65 will not benefit from this legislation. That $500 cheque will go to the person and they will be given back an amount of money which is exactly equal to what they received before they qualified for the cheque. The federal Government, through one branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, is paying $500 on the deficit of operating the home for that particular senior citizen, whereas previously the total deficit was shared on a 50/50 basis. In other words, by issuing that cheque the federal Government is reducing the provincial Government's input on the debt of that institution.
I have brought this matter up today because I have noticed that this Government wants to have a very cosy relationship with the provincial Governments. The Government will not object to provincial regulations in which the net benefit to senior citizens has varied by as much as 300 per cent between the provinces since December 31. It is alarming. We cannot call it a social security safety net. Some provinces have 90-day rules respecting welfare. People can starve under that rule. People say that we cannot starve in Canada, but the fact is that we can if there is a 90-day rule respecting welfare. In other words, if a person made more money than they would have received from welfare and they lost their job, and the amount of income from that job amounted to more than they would have received from welfare for the previous 90 days, that person would not qualify for welfare for 90 days.
Something should be done. There should be a national standard. The Minister should amend the Bill to allow a person living in an institution to keep 50 per cent of what they would receive under this legislation. The Minister should also change the rules as they apply to other branches of his Department, such as the Canada Pension. For example, let's say that someone applied for disability under Canada Pension and over a period of two or three years he argued the point with Canada Pension. Then all of a sudden he is notified by Canada Pension that he will receive $8,000 because his claim became effective two years ago. That person would then be horrified to discover that, because of a recent agreement with provincial Governments, 100 per cent of any kind of assistance he receives from the provincial department of social services for drugs and so on will be deducted from the disability payments under the Canada Pension Plan. In other words, the person ends up getting nothing for the period for which he qualified. The cheque is automatically sent to the provincial Government.
There is the straight injustice of the matter, Mr. Speaker, but what is more, the federal Government in effect is paying $3 for every $1 that the province puts out. In the first instance it is 50-50 cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan, and then there is a lump sum payment equal to the total amount of social assistance paid out. In other words, the provincial treasury actually makes money on the deal.
I am sure there are other points, Mr. Speaker, which other Hon. Members will want to make in the continuing debate on this Bill. There are many things which should be said. I call on the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to give us the assurance that, when he says that
85.000	Canadians are going to benefit from this legislation,
85.000	Canadians will benefit, including those in senior citizen homes, nursing homes, homes for special care, or those in any subsidized housing which the Government cost-shares under the Canada Assistance Plan. That is not the case today. The Minister should be made aware of that fact and should change the legislation accordingly to guarantee the individual at least 50 per cent of the money which we are saying he will receive.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, at first glance, Bill C-26 should give many Canadian citizens a reason to rejoice, and rightly so. When the Government announces that a number of Canadians, widows or widowers, between the ages of 60 and 64, will be eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement or its equivalent, this is of course a positive point, and we on this side of the House have said as much in the course of this debate.
We have also pointed out that this improvement to previous legislation is in fact the outcome of action taken several years ago by successive Liberal Administrations which have shown an ongoing concern for senior citizens, by introducing the Old Age Security Pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Spouse's Allowance and indexing of pensions and regular increments. Bill C-26 is of course one more step in this direction, and we welcome it.
However, we do not welcome the discriminatory aspect Bill C-26 contains. It is a little like deciding, for no particular reason, to give one child an allowance of $5 a week and the other nothing, even if they happen to be twins. What is happening here? A woman of 63, for instance, who is in financial need and who is a widow will receive an allowance, and another woman who is single will not. That is the kind of discrimination we want to bring to the Government's attention and which we urgently want to see corrected.
A while ago, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hame-lin) in his speech explained that it was mainly for a financial reason and he quoted a figure of $1.5 or $1.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, it would not take a billion and a half to correct the injustice contained in Bill C-26. We are talking about 80,000 people and the estimated cost is around $270 million, without mentioning the fact that, by extending the benefits of Bill C-26 to single, divorced or separated people, there would be a decrease in the amount spent on cost-shared programs, as mentioned by my colleague just a moment ago, because, whether those eligible are widowed, single or divorced, if they are eligible, it is because they need assistance.
These people already receive social assistance, and since the costs of social welfare programs are shared equally by the
February 11, 1985

Federal Government and the provinces, it is obvious that the net amount of $270 million which has been mentioned would be reduced by several million dollars to take into account the savings realized under the Canada Assistance Plan.
There is also the fact that if this program were extended and its discriminatory aspects eliminated, since this is a universal program, which means that all those eligible receive benefits, we would also be removing some of the concerns of a great many senior citizens and giving them social tranquility and peace of mind about their economic security all of which would probably reflect on the state of their physical health which would also be an additional advantage.
What is even more important, Mr. Speaker, is the savings that will be made because of the subsidies. My colleague explained this earlier when he outlined very clearly how senior citizens who are affected by these programs or bills similar to the one under consideration and who are treated in senior citizens homes, and residences and asked whether they would be left with the same amount of money as they were under the regulations applied since December 1984. My colleague, who has a lot of experience in this regard, mentioned an amount of $34 in certain provinces and $77 in others, which means additional savings.
I can assure the Hon. Member for Charlevoix that the net amount necessary to eliminate the discrimination contained in Bill C-26 is not $1.5 billion, and not even $270 million, but perhaps $100 million. This is the amount which would put some equity in our system and eliminate a type of discrimination which is totally unacceptable. Later on, I would like to say a few words about the way this bill will be administered, which will be extremely difficult if it remains in its present form. What I want to emphasize however, is that we could at the same time remove this discriminatory aspect and treat all citizens equally. Nowadays, because of our changing society and societal attitudes, there is much more understanding for people who, for one reason or another, have become divorced or separated. Today, this is much more acceptable and even permissible socially. Why should these people be treated differently?
Mr. Speaker, if we are objecting to that discrimination and pointing out that the funds involved are not excessive, we also want to emphasize the administrative nightmare that will result if Bill C-26 is passed without amendments, because all kinds of cases will occur. I will ask the minister how he defines a widow or a widower. The answer will be: It is quite simple, it is the person whose spouse is dead . . . However, what happens to the person whose spouse is dead when he or she remarries or is separated? How will that situation fit with the definition? Such cases exist, and they are not uncommon, as any member of this House will know. How will you deal with such individuals? Will they be considered a widower or a widow or as separated? This is fertile ground for discrimination.
Old Age Security Act
Let us consider also the administrative aspect of the problem; the monks and nuns to whom my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) referred earlier have taken a vow of celibacy. Does it mean that they are entirely ineligible to government assistance? I think that it could be highly discriminatory and some answers will have to be provided with respect to the administrative aspect.
Mr. Speaker, even if Bill C-26 is an interesting improvement, and I readily admit it, I do not understand why such discriminatory provisions are included in the bill, thus creating many problems. All the members, for example, have visited homes for the aged where the main activity is a game of bridge. There will be four persons around the same bridge table having the same financial means, one of whom will receive the pension and another not.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding, since you have just indicated that the time allotted to me is almost expired I would like to come back to the financial issue and reiterate that the additional cost to the government to remove the discrimination in Bill C-26 is not as substantial as suggested by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) if we take into account the savings made in social welfare and administrative costs for the care of individuals residing in senior citizens homes, then the net disbursement by the government is not $270 million but much lower. Moreover, if we also take into consideration other programs announced by the government such as the new uniforms for the Armed Forces or some of the answers given to questions on the Order Paper dealing with expenditures made by this government, 1 am convinced that we could give the priority to our senior citizens and remove that discrimination from Bill C-26.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-26. First of all, I rejoice with those who will qualify for the allowances, some 85,000 Canadians. It has also been pointed out that these allowances will go mostly to needy people and others experiencing difficult times. It is indeed appropriate that we rejoice, Mr. Speaker, But why have single and divorced people been left out? How is it that single people aged 60 to 65 as well as divorced people in the same age bracket are not eligible for those allowances? Are they not full-fledged citizens like others, Mr. Speaker? Why create a second class of citizens who will be treated less generously than others?
Here is what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said about Bill C-26:

This is an important step towards greater social justice.

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act

And the Minister went on to say:

Even in a period of economic restraint we have an obligation to those who need help most.

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Minister's statement- we must help the needy even in times of economic restraint.
However, I have one question. Why does the Minister talk about social justice and help for the needy, while seemingly prepared to create an injustice? To my mind, the injustice lies in the exclusion of single persons aged 60 to 65 and of divorced people.
We have been told that we are going through difficult times and that the Government must keep a close watch on expenditures. Of course, we have to keep a close watch on expenditures, we must always do that. But at times like these, the first thing to do is to set priorities. Although the economic prospects are discouraging, money has been found to dress up our Armed Forces in brand new uniforms. This is probably a commendable endeavour, but if we think of those uniforms in terms of the issue we are now debating-excluding single and divorced people from the provisions of this Bill-I would suggest that we have to establish priorities in accordance with needs.
With respect to the military, can we say that the need was real, that the people in our Armed Forces just could not do without new uniforms? Can we say that their need was as real and urgent as those of Canadians aged 60 to 65? What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is to decide where our priorities lie, who will benefit from our services.
Mr. Speaker, my riding of Westmorland-Kent has a very high rate of unemployment and the entire Province of New Brunswick does not fare any better: ours is the third highest rate of unemployment in Canada. Why am I mentioning the unemployment rate? Simply because I was reminded, when the relevant data were published over the week-end, that once again unemployment had gone up in Canada. If I insist on this, it is not only because the general public in my area-the people back home, as I should say-are affected, but because a particular group, namely those who are 60 years old and over, are most severely affected. These people have much more difficulty finding jobs because whenever they apply, employers unfortunately have a tendency to give the preference to less mature people. And because the unemeployment rate is very high back home, there are a great many young people looking for jobs, which makes the situation even more difficult for people who are 60 years old and over.
Mr. Speaker, we must help all these people who are 60 years old and over. We must see to it that they are not discriminated
against. Mr. Speaker, I should like you and all Hon. Members to answer this question: Who can state positively that single and divorced people have worked less hard for Canada and, therefore, have contributed less to the economy of this country?
That is a question we must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker. Are there any good and valid reasons to exclude these people? We must see to it not only that the relevant benefits apply to all people 60 years of age and over, but that we speed up the adoption of this bill and make it effective before September 1985.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up the statement made by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to the effect that even in this time of economic restraint, we have an obligation to provide help to those who need it most.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to say a few words today about Bill C-26. I am really surprised to see our Liberal friends launching such an irresponsible attack against our Bill.
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I too would like these provisions to apply to all needy people, but it is better to help categories of people such as those most in need than not helping anybody. We have been in office for four months now and we began by gradually helping the most underprivileged Canadians. It is not as if we were helping everybody, of course, but the Liberals did even worse since they did not help anybody. So why are they now making such a fuss over the fact that we want to help a group of people who are among the most needy in our society, those between the ages of 60 and 64? If we had adequate resources, I would be the first one to stand up and say that we ought to help all others as well, even those over age 64. I wish we could help people of 50 or more if it were possible. We are doing what we can, and I think it is better than nothing at all. In twenty years, the Liberals did not even cover half the distance we have gone in four months. It seems to me they will have to show more flexibility and agree with us on that point.
Earlier today, one of my colleagues brought up the case of widowers who have remarried and then separated again. Such people do not really belong to the group of people covered in this Bill. In many such cases, they may have additional income or get matrimony allowances. In other words, their situation is different, as are their needs. I readily endorse Bill C-26 because I am convinced that it is a worthwhile measure which will help a group of our fellow Canadians who are really in need. Better to help them than not helping anybody at all. I support this Bill without any reservation and I would suggest that our friends in the Opposition are shirking their responsibilities when they speak out against it.
February 11, 1985


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the impact of Bill C-26 and the spouse's allowance provisions of this important Bill. As far as this Bill goes, it will certainly provide an additional benefit to widows and widowers. It will extend the provisions made in 1975 and expanded in 1979. Benefits paid to persons between the ages of 60 and 65 will be improved. That recommendation was made by the special committee on pensions. The proposals are to be applauded as far as they go.
A great many people in the age group 60 to 65 are unemployed. They often have ill health, do not qualify for provincial disability pensions, and require additional funding. Approximately 94,000 Canadians now receive the spouse's allowance. Those people receive it because their spouses receive the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement and they meet the requirements of the income test. Bill C-26 will extend that benefit to widows and widowers in the age group 60 to 65. It is very beneficial in that regard.
To receive a benefit a person will not have to lose a spouse who is receiving the old age pension or guaranteed income supplement. They will only have to be in the appropriate age category and qualify with regard to income levels. This provision will extend the number of recipients across the country from 94,000 to 179,000. From that point of view it is a very good move.
The concern being expressed in old age residences and other facilities throughout the country is why there should not be total equity in this program between widows and widowers and others in the same age group with the same financial level. For instance, why can it not be provided to divorced people as well, who often face serious financial difficulties when they move from a relatively secure situation when married to a poorer financial situation when divorced?
Of course, there are those who have never married. There are men in this age group who have lost their jobs after productive years of work and women who do not have a job or are unable to work because of ill health. I believe that the demographics and studies of that age group indicate that the lowest income group are women from 60 to 65 who do not have other sources of income.
It is difficult to explain why the Government would introduce legislation that favours widows and widowers over people who have never married and those who are divorced. I have had inquiries from my constituents about why these provisions are not made available to all people in this age category with income levels of $10,728 or less. I hope the Government will introduce an amendment to assist this group because it is certainly rank discrimination on the basis of marital status.
I suggest that if the Government referred this Bill to the Supreme Court it would find that it is discrimination that would not be allowed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Bill is passed in its present form I am sure it will
Old Age Security Act
be challenged in the Supreme Court on the basis of discrimination because of marital status.
I hope before the Bill passes second reading stage the Minister will extend these benefits to people who have never been married and people who are divorced. It would be quite improper for the Government to provide benefits purely on the basis of marital status. I suggest that is unacceptable to all Canadians.
It is quite possible that this legislation was debated in Cabinet before it was introduced in the House. I can only surmise that perhaps it was drafted on the basis of a recommendation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who was trying to save money. The fact is that it would cost somewhat more to provide the benefits to people who have never been married and to divorced people. In fact, it would cost $135 million per year to extend the benefit to separated and divorced people and it would cost $180 million per year for people who have never been married.
However, when one considers the fact that the program as it is proposed now will cost $1,345 billion, surely it is not an unreasonable financial expenditure in order to provide equity to these many other Canadians. They have worked hard in this country and have contributed to OAS. They also paid their taxes according to the earlier provisions in the Income Tax Act which provided for a separate contribution to the old age security fund. Those Canadians paid their taxes under that regime during the 1940s, '50s and part of the '60s in anticipation of receiving the full benefit when they retired. Now we see a proposal being put before the House which discriminates against this group of Canadians between 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced.
I hope the Government will realize the unfairness of this Bill and introduce an amendment before we finish second reading. In that way, these 80,000 or 90,000 Canadians who have contributed so much throughout their working years will not be discriminated against and hopefully the Bill will be more fair and equitable to everyone concerned.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-26 at second reading. It being so close to one o'clock, and for the sake of continuity in my address, could I call it one o'clock and continue my comments this afternoon?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call it one o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.

February 11, 1985


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, last week, two months later than usual, the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) produced her summer employment program. What did these two months of delay and procrastination give us? To begin with, as a result of these delays it gave us a program that will be more difficult to implement for students this summer. Second, it gave us a program in which there is less in real dollars this year than there was in last year's program. Third, it gave us a program in which many of the elements are the same as last year but where there are different names. For instance we have "Challenge '85" instead of "Summer Canada". Fourth, and finally, it gave us a program where there is a higher priority for employment with big business than for employment with non-profit community organizations.
It did not give us, as the Minister claims, a program that is more career related. That was a principle object of last year's program as well.
Therefore, after a delay of two months, the principal result is a summer employment program with a higher priority to big business than to community service. Now, however, there is some doubt whether big business can even deliver on those jobs that were promised. In Saturday's Citizen several spokespersons for big business stated they cannot guarantee the creation of 10,000 summer jobs as claimed by the Minister.
While there is still time, I ask the Minister to change this program to allocate specifically a good percentage of the money to community services and thereby assure students and regions of a greater number of summer jobs.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation is eating into the profits of small newspapers by charging delivery rates for advertising inserts with which small businesses cannot compete.
Moreover, publishers will not accept to pay for the Canada Post Corporation's deficits because they cannot expect to be
subsidized whenever they run a deficit, as does the Crown Corporation.
The implication of such unfair competition is in the longer term the total disappearance of regional weekly newspapers and the information they disseminate, and in the shorter term lower profits resulting in a further reduction of already very small editorial staffs.
As a former newspaper publisher I am very much aware of everything that worries editors.
Mr. Speaker, it has come to my knowledge that the management of Canada Post Corporation intended to meet soon with spokesmen from the Government.
This is why I am asking those Government spokesmen to find, within the shortest possible time frame, a solution that is favourable to regional weekly newspapers, because their survival is at stake.
In view of the number of other complaints we have concerning the service provided by the Corporation, I urge you to impress upon the management the mandate of that Corporation, which is first and foremost to distribute the mails to all Canadians as fast as possible.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Challenge '85, the Government's summer job program, completely fails to meet the needs of Indian young people. Population statistics show a much higher percentage of Indian young people entering the labour market than in the case of the general population. But these young people have very few economic opportunities because of growing pressure on their land and resource base. The tragic consequence of this can been seen in statistics on suicide, alcoholism, and imprisonment.
What does Challenge '85 offer? Only the native internship program which is designed for native students to "gain an understanding of how the federal bureaucracy works", as though Indians can solve their economic problems by becoming bureaucrats. Where are the funds that will go directly to Indian bands or native organizations to help them run projects that are important to them?
Last week the Minister said if the moneys were not taken up by the private sector, it would be there for other groups. In other words, Indian young people will get the crumbs that fall from the table of the private sector.
Where are the provisions for employment equity in the private sector? What provisions are there to ensure that funding is spread fairly throughout the province instead of being used up in areas where the economy is strongest and unemployment already lower?
February II, 1985

Indian young people deserve better than this.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, several economic and financial indicators clearly suggest that Canadians are beginning to respond positively to the measures that this Government has taken to revitalize the Canadian economy.
The new direction for our journey of economic renewal is proving to be as rewarding as it is challenging. The process of recovery is producing results that boost confidence and demonstrate to the people that this Government is capable and prepared to provide real leadership.
These improvements represent only the first few steps toward our ultimate objective, but they nonetheless point to an encouraging and hopeful trend. Since September, close to
100,000	jobs have been created; inflation has dropped to a 13 year low of 4.4 per cent in 1984; economic growth in the third quarter of the last year clocked in at an impressive 7.6 per cent, and Canada's trade surplus is at a record high level.
Our unprecedented commitment to consultation with the people of Canada on the important issues that affect them has inspired their willingness to take up the challenge and join us in our journey toward economic renewal.
Our nation is poised for greatness as we prepare to unleash the spirit of enterprise, risk-taking, and initiative that can contribute so much to economic growth, development, and confidence which this nation so badly needs.



EMPLOYMENT


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) had shown that same confidence in her summer student program that she announced recently. It is interesting to note that, of the $205 million, some $20 million is for loans to students so they can hire themselves during the summer and pay the money back to the federal Government. Even more outrageous is the fact that this program is heavily geared toward metropolitan areas. In Newfoundland, the businesses and government Departments are located in the city of St. John's. That program discriminates against the rural areas of Newfoundland.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the Minister announces that she is going to make the municipalities pay 25 per cent of the
wages, 25 per cent of the benefits, and 100 per cent of the material costs. That works out to about 50 per cent of the total cost of the programs that has to be paid by the municipalities. In Newfoundland, no municipality can afford that.
The Minister stated that she had checked with the Gander Town Council and they said yes. I am sorry, the Gander Town Council did not say yes to that program because they just don't have the money to put into it.
The Minister should change the program now. Why wait for spring? Do it now, because she will have to change the program, and why go through the waste of money involved in printing the forms twice?



FINANCE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am making an earnest appeal on behalf of those Canadians who, in the past, purchased federal government annuities that are paying a very low return.
There has not been an increase in the yield on these annuities since 1976, despite assurances by the Government that increases would be reviewed from time to time to reflect on-going increases in the cost of living.
The people holding these annuities, most of them now senior citizens, have received nothing but empty promises over the years that the whole matter of government annuities would be reviewed so that this unfortunate problem could be made right by redeeming the annuities at full value, thus eliminating this longstanding hardship once and for all.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has implied that the annuities were originally a contract between the Government and the purchaser, and that this consideration has to be taken into account.
The purchasers are Canadian citizens who purchased these annuities in good faith, faith in the Government, faith that they would be treated fairly by those in charge and not taken advantage of because of changing circumstances.
I believe the time for rhetoric is over. Therefore, I call upon the Minister of Finance to right this injustice at long last when the Budget is presented this spring.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern over some statements attributed to Mr. Justice John Bowlby which have been widely reported in the press in Canada over the course of the last few days. Mr. Justice Bowlby, sitting on the bench hearing a case in which an accused was found guilty of brutal rape, made comments

February 11, 1985
which could have led any person reading them to come to the conclusion that perhaps the victim was at least in part to blame.
I want to suggest that rape is in itself a crime that cannot be shared by the victim and the perpetrator, and it must be made clear to those who sit on the bench that comments such as this are not the kinds of comments that are acceptable to those of us who sit in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, both the Liberals and the NDP have raised questions concerning the profits of oil companies. They both think profit is a dirty word. Without profits, taxes are not paid, jobs are not created, and investments are not made. What entrepreneur will open a store, plant a field, drill a well, build a machine, fish the sea, or commence a mine, without the anticipation of reward? Profits have made our society the richest and most diverse, and have given the entrepreneurial spirit the room and the reason to soar.
The difference between our system and the communistic society is the profit motive. It was the anticipation of profit that spawned the development of computers, xeroxing technology, micro chips, and universal jet travel. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what has the communist society invented? Profits are what drives this industry, this country, this society. [Translation]
Hurray for the profits!
*
* *



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call your attention and that of the House to a situation which exists now in Canada and especially in the province of Quebec. Unacceptable delays are presently experienced regarding the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. It is a fact that the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been faced with major staff relations problems for the past few months at its payment centre, and I could mention a number of cases where recipients have not received their benefits for the past three months. Departmental officials' reaction is that this is a labour dispute which unfortunately cannot be settled overnight.
I call on the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to intervene personnally to ensure that unemployment benefit recipients, who cannot afford to wait for months in a row to get their benefits, get them as quickly as possible. We are aware of the problems at the data processing centre, but individuals have to pay the rent and cannot afford to wait for their cheques.
We know that for the past few months, the Unemployment Insurance Commission has built up a backlog of hundreds of files concerning people who can rightfully claim unemployment insurance benefits, having paid their contributions, and who are now faced with serious financial problems because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has failed to act.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Hon. Members are coming across similar cases in their respective ridings, and I hope that within the next few weeks, or days rather, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will personally intervene to put an end to this situation, and instead of hiring between 700 and 800 police officers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the closing date of the Crimean conference ending in the Yalta agreement 40 years ago. The Yalta agreement divided Europe into two blocs of political influence and set the stage for the cold war. For 40 years millions of people have been deprived of the right to self-determination and self-government, and are subject to limited human rights and individual movement. It was at Yalta, as well, that a group of Soviet trained communists were declared the nucleus of the future Polish provisional Government, this without any Polish representation.
One cannot but wonder at the hyprocrisy of the Yalta agreement. What good was supposed to result from invoking "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live" if no guarantees were provided to ensure that the principle would in fact be adhered to?
From the point of view of international law, the Yalta agreement does not fulfil the formal criteria of an international treaty. The legality of the agreement is further eroded because it was transacted without the agreement of the peoples affected.
Forty years after the signing of an agreement which resulted in the vast expansion of the Soviet empire and the creation of a zone of instability in the middle of Europe, it would be appropriate for the Parliament of Canada to issue a statement denouncing the Soviet domination over central and eastern
February 11, 1985

Europe, and reaffirming the right of the captive nations to recover their freedom.



DANGEROUS PRODUCTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg Anti-Sniff Coalition, an association of some 60 groups and individuals working for prevention of solvent abuse in the Winnipeg area, has seen its efforts get bogged down over the years in a jurisdictional quagmire that appears to have no end.
Years of work to get a municipal by-law regulating the sale of sniff to minors, accomplished in 1979, were frustrated in 1982 when the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the matter was beyond the reach of provincial authority, and was a matter for the criminal law. Subsequent discussions between the Attorney General of Manitoba and the federal Minister of Justice in late 1982 identified the Hazardous Products Act as the vehicle for federal regulatory control, and this was also the approach recommended in a Department of Justice document on the same entitled Legal Approach to Solvent Abuse.
Action is now long overdue. Sniffing is again on the rise in Winnipeg. In 1983-84 there were six sniff-related deaths in Manitoba. Many other children suffer both short and longterm effects from inhaling harmful chemicals. I call on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to bring in the appropriate legislation, and help put an end to this continuing tragedy, and the tyranny of commercial freedom and profit over public well-being.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to-


An Hon. Member:: Welcome Chretien back.


John Napier Turner: This is not going to be a funny matter.
1 would like to put a few questions to the Solicitor General arising from his secret meeting with Premier Hatfield at the Chateau Laurier hotel on the night of October 7. Our purpose in pursuing this matter over the past two weeks has been to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally before the law, and to ensure that the senior law officers of the Crown adhere to that principle.
Oral Questions
At the time of the meeting the Solicitor General knew that an investigation was under way by the federal police. He also knew that a federal charge against Premier Hatfield was pending. He also knew it was within his jurisdiction to order the police to lay a charge or not lay a charge. Did the Solicitor General not know and recognize that the sole purpose for such a meeting with a potential accused was to discuss the pending charge? Did the Solicitor General not know that the full purpose for the meeting was to attempt, surely, to influence the Solicitor General, or the RCMP, not to lay that charge, particularly when the counsel for the Solicitor General's Department was not present at the meeting, nor for the Department of Justice nor, indeed, a representative from the RCMP?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to answer the Right Hon. Member's questions. First, I must correct him. It was not a secret meeting.
As a former Minister of Justice he should know that it is not within the purview or the ability of a Solicitor General to instruct whether charges be laid or not. In fact that is completely devoid from my responsibilities as Solicitor General.
The purpose of the meeting, as I said already, was simply because the Premier of New Brunswick indicated that he had a matter of urgence to discuss with me. The hon. gentleman indicated to me, and I took his representation very seriously, on November 30 last, that one should not presume whether anyone is innocent or guilty unless and until all charges have been laid. That would apply equally to someone who was under investigation.


PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the discretion left solely to the police under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General as to whether to lay a charge or not lay a charge. The Solicitor General said that the reason he saw the potential accused was because he was a Premier. In the Solicitor General's opinion, does that not violate the principle that everyone should be treated equally before the law? More important, does that not violate, and I use the words of the Prime Minister, the sacred principled that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back, with all deference and respect to my right hon. friend, for whom I have great respect, and state that I believe there is a fundamental misunderstanding as to the role of the Solicitor General. I repeat, in no way do I have prosecutory discretion or jurisdiction to instruct the RCMP to lay charges, whom to charge, or indeed as to whether charges would be laid. My responsibility is the practice, and procedures, and policies. I say to him no. I do not see anything different about seeing a Premier, except that under our system a Premier is worthy of a great deal of respect. Any

February 11, 1985
Oral Questions
Canadian who has something of urgency to talk about with a Cabinet Minister, I think deserves a fair hearing.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we can quarrel about the legal authority of the Solicitor General. However, I waited until Parliament assembled today to hear the responses of the Solicitor General. In light of those responses, I must suggest strongly to the Minister that he sit down with the Prime Minister to discuss his continuing ability to hold the office he now holds. Under the circumstances of the Minister's responses, I believe that he has only one honourable choice to make.
Before that happens, I would ask him whether or not he would be willing to make a full statement to the House regarding his involvement with the affair in New Brunswick, the position and knowledge of the Minister of Justice regarding that particular file, and whatever knowledge the Prime Minister may have had.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in response to my right hon. friend, I can say, as I said earlier, that I have great respect for his office and his opinions. I can also say to him categorically that there was absolutely nothing improper about the meeting. No assurances were asked for and none were given. I maintain that under the circumstances, as I indicated to the Right Hon. Member at the beginning of Question Period, it was a proper thing for me to do.
As far as my discussions with the Prime Minister are concerned, the Prime Minister and I have many discussions. I say to the hon. gentleman, with all seriousness, that I do not know what, if anything, other Ministers may know about this particular matter. I do not know what the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister may know. I know that I kept my own counsel on this matter.
I repeat to the Right Hon. Member that I made no effort to keep this meeting in any way secret or clandestine. It was interesting to me that the Official Opposition, with all its acuity and assiduity, had to wait until a journalist asked the obvious question: "Did you see Mr. Hatfield," to which I immediately replied: "Yes, I did".


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear as if the Solicitor General does not understand that it is a basic and fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that all persons be treated equally before the law. I would like to remind the Solicitor General that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law, and is entitled to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. It also appears as if the Minister is not aware that justice must not only be done but must appear to be done.
Would the Solicitor General not agree that by meeting with Premier Hatfield privately at a neutral, surreptitious location, he has created the appearance that justice is not being done and that Mr. Hatfield was given preferential treatment by his friends in Ottawa? Would he not agree that he has exercised poor and unacceptable judgment by involving himself personally in a criminal investigation? Will the Solicitor General not do the honourable thing and resign as Solicitor General immediately to maintain the integrity of our criminal justice system?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend's several questions and the answer to each one of them is no.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF DISCUSSIONS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Solicitor General is aware that in this country it is a criminal offence to obstruct justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: It is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious matter.
Section 127 of the Criminal Code provides that anyone who attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a criminal offence.
Prior to agreeing to meet secretly with Premier Hatfield at the Chateau Laurier, was the Solicitor General not concerned that the meeting might be, or might be perceived to be an attempt to obstruct justice? During the meeting did he warn the Premier that anything the Premier said could be used in evidence against him in a court of law?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that particular Section of the Criminal Code. I trust that my hon. friend is not accusing me of being in violation of it. If he is, I hope he will be honest enough to say so. Finally, my answer to the Hon. Member is that I am not going to conduct a post-mortem on a confidential meeting, after the Premier of New Brunswick has been tried. I am not going to see him tried in the House of Commons.


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S CONDUCT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and I share one thing in terms of the way in which politics ought to be conducted, and that is a sense of the conduct we expect from Ministers of the Crown in the exercise of their responsibilities. Given all of the things the Deputy Prime Minister has said over many, many years, I would ask him if he does not feel that the meeting held between the Solicitor General and Premier Hatfield, given that the Solicitor General knew prior to the meeting that the Premier was under investigation, draws into question to the
February 11, 1985

Solicitor General's appropriateness in terms of the way in which he conducted himself at that time?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister himself has answered that question on several occasions in the past, and very capably so. As far back as October 26, he said in recorded media interviews the following:
I think that the matter was handled with a very meticulous regard for all of the circumstances. The process worked well and it was done in the proper way.
At that point the Solicitor General was referring to the investigation. He went on:
1 have no intention at this point of getting involved in the mechanics of what the RCMP are doing. I have confidence that they will carry out their duties in an exemplary way. I don't intend to in any way interfere with the procedures here.
Those statements stood then and, if I understand what the Solicitor General is saying today, they stand now. If I know the Solicitor General, I am sure he will follow those most immaculate processes in the future.


RESPONSE TO INVITATION TO MEETING
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that, since the Solicitor General was aware of the investigation, it was incumbent upon him to inform Mr. Hatfield, when he was requested to meet with him, that it would be inappropriate for the Solicitor General even to discuss the charges, the circumstances surrounding the charges, or for that matter the circumstances surrounding the investigation, and that Mr. Hatfield ought to pursue his concerns in some other direction?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in all justice and fairness, I think we should put matters into perspective. The Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party does obliquely what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston did in a rather more despicable and direct fashion, and that is accuse the Solicitor General of improprieties. If that is the accusation that Hon. Members wish to make, then, as the Solicitor General said, let them be honest enough to make it.
Without an allegation or an accusation of impropriety, there was nothing at all wrong and everything right about a Minister of the Crown acceding to the request of a head of one of our provincial Governments to meet. There is everything right about it. In perspective, some two or three weeks after that meeting, charges were laid. Surely that in itself suggests no impropriety and no interference on the part of the Solicitor General.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If charges had not been laid, the Hon. Member might have a point. Beyond that, the matter went through the normal judicial system, was tried by a duly constituted court of law, and the Premier was found not guilty. Surely in all fairness and justice, based upon the experience of the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member himself, the Hon. Member should not be attempting to re-try this matter in the House of Commons.


MINISTER'S JUDGMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows full well that I am not in any way trying to re-try the matter. What I am asking for is a clear understanding of what the Deputy Prime Minister expects from Cabinet Ministers in the way of judgment.
I would like to know if the Deputy Prime Minister does not at least agree that it was bad judgment on the part of the Solicitor General to agree to hold a meeting with a person, albeit a person in high office-in fact, it is perhaps even worse that he was in high office-who was under investigation by the police force over which the Solicitor General has jurisdiction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not feel that that showed remarkably bad judgment?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in all of the circumstances I consider it not to be in bad judgment. Indeed, having regard to the consequences which eventually flowed-the laying of charges, the trial, the judgment of the court-


Mr. Kaplan:: One charge.


Erik Nielsen: -the charge-surely that, in itself, indicates that no impropriety occurred at that meeting.


INFORMATION GIVEN BY MINISTER TO RCMP COMMISSIONER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to questioning the Solicitor General. He does not seem to realize that, in fact, the law does give him the authority to give direction to the RCMP to close files, to lay charges, or not to lay charges. It is an authority which should be exercised in a very circumspect manner, as has been set out by a number of authorities on the subject. In that connection, and with those powers-and the meeting has possibilities which have been outlined by Members on this side of the House-before holding the meeting did the Solicitor General consult with his Deputy or with the Commissioner of the RCMP to inform them about the proposed meeting or to ask their advice?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I have a fundamental disagreement as to what precisely is my jurisdiction. We might have a discussion about that. Again, I maintain that it is not my discretionary authority to instruct the RCMP as to how it should proceed in a case such as this. Indeed, we have to look at all the circumstances, as well as the responsibilities of the Attorney General for the Province of New Brunswick.
I wonder what the Opposition would say had I refused the meeting? Would they now be saying that it was my responsi-

February 11, 1985
Oral Questions
bility, as the Minister responsible for the RCMP, to ensure that I had all the relevant information to assist me in ensuring that the force followed its policies and practices? Would they be saying that? I would say to my hon. friend that I fully informed the Commissioner of the RCMP about all of the circumstances which were involved. I hope the Hon. Member will decide-if he has the forthrightness to do so-, to tell us if he thinks I committed a breach of the law. If it is a question of whether or not it was proper, he has his opinion and I have mine.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TIMING OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO RCMP COMMISSIONER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to talk to the Minister about what is my understanding of his responsibilities. I ask him again, before that meeting took place, did he consult his Deputy and did he speak to the Commissioner of the RCMP about it? He has not answered those questions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that I kept the Deputy and the RCMP Commissioner informed to the extent that I felt was proper. At this stage I will not get into a post-mortem or an analysis of the various circumstances, before or after the meeting.


PURPOSE OF MEETING
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the questions I have asked have not yet been answered. I would like to return to the question of what the meeting was about. What was the purpose of the meeting? What did he tell the Commissioner about it? Now that the Solicitor General has told us that he did tell the Commissioner about it, what did he tell the Commissioner?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. former Minister, as I have already indicated, that I have no intention of conducting a post-mortem over the particular details of the meeting.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Isn't that up to the House?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It may be up to the House. But I am telling the Hon. Member that I conducted the meeting, and all the matters involved in that meeting, to the best of my judgment. If he does not want to accept that, I regret it.


EMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and it has nothing to do with the Premier of New Brunswick. It deals with the meeting which she had last week, when she reported to the House that she had met with the senior representatives of eight large corporations in Canada. She said that those representatives stated that they would jointly create 10,000 jobs, and that those jobs would add to the number of jobs which would be available to young people this summer.
Over the weekend Noranda indicated that it could not guarantee its fair share. It said:
The business we're in is in kind of bad shape these days.
Another representative from Noranda said: "You can't hire students when you're laying off mothers and fathers".
When the Minister told the House that she had those guarantees-


Miss MacDonald:: I did not say guarantees.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When she said she had assurances that these individuals would deliver 10,000 jobs this summer for students, is that the case?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it should be of surprise to no one that the New Democratic Party chooses to knock the initiatives of eight corporate leaders in our country. It is a little surprising to me that the members of the New Democratic Party-who say from time to time that they have compassion for the unemployed-are now going after the initiatives which are being taken by people in the business sector. I would urge the Hon. Member to look at the fact that there are people in the business world-corporation leaders, individual small businesses, and people throughout the private sector-who are willing to do their best this summer to help young people. That is what the business leaders will do, and I would advise the Hon. Member to wait until the end of the summer before he levels his criticism at them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning what the eight representatives of the eight corporations said; we are questioning what the Minister said in the House. The Minister suggested that she had assurances that students were supporting the program. She knows full well that the entire media over the weekend were taken up with student organizations and representatives who said that they did not believe what the Minister was saying.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is this: Who is telling the truth? The Minister said that the private sector-in fact, the eight companies-would provide 10,000 jobs. But, those companies say that they cannot provide those
10,000	jobs this summer because they cannot provide jobs for
February 11, 1985

the students' mothers and fathers. Who is telling the truth to the people of Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would not be quite so selective in his quotes, he would read into the story that the people at the meeting informed me the number I could use-and they said "use"-was 10,000. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that he can go around second-guessing everybody and trying to run down this initiative, but this weekend in my constituency office I saw student group after student group who came in with proposals. They asked me how soon the proposals could be funded and how soon the jobs could get under way. I saw that in my riding; 211 Conservative Members saw it in their constituencies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the answers given by the Solicitor General a few minutes ago.
Does he not feel that the Solicitor General's refusal to say clearly that he did not consult his Deputy Minister or the RCMP Commissioner before he met Mr. Hatfield is an error of judgment especially in the light of the decision delivered by the judge of the Superior Court of New Brunwsick who said that the federal case began to deteriorate following interference by federal authorities?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the responses of the Solicitor General, and indeed from reports in the media, that the Solicitor General had conversations and briefings with the RCMP-I believe as far back as two days after the substance was found in the suitcase. But, here again, we are getting into the evidence of the trial and we are re-trying the matter here in the House of Commons. I repeat, if the Opposition has any point to make at all, it surely must be focused on the allegation of some impropriety on the part of the Solicitor General at that meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They say the meeting was improper; not at all. The meeting in itself does not constitute any impropriety.


Ian Deans: Of course it does.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: If there is an allegation of impropriety, which there must be to give any substance to the thrust which the Opposition are taking today, then it should be stated clearly, and forthrightly, and honestly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DORION INQUIRY REPORT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about something he knows quite well. I would like to refer him to the inquiry of Mr. Justice Dorion. The judgment of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Favreau, was questioned, not because he had made the wrong decision but because he had not consulted with his officials and had put himself in a difficult position. I would like to read to the Deputy Prime Minister what Mr. Justice Dorion said:
It should not be forgotten that a Minister, as a Judge, all his competence notwithstanding-


Mr. Speaker:: I know this is a very, very important matter, but I would ask the Hon. Member to come to his supplementary question as quickly as he possibly can.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -is always a human being and his view of a case may be unconsciously distorted by relations existing between himself and the person or persons concerned.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think at this time that when the Solicitor General received his friend, the Premier of New Brunswick, that he was doing exactly what Mr. Justice Dorion said in his judgment in 1965?


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker, and I have cause to recall those proceedings very clearly. I can tell the Hon. Member that, as a Member of Parliament in those days, I caused the then Minister of Justice to be aware of the facts two, if not three days, before they were raised in the House of Commons.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He did the honourable thing, Favreau-he resigned.


Erik Nielsen: I can tell the Hon. Member as well that, with respect to what Hon. Members opposite are trying to do today, when I rose in my place on that side of the House and attempted to do what those Hon. Members are doing today-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You asked for his resignation.


Erik Nielsen: -I specified the Section of the Criminal Code and made the direct accusation that there was a breach of that Section of the Criminal Code. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I believe, was in the House on that occasion or just after.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And Favreau resigned. He was honourable.

February 11, 1985
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Affairs and is in regard to his answer to me on January 28 in the House. He said, and I quote from Hansard at page 1726:
-any discussions that are going on now between AECL and the U.S. Department of Defense have nothing to do with the modernization of the northern radar warning system-
Does the Minister stand by the statement? If he does, would he explain, in light of his answer, President Reagan's budget which states clearly that AECL is the lead funding agency, along with the U.S. Air Force, for the construction of unattended nuclear reactors for the north warning system in Canada?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I stand by my statement but, naturally, I will read President Reagan's budget with the same obvious care as its supporters in the New Democratic Party. I will then come back to the House with any change in an answer, if that reading requires a change. The point I have made in the House of Commons is that the question of the renewal of the north warning system is a separate question from any negotiations which AECL might be carrying on with the U.S. Department of Defense.


REFERENCE TO MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I believe I can clear that up. Would the Minister explain why, at page 681 of the Congressional Budget Request, under the subtitle "North Warning Power Project. Defense. Nuclear energy programs", it states the intention to install unattended, untested nuclear power reactors in the Canadian Arctic in 1987, and that the memorandum of agreement on cost-sharing with AECL is in progress now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, obviously what that means is that there has been a discussion between AECL and the U.S. Department of Defense having to do with the maintenance of any system which might be put in place in northern Canada. That matter has not been reviewed or cleared by the Cabinet. There has not been any approval to AECL to go ahead with that question, because the Hon. Member opposite raised to my attention the concerns of Inuit people and others in the North having to do with any kind of nuclear installation, even for heating or fuelling purposes.
The point I want to make clear is that it is of the utmost irresponsibility for Hon. Members in this House to suggest, whether deliberately or not, that there is any consideration being given to developments in northern Canada which would put nuclear weapons in Canada's North. There is no such intention.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
In his last report, the Auditor General said that a maximum use of space would result in savings of $35 million a year.
Can the Minister tell us whether he intends to put on sale the buildings and lots representing 6 million square feet and costing the Government over $25 million in maintenance and contributions in lieu of taxes?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say to my colleague that we already have reduced by 30,000 square feet the unused space mentioned by the Auditor General and that an operation is under way in order to dispose, in an orderly fashion and with due consideration for private interests, of space that will be made surplus to our needs through that good management which is given great importance in the report.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General should know that there is all the difference in the world in agreeing to meet with a provincial Premier under ordinary circumstances on a policy or administration matter and in agreeing to meet with a provincial Premier when he is under investigation for a criminal offence, with his lawyer present, in a secret place, a hotel, "a neutral place", according to his own words. The Minister should know that there is all the difference in the world in meeting under those two circumstances. Would the Minister be agreeable to meet any Canadian who is charged with a similar criminal offence in the same way he did with Premier Hatfield?
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already responded to that question. I am surprised that the former Solicitor General does not realize the difference between someone being charged and someone who is merely under investigation. I would say to him that in both cases the words of his Leader on November 30 have some relevance. There is a presumption of innocence, and for a provincial Premier to request a meeting in order to discuss or brief the Solicitor General about a matter of concern, I feel-obviously the former Solicitor General does not- that that is an acceptable thing to do.
February 11, 1985


SOLICITOR GENERAL'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, having spent four years as Solicitor General I am very aware of the long tradition in Britain, which is followed in Canada, that the Minister responsible for the police in Canada, the Solicitor General, should not intervene in any way while a criminal investigation is going on-
Flora Isabel MacDonald: He didn't.


William Warren Allmand: -with respect to individuals under investigation. The Minister himself said on January 30 on Atlantic Television: "It is not the function of the Solicitor General to get down, as the old law school saying used to be, out of the stands and get the dust of the arena in his eyes. It is not a good thing for me, nor a good thing for the process".
1 would like to ask the Solicitor General again if he would do for any accused, as should be done under the Charter of Rights, what he did for the Premier of New Brunswick while that person was under investigation for a criminal offence? Would he do it?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Again Mr. Speaker, I come back to the former Solicitor General and make a point, which I believe is worth making, that is, there is a difference between a charge and being under investigation.


William Warren Allmand: I know that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There is also a difference-


William Warren Allmand: That is true, and you shouldn't do it while he is under investigation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is the former Minister interested in my answer or not, Mr. Speaker?


William Warren Allmand: It hasn't been very good so far.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am doing my best. Perhaps I have to contend with the type of question as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I want to say to him that I agree it is wrong, as the old law school dictum says, to come down out of the seats and get the dust of the arena in your eyes. But I say to the former Minister that it is another thing to elicit information that any person wants to give to a Solicitor General if the circumstances are proper.


Mr. Axworthy:: About what?


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question on this issue to pose to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the public concerns which have been aired
Oral Questions
over the last few days concerning the events which have been debated or discussed in Parliament for several days, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that when the Prime Minister returns there will be a statement by the Government concerning the propriety of all the actions and meetings which have taken place, both before and subsequent to the charges being laid against Premier Hatfield?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any substantive allegation of impropriety, I am afraid I can give no such assurance.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The question is judgment.


Erik Nielsen: We have had the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, who should know better after having served four years in the portfolio, describe the actions of the Solicitor General at a meeting with the Premier of New Brunswick as an intervention in the process. From my understanding of his explanation, and what I have read in the media, nothing could be further from the truth.


Lloyd Axworthy: What did they discuss?


Erik Nielsen: If the Hon. Member believes that there has been an impropriety, any impropriety, during the conduct of that meeting, let him say so; then there might be some reason to go as far as he suggests.


Ian Deans: It is appropriateness.


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN MARIJUANA CASES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that our judicial system is based on the principle of equality before the law, could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why it is that tens of thousands of people accused of marijuana related offences would not have a prayer of meeting with the Solicitor General during the period their alleged offences are under investigation? Why is it that one citizen who happens to be a Premier should stand above the law in that way, and is that not impropriety?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Stupid question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I implore Hon. Members like the questioner, in the interests of fairness and justice, to put matters in more accurate perspective. The truth of the matter here is that subsequent to the meeting, which the Solicitor General has been very free in describing to us-he answered the first time he was asked the question outside this House-a charge was laid. That charge was tried in a duly constituted court of this country-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And he was found innocent.


Erik Nielsen: -and a verdict was reached. Surely we should not be, if I am permitted the expression, in the interests of

February 11, 1985
Oral Questions
justice, rehashing this whole situation in the House of Commons.


MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to get at this question. It is one thing to have the presumption of innocence before a court of law, when it is judiciously reviewed and there is a chance for examination and cross-examination. However, we are going to a separate question, that of the initiation of the proceedings and the discretion of whether or not to lay a charge. The Solicitor General knows there has been a lot of judicial and academic comment as to whether that process ought to be judicial as well. I ask the Solicitor General, did he not know he was interfering in the beginning of a prosecution and the discretion of whether or not to lay a charge, or what charge to lay? Why would he participate in a conversation when the investigation was already known and that could only have been the purpose of the meeting?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: The godfather.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He does not know the difference between the Attorney General and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You were not there.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am really astonished at the ignorance of a former Solicitor General who should know better


William Warren Allmand: I would never do that.


Erik Nielsen: -and a former Minister of Justice, who should know better-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: This is called reaping the whirlwind, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: -when they publicly attempt to leave the impression that there is something less than an arm's length relationship that exists between the Solicitor General and the RCMP.


William Warren Allmand: What was agreed to?


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely the relationship that exists. As a former Minister of Justice he knows, as does the former Solicitor General, that when the RCMP seek advice as to whether to lay charges or the nature of such charges to be laid, it is not the Solicitor General's advice that is sought; it is the advice of the Department of Justice.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Attorney General.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Why did he go there?


Erik Nielsen: The Attorney General of Canada, my House Leader reminds me.


Lloyd Axworthy: What was the meeting about?


Erik Nielsen: That is the routine chain, and to leave any other impression is a distortion of the truth and not worthy of the right hon. gentleman.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He can stop the investigation.


DISCUSSIONS INQUIRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General and it is a very simple question. Could he tell the House exactly what he was told by Premier Hatfield and what was discussed at the meeting, and whom he reported to about what was discussed at that meeting in that hotel room?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. gentleman opposite, as I said before, that I have no intention of doing a post-mortem-


John V. Nunziata: What are you hiding?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -on what I consider to be a confidential meeting.
I can also assure him-


James Ross Fulton: You are digging your grave, Elmer.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I can also assure him that I informed everyone who should have been informed, including the Commissioner of the RCMP.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And John Crosbie?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Before or after?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: And I can further assure him that I kept my counsel about this matter and did not discuss it with other Cabinet colleagues.


DISCUSSION WITH RCMP COMMISSIONER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Solicitor General to tell the House whether he discussed the matter with the Commissioner of the RCMP before or after his meeting with Premier Hatfield? Also, if this was a confidential meeting, why did he tell the Leader of the Opposition, earlier in Question Period, that it was not a secret meeting? He cannot have it both ways.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1
can tell my hon. friend that he cannot have it both ways either. The meeting was not in any way secret. The meeting was held in a neutral place-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why neutral? Why not in your office?
February 11, 1985


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -and it was held in a convenient place. The former Minister of Justice says why not in my office? Because it was not convenient to have it in my office that evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I suppose the next question may well be: Did 1 wear a necktie, or what else? I come back to the question from my hon. friend from Windsor and tell him this. I briefed the RCMP Commissioner and I have no intention of getting into timeframes and details.


John V. Nunziata: What are you hiding?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am not-well, I remember them. The House will certainly know that the RCMP Commissioner is available if Members wish to ask him about it.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a matter affecting the safety of the public, employees of the railroads, and thousands of jobs. I ask the Minister of Transport what the Government's policy is on the matter of cabooseless trains. Specifically, what takes priority with the Government and his Department, public and employee safety, or the ability of the railroads to save money?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this subject has been under intensive consideration by the Canadian Transport Commission. There have been hearings across Canada, namely, in Moncton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Ottawa. My understanding is that the CTC returned to Winnipeg for further hearings, and there will be further hearings here in Ottawa commencing this week, I believe. When the hearings are concluded and the recommendations are brought forth, we will then be in a position to determine whether the testing of the cabooseless train should take place. I think it is only proper that we allow the CTC to adjudicate the pros and cons of that particular issue.


TESTING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the proposed plan for testing calls for the railway officers to compile and submit reports. In order to avoid the coyote being in charge of the chicken coop, will the Minister assure the House that, if and when testing of cabooseless trains occurs, independent experts from his Department, the CTC, or anywhere else, will do the compiling and submitting of reports, rather than officers of the railroad?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be in a position of prejudging the
Order Paper Questions
recommendations that will be brought down by the CTC. I think that the Hon. Member is posing a hypothetical scenario. I would rather wait until the recommendations come down. We will then look at them and act accordingly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 63 and 143.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	In the past 26 years, has the management of the main CBC building, 541 Portage Avenue, Winnipeg ever had a fire drill for their 300 employees?
2.	Did the Federal Fire Commissioner inform the 300 employees that "Relax, you'll have one before your tootsies get cold"?
3.	Will Labour Canada write an order requiring CBC management to hold a Fire drill and, if not, for what reason?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Departments of Labour and Public Works as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	Labour Canada central region has not issued a direction to CBC Winnipeg to hold fire evacuation drills. Our reason is that CBC local management are just completing their emergency measures plan. Fire wardens and floor wardens are designated and floor monitors are in the process of being appointed. A timeframe is being discussed with the CBC operating units and safety co-ordinator so that a fire department-supervised drill can be held soon, probably within the next few weeks to a month.
2210

February 11, 1985
A fire evacuation drill was held for the CBC regional office staff in May, 1984.
A Labour Canada senior labour affairs officer is monitoring progress by attendance at the CBC safety committee meetings.


Mrs. Killens: Since the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on March 29, 1984, what is the status of the work of the Secretariat responsible for examining the progress made following the recommendations resulting from the 1979 International Year of the Child?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The status of the work of the Secretariat responsible for examining the progress made following the recommendations resulting from the 1979 International Year of the Child is as follows:
1.	The Secretariat requested and has received responses from the 47 federal departments and agencies affected by the recommendations of the Canadian Commission for International Year of the Child.
2.	The responses are being edited and prepared for publication early in 1985.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered, shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Dick) and to yourself, Sir, that question No. 131, dating from December 6, which I brought to the attention of the House on several occasions, has not yet been replied to. The same applies to question No. 148. Both of these questions involved patronage issues by the Government. The Government refuses to answer them.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will take notice of the point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice under Standing Order 30 of an application from the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the refusal of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) and the
Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) to give satisfactory answers, or indeed any answers, to some of the serious matters that were raised during Question Period today, pursuant to Standing Order 30 I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the extraordinary interference by the Solicitor General in the criminal investigation of the Hon. Richard Hatfield and the admission of bias by the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie) in the light of his responsibility to decide upon an appeal in this affair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre indeed gave notice to myself of his application pursuant to Standing Order 30. On listening to the Hon. Member's statement in the House, I have to say that his application does cause me some concern in relation to the provisions and conditions of Standing Order 30 that must be met before an emergency debate takes place.
In the first instance, the Chair must take into account whether or not there will be some reasonable opportunity for the House to discuss the matter in some other way. On Friday last the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) did designate Tuesday of this week to be an allotted day and the Opposition will enjoy the privilege of controlling the subject matter of tomorrow's debate.
In the second instance, the Hon. Member's application cannot be reconciled with the condition of subsection (f) of Standing Order 30(16) which states:
the discussion under the motion must not raise any question which, according to the Standing Orders of the House, can only be debated on a distinct motion under notice.
It is a long-standing practice in our House that the conduct of an Hon. Member can be reviewed only by way of a substantive motion of which notice has been given and which will result in a decision of the House on the matter. [Translation]
On Friday, June 19, 1959, Mr. Speaker Michener made a ruling which has often been quoted in such cases. Here is what he said:
-simple justice requires that no Hon. Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
That ruling by Mr. Michener also led to Citation 40 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, as follows:
In any case where the propriety of a Member's action is brought into question, a specific charge must be made.

The Twentieth Edition of Erskine May at page 378 further clarifies the matter. It reads:
Certain matters cannot be debated, except upon a substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the House. Amongst these are the conduct of the sovereign, the heir to the throne or other members of the Royal Family, a Governor-General of an independent territory, the Lord Chancellor, the Speak-
February 11, 1985

er, the Chairman of Ways and Means, Members of either House of Parliament and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom, including persons holding the position of a judge, such as a judge in a court of bankruptcy and a county court, or a recorder. These matters cannot, therefore, be raised by way of amendment, or upon any motion for adjournment. For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect.
If the Hon. Member's application were to be accepted, it would result simply in a debate on the adjournment of the House and not in a decision on the allegations relating to the conduct of a Member. All of the precedents are clear and require that when the conduct of a Member is the subject of a debate there must be an opportunity for the House to come to a decision.
I am, therefore, duty bound to refuse the application as it does not meet the requirements of either the Standing Orders or of our practice in such matters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: As 1 was
saying, Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for lunch, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on second reading of Bill C-26, legislation that will extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64, who are living on low incomes, regardless of the age of their spouse at death. Mr. Speaker, this measure will benefit 85,000 Canadians, and 1 am truly delighted, and you may be sure that I shall be voting in favour of this motion. [English]
As a Member of the Liberal Party which founded the spousal allowance, I support the legislation before us which extends benefits to widows and widowers. Unfortunately, this support is qualified. I am very greatly disappointed in the impact of this Bill. There are 80,000 deserving Canadians who are separated, divorced, or have chosen not to marry, and who are excluded from this extended coverage. In our day-to-day work in our constituencies we meet many of these poor people, most of whom are women, who in my view are being discriminated against because they are poor, have never married, or are divorced or separated.
I listened to some of the debates this morning. In my view this Bill could have legal implications under the Charter of
Old Age Security Act
Rights which we adopted in 1982. Section 15 of the Charter which will become operative in April of this year states:
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The operative phrase here is "and, in particular". Since it does not mean that it is exclusive, I suggest that the Government is indeed including the extra condition of not being married as a measure of discrimination. I have been advised by some of my legal friends that indeed this could be in conflict and that we could possibly go back to Section 1 of the Charter which states that Canadians are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
If this is not a legal discrimination then it is a moral discrimination. It is immoral to exclude 80,000 Canadians who have worked hard and happen to be poor through no fault of their own. The Conservative Government missed a golden opportunity for meaningful reform when it introduced Bill C-26. We know how the Government has wallowed in indecision since November 4 and the legislative progress made in the House speaks for itself. I suggest we have not accomplished much important legislative work and are having difficulty trying to improve this Bill.
The Conservatives have shown that they are genuinely concerned about the plight of those Canadians whom they believe are deserving and in need. 1 suggest to the Government that it should consider the other 80,000 Canadians who are excluded from this legislation because of their circumstances. The fact of the matter is that a 63-year old separated or divorced woman must pay the same rent as a 60-year old widow. She must pay the same food costs and the same utility bills. If she is poor she cannot cope with that situation. The Income Tax Department does not treat Canadians differently because they are widowed or separated or have never been married. The Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) gave us the example of nuns who have decided not to marry and will be discriminated against if, for some reason, they decide to leave the convent between the age of 60 and 64.
Despite my Party's support for the Bill as an incremental step toward the equitable application of our social programs, I regret that this legislation discriminates on the basis of marital status. There are many people in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier who are between the ages of 60 and 64 and, because of the nature of the city, were public servants. They worked for a salary which was next to the poverty level. I do not think it is fair to expect them to go on without being allowed to participate fully in our social programs.
The Liberals never said that our social programs were perfect. That is why when we made changes, we made real changes. We did not simply try to patch the program as the Conservatives are doing in this case. The programs have changed to meet the needs of Canadians. Now it is time to meet equally the needs of equal Canadians.

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this social injustice takes me back to 1982, when I was defending in the House, before my own Government and against it, the principle of indexing pensions of public servants.
Then, the debate was on indexing pensions. Today, with Bill C-26, we are in many cases concerned with the sole income an individual can receive without having the feeling he or she is
receiving charity.
Mr. Speaker, I was fighting against social injustice then and I am fighting against an even greater social injustice today.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said last week on February 4. "However, we cannot and will not allow a very vulnerable segment of Canada's near elderly population to continue to suffer because of circumstances completely beyond their control". That is why we cannot ignore this other group of people between the ages of 60 and 64 who also have done a great deal for Canada.
To repeat the words of the Minister himself we simply cannot tell these people that the best we can do for them is to put them on welfare.
Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Government will reconsider, and I hope this Government will, either in committee or in the House, propose amendments to include the 80,000 Canadians who have been excluded from this legislation so that they too can enjoy the benefits of Bill C-26.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Minister for taking this step to extend the old age security program. The step is welcome as far as it goes because it is estimated that approximately 85,000 people living in poor circumstances will be assisted, of whom 72,000 will be women.
However, as my colleague has just said, the Bill is discriminatory in that it does not apply to single people. There are probably another 80,000 to 85,000 single older Canadians living in the same kind of poverty.
The point has been made that single people have had a greater opportunity to be in the workforce and to have acquired Canada Pension and other benefits. However, these plans do not come into play until a person is 65. In view of the high unemployment we are seeing, a number of older workers are not called back once they are laid off. Indeed, there is a serious problem facing single people living in poverty who are perhaps five years short of eligibility for the old age security pension.
We recognize that this Bill is a useful first step. We hope that the Minister and his colleagues will also consider the extensive recommendations for pension reform that were made by the parliamentary task force, chaired by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), following the publishing of the then Government's green paper on pensions which was entitled Better Pensions for Canadians.
For some 20 years in this country most Canadians have based their retirement financial planning on three tiers. The first tier is the universal old age security pension, with its two associate plans, the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance. The second tier is the Canada Pension Plan which, of course, is associated with labour force participation and does not provide for housewives or others who are outside of the labour force.
The third tier is private pension plans and other savings. This third tier has proved to be a very weak link in the chain. For instance, it does not recognize the mobility of Canadians. Most Canadians change jobs at least six times in a career. For many women the changes are greater because they move to accommodate their husband's careers or they leave the labour force in order to care for children. Most of the private pension plans have requirements in which vesting of the plan does not take place until the employee is 45 years old and has ten years' service with the company. It is a rather old-fashioned concept which regards the pension as a reward for long and faithful service rather than as deferred earnings, which in fact is what pension contributions are. Those involved with production of the green paper and later the Parliamentary Task Force did devote a good deal of time looking at private pension plans. There were very extensive consultations with actuaries and others in the industry who, it seems to me, are much more ready at this time than when I was elected ten years ago to move their plans into the present and to stop finding reasons against change.
However, whatever the defects of private pension plans, there is also the fact that in many cases they are non-existent. Smaller non-unionized businesses often do not have pension plans, and where plans do exist, part-time workers are almost entirely excluded. This particularly applies to women who often work part-time either because it is the only sensible way they can meet their family responsibilities or because it is the only work available to them.
The Parliamentary Task Force had some important recommendations about private pension plans at which I hope this Government will look. But it may be that the main instrument for improving pensions and providing a decent standard of living to retired Canadians is improving the Canada Pension Plan.
The green paper also had very extensive recommendations on this and as I said the people involved had very extensive consultations. In the past we have seen many people object to placing too much reliance on the Canada Pension Plan. Those in favour of placing greater reliance on the Canada Pension Plan point out that the plan is already universal, portable and vested immediately. Those opposed have traditionally been concerned about the economic implications of transferring large sums of money from the private sector to government.
Private plans are now worth more than $50 billion even though they cover fewer than half of Canadian workers. We
February 11, 1985

have to keep coming back to this question of coverage with the private pension plans as a serious limitation.
A very extensive examination was done of ways to improve the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. My colleague the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), when he opened the discussion on this Bill, addressed himself to that. I do hope this Government will see its way to moving on those recommendations fairly soon. They have been extensively examined and there has been very extensive consultation.
We all know that to change the Canada Pension Plan requires the agreement of two-thirds of the provinces with two-thirds of the population, but since Ministers opposite keep telling us what excellent relations they have with their provincial counterparts, let us hope there will be no problem in getting this agreement.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the initiative of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) as far as it goes, but I do have a problem in that there is still no help for the older single person who is, in many cases, in at least as much need of assistance as the widow or widower aged between 60 and 64. I hope an amendment might be considered at the committee stage to broaden the scope of this Bill.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, there can certainly be no forceful arguments made against a piece of legislation which is designed to extend financial benefits to some 85,000 Canadians who are in need. But I must agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson): it is to be regretted that another large group of Canadians also in need but who were never married, or who are divorced or separated, will be excluded from receiving these new benefits.
As all Hon. Members in this House know, there are a great many more divorced and separated people today in Canada than ever before. We also know that the unemployment rate for women who are aged 60 to 64 is particularly high even in comparison with the high national unemployment rates that we have.
It is true that all widows and widowers age 60 to 65 who are in need are now going to receive the spouse's allowance. It will cost the federal treasury for a full year of these payments some $350 million. We already spend $820 million in extending this program to those who are married. To include the needy among the separated and divorced would cost the Government another $135 million. To include those persons who are in need but never married would cost the Government another $160 million.
Obviously this new Government has recognized need, and I commend it for that. But the Government has not recognized all need. The Government has been selective. The widows and widowers who qualify must wait until next September before they receive a single payment. I am not sure what that means. Perhaps the Government is saying that hardship can be better borne during the summer months. But the widows and widowers who are eligible should not just sit around expectantly waiting for this first cheque; there is a Canadian residency
Old Age Security Act
requirement of which they should be aware. They should also be aware that they should have little or no outside income in order to qualify. The largest single cheque that will go to any one of these needy persons-the largest amount; there will be lesser amounts, of course-will be $536 a month. It is not a handsome sum of money at all. We in Parliament should not be congratulating ourselves too much on our generosity and largesse. Of course, these payments will increase with the rising cost of living, the inflation rate, and that is to be expected.
The other point that should be remembered by widows and widowers who are eligible is that the cheque will not arrive automatically. They must apply for the money.
I have to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that to my mind it is just not fair to exclude needy persons on the basis of marital status. I am unable to accept that. In saying this I recognize full well, as my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will remind me and have already reminded us today, that it was the Liberal Government that began this program. I want to say that this new Government was elected on the promise of change. So far we only have promises to change and not very much in the way of definite action.
We in Canada are not doing a very good job of redistributing income. It will be recalled by some Hon. Members that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD in Paris, gave Canada a rather poor grade for its social security program. We pride ourselves on being a very generous society, but in fact that is not so at all. We do not rate very well among most of the advanced industrialized countries. We do not target our programs at all well. The situation is not being improved by Bill C-26. We eliminate two groups of people among whom are many needy persons, people who are between the ages of 60 and 65 who are divorced or separated, the same age group as those who have never married.
This new Government has at least recognized the need for better targeting of our social benefits, but in Bill C-26 the Government does not carry out what it tells us it has recognized. The recent blue paper on social policy was no better. Imagine additional hundreds of millions of dollars under one of those options flowing into the coffers of the provincial Treasuries. We know how tight-fisted provincial Treasuries are about their welfare dollars. It would be shocking if some of the case histories were known in this house based on the administration of provincial welfare programs. They are going to flow hundreds of millions of dollars back to the provinces under one of the options. What will the needy families, those in genuine, real, desperate need get? They will get 48 cents a day.
Women between the ages of 60 and 65 who have never married or who are divorced may be just as much in need as those who are married or widowed. There is a very large number of single elderly women in this country who are poverty-stricken. There is a very high incidence among these

February 11, 1985
Old Age Security Act
people of low income or no income at all because of the unavailability of employment.
I want to repeat what my friend, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) said at the conclusion of her speech. This Bill must be amended in committee to make it just and fair. I know that will be more costly, and I have quoted the figures already, but we will have to do it. We will have to make our cuts somewhere else.
All Members of this House know that the deficit looms large and is threatening. There must be fiscal responsibility, but in restoring some measure of balance between revenues and expenditures, we must take the greatest of care not to hurt those who cannot defend themselves. We must take the greatest care to assist those in deep and painful need. Let us pass Bill C-26, but not as it is. Send it to committee, amend it and include the other two very needy groups of persons aged 60 to 65, those who never married and those who are divorced or separated and find themselves in equal need to those who are married and those who are divorced.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-26, an Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Wealth and Social Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


An Hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried, on division.

Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 1, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to Amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, The Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to look at this Bill. In the time available to me, and I believe we are now down to 10 minutes per speech, I will not be able to comment at length. However, there are couple of points certainly worth looking at.
While my Party supports the general principle of this Bill and while my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) emphatically stated her support of the initiative in this Bill with relation to the sexual stereotyping in broadcasting, we still have some concerns over the manner in which directives are to be given to the CRTC and the manner in which the Cabinet is now taking upon itself delegated power to deregulate according to the principles of Bill C-20.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the benefit of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, I believe the Table will confirm that we are still under the 20 minute rule for interventions in this debate at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is 20 minutes.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I will perhaps speak at some greater length. There is an important innovation here. I am not yet familiar with enough federal legislation to know to what extent this has been drawn from models elsewhere, but at least some effort has been given in this Bill to look at ways by which political responsibility can properly be taken where a Crown agency is concerned.
The situation which has prevailed until now with the CRTC has been that it has in fact been given, in my opinion and the opinion of my Party, too great a control over the telecommunications and broadcasting policy in this country in a way that effectively Parliament and the Government divested itself of powers that should be in the hands of Government. That does not mean that the CRTC cannot carry out a great deal of work in terms of looking at appeals and questions that come before it.
With respect to broadcasting policy, telecommunications policy and the kind of telephone system that we are to have, the issues are too important and touch too many Canadians for the matter to be simply delegated into the hands of a Crown agency, the chairman of which is quite often appointed as a favour by the Government of the day, somebody whose political credentials may in fact exceed his or her knowledge of what may be required in terms of communications policy. We must leave the matter until it is reconsidered once every five or
February 11, 1985

six years. The Government has the opportunity to make enough new appointments to the Commission as possibly to influence some future direction in telecommunications policy.
Over the years there have been a good number of studies done on broadcasting policy in this country. The subject has troubled our country largely because of the fact that we have a tradition of public broadcasting in Canada and because it is a very difficult country in which to resolve the satisfactory environment of broadcasting, given the flood of broadcasting influence which comes from south of the border and which is accessible to almost all of us because so many of us in Canada live within easy transmission reach of the United States border.
The proposals in Bill C-20 which allow the Cabinet to issue directives on any matter but then require that the said directives be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee recognize at least an effort to have something of a balance of forces. I do not think that the Cabinet or the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) should be intervening on a constant basis. I hope that they will not interfere with trivial matters, that where directives are given these will be directives on matters of broad policy and not directives as to whether so and so who is a friend of Findlay MacDonald or someone like that should be given a broadcasting license rather than somebody who perhaps was a friend of the former Government. Were we to see the Government using its directive power in that way, it would quickly be seen to be improper. Hopefully, it will not embark on it, or if it embarked on it, it will stop it.
One of the controls on an improper use of the directive power is the fact that these matters are to lie on the table of the House of Commons, at least in a figurative way, for 30 days. During that time, there is to be a reference to an appropriate parliamentary committee of the action of the Government in issuing a directive or notice of directive if it is trying to save a bit of time. I would assume that, given the flexibility of this House and the interests of Members, a committee would then be able to hold hearings and question the Minister or possibly the Commission over why such a directive was in fact being issued. This would perhaps inhibit the Government from using its power of directive improperly while at the same time allows the Government the right to dictate in general terms what broadcasting policy should be.
I recognize there are some difficulties with this proposal. One difficulty is that the legislation, and I think properly, says that prior to issuing a directive, the Minister or the Government should consult with the CRTC. That could lead to a situation in which the CRTC would not need to be told what to do because it would be informed by the Minister that he or she is intending to take a particular action and a particular directive would be recommended. Then, to avoid the embarrassment of having a directive made public, the CRTC would do what it was going to be told to do and it would thereby, it would hope, retain certain room to manoeuvre. If it does what it is told without being told, then perhaps it would not be told what to do the next time. I do hope that you followed that, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the consultation procedure can be
CRTC Act
used as a means by which the CRTC would come under the constant direction of the Ministry and very seldom would those directives be a matter of public record. Therefore, very seldom would the Commons committee have input or insight into the nature of the policy directions that have taken place.
Perhaps I can broaden my argument for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The broader question relates to the relationship between the Government and Crown agencies and Crown corporations in general. It seems to me, as has been argued for a long time, that while there must be something of an arm's-length relationship between the two, that relationship cannot be totally arm's length. In the case of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the body which controls Cana-dair and de Havilland, no one in particular was responsible for those Crown corporations before they were put under the Canada Development Investment Corporation. No one was responsible because the government appointees on the board of directors thought that the private-sector members of the board of directors were exercising due care to make sure that the shareholders' money was not being squandered by those two Crown corporations. The private-sector directors thought that since there were government directors on the board, the government directors were calling the shots since the Government was the sole shareholder. Therefore, they felt that they did not need to do their jobs. In the end, hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted by those two Crown corporations and a large part of the reason for that was that there had been no thinking through of the relationship between the Government as shareholder and the Crown corporations, which were established to do what in the opinion of the House of Commons of the day was an essential public function and at the same time were meant to operate to some extent in the private sector. To some extent, those two roles conflicted.
The CRTC is an agency which is entrusted with the carrying out of government policy rather than a commercial agency which is meant to either fulfil the public economic purpose or to make money. Nonetheless, the same kind of dilemma applies. Are full and part-time members who are appointed to the board of the CRTC to act in their own lights under what they think should be broadcasting policy, are they to act according to what they are told by the Government that appointed them two, three or five years before, or are they to listen to what the Minister of the day is saying and try to accord themselves with those particular opinions even if those opinions are not the opinions they themselves hold? It is a difficult situation.
In my opinion, no member of any independent agency would allow himself, after having been appointed, simply to listen to the wind and then blow with the wind depending on what the Government of the day seems to be thinking. I do not think he would give up his control to that extent. However, where there is a clearly mandated policy which is laid down by Parliament, then it seems to me to be appropriate for him to say, "Okay, that is the way the Government wants us to do it, that is the way we will do it". If someone in that situation fundamentally

February 11, 1985
CRTC Act
disagrees with what the Government has put forward as a directive, he or she can of course decide to resign and use his or her talents elsewhere.
I am suggesting that the mechanisms here may well be worth copying and emulating in the case of other Crown agencies and Crown corporations. I look forward to seeing that as perhaps a more desirable alternative to some of the ideologically inspired efforts of certain members of the government Party who seem to want simply to abolish Crown corporations holus-bolus on the grounds that they interfere with the free enterprise system, that it is wrong for them to exist, or for whatever other reasons they may be able to put forward.
This country has a public-enterprise history and a very proud one. We have a history of public involvement in the development of our country, which goes back prior to the creation of Crown corporations, with the public investment in the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Fathers of Confederation were quite ready to have public enterprise then and they began a very large private enterprise with government grants. Nonetheless, there has been a great deal of public involvement and we in this country are very different in our political culture from the United States where there are no public enterprises such as the ones we have here.
If we want our country to stay together, I do not think that we can do without public enterprise. However, I believe it is necessary to talk about an evolution in the way Crown agencies and Crown corporations work. What is before us within Bill C-20 may in fact represent that kind of evolution.
May I suggest, however, that there are some areas in which directives may be very desirable. I for one would like to see a greater sense of public responsibility on the part of the CTV network, the largest independent or private-sector network, to carry out its responsibilities as a Canadian broadcasting entity. I have no criticism about the way the CTV covers sports. I think it does a reasonably fine job when it comes to news coverage at 11 p.m. I have no problems with those things. My problem lies with the fact that that is just about where the CTV's initiative ends. Its efforts to foster Canadian culture and a greater understanding between different parts of the country, apart from the news and a small public affairs segment, are virtually negligible. If the Government were thinking of giving directives, and if it did not feel that it was biting the hand that fed it, it might think of giving some directives to the CRTC with respect to cracking down on the CTV to ensure that it does a better job as a national broadcasting entity than it is doing now.
I am told by friends within the CRTC that the Global Television Network is in fact doing more of that kind of Canadian broadcasting than it was doing before. It is claimed by people I know within the CRTC that that is partly because of pressures put by the CRTC. If the Global network is doing so much better than the CTV when it is a much younger network and has had far more commercial difficulties than the CTV, then why the devil can the same thing not be done with respect to the CTV?
I would like to suggest-dare I say it-that there is still a thought in my mind that broadcasting is a privilege and not a right, that a broadcasting licence should be treated as a privilege and not as a right, and that if a broadcaster fails to live up to the company's undertakings to the CRTC with respect to Canadian content and service, we should have no hesitation in withdrawing that privilege and putting it in the hands of some other group and perhaps even a co-operative or a consumer-owned radio or television station undertaking which will do the job in a way that the private enterprise did not.
Regrettably, in the past the CRTC has been prepared to allow owners of broadcasting undertakings to deal with those undertakings as if they were composed of shares in any other private enterprise without regard to the public responsibilities of broadcasting. The CRTC has ratified changes in ownership of broadcasting undertakings but rarely has it bothered to look to see whether or not those changes of ownership were in the public interest. The CRTC has bought the private-sector ethic and believes that if one owner wants to sell a broadcasting station to another owner, that is okay and they should effectively have the right to do so regardless of the principle on which the CRTC is founded, which is that the air waves are public property and not private property. I am speaking as a New Democrat and as a democratic socialist. I like to think that the air waves are one of the things which are still public property and for which there should be public responsibilities if people are given the right to use them.
Perhaps I can say one other thing to the CRTC and to the Government as well. I get concerned when friends of mine give me information about the services offered by Canadian cable companies in their efforts to gain cable franchises in the United States. You would be amazed, Mr. Speaker, by the depth and the variety of the community-sponsored television and public service channels which have been offered by these Canadian companies in attempting to get franchises in the United States. What is particularly interesting about that is that this country is cabled to the extent of 60 per cent to 65 per cent of television subscribers, but these same cable companies have been quite content with not offering those services here. They have their privileges. They are able to distribute their programs. They perform some public service broadcasting, but not nearly the amount they are offering to new franchises in the United States. If they can offer these services in the United States, why is the CRTC not insisting that those cable companies keep pace with technology in terms of the services which are offered here, in order to allow subscribers in Canada to have a much greater range of services which should and could become available?
I would like to say a bit about the CRTC's jurisdiction over telephones. It is an area in which I feel an important directive from Cabinet will be required very soon. I watched with great misgiving, when I was a member of the provincial Government, the manoeuvering, the finagling, the planning and the strategizing by Bell Canada and other telephone companies
February 11, 1985

when they tried to abandon their responsibility to provide services at a modest cost to ordinary residential subscribers. Now they are at it again, and hearings are being held before the CRTC.
It has been argued that certain services are coming under competitive pressure and that therefore Bell Canada should be entitled to charge $20, $30 or $40 per month for residential telephone service. One of the reasons that we have had relatively good service in the past is that there has been a public service ethos in the Bell Canada system and other Canadian telephone systems, which are both privately and publicly operated. That does not mean that Bell Canada's profits might not have been excessive from time to time, but nonetheless there has been a public service ethos both in the granting of that monopoly and, I would maintain, to some extent in the carrying out of that responsibility in the Bell system. Bell is now trying to get away from that. Part of the public service ethos was that the service would be provided for $9 to $10 a month if people wanted a black telephone without fancy trimmings, and that therefore the service would be accessible to 95 per cent or 98 per cent of the population. Of all the countries we are among the most heavy users of the telephone. The reasons are weather, distance, and the nature of the country. I would not want to see that end.
It has been suggested that there are some bleeding hearts in the New Democratic Party who think, because there are
400,000	or 500,000 people being threatened with loss of service, that we should advocate subsidies. To continue to offer the services to people of modest means should be a reasonable trade-off, if a private sector telephone company is going to enjoy a monopoly and have access to every residential subscriber. The people who talk about the full cost being paid by residential subscribers should realize that the art of cost accounting is imperfect. There has been a costing study by the CRTC under way for six or seven years, in an attempt to determine whether or not Bell Canada is losing money on residential subscribers. The findings will be a matter of judgment. It cannot be brought down to specifics because it is a matter of how the costs are allocated in a system which is heavily capital-intensive. There are many cut-backs now taking place because of the impact of new technologies. For example, Bell has reduced its number of operators by more than half over the course of the last 10 or 12 years. I believe that some of the benefits of that should be made available to residential subscribers.
As far as residential subscribers are concerned, many of the capital-intensive improvements which have taken place in the telephone system are of little use. Maybe Aunt Minnie wants to talk to Aunt Ada, or Madame Dupont wants to call her doctor. The old system served those simple purposes just as well as the new system. Under those circumstances, to say that low-income residential subscribers must pay enormous charges in order to have a sophisticated system beyond what they require, is clearly unwarranted and unreasonable. Directives should be considered by the Cabinet which would tell the CRTC that it is the purpose of public policy in Canada to have
CRTC Act
a system whereby every Canadian is able to benefit at a very modest cost.
In conclusion I would like to say that Our Party is concerned about deregulation and the unilateral power of the Cabinet to determine if there is enough competition to deregulate. It could mean that the entire telephone system could be deregulated, subject only to review by a parliamentary committee which would be controlled by the government Party. That is not sufficient. When this Bill goes to committee, we will be pursuing that particular question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and, with the greatest respect, his speech was quite reasoned and very interesting. From what I understand, he generally agrees with the thrust of the Bill, but he feels there are few minor discrepancies.
He commented on what drives our nation's broadcasters. He spoke about Global-TV and CTV. There are many instances when, in fact, Global-TV and CTV surpass the efforts of the CBC. If it is agreed that profit does drive the nation's private broadcasters, what about the CBC? What would happen if we did not allow the CBC to take advertising dollars? Would that mean that there would be fewer reruns of Dallas and The A-Team and that we would have better programming in Canada if that were allowed?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very interesting question about broadcasting policy which I would like to see the House debate soon. There has been a lot of informed and concerned comment about the impact of the $75 million in cuts which were imposed on the CBC by the Government in the economic statement of November 8. Questions about the mandate of the CBC have been raised, including the one which was raised by the Hon. Member. He asked, do we really need the CBC to bring us Dallas, Dynasty and other programs? Far too often the CBC is hard to distinguish from the CTV, either in the frequency of commercials or in the nature of its programming. Frankly, I share that concern.
I spent some time in England during the Christmas recess. It was a sheer delight to watch commercial-free television. One must ask the question whether the CBC is flagellating itself for the sake of $180 million worth of advertising revenue per annum, when in fact it could be doing a better job and possibly save a lot of the money it spends in selling the advertising. In other words, the loss would not be $180 million if it was commercial-free or had fewer commercials than it does now.
I am not quite clear about the Hon. Member's comments in relation to the profit motive. I was suggesting that the CTV and Global-TV had a real privilege in having access to the air waves. As Canadian broadcasting undertakings, it could be said that they are not living up to what is reasonably expected of them, in terms of giving us a picture of ourselves as Canadians and contributing to Canadian culture and content.

February 11, 1985
CRTC Act
Frankly, in the case of CTV, its efforts are almost negligible in that particular area.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament there was a lot of discussion across the country about pornography. Some stations were applying to supply programs such as Playboy, which were very distasteful to the vast majority of Canadians. At that time, I sent representations to the then Minister of Communications. The answer I received every time was that the Minister generally agreed with what the people were saying, but that he had no authority. We had the situation in which an appointed board was overruling a Minister of the Crown. I thought it a very odd situation that an elected member of the Government would have to take orders from an appointed body. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, in a case where there is dispute over content, such as pornography, who should have the final say, the CRTC or the Minister representing the Government of Canada?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, again I think that is a good question and it is one which is difficult to answer. Of course, in our system the courts have the final say, if it is a matter of pornography, in the legal sense. I have some difficulty in answering where one goes beyond that. However, I believe that the Bill here would clearly empower the Government of the day to step in and, I would say hopefully, on a general rather than on a specific basis to decide that it is the wisdom of the Government of the day that the CRTC should get tougher on pornography and obscenity or, for that matter, it should loosen up the screws, because I think, really, things are becoming a bit ridiculous. I cannot help but remember the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon) who came up with a statement today at two o'clock in order to deliver a paean of praise to profit and the profit motive. Of course, all that the people from Playboy would be guilty of, in his opinion, would be the fact that they were trying to make a profit. I am sure the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is in favour of that as well. One has to be careful because principles can conflict from time to time on issues such as this.
I do question whether a directive should go from the Government of the day to tell CTV not to run a particular show or to tell First Choice not to carry the Playboy channel, and so on, because I think with that kind of meddling we would get very quickly into a situation where in fact it would be the Government, not a commission at arm's length from Government, which would be making decisions which would affect the actual program content of particular TV stations. That kind of political interference with the media is something I would have to question seriously.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member really answered my question. In my view, where there is a dispute, surely the Government of the day should have the authority to settle it. The Government must take the responsibility, particularly with a Crown corporation. When we go outside of that, it may be a different problem.
I would also like to pose a question in connection with Canadian content. I have found that the cable company in part of my riding was subjected to severe criticism by CRTC for showing some American programs. However, the people of that area wanted those American programs. The only way the cable company could stay on the air was to give them the American programs. The same programs could be heard in Ottawa and Toronto and in all the big centres, but because it was a rural area, my constituents were being denied a chance to see the programs they wanted to see. I want to emphasize, along with what the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) said, that the people of the country should have some say in this. When the people of the country want certain programs then, surely, that should be the prime criterion. The people of the country are the ones we should be serving and when we have a majority of our people wanting certain programs and someone in CRTC or the Government says "No, no, we will tell you what's good for you. You can't have that at all", then we are getting pretty close to the type of government they have in Moscow, not the kind I want in Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with the Hon. Member and in fundamental disagreement with him at the same time. His first argument was that his constituents should at least be able to get the same range of programming which is available in, say, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto or Montreal. Given modern technology, that is feasible. The Hon. Member asked why on earth should they not have that rather than being confined to receiving CTV and CBC and not much else. That is a very reasonable request, and I agree with it.
However, the Hon. Member then proceeded to suggest that it is the duty of his Government to open the air waves in Canada to all kinds of trash from the United States, completely to submerge this country, which has stayed independent for about 124 years from our neighbour to the south, in such a bath of American pop culture and beyond that in fact any sense of Canadian identity would be completely submerged.
I cannot agree with that, Mr. Speaker, because I happen to be proud of being a Canadian and I happen to find that there are distinctive values and attributes to our life here in Canada which I want to see preserved. Our communication organizations and broadcasting networks are very important to me in maintaining a Canadian identity, and I would hate to see the Hon. Member getting together with members of his Party to do what he seems to want to do.
Perhaps I can say a final word. One of the problems of government these days is that governments have too much on their plate. That is one of the reasons why a Crown agency is set up. I would caution the Hon. Member against selling within his Party a doctrine that the Minister of Communications should second guess all decisions of the CRTC, because if the Minister of Communications and the Government decided to do that, they would never have time to do anything else.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker-
February 11, 1985


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over. We are resuming debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I rise on a point of order then, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member mentioned things which I did not say. The people of my constituency are not asking for trash, and all the programming which comes from the United States is not trash. Some of the CBC programs are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I just wanted to correct that error.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I believe the Hon. Member for Bow River knows that that is a question of debate and not a point of order.
Before recognizing the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I should draw the attention of the House to the procedure which applies in this situation. Standing Order 41 (2) and (3) makes it clear that a reply should be allowed to an Hon. Member who has moved a substantive motion and that in such cases, the Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate. This rule has been extended to include the mover of the motion for the second reading of the Bill, and this can be verified by reference to Citation 305 (1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
Citation 305 (2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition indicates that if a Member proposes a motion on behalf of another Member, a later speech by either will close the debate. This means that if a Minister moves the second reading of a Bill on behalf of another Minister, either Minister would have the right of reply. It might perhaps be logical to suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary in replying on behalf of his Minister, would enjoy the same right, but since the moving of a government Bill is reserved to a Minister of the Crown, we cannot take it for granted that a Parliamentary Secretary has the right to reply to the debate on a government Bill and that his speech will therefore close the debate.
We have among our precedents several instances where a Parliamentary Secretary has replied to a debate on behalf of his Minister. Having examined these precedents, some of which conflict with each other, I have come to the conclusion that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in such instances can close the debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. I would refer to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener on November 7, 1957.
He stated as follows:
I recognize the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I must inform the House that if the minister were to speak now, as he was the mover of this motion, he would close the debate. I understand that the parliamentary assistant in the department is speaking in the minister's place with his authority. The rules do not appear to prescribe what consequence that has or whether it is permissible. However, I understand that the House previously has accepted the parliamentary assistant in similar circumstances and of course it is the privilege of the House to accept that position tonight.
After hearing the comments of two Hon. Members on this point of procedure, the Speaker added:
CRTC Act
I raised the issue which has subsequently been spoken to by the two hon. members because I did not want to create a precedent which would necessarily be binding in the future. The House has accepted this practice in the past. There is one instance of it in the debates, at page 2918 of Hansard of April 18, 1955, where the parliamentary assistant rose on behalf of the minister and the Speaker informed the House that he would close the debate. I think it is preferable, as suggested by the hon. member for Macleod and the hon. member for Yorkton, that the House understand that the rule does not cover the matter exactly and that we proceed by leave of the House at this time and not by way of precedent.
In my view, Mr. Speaker Michener's interpretation of the procedure indicates the way we should proceed. The Parliamentary Secretary can wind up the debate with the unanimous consent of the House, otherwise, the Chair will be obliged to recognize any other Hon. Member who wishes to speak after the Parliamentary Secretary.
Now, as you may have noticed after my spontaneous ruling on this matter, it has been of some concern to the Chair as to whether at the beginning of this debate the Parliamentary Secretary may or may not wind up the debate for the Minister. This is the ruling of the Chair so everyone will understand. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) is to speak to this Bill, he will be closing the debate. He can only do that with unanimous consent. Does the House give unanimous consent so the Parliamentary Secretary can resume debate?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, as I begin take two here, am I to understand that my intervention at this stage will not close the debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That is correct.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Would the Speaker therefore like to inquire if any other Member wishes to intervene prior to my rising to speak on behalf of the Minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does anyone else wish to resume debate on this Bill?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order or pursuing the debate?


Jacques Guilbault: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I can see that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking you to rise and ask if any other Member wishes to speak and to give him the floor first. However, nothing in the Standing Orders provides that a Member must speak before another Member. There has not been unanimous consent for him to close the debate, but we can hear him out. Other Members in the House might wish to speak after him.

February 11, 1985
CRTC Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader rises on a point of order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister would like, if possible, to see himself as the last speaker as the Minister is not here. I understand there are a couple of other Members over on the other side who want to speak. He has not started in debate at this stage and I think that if anyone else wants to speak he or she might want to rise.


Mr. Orlikow:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary cannot do what he seems to be trying to do. If he does not get up now and no other Member gets up, then the debate is concluded. However, you have made it very clear that he cannot be guaranteed that he is going to close the debate. I think the situation is as simple as that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Please let us have a clear understanding of what is going on. I have given my ruling concerning the conditions under which the Parliamentary Secretary may close the debate. It is only with unanimous consent, which I asked for, and which was not given. It is now up to the Parliamentary Secretary either to speak on the Bill or not to speak, and the matter is quite clear. If he wishes to close the debate later on, I presume that he may, as any other Member, ask once again for unanimous consent. But that is a matter that we will deal with at that time.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Com-municatons wish to resume debate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. If I understand it correctly, when you recognized the Parliamentary Secretary earlier, it was on a point of order dealing with whether or not he would be able to close off debate. You have not recognized him, I believe, at this stage for debate because if you had, then of course he could not be recognized a second time at second reading stage. But if he has only been recognized for procedural reasons, then he can stay in his seat and rise in debate at a later stage if he likes.


David Orlikow: If there is a debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not think it would be proper for us to get into a full debate on this, but may I point out once again that before the Parliamentary Secretary spoke I had clearly ruled that unanimous consent was necessary if he were to close the debate. I had recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications. Unanimous consent was not given. Therefore, it is his right either to speak on the Bill or not. But one thing is clear: it will not close debate.
It was my duty at that time to advise the House of the consequences of the Parliamentary Secretary rising in debate.
Unanimous consent was necessary, and the House has chosen not to permit the Parliamentary Secretary to close the debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, will the Parliamentary Secretary then have the right to rise later if he wants to do so in debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how he would have the right to rise later in debate when he has already been recognized for debate at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Let us understand clearly that this ruling was prepared because we had foreseen this situation. The Chair intervened before the Parliamentary Secretary addressed this Bill to advise the House of the consequences of his speaking to the Bill and to ask for unanimous consent. The Chair having intervened, the Parliamentary Secretary has not addressed this Bill.
Resuming debate.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, that was indeed a very interesting interlude.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: For whom? Let me know when you are finished, Aideen, I will be right back.


Jacques Guilbault: You should be ashamed.


Aideen Nicholson: I find that remark extremely offensive and unbecoming to the House Leader, who is normally very courteous.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was not intended that way; it was intended as a compliment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of factors covered in this CRTC Bill, but the one I want to comment on particularly is the increased direct control by the Government. There has been a long-standing policy in this country of trying to keep the cultural life of the country to some extent at arm's length from political decisions. This is a major change in policy which I think needs major examination, particularly when one looks at it in the context of the very deep cuts applied to the CBC and Canada Council which have had such an impact on the cultural life of our country as well as on the ability of young artists and technicians to earn a living.
We have all been receiving letters and briefs from cultural organizations and interested citizens. There is no need to repeat all of the arguments. One particularly cogent argument came in a copy of an open letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on public broadcasting from the Canadian Association for Adult Education. It reads in part: "Not since the CBC was First established by a Conservative Government more than 50 years ago has public broadcasting been more seriously threatened or been as essential in preserving the upper half of
February 11, 1985

the North American continent as a proud and distinctive nation".
At the moment the CBC is facing a very bleak and uncertain future. Its radio and television budgets are being cut by $75 million. Special series will be shelved. Children's programming will be cut. This is extremely important to Canadians. We have heard a number of concerns in the House, and some of them have been raised by the Hon. Member from Newfoundland who is now chairing the special task force on parliamentary reform. He has been a very articulate and effective spokesman in the House for children's programming which is designed not to exploit children. It will be very sad if we start to lose control of that.
I represent a riding where a lot of young artists, musicians, actors and technicians live. The cuts in the CBC have essentially made them unemployable for the immediate future because their skills are not transferable. They cannot walk across the road and be hired by another radio or television station because this kind of hiring is not happening. Some of these young people are being forced out of the country. If a massive exodus of talent occurs, the whole country will be the poorer.
It is interesting to look at some of the statements which the Conservative Party made in its election platform. They are very different from what we are seeing at the moment. In August of 1984, the Canadian Conference of the Arts sent a questionnaire to the present Prime Minister. I will quote two statements which it was sent back. The first reads:
We are committed to maintaining federal funding for the agencies and councils in line with inflation.
Another reply in the same questionnaire reads:
We are committed to real growth in federal contributions to this sector.
In fact, the Government has neither maintained funding for agencies and councils in line with inflation, nor has it shown commitment to real growth in federal contributions. Instead, it has cut funding in the areas of arts, culture and communications to the extent of some $121 million. I can understand why the Parliamentary Secretary might prefer to speak at the end rather than during the course of this debate. He himself, when in opposition, vigorously defended the cultural communities. He must be somewhat embarrassed by the present situation.
Another response by the Conservative Party to the questionnaire of the Canadian Conference of the Arts reads as follows:
Our commitment to improving the quality as well as the quantity of employment in the cultural sector is firm.
Yet, look at all the cuts we have seen and the people who have become unemployed recently. The cuts in the budget of CBC alone will result in 1,100 lay-offs. The present Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) said in the House that he would examine areas in which cuts are proposed to ensure that Canada's arts community is not exposed to cut-backs and that, on the contrary, funds allocated for creative work and production are increased. I hope that the Minister seriously meant that commitment which he made on November 29. If the Parliamentary Secretary does speak later on in this debate, I
CRTC Act
do hope that he will address that issue. This is a very serious matter for the cultural life of the country as well as for the individuals concerned and their ambitions and aspirations.
Another official response of the Conservative Party to the August, 1984 questionnaire of the Canadian Conference of the Arts was:
We recognize the proven job creation capacity of the cultural sector and the training opportunities provided. We believe that federal programs such as those under the National Training Act have to be made accessible to this sector.
To the present we have not seen any job-training programs in the arts and cultural sector or any other sector. I look forward to hearing this issue as well addressed in the debate.
In December, 1984 the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) acknowledged the fact that the number of people occupied in artistic endeavours is growing faster than any other occupational group in the Canadian economy. Statistics in 1981 indicated that in the 10 years previous the number of people working in cultural occupations doubled, as compared with growth of some 30 per cent for all other occupations over the same period. It is rather puzzling that clearly some Ministers of the Government recognize that the artistic and cultural industries are growth industries, while the cuts give the impression, which I hope is misleading, that the Government regards cultural activities as a frill or luxury which can be dispensed with.
With regard to the arm's length relationship, a subject with which I started my comments, the response to the Canadian Conference of the Arts questionnaire of August 1984 reads as follows:
We are committed without question to the arm's length principle and regard peer review as the most equitable and consistent mechanism for federal funding support to individuals, groups and institutions. The cultural agencies and councils are more able than politicians and bureaucrats to assess the need identified by the cultural sector...
It appears that there have been some changes in that position also since August 1984. We just heard one Conservative Member speak of the need for more direct ministerial control and management. Perhaps this could be explained to us as the debate continues.
In an interview with the Globe and Mail on November 29, 1984, the present Minister said that he wanted to rethink the arm's length principle. He said that his Government was moving rapidly to apply "a direct political hand" in the affairs of CBC. In the Bill before us we see a direct political hand being applied to the affairs of CRTC. There may be good reasons for this, but those reasons should be presented to us and should take into account the good reasons that existed in the past to do otherwise.
On November 19, the Prime Minister said in the House, "I am pleased to be able to confirm that the position of the federal Government in respect of the CBC and other groups will be to stay at arm's length at all times". One Conservative Member contributed to this debate by saying that the apparent contradiction was owing to different interpretations of arm's

February 11, 1985
CRTC Act
length. It is an important issue which needs to be clarified. There is too much at stake for it to remain fluid.
With respect to the question of consultation, one response to the questionnaire in August, 1984, was, "We will continue to consult with groups and individuals in the cultural sector on all aspects of policy development". However, the national Director of the Canada Council told reporters that the arts community was never consulted about budget reductions.
With regard to the CBC, three private sector consultants were hired by the Government and sent there to advise. Again, this is another fundamental change between August and December.
Let me return to the Parliamentary Secretary, who was quoted last June as saying that his Party wanted "to get away from the mentality of hand-outs symbolized by the Canada Council". Perhaps the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary was not quoted accurately, he will be able to explain that, but it is very puzzling that, on the one hand, there is a commitment to funding in the response to the questionnaire from the Canadian Conference of the Arts while, on the other hand, there is the statement that the Party is against "hand-outs".
In January of this year, a Conservative Member of Parliament asked the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) if it was correct to assume that one of the priorities for spending in the International Year of Youth would be cultural organizations. The Minister's reply was, "The Hon. Member would be mistaken in saying that it is a priority". Surely in the International Year of Youth, one must ask what is more important as an expression of youthful idealism and concern for the country than the cultural and artistic expressions of our youth? If such organizations are not a priority, how does that fit in with the election promises?
The previous Liberal Government sought to foster the cultural and artistic expression of Canadians and worked to ensure that this expression was transmitted to all Canadians. Since my own constituency is one where many people have low incomes, many of whom are struggling artists, I keep returning not only to the inherent value of cultural and artistic expression but also to the fact that many of the people involved are young and earn very little, even in good times and with considerable government support for the arts. In terms of people employed, the Canadian arts industry is the fourth largest in Canada, with 145,000 full-time employees. The arts industry is the sixth largest in Canada in terms of salaries and wages, which total approximately $2.5 billion.
In 1983, artistic revenues amounted to 2.4 per cent of the GNP. In the year 1983 to 1984, under a Liberal Government, the total appropriation for the cultural portfolio, exclusive of museum construction, was $1.2 billion. The estimated value of the cultural sector to the Gross National Product in 1981 was $11 billion. This is larger than textiles, chemicals and aviation combined.
The Liberal Government adopted recommendations of the Applebaum Committee, among others, into a framework for federal cultural policy, which included recognition that an
appropriation role for the federal Government is the creation of a climate of creativity; that strong cultural industry be encouraged; and that this be accomplished through a partnership of effort with the creative community, other levels of government and the private sector.
In 1983 to 1984, several new policies were announced by the Liberal Government to promote further the cultural community in Canada. A broadcasting program production fund was created, which produced $250 million of federal funds to generate some $750 million worth of programs from the independent production sector over five years.
The CBC was to have 80 per cent Canadian programming and prime time programming by 1988, and 50 per cent of that program was to be purchased from independents. In May, 1984, a new role for the National Film Board was defined and a number of new forms of assistance for the marketing and promotion of Canadian films was announced.
In June, 1984, Revenue Canada announced acceptance of important recommendations made by a parliamentary committee regarding the application of tax law to artists and writers. The measures included making refunds to certain eligible artists and writers by limiting the effects of reassessments of their tax returns, allowing self-employed performing artists to deduct the cost of music, acting or other lessons to develop their talents.
Up to June, 1984, we saw consistent growth in the cultural industries in Canada, encouraged by successive Liberal Governments. Now we see the new Conservative Government making severe cuts in all of those programs, as well as introducing a Bill to amend the CRTC in such a way that it will allow for much more political direction.
These are very serious matters, particularly in view of high unemployment in this country. I hope that they will be addressed, and if the decisions have not been engraved in stone I hope the Minister will reconsider them as a result of this debate.
We have seen an interesting development in the last few weeks when, in an unprecedented show of unanimity, 21 organizations representing French and English Canada unveiled a collective statement urging the Minister of Communications to act swiftly in dealing with what they regard as a deepening crisis, which they say affects the very life and soul of Canada. In their statement, the group suggests that the future of Canadian programming with the CBC is in jeopardy. They have a number of very broad recommendations, many of which would return us to the situation that existed with the Liberal Government prior to the last election. They say that the central cultural organization in Canada is the CBC, which does not exist for itself but for all Canadians. "The institution is in crisis and thus the crisis touches us all". Their recommendation is that the Minister of Communications recommend that Parliament vote a special envelope of moneys of the CBC earmarked exclusively for independently-produced Canadian programming.
February 11, 1985

Whether or not Ministers Find this particular solution attractive, it is my hope that they will consider very carefully the effect of the cuts in the cultural industries because allied to the proposed political control of the CRTC we are being presented with is a situation that has never existed in Canada before. The Government may have good reasons to justify such a very radical change but we have not yet heard them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there are no questions or comments, we will resume debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and Radio Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. gentleman because I have a matter of business to dispose of before five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 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 Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Cultural affairs-Budgetary cut-backs, (b) Level of government funding; The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud)-Tourism-Elimination of funding under Industrial and Regional Development Program, (b). Consultation with industry; The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-Post-Secondary Education-Youth-Budgetary cuts, (b) St. Valentine's Day conference-request that student representatives be permitted to attend.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission Act, the
CRTC Act
Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we are in general support of this Bill but I do have a few comments on some of its provisions.
Part I gives the Minister the right to issue directives with regard to broad policy issues relating to the Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission. We support this. This part has a caveat which excludes anything to do with specific issuing or renewal of licences. We believe that is a very important exception. We think it is important that the Government should have the right to make these broad policy directives. It is also important that these directives are laid before the House of Commons and referred to a committee so they can be scrutinized in committee. This the Bill does. I think this is an important step and I want to recognize that.
There is one area in particular where our Party is concerned that the Government should be issuing a directive and that is in relation to the application by CNCP telecommunications to compete for long-distance services. This is not simply a specific, but a broad policy matter which I believe requires the attention of the Government. We want the Government to act on this because it affects the very important system of telephone use that we have built up in Canada where we have an extremely high number of Canadians who have access to telephones. For many Canadians the telephone is their lifeline. This is true for those who live in rural areas, for those who are handicapped in one way or another, and it is especially true for senior citizens.
We know that long-distance rates have been used to subsidize the operation of local phone services so they are available at reasonable rates. If we allow deregulation of long-distance rates, this will result in higher local rates and will mean that local phone service will in many cases be placed beyond the reach of many subscribers. This is an important area where the Government should be issuing a policy directive, and I hope we will be hearing from the Government very shortly. At the same time we are concerned about Clause 14.6 of the Bill which gives the Minister the power to exclude telephone and telegraph systems from regulations if, in the opinion of the Minister or the Commission, these services are already sufficiently competitive. We do not see this extension of the Minister's power as warranted or that it will serve the public interest.
We are in general agreement with the clause in Part II that attempts to regulate the use of satellite receivers. We see this as an important technological issue. The Government has been scrambling to catch up and to do some justice to individuals who have set up satellite receivers and at the same time not to open up the system so that the whole question of regulation of broadcasting would go by the board. Again, we would issue a plea to the Government to give every consideration to small and isolated communities which depend upon these satellite receivers for any kind of decent TV reception.

February 11, 1985
CRTC Act
One of the areas in the Bill that is extremely important and that we in this Party are pleased to see is Clause 3 which adds the following paragraph to the Broadcasting Act. It reads:
the programming provided by the Canadian Broadcasting system should respect and promote the equality and dignity of all individuals, groups or classes of individuals regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability;
We are glad to see that clause in the Bill because we know it is directly the result of the very strenuous work of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who in the last Parliament was very active in bringing the whole question of broadcasting that was abusive to women and pornographic to the attention of Members of Parliament and the Canadian public in general. She was very active in pushing this issue and I am glad to see the Government is taking action, although, as the Member herself has said in commenting, it would be better if the wording read that the Canadian broadcasting system "must" respect and promote equality rather than "should".
In addition to these specific comments about the Bill, I have some broad concern about broadcasting in Canada, in particular the $85 million worth of cuts announced in the budget of the CBC, being a 9.5 per cent portion of its proposed budget. I hope all Members in the House would agree that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is very important to Canadian unity and to our sense of a Canadian identity. I am pleased to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Scott) agrees, and I hope he can bring other members of his Party on side because we face very strong cultural pressures from the United States. Some of these pressures are positive and some are negative. Regardless of whether they are positive or negative, it makes it very difficult for us to resist those pressures if we are dealing on a straight commercial basis. Profit motive has its place no doubt in such things as broadcasting and in the cultural area as in other areas of our society, but the profit motive is not in itself sufficient to protect Canadian unity and Canadian identity from the kinds of pressures we receive from our powerful neighbour to the south. It is important that we have a strong CBC.
It is interesting that while there have been some criticisms of the CBC for being inefficient, the last study that was conducted some seven years ago by McKinsey and Company came to the following principal conclusions:
1.	Judging by hours produced in relation to expenditures and numbers of employees, the CBC is an efficient and productive organization compared to other public broadcasters.
It compares the CBC with public broadcasters in other parts of the world.
2.	The corporation carries out its mandate with fewer resources than could the aggregate Canadian private sector as it is now constituted. Where the CBC incurs higher costs in individual program areas, it is generally due to the corporation's interpretations of its mandate responsibilities, rather than to inefficiency.
Quite apart from the question of economic efficiency, we need to recognize that the CBC cannot be judged entirely on the basis of the ratio between its costs and the size of the listening or viewing audience. It serves a wider and more important function in terms of Canadian society. My Party believes that the CBC serves a function that cannot be met by private outlet. For example, we can consider the question of what is news and how we determine what gets reported.
I heard a very interesting commentary over the CBC this morning by Barry Zwicker. He was talking about the Eaton strike and said that apart from The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail and the CBC, there is a virtual blackout in the news media with respect to that strike against seven Eatons stores in Ontario. The facts of that strike are not getting out to the Canadian public.
While a lot of private publishing and broadcast corporations talk a great deal about freedom of expression, Mr. Zwicker pointed out that the Standard Broadcasting Company refused to carry Ontario Federation of Labour advertisements regarding the Eaton strike. This raises some serious questions about what freedom of the press really means when you have large corporations with interlocking directorates having power over broadcasting corporations. When we look at issues like that, it is important that we have a public broadcasting system such as the CBC.
If freedom of the press is going to mean anything, we need to have a strong and independent CBC. That does not mean that the CBC will be immune from criticism. 1 am very unhappy about some of the cuts it is making in programming, for example cutting the program Our Native Land. That is the one program that gives information about Indians, Metis and Inuit people on a regular basis to communities across Canada. Canadians should express their views about that very strongly. I hope the CBC administration will be responsive to that kind of representation. I believe at the same time that the CBC has to be independent.
With those comments, I will close by saying that we regard this Bill largely in a favourable light. There are some amendments that I am sure my colleagues will be moving in committee, but I thank you for this opportunity to speak.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Member before me speak on government action or government directives to bodies like the CRTC, stating that his Party was in favour of that sort of contact between the Government and the broadcasting bodies of this country. At the same time, he outlined with some degree of passion and sincerity the problems that we have witnessed in recent CBC cuts to the tune of $85 million. I am curious to know how the Member can speak to both those items. From where I sit, they seem to be in direct opposition. If we are to give this Government the direct mandate to dictate to a far greater degree than in the past, what assurances does the Member have that we will not see the same devastating cuts that we have been experiencing of late? What assurance does he have that this Government will protect the broadcasting and cultural agencies across this country?
February 11, 1985


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. I do not have any assurance that this Government is going to protect the independence of the CBC. The cultural cut-backs we have seen, not only to the CBC but to other cultural agencies, bother me a great deal. They say they are independent of the cuts they have received from the Government, but I am not too sure they are.
The first responsibility of the Government is to ensure that the CBC has adequate funding to carry out its mandate. Second, Members of Parliament have a responsibility to be vigilant in ensuring that the Government does not interfere in a ham-handed fashion with the CBC so that it is able to maintain its independent existence. At the same time, the Government has the responsibility for being able to issue broad policy directives to the CRTC.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment on my colleague's speech. Tie mentioned the plans of the CBC to cut the program Our Native Land. I wonder how a Government that claims to be interested in the people who are in greatest need in this country, which claims to be committed to consulting before taking action, can stand idly by while executives from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation slash a program that is crucial to the native community in this country. Native people are spread across this land in small populations. This program has been one way of developing a sense of national community among native people. It serves as a vital commission link for native people. I am glad my colleague mentioned that in his comments. I wish the Government would wake up and make clear its priorities and the fact that it will not stand for this kind of savage cutting of programs that people need.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reinforce the comment of my colleague and underline the fact that if there are going to be these budget cuts, we will be seeing program cuts that are very detrimental to the Canadian public.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Does he believe it is possible that the CRTC could retain its independence and at the same time have the Government establish a control over the kind of cuts that can be made in programming? If so, how would that be possible?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we were very concerned about the way in which the Minister of Communications interfered with the CRTC in cutting some of the programs. He indicated the way in which he wanted the cuts to be implemented. The Government's responsibility is to provide adequate funding, as I said before, so that the CBC can carry out its mandate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Car Emission Controls



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 66?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed.



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should proclaim for the 1987 car models, the same car emission controls already in place in the United States, and to educate consumers and the public in order to reduce nitrous oxide in gasoline by 1987.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your having called this Bill. As we all know, we have only one environment and it is one that we wish to preserve. We also realize that if we damage environment at the rate we are now going, there will be little left for us and for future generations to enjoy in the manner in which we have enjoyed the environment so far.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, acid rain is slowly but surely killing our lakes, rivers, forests, agricultural lands, structures and buildings and the very air that we breathe. Car emissions contribute to acid rain. Our economy depends so much on our natural resources. Therefore, our common goal must be to clean up this stuff that we emit into the air.
Pollution is not partisan; it affects every one of us. It affects the health of people we love; our wives and husbands, children and grandchildren. It affects the weak and the strong, the rich and the poor. It does not discriminate. For these reasons, I call on the Government to proclaim for the 1987 car models at least the same car emission controls already in place in the United States, and to generate support among consumers and the public in order to get their full co-operation in reducing nitrogen oxide emissions in cars sold and used in Canada as of the year 1987.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must intervene in the present departmental squabble between four departments. Two of these departments would like to move fast, and these are the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Two are dragging their feet namely, the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has been evasive and non-committal. The Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bouchard), as we heard last Friday during Question Period, does not know about this important file. Both Minister seem to shift their responsibility for making a decision to that forlorn, uninspired Minister of

February 11, 1985
Car Emission Controls
the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) whose commitment to the environment matches that of a blind horse.
Consultations took place in 1984. Now it is up to the politicians to decide. There is a division of views, and it is up to the Prime Minister to keep his environmental promises. I submit, Sir, that he must act. If he wants to maintain his credibility, he must act decisively and boldly. This is why we on this side of the House urge him to set 1987 as the target year in which United States nitrogen oxide standards will apply to automobiles sold and used in Canada.
Nitrogen oxides are formed in the combustion process. In 1980, North American man-made nitrogen oxide emissions totalled some 21.3 million tonnes, 1.7 million tonnes of which were produced in Canada. Our nitrogen oxide emissions come primarily from the transportation sector. In Canada, automobile emissions account for some 21 per cent of all man-made nitrogen oxide emissions. Our nitrogen oxide emissions are small in comparison to those of the United States but they are a cause of concern.
Nitrogen oxide has several direct effects which I would like to outline for you today, Mr. Speaker. First, nitrogen oxides are capable of damaging human respiratory tissue. Although it is difficult to find direct evidence correlating the level of nitrogen oxides with health deterioration because it is a gradual process, there are acknowledged side effects such as increased appearances of bronchitis, asthma and other lung disorders. There is evidence as well that nitrogen oxide threatens the central nervous system and brain functions and causes hypertension, eye and skin irritations and can even induce skin cancer. Again, children are the most affected.
Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons reacting with sunlight form a substance called ozone, which in turn is a major component of smog. We know that ozone affects human health as it affects vegetation and man-made materials. We know that ozone aggravates lung problems. We know that children are more sensitive to ozone than adults and that people with respiratory problems are most sensitive to ozone. We know that correlations have been made between hospital admissions for respiratory problems and ozone concentrations in southwestern Ontario. I would like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a most excellent study just completed by Dr. Payne of British Columbia on the basis of charts and data he has compiled supplied to him by the Ontario hospital insurance services.
Second, in agriculture we find that nitrogen oxides in the form of ozone affect the growth and health of plants. Scientists are telling us that the damage to agriculture amounts to losses of approximately $2 billion a year, and in Ontario alone, the average annual loss is estimated at between $20 million and $50 million. The crops affected include corn, wheat, potatoes, soybeans, tomatoes, onions, cucumbers, lettuce, white beans and tobacco.
Third, nitrogen oxides find their way into acid rain, and these emissions contribute about 30 per cent to acid precipitation. During the winter months, they contribute up to 50 per cent. The sulphur dioxide emissions make up the balance of acid rain composition in Canada, but because the emissions of
nitrogen oxide convert to nitrates in the atmosphere, they fall back to earth in the form of rain, snow or dust. During the summer months, these nitrates are absorbed by plants and trees. During the winter months, they accumulate in the snowpack. When the snow melts, the acid from nitrates and sulphates is released into our streams and eventually into our lakes. In spring when the life cycle of many aquatic species begins, this can kill the eggs of frogs, salamanders and fish.
An important step in reducing acid rain is further control over the emissions of cars by installing a three-way catalytic converter in each car. This has been done successfully in the United States. In Canada today, many cars already run with a three-way catalytic converter. In a front-page article in the Toronto Star which appeared a couple of days ago, it was reported that the cost of a catalytic converter to the consumer is assessed at about $200.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1981, Environment Canada began assessing the effects of improved automobile emissions standards. In September, 1982, Environment Canada announced in The Canada Gazette that automobile emission standards would be examined. An inter-departmental project review group, which included officials from Transport Canada, Energy, Mines and Resources and Environment Canada, was formed to undertake work in this area. Public meetings were hosted and studies were completed. Reports have assessed the costs and benefits of introducing automobile emission standards. We are now waiting for a political decision to be made.
The President of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association is reported as saying that there is no evidence to show that further controls are necessary. Then the petroleum industry seems to be concerned of all things about the fact that the catalytic converter does not permit the use of leaded gasoline. What a pathetic duet! Why is it that industry fails all the time to take up the challenge implied in the fundamental principle that the environment, be it air, water, forest or soil, must be protected and that the cost to society is greater if action is postponed?
To understand the importance of using unleaded gasoline, we must also take into consideration health and the environment. If unleaded gasoline is used, the environment is protected because lead is not emitted. The pressure which has been put by the lead industry comes from people who have decided to ignore the adverse health effects of leaded gasoline. Medical research has found that children are the most at risk because of the lead which is found in their blood.
The symptoms of lead in blood include damage to kidneys, liver, the reproductive system, blood circulation and production, and the brain function. A study was prepared by the Office of Policy Analysis of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which showed that there is a direct link between lead in blood levels and lead in gasoline. It is for these health reasons that the use of lead in gasoline must be reduced.
February 11, 1985

Canadian consumers should be made aware of the cars which are not friendly to the environment, and thus to our health. It is unfortunate that certain car manufacturers promote the use of leaded gasoline. Imported car companies promote it and, until recently, Chrysler did as well. The imported cars which promote the use of leaded gasoline are: Honda, with 14 models; Hyundai, with five models; Nissan, with eight models; Porsche, with one model; Renault, with one model; Skoda, with three models; and Suzuki, with one model. It should be noted that these cars can run on unleaded gasoline. In fact, that has been the case since 1974. Manufacturers' marketing strategy is to sell cars, and obviously it is made easier if they can say it is cheaper to run cars on leaded gasoline.
The time has come for the environmentally-concerned consumer to make a choice. The choice is between using a car which pollutes the air with lead and nitrogen-oxide, thus contributing to health problems and acid rain, or using a less polluting car that uses only unleaded gasoline and is equipped with a three-way catalytic converter. The moment of truth has come for those who really want a cleaner environment. Canadian and foreign manufacturers would get the message from consumers if consumers shifted their preference to cars which use unleaded gasoline and are equipped with three-way catalytic converters. Yes, many people who want to buy a car must consider what they can buy with the money which is available. Yes, many of the smaller cars-the less expensive cars-run on leaded gasoline. But if one shops carefully, one can find a car model on the market today which fits the pocketbook and protects the environment.
Environmental groups, consumer groups, teachers, politicians, editorial writers and media people can be most helpful in getting this message across to the public at large. But first the Conservative Government must keep its promises on the environment. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to announce the regulations which will better control Canada's automobile emissions. The Government must give leadership if it is to convince Canadian people that it is truly committed to reducing acid rain in Canada. Then the educational program can get under way so that the public too can help to reduce nitrogen-oxide emissions and lead poisoning.
In this joint effort, we must include the support of labour. We must reassure our workers that programs will be developed which will be geared toward their needs and aspirations. It should be explained that the jobs which could be lost in the lead manufacturing industry could be offset by an increase of jobs in the refining industry. In addition, jobs will also be created in the design and construction of additional refining facilities over the next three or four years. That will be necessary in order to produce and make unleaded gasoline available to the market.
Further, provincial Governments must do their share in preventing misfuelling. Reports have shown that there has been an increase in the use of leaded gasoline in vehicles designed to use unleaded gasoline. By way of misfuelling, the public should be made aware that it undermines the program
Car Emission Controls
to reduce lead. In Nova Scotia, legislation was introduced which prohibited the use of smaller nozzles on leaded gas pumps. In Ontario, legislation was introduced which made it illegal to operate a vehicle with catalytic equipment which was misfuelled with leaded gasoline.
It is clear in the Gallup polls, and in general conservation with the public, that Canadians want to protect the environment. Canadians are also willing to carry their share, economically and financially, in cleaning up the environment. Therefore, the additional cost for the installation of a three-way catalytic converter would be acceptable to the average car owner who is faced with a choice.
We must introduce regulations which will reduce pollution. Federal and provincial Governments must be firm in this respect. They have the support of the Public. The benefits will go to future generations of Canadians, because economic and environmental values go hand in hand.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate this afternoon, and I believe we all welcome an early opportunity to deal with this sensitive question. I would like to reply to the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which, in effect, calls upon the Government to proclaim for 1987 car models the same automotive emission standards which are in place in the United States, and to eliminate the use of toxic additives in the mix.
I understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski), the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Greni-er), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have been grappling with this most important and vital issue for some time. I would remind the Hon. Member that the Minister of Transport has told the House that the matter is currently under active consideration by him and his Cabinet colleagues, and that we can expect an announcement of their decision in due course. Indeed, the Minister has used the phrase, "very soon".
It is not necessary to remind the Hon. Member of the fact that this issue is technically complex and touches such diverse interests that it requires very careful consideration. The technical reports, the work of consultants which have been contracted by the Department of the Environment, and the work of the Department's officials now form part of a growing, but to some degree not yet sophisticated, body of resource and research opinion. The preparation of those reports and the work which has led to them, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, has taken considerably longer than, I am sure, was envisaged or expected by the Hon. Member for Davenport in his previous capacity. I think that is precisely because of the complexity of the issues, and we do not find fault with that. I believe the former Minister might have, in his own mind, wished it could have moved much faster, but in fact when he got into it, he discovered that it was, indeed, a very complex issue which was going to take considerably longer than he had earlier hoped. Indeed, the House subcommittee on acid raid noted in its last

February 11, 1985
Car Emission Controls
report in June of 1984 that the reports for the Department of the Environment itself were produced considerably behind schedule.
Then, as the Hon. Member no doubt recalls better than most of us, the previous Government belatedly recognized the diversity of the groups which were directly and indirectly concerned in this very vital question. The medical professions and private industry both had something to say on the issue and decided that their wishes should be heard. However, that Government's notion of consultation was rather radically different from that which has since been introduced by the present Government. The previous Minister of Transport planned for each group to present its views to a panel of officials behind closed doors. No group could hear the other's arguments, nor could they defend themselves. One of the most important of the groups, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain, expressed its outrage at this mockery of the consultation process and refused even to attend the so-called hearings, although it had previously submitted significant amounts of basic information and comments.
One of the first actions of the present Minister of Transport was to move to rectify this problem, by inviting representations of interest groups at completely open and public hearings. These were duly held at the beginning of December last. Submissions were received from some 30 individuals and associations. The proceedings were open to the media and were transcribed verbatim. Such transcripts now form part of the public record. Many of those making submissions, particularly the associations representing concerned citizens, welcomed with enthusiasm this innovative injection of open consultation into the policy-making process.
An important part of any discussion, Mr. Speaker, about imposing more stringent limits on automotive exhaust emissions, is to understand the difference in regulatory authority for automobiles and fuels and the combustion process which occurs in the engines of cars. The Hon. Member for Davenport has touched on this in brief, and so will I. Gasoline produces heat and pressure on ignition in an internal combustion engine, as well as waste products such as unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The volumes of these waste products emitted by the engines depends, of course, on the efficiency of that very combustion process. The complete combustion in internal combustion engines, if it could be achieved economically, would reduce the exhaust products to relatively harmless carbon dioxide and water. State of the art emission control technology is now designed to control electronically the efficiency of the combustion process in the engine.
Transport Canada's road safety and motor vehicle regulation branch in Ottawa has prescribed exhaust emission standards. The Governor in Council, under the authority of the Clean Air Act, on advice from the Minister of the Environment, also can prescribe standards for fuels and regulate the
maximum concentration of any fuel additives which may be injurious to personal health.
The emission standards imposed some 10 years ago, in January 1975, limit exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. Since 1975, motor vehicle manufacturers have found that the most practical way of meeting Canadian emission standards has been through relatively simple catalytic converters in automotive exhaust systems. Provisions are made in catalytic converter equipped cars to ensure the vehicles use only lead-free gasoline. We all know that prolonged use of leaded gasoline will poison the catalysts themselves and render them somewhat useless. As new models of automobiles have been introduced in Canada over the years, an increasing number have burned unleaded fuel, and it is interesting to note that probably some time next year 90 per cent of the motor vehicles on our highways will in fact be burning unleaded fuels.
I would like to deal for a moment, Mr. Speaker, with those who made submissions at the public consultations and suggest that they represented all sides of this very complex issue. The diversity of their interests shows very clearly just how important the issue is and how strongly held are the opinions with respect to it. Submissions came from groups of citizens who are concerned about environmental pollution, such as STOP, an environmental organization based in Montreal; Friends of the Earth, a national and international organization; and, of course, the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain. Each of these groups raised their concerns about the health effects of automobile exhaust emissions, particularly in cities. The Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain also submitted its concerns about the contribution of those emissions to acid rain, and demonstrated the breadth of interest by collaborating in its coalition with individual submissions from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Tourism Ontario, the United Auto Workers and the United Church of Canada.
Advice on the particular implications of the issue for the health of children was given by the Canadian Association for Children and Adults with Learning Disabilities, and by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. Both of these bodies drew attention in their submissions to the vulnerability of children to health impairment from excessive exposure to exhaust gases and to residual lead from leaded gasoline.
Three Hon. Members of this House made personal representations at the hearing: the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), the Hon. Member for Davenport, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). A municipal government representative, the Mayor of the District Municipality of Muskoka, brought to the hearings the opinions of her constituents in one of the areas of Canada most affected by the threat from acid rain. Two academic scientists, public-spirited atmospheric chemists, also presented evidence on their own behalf, attempting to offer the Government an impartial and independent assessment of some of the complex issue of the chemistry of air pollution and acid rain formation.
Finally, the interests of Canadians as consumers were also represented by the Canadian Automobile Association. That
February 11, 1985

association brought to the hearings the very different perspective of the interests of Canadians as motorists, emphasizing the wishes of its members to minimize the cost of motoring. Its submission reminds us that our objectives of safeguarding the health of Canadians and reducing acid rain can only be met if we are really prepared to accept the personal cost in dollars and cents which is required, and we know it to be staggering.
There are also the interests of private industry which could be most directly affected by this decison. Those appearing at the hearings represented substantial segments of the industries important to Canada, the motor vehicle manufacturing industry and the oil refining industry. Once again, the transcripts of their submissions remind us of the complexity of the issues. As we all know, representatives of the motor vehicle industry would not welcome further major regulation of their activities and the costs they consider uncalled for, and they said so. But the opinions of the domestic motor vehicle manufacturers are not identical to those of the automobile importers as they would be affected differently. Officials of the oil refining industry, on the other hand, mainly represented at the hearings by an association, showed us in their submission that this industry also considers tightened standards unwarranted and unnecessarily expensive.
Again, an alternative viewpoint was also heard, this time from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. That is a coalition of companies involved in such fields as grain production, brewing and forestry, which foresees the possibility of the lucrative Canadian industry producing gasoline blended with alcohol which could in itself also significantly lower exhaust emissions.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the transcripts of the hearing, for anyone who wants to review them, show that the interests in this issue are many and varied. These hearings allowed them to be aired and allowed public questioning of the facts and interpretations used to support the various positions put forward. This was the final stage of gathering evidence, and innovative stage which I have suggested and which I endorse as, in all matters, being essential to the efficiency of the process.
The consultation produced a substantial debate on the scientific basis for any such decision, that is, on the extent of damage to health and the environment by exhaust gases and on the size of the contribution by exhaust emissions to acid rain. The reports prepared for the Department of the Environment also show clearly that these issues remain unresolved within the scientific community. Research into many of the important factors is apparently in its infancy, although we are doing much to correct that. The question raised in the scientific debate is whether the exhaust emissions at issue are in fact harmful in Canadian conditions. The consultant to the Department of the Environment attempted to summarize the extent of scientific evidence on the health effects in Canada but could not provide any estimates of the extent of impairment from current vehicle emissions. The effects are apparently quite
Car Emission Controls
subtle and have so far defied the attempts of Canadian scientists to reveal and define them adequately.
The debate about the ozone formation is particularly interesting. Here again we have an argument which says that if we reduce emissions, the ozone layer may increase. On the other hand, if we do not reduce emissions, the ozone eventually will have a serious effect on our life. Which body of thought is correct? I think those are some of the things that concern us.
Another important conflict in the scientific evidence is that of the extent of the contribution by motor vehicle exhaust emissions to acid rain. If the Hon. Member for Davenport bothered to re-read some of the submissions, he would find that there is a conflict in the scientific community about the impact of reduced emissions on the creation of ozone, but I will leave that to his own homework.


Mr. Caccia:: Not in Canada. You talk like a Reagan official.


J. Michael Forrestall: Apparently there is substantial agreement that the nitric acid component of acid rain is normally absorbed by the environment in Canada, which is largely nitrogen deficient. The problem arises, and I am no scientist, but as I read it, from the build-up of acids in the snowpack during our winters. This produces spring shock, the sudden release of acidity into our lakes and streams. This is harmful to all our fish and animal life, and nitric acid may be just as bad as sulphuric acid if it is dumped in this sudden shock method. What the scientific community disagrees about is the extent to which motor vehicle exhaust emissions contribute nitric acid in the sensitive areas of the country in such a way that it accumulates in the snowpack, and whether the nitric acid in the snowpack actually remains in the streams or is absorbed in the spring run-off by plants and fauna along the banks. Again, the research to date does not lead to an unequivocal finding that the effect is either large or small, and there are adherents to both points of view.


Charles L. Caccia: You are way off the beam, for heaven's sake.


J. Michael Forrestall: I could give many further examples of the conflicts in the scientific evidence, but I think the point is made.


Charles L. Caccia: Who wrote that stuff?


J. Michael Forrestall: The technical issues remain complex, indeed so complex the scientific community has not been able upon the nature, size and effects of automobile exhaust emissions or, indeed, on the improvements to be obtained from reducing them individually through tighter standards.


Charles L. Caccia: That is not so.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a fact. The one thing scientists will agree upon is the necessity for further research to understand this phenomenon so that we might deal with it over time properly and adequately. Many of the groups who make submissions on this issue have strongly supported future research. We do as well.

February 11, 1985
Car Emission Controls


Charles L. Caccia: Those who want inaction, paid by the companies.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Canadian Automobile Association urged the Department of the Environment to expand its work in monitoring air quality and its research into the effects of pollution. The Association also urged motor vehicle manufacturers to greater effort in the development of emission control systems.
Let me raise another point, Mr. Speaker. I would like to emphasize that this issue is not one for the federal Government to consider alone. The federal Government can control the performance of new motor vehicle designs as manufactured and imported, and we will. But those efforts must be supported by the provinces and indeed, all automobile owners, including ourselves, to ensure the proper operation of our cars. Each and every one of us must make sure that we maintain in good working order the built-in emission control systems.
Car owners have the responsibility to ensure the safe and effective operation of their vehicles. All provincial Governments have to ensure that mechanical staff in automobile service centres look after the proper replacement and maintenance of defective automobile and light truck emission controls. I concur with the Minister of Transport in his view that a decision on the need for more stringent emission standards needs careful study and evaluation of the costs and benefits.


Charles L. Caccia: Shame. That would not be supported by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


J. Michael Forrestall: The Ministries of Transport, Environment, Energy, Regional Industrial Expansion, and Health and Welfare are all dealing with this most crucial issue. I am confident they will be announcing an appropriate decision and one which the Hon. Member for Davenport, whose Bill is in front of us, will warmly accept. Thank you for allowing me to participate in your debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I support the proposal contained in the Private Member's Bill we are debating. 1 hope that very soon we will see an announcement by the Government in this area. However, I must say that some of the optimism I allowed myself in the last few weeks about an announcement by the Government concerning adopting auto emission standards at least equivalent to what pertains in the United States has seeped away, shall we say, as I listened to the kind of arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
A week or so ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that if we wanted to bargain with the United States with respect to acid rain, we ought to have clean hands when we go to the bargaining table. That was a sentiment I had expressed in the House just about a week before the Prime Minister said that. I got up and encouraged the Government to proceed with an announcement on auto emission standards, among other things, so that when President Reagan met with the Prime Minister on March 17 and talked about acid rain, he would
have something concrete to point to. The President of the United States would not be in a position to say that with respect to nitrous oxide emissions we have not even caught up with the United States. I still hope that we will have that kind of announcement from the Government before March 17, in spite of the tone of some of the arguments which were being advanced by the Hon. Member on the government side. It is important to show that we are willing to clean up our own back yard. That was a good sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister. I hope that in the near future he will show that he really means that by making an announcement on auto emission standards and by providing concrete funds with respect to the arrangement on acid rain made between the federal Government and the provinces. If the Prime Minister does that, we will know that this is not simply another public relations exercise on the eve of a presidential visit or just an attempt to placate the environmental concerns of Canadians.
I would like to comment on the statement made by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that pollution is not partisan. Any truly important issue is not partisan to the extent that everyone must transcend his or her own particular self-interest and attempt to see the larger context. However, issues are partisan in the true sense of the word in that there are a number of different ways in which to solve any given problem. To the extent that we argue with one another here about the best approach to the solution, we are going to disagree with each other. I feel that it is needlessly pious to say that this is a non-partisan matter. There are some very serious economic, ideological and political questions involved in the issue of acid rain. To pretend that there are not is in fact political stance which is an attempt to avoid the difficult political questions which attend this issue as well as others.
The political stance of the Liberal Party is to avoid the difficult ideological and philosophical questions which attend the environmental issue in the same way as they successfully encourage Canadians to see the questions of security and disarmament in the same non-ideological and non-partisan way. Canadians want to believe that is the case. I understand that. However, I suggest to all Members that we do a disservice to the need for a good debate on these difficult topics when we fall for the illusion that there are not difficult political and ideological questions that must be faced in these issues.
Although it may seem strange, in a way I may actually prefer a Minister of the Environment who makes no pretence about being concerned about the environment. Every time she rises in her place to speak about the environment, she talks about the deficit and the economic strategies of the Government. She sees her role of Minister of the Environment as being instrumental to the Government's over-all economic strategy. She is very honest and upfront about that. I do not think Hon. Members should be upset about that, particularly the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), who has made a point of criticizing decisions made by the
February 11, 1985

Minister of the Environment. Perhaps he would like me to dwell on that for a minute.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Member is from Manitoba, he will know perfectly well that accuracy is important. He will know that my complaint was with respect to some information given to the Minister rather than about the Minister.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: With all due respect, that is neither a point of order nor is it accurate. We know that the Hon. Member for Strathcona was complaining about certain judgments made by the Minister and certain information that she received. I did not want to dwell on that. If the Hon. Member wishes, we can spend some time discussing the deficiencies in the Government's wildlife program which he himself pointed out. I would rather talk about the fact that it may be preferable to have a Minister who indicates that she sees the decisions which she is making in her Department as relevant to a particular economic strategy which we disagree with, rather than to a long-term strategy for the environment. That may be preferable to the very high-sounding speeches on acid rain and a number of other topics that we so often got from the Liberals. Yet, whenever the crunch came, they were obedient to the same economic arguments, the same bureaucratic mentality, and the same limited view of the world to which the present Government appears to be obedient. There is a level of honesty over there which one can almost appreciate in a strange and ironic way.
Pollution is a political issue on two levels. The first, of course, is credibility. The personal concern for the environment of the Hon. Member for Davenport goes back to the days before he was Minister of the Environment. I remember reading his householders. He devoted a lot of time to that issue. I think the Hon. Member has some personal credibility on this issue. However, the Liberal Party, the Liberal Government, and this Member, is so far as he speaks for the Liberal Party, have no credibility in this area as far as I am concerned.
We now have a Private Member's Bill encouraging the Government to do something that the Member, as Minister of the Environment, could have done only months ago. We are not privy to the mysterious internal workings of the Liberal caucus, Cabinet and bureaucracy. It may be that the Member wanted to do that. Only when he has retired from politics and allows the archives to release his personal correspondence will we learn what he truly tried to do while he was Minister of the Environment. The record tells us that the Liberal Party did not do what it is now saying the present Government should do. The Government should do it now. It should show that it is different from the Liberals in this regard. I hope that that announcement will be forthcoming.
Pollution is also political to the extent that very difficult ideological questions are involved. We see here the limits to the small "1" liberal approach to politics. We are so used to politics, particularly in Canada and particularly through the agency of the Liberal Party, being the politics of brokerage and conflict solving. We have many groups that want different things. The role of Government is to manage that conflict and to ensure that every group gets a little piece of the action
Car Emission Controls
according to how much pressure it generates, how strong a lobby group it is, and various other elements of the political process as we have known it. There are limits to that kind of politics.
The acid rain issue does not belong to any identifiable group of people. We cannot point to a particular group of people that will be harmed if we do nothing about acid rain. These environmental questions apply to everyone. They apply to the health of society, the planet and the future as a whole. That is why I believe, with respect to this issue and others, that we are at the limits of liberal politics.
We can take another course, which is the one the Government has basically decided to take. Rather than try to manage the conflict, it is trying to subsume all of these issues under a larger and strictly economic context. While the Department of the Environment never was particularly strong, its role has become even more subservient to the fiscal strategies of the Government. As a result of the cut-backs to that Department, the environment is becoming simply a part of a larger economic package in which the right signals are being sent out to the private sector in order to create a certain investment climate.
I have spoken before about how that approach conforms with the larger package of signals that the Government is sending to the private sector, such as deregulation of the environment, postponement of Labour Code amendments and a willingness to cut social spending rather than strengthening tax reforms, as well as various other signals being sent out by the Government.
The Progressive Conservatives' approach to the environment is to make it subservient to the other economic goals and thereby postpone the inevitable day when the environmental questions will involve fundamental economic questions about what is at the root of our problems in this country with respect to productivity and profitability.
The Government is attempting to postpone that day of reckoning in the hope that it can entice the private sector to recreate the post-war economic boom and somehow recapture the fifties through the right economic signals. It is already clear that that will not happen.
I understand the Government's desire, but such an era has come and gone and will not return. We must begin to reevaluate our views about the economy and the environment in such a way that they will finally come together.
One reason why I am a member of the New Democratic Party is that I do not believe that the questions of the environment can be solved within the context of the profit motive. I would not have anything to do with the Progressive Conservative Party because its world view does not permit it to deal with these kinds of problems.
It will be impossible to deal with these environmental questions as long as we are dominated by an economic philosophy that makes the intermediate and short-term profit needs of the

February 11, 1985
Car Emission Controls
corporate or any other sector the priority. We will never be able to address environmental questions if we are held to that particular view of the world.


David Kilgour: That is not our view and you know it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the view that the Progressive Conservative Party is in bondage to. I do not think anyone would argue with me about that-at least anybody who knows anything about the Progressive Conservative Party.
Eastern European countries, which do not have the profit motive, still have the idolization of production. It is the Communist equivalent of profit, since productivity is put over and above the well-being of the future and the environment. Whenever the objective of production or profit takes precedence over the well-being of the environment and our common future, it is necessary to reconsider how we address economic questions.
We are sitting on an environmental time bomb. This includes such issues as acid rain and the thousands of pesticides and insecticides and other chemicals that are polluting our environment or the quality of the Great Lakes water. Rather than addressing this critical situation and determining how to reverse this trend, we are talking about short-term economic goals of Governments and companies. It is that kind of blindness which will lead us to destruction if we do not smarten up.
Permit me to tell a story that I told in committee. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) will recall that I had an opportunity to tell this story at the International Conference on the Environment in Nairobi which we attended. Many of the environmental problems that we experience are of a geometric nature. They grow exponentially. The time is very short between small problems becoming very serious. I ask Hon. Members to imagine a lily pond. This pond takes 28 days to be covered with lily pads. It grows from one little pad exponentially by twos until the 27th day when half the lily pond is left uncovered. Something must be done before the whole pond is covered, but there are those who say that since half the lily pond is uncovered there is no rush. However, on the 28th day the whole pond will be covered. This situation is analogous to the environment. We do not know, with respect to the Great Lakes water quality, whether we are at the 25th, 26th or 27th day. We do not know the situation with respect to acid rain. But that is the nature of the problem, and it behooves every responsible Government to begin to act now.


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion which, I think, is well-meant. The motion concerns our environment and we are all grateful to the Hon. Member. It is one of the issues on which Canada's public opinion is focused.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, our Government has already shown leadership in this field, regardless of what many Members have said to the contrary.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should remind the House that our colleague the federal Minister of Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) recently signed with several provincial Ministers of the Environment an agreement which is aimed at reducing significantly various polluting emissions in our regions.
Like the previous speaker, others have made the environment issue into a political question. They wanted to make a political issue out of it. As several Members have pointed out, our society is obviously becoming ever more regulated. I think that incentive measures are a must. It is imperative that the Canadian people be made fully aware of the need to protect our environment. It happens to be one of our priorities and this debate gives us an opportunity to keep our constituents better informed. I come from a riding where the quality of life is absolutely-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak today on a question of cut-backs in the field of arts and culture. One of the most disturbing aspects of these cut-backs that I have raised in a number of questions has been the surprise element, the betrayal, that the arts and cultural community has experienced.
The Conservatives while in Opposition, of course, said quite the contrary to what they are doing now. They were critical of the Liberal government for not being favourable enough and not giving enough support to arts and culture. During the election campaign the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) replied to a letter sent to him on arts policy and spoke officially for the Party. This letter is dated August 21, 1984, addressed to Paul J. Reynolds of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres. I want to read some of the promises which the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made during the election campaign so we can look at the arts and culture cut-backs relative to the promises that were made. Part of this letter reads:
Our first order of business will be full consultation with the cultural sector on opportunities which should be pursued, and dangers which must be avoided. Opportunities, such as increased Canadian program production from live
February 11, 1985

performance companies, have not been promoted by current federal policy ... Our commitment to stimulate growth, ensure federal support through arm's length agencies and councils, and encourage alternative developments in film and program development are directed toward reversing the current low priority of cultural policy.
That is absolutely preposterous when we see what the Conservatives have done since they became the Government. Let me continue this litany of false promises:
We will seek better means to stimulate investment in the film, program and theatrical industries, and will ensure recognition of research and development costs, training and employment capacity ... We will ensure that federal cultural agencies have the mandate and resources to assist the cultural sector in taking new initiatives.
Instead, what we have had is cut-backs in existing funding for the Canada Council and in existing programming for the CBC. I continue:
We believe, for example, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can play a stronger role in bringing Canadian performers, writers, designers, and companies both better employment opportunities and greater exposure.
Yes, the CBC could indeed be doing this, but it cannot if there are cut-backs. The CBC needs more funding. I agree the CBC needs a changed mandate and that there ought to be public input into that changed mandate. The CBC can hardly begin to do the kind of work in drama, entertainment, the kind of full programming that we want from it while it is experiencing these kinds of cut-backs.
Let me continue with the astonishing promises:
At the level of federal policy, however, there does not seem to be a sufficient understanding of the role of cultural growth to the social and economic future of Canada.
What did this Government proceed to do, Mr. Speaker? It has been quite ignorant of the economic contribution that the arts and culture industry has made. The letter continues:
In order to ensure that federal policy is better informed by the cultural sector, we will include in the Cultural Agencies legislation a guarantee that the Minister receives and responds to recommendations from the federal agencies which work most closely with the cultural sector. For the arm's length principle to have effect, advice to the Minister must be regular and accountable on both sides.
Yet the major arts agencies have not been able to get a meeting with the Minister, the groups who actually represent the artists who are doing the work in Canada. The major ones have not yet seen the Minister who manages to fly off to other countries, make speeches and spend a lot of taxpayers' money while he is preaching restraint here at home and has been absolutely unavailable to the community he is supposed to be serving.
I would like to point out the foolishness of these cut-backs in sheer economic terms. The arts industry makes an enormous contribution. It is the number 11 industry in Canada. It is about the same size as the electrical industry or the wood industry. More people are employed in arts than in manufacturing, and this is an industry that is growing.
Funding for the arts has enormous economic spin-offs. Let me give one example, Stratford. Stratford received a grant of $1.5 million. Its budget is $13 million, of which $8 million comes in through sales. It injects $35 million into the local economy. Stratford activities generated $9 million in provincial and federal tax revenues. In other words, Governments get
Adjournment Debate
back six times what they put in. Restaurants, motels and businesses in the tourist industry in the area receive an enormous amount from a very modest investment in terms of arts and culture expenditure.
To conclude, I want to stress the economic foolishness of the Government's cut-backs. This is what the arts and culture agencies and representative groups are stressing. I would like to see them argue the merits of the case in terms of the cultural contribution. Even on the Government's own stated criteria of helping the economy, these arts and culture cut-backs are foolishness indeed.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, the three-pronged question by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has generated what looks like a 30 minute written response from our departmental officials. I will get as much as I can into my three minutes, and hope my Hon. friend will understand if I can not cover all the points she raised.
Let me state one important aspect of her "promises promises", speech. These budget reductions to the Canada Council, the National Film Board, the CBC or any other cultural agencies in no way diminish the importance which this Government attaches to the development of cultural expression in Canada. I can assure all Hon. Members of the personal commitment of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), of my own personal commitment, and indeed the strongly held view of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to the maintenance of support which is essential to Canada's artists and this country's arts organizations as we come through this difficult economic period.
It is, however, the view of this Government that its most urgent priority is to arrest the growth of our national debt and to reverse the debilitating effect which debt service has on our ability to act on other national concerns. The burden of implementing such reductions must be shared by all, including the cultural sector. We are convinced, however, that the impact of these measures on individual artists and arts organizations can be greatly minimized through reductions in administrative expenditures, the elimination of non-essential services, of fat, if you will, plus greater involvement of the private sector.
The budget reductions to the Canada Council were $3.5 million and reductions to the National Arts Centre were $1 million. In the case of the Canada Council, this represents 4.8 per cent of the current parliamentary appropriation of approximately $72.5 million and 4.2 per cent of the Canada Council's total operating budget, which totals almost $84 million. The reduction to the National Arts Centre represents 6.2 per cent of its anticipated parliamentary appropriation of $16.16 million and 3.4 per cent of its total operating budget of $29.1 million.
The budgetary cut experienced by the National Film Board does not amount to twice as much as the ones made to other federal areas. They are equitably shared among the cultural

February 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
agencies. Far from being unworthy of Government support, as it was suggested by the Hon. Member, the Government of Canada has given this cultural agency more importance by recently approving a new, more focused and more effective role by becoming a world-class centre of excellence in film and video production and a national training centre for advanced research, development and training in the art and technology of film and video.
With specific reference to the CBC cuts, of which we have been hearing so much lately, the Minister requested the CBC to make its budgetary reductions primarily in administrative areas and to protect programming as much as possible. The Minister made this request so that the reductions would affect as little as possible Canadian producers, artists and performers whose development the Government intends to encourage. The Minister cannot tell the CBC which programs to cut and which to leave in. That is the decision of the President of the CBC and its board of directors.


TOURISM-ELIMINATION OF FUNDING UNDER INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-CONSULTATION WITH INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a question I put on December 3 last year to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, in the absence of the Minister of State for Tourism, concerning the fact that tourism projects had been cut from the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
First, however, I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the Minister of State for Tourism.
Last year, the Liberals launched the 1RDP, that is, the Industrial and Regional Development Program, under which $12.5 million were earmarked for tourism projects, considering the sector's needs and its economic potential. It should be understood that this program was in addition to the subsidiary agreements already signed with the provinces.
According to the new Minister at the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the IRDP "is aimed at promoting regional industrial development by supporting private sector initiatives, and industries and techniques offering the best potential for economic viability, sustained growth and competitiveness on the international scene".
The Minister of State for Tourism will have to agree that our Canadian tourist industry has all those characteristics. It is an industry that generates major economic activity. I therefore find it strange that while the Government agrees that the tourist industry is important, it does nothing to help it. Worse, it has eliminated tourist projects from funding under federal programs.
I am quite aware that the Government has just signed a number of subsidiary agreements with several provinces-so much the better. But let us not be mistaken. First of all, these
agreements were going to be signed in any case, and second, they now represent the federal government's only contributions to the tourist industry.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Government decided to cut the Industrial and Regional Development Program even before signing agreements with all the provinces and territories. While these agreements were being negotiated, did the Minister suggest any development programs to the tourist industry? None whatsoever. The only announcement we have had are a number of measures that are having a very unfortunate impact on the tourist industry, and I will mention a few: the price of gas which now costs more per litre, considering the fact that 85 per cent of Canadians travel by car; a 15 per cent increase in ferry rates; forthcoming increases in VIA Rail rates, with reduction in service; admission fees to our national parks have tripled and there again, services have been reduced; and the 100 per cent increase in airport taxes, the increase in taxes on alcoholic beverages and the increase in wharfage fees in federal ports.
Contrary to what the Minister said, I do not think the tourist industry agrees with these cuts. In its enthusiasm for consultation, the Government should not forget to consult with the most important group of all: the tourist industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should boost the confidence of our tourist industry by giving it the means to develop its economic potential. The Industrial and Regional Development Program was one of those means.
In concluding, I would like to remind the Minister that before cutting programs, perhaps he should consider the short-and medium-term consequences the cuts announced by his Government will have on the tourist industry.
Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to questions put by the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on December 3 concerning the Government's decision to render tourism projects ineligible for grants under the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
[ Translation]
First of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his words of congratulations.

I want to assure Members of the House that the decision in no way changes the Government's view of the importance of tourism and its place in the over-all economy. In fact, it reflects our intention to reorient federal support for the tourism sector toward activities which would most benefit the national economy, while achieving better regional balance in our efforts.
February 11, 1985

As the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) stated in response to the relevant questions, we have determined that more effective and more regionally-sensitive tourism incentives can be delivered through tourism development sub-agreements with the various provinces and territories. In fact, we have agreements in place with Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. The last six agreements were put in place by the new PC Government in the 20 weeks since it has been sworn in.
The total value of the six agreements, which I signed, is $229 million. Most of that money will come from the federal Treasury. Indeed, I have signed more tourism agreements, worth more money, and with more provinces, than did the previous Liberal Government in the entire period it was in office. By contrast, in the entire period in which the tourism sector was eligible for IRDP grants,the previous Government spent less than $30 million on tourism IRD projects.
In conclusion, I would indicate that discussions with officials in other provinces and Yukon have begun, and we anticipate having agreements in place with every province and territory before the end of the fiscal year. I also want to assure Members that the Government is prepared to use additional federal-provincial or federal-territorial agreements and special programs to meet the specific industry development requirements in the regions.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question concerning prior consultation with the industry, I have been in continual contact with the industry representatives, including the board of the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the executive committee of the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, as well as with many other provincial bodies. In each case, the new tourism agreements have been explained and warmly received.
Given the amount of money which the federal Government is spending on tourism-many millions of dollars more than was spent by the previous Government-through sub-agreements in preference the IRDP arrangements, I am sure the Hon. Member will be eager to come into the House again to salute myself, the Prime Minister and the Government.
[ Translation]


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION A) YOUTH-BUDGETARY CUTS. (B) VALENTINE'S DAY CONFERENCE-REQUEST THAT STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity for debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mrs. Landry). At the time I held the position she holds now, and in my riding and elsewhere, people were wondering what a Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State does, whether it involved shorthand or what, and I am sure that now that she holds this position, the Hon. Member realizes that the Department of the Secretary of
Adjournment Debate
State is a fascinating one and that a lot of interesting things happen there.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, because on November 15 last year, I directed a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. McLean) who gave me a very unsatisfactory answer, and I am sure that his Parliamentary Secretary, with her customary verve and wit, will do a far better job than the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, on November 15 I asked the Secretary of State: Will young people be represented at the National Economic Summit, the Valentine's Day Conference which is to be held in Regina? Will the voice of young Canada be heard? I know, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself want the voice of Canada's youth to be heard. At the time, the Secretary of State, spouting his usual generalities, said: Yes, yes, yes. Do not worry, consultation is the hallmark of our Government!
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State certainly did not act on what he said in the House, because when the time came to cut the Student Loans Program, among other things, he did not consult our students, he did not consult our young people. When the time came to announce the Flora '85 challenge, we all know that the real challenge to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) was to avoid youth representatives who wanted to talk about the Summer Canada program. We all know that.
The very day she held her press conference, students, the Canadian Federation of Students and young people across the country said: We were never consulted. During her press conference, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said: I consulted with large corporations and they promised me
10,000	jobs this summer. The Minister of Employment and Immigration must have let emotion or enthusiasm for her own program get the better of her, because today, in the press, business is reported as saying: We never said that.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that since its coming into power, this Government has done nothing to reach out to this multitude of lonely souls which make up our Canadian youth.
We know that the role of the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Champagne) has become incredibly insignificant. As I was saying recently, in her professional career, she always played major roles, but now she only plays two-bit parts. It is quite obvious since no issue has yet been addressed in important Fields such as employment or post-secondary education. The Minister of State for Youth has no mandate.
As a responsible or senior Minister, the Secretary of State should ensure that the Minister of State for Youth can play her role fully. There will soon be an important conference, a national summit, attended supposedly by nearly 120 participants. As we speak Mr. Speaker, no representative of a youth group has yet been invited. This truly shows contempt for 30 per cent of our people, and I am certain that if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State has not realized it

February 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
already, she will immediately act to correct this situation. I am convinced that, with her sensitivity, she realizes that it is completely unfair to leave 30 per cent of the people out of this new consultation process.
Consequently, in the coming discussions . .. We realize that the Secretary of State is preparing something in secret. We can see that he is planning something unpleasant with provincial representatives with regard to established programs financing. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has announced that there will be cut-backs. Flowever, we know how much our post-secondary education system is underfinanced right now. It is not the right time to announce cutbacks, and if the Government is determined to do so, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more fat to cut. As you are very familiar with the financial state of the University of Sherbrooke, you must know that it would be impossible to reduce expenditures more than has already been done. Consequently, if the Minister of Finance has ordered the Secretary of State to prepare cut-backs for the next Budget, it is essential that those directly involved, the major users of these services, be consulted.
It is unfortunate, but ever since this Government took office, a significant segment of the population has been completely ignored, and 1 think it is utterly disappointing. "Consultation" is the latest buzz word we hear in every speech. Before election day, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) kept talking about generosity. Now the key word is consultation, and it does not take much probing to find out that it is not real consultation.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) told me in this Flouse that she had had consultations on municipal job creation projects for youths with, among others, the mayor of Gander, when in fact she should have consulted the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. I would not know to what extent the municipality of Gander is representative of Canada as a whole, but my colleague from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) called the mayor of his constituency and was told that no such program had ever been accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I am firmly convinced that, in the coming weeks and months, young Canadians will realize that this Government takes them for granted, ignores them altogether and makes them the victims of cutbacks, without consultations. I rest assured that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to give us a definite answer as to whether young observers will be in Regina and whether young people will take an active part in the economic summit. That is what I expect from the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that, competent as she is, she will give us straight answers.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank my hon. colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) for his kind words
with reference to me. I suggest that having held the portfolio of Secretary of State he has had good training, and I hope in a few years to be able to speak as eloquently as he does.
With respect to my concern about the problems faced by my Minister, the Secretary of State, it is my view that since he came to office he has already shown great interest and concern about the situation of the young, as regards more especially post-secondary education in Canada.
Concerning the reference to consultation, perhaps the Opposition Members should get their act together. At times they say that we consult too much, and at other times that we do not consult enough.
To answer more specifically the Hon. Member's question, 1 think that on November 15, the question was addressed specifically to the Secretary of State concerning his alleged lack of interest, especially on that day, concerning a student delegation visiting on Parliament Hill.
I would first like at this point to describe the circumstances surrounding that demonstration, to show the Minister's interest. The demonstration was held, like so many others throughout the Province, in relation with the work then being done by the Bovey Commission. The Ontario students had chosen November 15 because on that date the commissioners had intended to submit their report to the Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Hon. Bette Stephenson.
The students wanted to show that they were aware of the issues, that they were interested in a report that could have a considerable impact on them, and that they were concerned about the decisions that might come out of it. It was therefore strictly an Ontario demonstration.
However, 1 would like to add that the student organizations were greatly interested in the Canadian Government's role in the field of post-secondary education.
In that context, the Secretary of State met with the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students hardly a week before the demonstration to discuss with them federal support for post-secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot overemphasize the importance given to that consultation by the government and the Secretary of State. All ministers have agreed to consult regularly with the groups under their jurisdiction. Since his appointment in mid-September, the Secretary of State has already met a good number of representatives from the main user groups of his Department. I refer among others to the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Association of University Professors and the Canadian Association of Universities and Colleges.
Moreover, the Secretary of State has already met twice the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education and another meeting is scheduled for the near future in Ottawa, more specifically at the end of March. The purpose of those meetings is to discuss a few very important matters dealing with
February 11, 1985

assistance to education such as the financing of post-secondary education and the federal-provincial agreements on the use of official languages in education. In the opinion of Mr. McLean and his provincial colleagues, this is a useful dialogue, for it demonstrates the will of both levels of goverment to cooperate and consult, something which did not exist before.
Mr. Speaker, I have given these examples to show that the consultation process is definitely in motion. It should be
Adjournment Debate
emphasized that these exchanges of views are just starting, but that they will continue on a regular basis for the benefit of the Canadian people as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 12, 1985