Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):

Mr. Speaker, there has never been any harassment or anything of the sort vis-a-vis the commissioner or the Commission on Human Rights. A bill was proposed by this government, approved by parliament, and we set up the Human Rights Commission which has the full support of the government.

As to the specific case to which the hon. member refers, I suggest if he reads the text of the judgment he will find that it does not lead to the conclusion he has reached.

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):

Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue: it is somewhat supplementary to a question raised by the hon. member for St. John's East.

In view of the fact that the women squid jiggers in Newfoundland which were mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East are not in the situation of being wives working for husbands but are women squid jiggers doing exactly the same job as men squid jiggers, can the minister tell the House why it takes five months for his department to make a decision with respect to the work being done by these women when, in fact, the men squid jiggers merely have to fill out the forms to become eligible for unemployment insurance benefits?

Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows absolutely nothing about the subject. He does not know a great deal about what is going on in the nickel industry in Nickel Belt, but when he starts getting into the subject of squid jigging and the problems that surround these women with regard to the taxation aspect of their enterprises, he is really out of business.

I suggest to him, as I stated earlier, that my department, at the request of the Department of Employment and Immigration, is studying each individual case on its own merits. I met with these ladies, we discussed the matter and the mood was amicable. The problem is somewhat complicated and I can assure the hon. member, as I did the hon. member for St. John's East, that we are treating each case equitably and fairly and a decision will be rendered at an early date.

Oral Questions

Mr. Rodriguez:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister is trying to put a nasty piece of business on the backs of the women squid jiggers, and in view of the fact that after his meeting with these women the mood was anything but amicable, can the minister stand in this House-and I am not asking him about nickel in Nickel Belt-and say that these women will no longer be handled in the discriminatory manner in which his officials have been handling them for the past five months?

Mr. Abbott:

Mr. Speaker, what can one say in answer to that foolish question? We are not treating these women in a discriminatory fashion. I have already said this. These matters are complicated by the fact that we must operate within the law: a concept which the hon. member may not bother to understand.

If for instance, the women are squid fishing with their husbands on their husbands' boats, then by law they are not eligible for benefits. If by chance the women are receiving squid on shore and are drying them as surplus to the requirements of the men squid jiggers then they are not entitled by law. Each case, as I have suggested, must be examined. The matter has nothing to do with discrimination. I can assure the hon. member, whether he cares to believe me or not, that these cases are all being handled with complete fairness.

Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):

Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Communications. In light of recent reports that the Maclean-Hunter Cable TV Company has applied to the CRTC for approval of a monthly subscriber rate increase from $6 to $6.50, and in view of the fact that the rationale offered in the reports submitted with the application was that the company's net return from revenue had slipped from 19.3 per cent in 1976 to 18 per cent in 1978-still a rather good investment level, by any standard-would the minister advise this House if she feels that a breaking of the $6 ceilling for cable rates could in any way be justified?

Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must know that these questions are thoroughly examined by CRTC and that the CRTC examines revenues of cable companies or broadcasters to establish the rates that should be charged for the service. I am in no position to make a statement as to whether or not an increase of 50 cents per month, or even $1 or $2, is justified. The CRTC alone looks after these matters.

March 26, 1979

Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of State for Small Business. Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' statistics show the bankruptcy rate in Canada to be still on the increase. The department reported 1,981 bankruptcies for the month of January, 1979, compared to 1,587 for January, 1978. This represents a shocking increase of 24.8 per cent in the bankruptcy rate.

Considering that a large number of these bankruptcies, are small businesses that are not only being stifled by excessive and costly government intervention but are the victims of the gloom and doom and economic uncertainty brought about by the bankrupt economic policies of the federal government, will the minister take serious note of this drastic economic development and assure Canadian small businesses that measures will be taken to stem the spiralling rate of bankruptcies?

Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the gloom and doom and unsubstantiated rubbish which emanates from the opposition is probably the major cause for the lack of morale among small businessmen. Until the hon. member and others are prepared to tell us how many corporate formations took place in the last five years, the fact that bankruptcies are rising-while regrettable, under difficult circumstances-really does not tell the whole story.

It is true that there were more bankruptcies in the last two years than any of us would like to see. It is also a fact that over the past four or five years a great many more businesses have been created than in any previous five-year period. It is in those first five years that any business faces its greatest difficulties.

I think the hon. member should simply express his regret about those bankruptcies and not attempt to colour his remarks with editorial opinions about gloom and doom. I suggest that it is the gloom and doom emanating from his side of the House that is causing a lot of our problems in this country.

Mr. Darling:

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the gloom and doom is certainly very evident in the eyes of the Canadian public, and that this will be indicated when the next federal election is called.

The minister is aware, I am sure, that one of the serious problems is the fact that many of these small businesses are unable to secure financing at adequate rates. I know that the minister is very concerned about this, and I am wondering what he can do about getting money released under the Small Businesses Loans Act at special rates for these businessmen, because if they were able to get this money they would be able to stay afloat. I am wondering what the minister's position is on that proposal.

Mr. Abbott:

Mr. Speaker, thanks to modifications in the Small Businesses Loans Act, double the amount of loans were made in 1978 over 1977. The rate is increasing again this year and I expect that it will be double again by the end of 1979. The Federal Business Development Bank loaned over $600 million last year, which was well in excess of the money loaned the previous year.

I can assure the hon. member that the instruments of the government provided for small business in the way of loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Federal Business Development Bank Act are being taken up with great enthusiasm. There is a lot of optimism out there, contrary to the gloom and doom which the hon. member is trying to purvey.

* v *

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment). On Friday, the minister claimed that he did not want to put himself in the position of becoming the environment czar and having the responsibility for handling all pollution problems such as oil spills, threatened oil spills and similar occurrences threatening the environment.

Since care of the environment is the responsibility of his ministry, why does the minister want to shun that responsibility and pass it off to other ministers?

Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question very clearly last Friday. The hon. member knows what I said, that I did not want to be looked upon as the pollution czar in which, for example, I took over the regulatory functions for pollution control and environmental management of the Department of Transport, where I took over the environmental management of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources, or the regulatory environmental functions of the Ministry of Indian Affairs, and so on.

I made it very clear that I was happy enough as Minister of the Environment and being able to advise the various departments of government on the kinds of laws that they should pass which would be consistent with the environmental standards we would all like to see for this country. I do not think that I should be running every department of government.

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that he does not believe that in matters of pollution and matters affecting the environment, he should not have an overriding authority in connection with other ministries? If he is going to leave it to them, how can we be assured that other ministries will fulfil the environmental responsibilities which are basically his?

March 26, 1979

Mr. Marchand:

Mr. Speaker, by working with other government departments we give advice as to what we want by way of legislation. We do it that way. I think it is preferable to my taking over the whole regulatory function. For instance, the Department of Transport exercises control over aspects of pollution. In my opinion, it would be ridiculously cumbersome for me, as Minister of State for the Environment, to take over those kinds of powers. The regulatory functions relating to environmental matters, pollution control matters and transport should stay as they are.

I said I will make sure, as Minister of State for the Environment, that the kind of laws passed will be consistent with the objectives that we hold in the Department of the Environment.