1973-03-09

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF ANGLICAN, LUTHERAN, PRESBYTERIAN, ROMAN CATHOLIC AND UNITED CHURCH LEADERS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to indicate the presence in your gallery this morning of the national leaders of the Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Homan Catholic and United churches who have come here today to launch a national campaign of "Ten Days for World Development" in the belief that development both at home and abroad demands justice. Earlier this morning they met with the external affairs committee, and later they are going to meet a number of cabinet ministers. I am sure all hon. members of the House wish them well in this important undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on this almost spring day I have an announcement of some interest. I wish to announce that the federal government and the government of Quebec have agreed to a mutually advantageous administrative exchange of lands contained within the national capital region, almost entirely within Gatineau Park. The province of Quebec will transfer to the federal government approximately 12,500 wilderness acres it still holds within the western confines of the park. This will enable the National Capital Commission, which manages the park, to plan, control and administer the park as an entity from the standpoints of both recreation and conservation. Generally speaking, the western end of the park is being maintained as a wilderness area.
In exchange, for the transfer of this large acreage by the province of Quebec to the federal government we are transferring to Quebec the administration of some land in the southern end of the park adjacent to Hull, and some non-park land for rights of way and road widening. Altogether, the lands being transferred by the federal
government constitute some 255 acres of urban-related land.
The parcels of parkland being transferred to Quebec are to be used exclusively for educational, cultural, recreational and other purposes in the public interest. Quebec has agreed to declare Gatineau park a game reserve and to restrict mining exploration within the park.
I might add that this agreement I am announcing brings to a successful conclusion negotiations which I am informed have been proceeding on and off for a dozen years.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on this spring day I want to echo the feeling of complete acceptance of this agreement and to say how pleased we are to hear the minister's announcement. We have always felt that Gatineau Park was really a national park in the fullest sense of the word, although it is an adornment particularly to the national capital area. It is pleasing to us to hear that arrangements are being made to develop the park as it has been slated to be developed, under one jurisdiction. To put our feelings correctly, may I say that we greet this announcement with the same joy that we would greet an announcement that there had been successful negotiations with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with respect to the creation of a rapid transit system for the national capital area.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, if I may comment very briefly on the minister's announcement I should like to say it is certainly very pleasant to hear some good news from the minister.


An hon. Member:: For a change.


Barry Mather: The completion of this agreement between the federal and the Quebec authorities will without doubt result in administrative benefits for the new land areas concerned. I have some personal knowledge of the situation because I spend a good deal of time in the Gatineau area, and in my opinion this agreement will benefit all Canadians in time to come. The pity is as the minister has said, that has taken 10 to 12 years to complete the agreement. Now that it has been brought about we hope and expect it will result in ecological and recreational benefits and, hopefully, political benefits to the federal and Quebec authorities.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a statement such as this and to see the federal government and the government of Quebec agree on something for once. Unfortunately, I notice that Quebec is rather too big-hearted in exchanging 12,500 acres for 255. However, from the point of view of the National Capital
2058

March 9, 1973
Old Age Pensioners' Housing Commission, I think it is a good cause, one to defend and to respect, since there will always be a need for places where we can hold on to natural surroundings, which are at present escaping us bit by bit.
Again we congratulate the governments on having reached an agreement, even though it took them a mere 12 years to do so. We hope that future discussions between the federal government and the province of Quebec will not last 12 years.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a very imminent and urgent matter. Because of the injustice of the unemployment insurance regulations as they pertain to fishermen, resulting in many fishermen now being forced on welfare allowances two months before the start of the fishing season, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That an immediate change be made in the unemployment insurance regulations to bring fishermen's benefits more in line with regular benefits and that in lieu of a revised fishermen's plan an immediate amendment be made to the regulation so that the number of benefit weeks be equivalent to the number of qualifying weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


HOUSING
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to bring to the attention of the House a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because many owners of limited dividend projects are taking advantage of the proposed old age pension increases in order to raise rents in these projects and are citing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorization to raise rents in mid-lease, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) to order the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to cease authorizing rent increases within the terms of leases in force on January 1,1973.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent matter concerning municipalities in Canada that wish to benefit from the Local Initiatives Program. In view of the fact that a number of very important projects have been turned down because of poor co-ordination between the approval by provincial governments of municipal loan by-laws and the approval date for Local Initiatives projects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House study means of preventing very important projects, submitted as required by the Local Initiatives Program, from being turned down merely as a result of this technicality.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Portneuf. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, and so the hon. member's motion may not be put.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the American protectionist measures which threaten to worsen our economic situation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affair to analyze the impact on the Canadian economy of the American protectionist measures adopted in the last two years, and to suggest to this House possible means of counteracting those harmful consequences on the level of employment in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 9, 1973


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion therefore cannot be put.


PENITENTIARY ACT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-160, to amend the Penitentiary Act (religious freedom).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, under section 10 of the Penitentiary Act at the moment people who are employed as prison chaplains are in fact peace officers or policemen and are under the statutory authority of the warden and the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. The purpose of this bill is to reflect the view that it is inappropriate for a chaplain also to be a policeman and, accordingly, to provide that chaplains, while retaining all rights of access to penitentiaries and communications with inmates, shall not be employees as such under the Penitentiary Act, and thus be in a better position to fulfil their important role within a penitentiary.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. In light of the fact that the year to year increase, that is, from February, 1972, to February, 1973, in the consumer price index of 5.8 per cent is the highest in 22 years, is the government now prepared to announce and implement the contingency plan that the government says it has to deal with the serious problem of inflation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members would not wish their applause to be interpreted as meaning that they are in favour of an increase of that order in the consumer price index. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is now prepared, in light of this very substantial increase in the consumer
Oral Questions
price index, to convene a meeting with representatives of business and labour with a view to outlining the restraint targets the government considers essential to be achieved in light of this problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has the problem, of course, under very serious consideration. I think it is fortunate that the House decided to establish a committee to look in particular at the question of food because food accounts for a very large part of the increase in the cost of living. The government does not have plans at present to convene the sort of meeting that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. I do hope, however, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that everyone in the country will show restraint and will reflect in particular the big tax reductions that were made in the last budget in the prices that they are charging.


INFLATION-CONSENSUS AS TO EMERGENCY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the fact that the Food Prices Committee has been repeatedly told that food prices will continue to escalate, and in view of the fact that the minister or at least some of his cabinet colleagues have also repeatedly indicated that there is no national consensus that we are in an emergency situation in respect of the cost of living and general inflation in this country, may I ask the minister, first, how that decision respecting the so-called national consensus was arrived at, second, whether there is any change now in that national consensus and, third, if there is a change, would he agree that we are in an emergency situation in respect of inflation in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the decision whether there is such a consensus is a matter of judgment. Second, this decision was one that was arrived at obviously in the course of the government's consideration of the matter and it is continuously under review. Therefore, in view of what I have just said, I do not think that an appropriate answer can be given to the hon. member's third question.


FOOD PRICE INCREASES-INVESTIGATION OF COST TO CONSUMER OF ADVERTISING BUDGETS OF PACKERS AND DISTRIBUTORS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two supplementary questions for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, although I would have addressed them to the Minister of Finance if he were here. Is the minister looking into the question of the cost to the consumer of the immense advertising budgets of both the packers and distributors of food and into the necessary policies, particularly fiscal policies, that would reduce the amount that these corporations can deduct for income tax purposes, as an expense for advertising and promotion, which is a cost to the consumer?

March 9, 1973
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In my brief to the Food Prices Committee I said that the research branch of the combines section of the department had begun a study into the implications of advertising with respect to the concentration in various industries, including the food industry. This work has not yet been completed. Second, any comment on possible changes in fiscal policy would have to come from the Minister of Finance.


David Lewis: Any research under the combines legislation would, of course, be limited to certain questions about agreed prices, mergers and stuff of that sort. I am asking the minister whether his department is making a study outside the limited area of combines into the question and is going to propose some policies with regard to it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is no general study of the sort indicated by my hon. friend under way at the present time. However, I am constantly considering what further extension of the department's research work should be undertaken, and I am always happy to recommend to my colleagues in the cabinet what I consider to be appropriate changes in policy.


STUDY OF IMPACT OF INCREASED MEAT PRODUCT EXPORTS ON PRICES IN CANADA
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of information, particularly with respect to pork products, that there has been an increase in exports of those products to many countries, including Japan, and that the amount of exports of some other meat products has also increased. Is his department making a study, as I suggest it should, into the possible impact on prices in Canada of increased exports of products outside Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of situation which we have under continuous review. However, I would be pleased to make specific inquiries for the hon. member and to give him any information I have.


FOOD PRICE INCREASES-SUGGESTED INDICATION OF CEILING FOR 1973 BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the statement by the Grocery Distributors Institute that food prices will continue to increase and the fact that the association says, "We do know where it is going to end," will the minister tell the House and the Grocery Distributors Institute that the government has an idea of what reasonable price increases should be for 1973, that the government will take action to keep prices within some defined ceiling, and that the government will transmit this information to key sectors of the food industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in his budget statement the Minister of Finance indicated that one of the aims of the budget
was to reduce inflationary pressures on the economy, and I think that the effects of some of the reductions announced in the budget have already been indicated in press reports that are known to hon. members. I might add that so far as I am aware many of the proposals with regard to controls on prices, put forward by people in the party of the hon. member, seem to exclude any coverage of food products, which are concerning us all at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister where this leaves the people in the lower income group who cannot afford to eat bananas and grapefruit?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member for Drummond rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: No, Mr. Speaker, my question is about another subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member in a moment.


PRICE INCREASES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONDITIONS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT CONTINGENCY PLAN
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. In view of the government's frequent statements that the situation is not yet serious enough for it to consider implementing its contingency plan, would he indicate to the House now, or in a statement on motions, what conditions the government would recognize as being of sufficient seriousness to cause it to initiate its contingency plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would hope that this information would be given by way of a statement on motions rather than in reply to a question, but if the Acting Prime Minister wishes to reply briefly he will be recognized for that purpose.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it would not be the intention of the government to present such a statement to parliament. I am sure the hon. member would agree that it would be most unwise, if one were going to implement price and wage controls, to give any notice whatsoever of the government's intention.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the findings of the National Council of Welfare that many povertystrick-en families have to bring up children who are undersized, sick, disabled and prone to disease because of lack of

March 9, 1973

income for food, will the minister consider making moneys available under the Canada Assistance Plan, specifically to provide proper nutrition for low-income families?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member surely knows, funds under the Canada Assistance Plan are available for such purposes. The federal government pays half of the amounts which the provinces earmark for such a purpose and, in such a case, it belongs to the provincial governments to decide what kind of program they wish to implement to help needy children.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the minister a question about a program which is specifically federal. The National Council of Welfare has suggested that the best way of handling this problem is with a guaranteed minimum income for everybody across the country. Is the minister prepared to make such a recommendation to the House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position before the end of April to introduce in the House proposals respecting a comprehensive review of the Canada Assistance Plan and I am sure that, on that occasion, I will be in a position to tell the House what the government's position is on the whole matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Drummond and then recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi who I believe has a supplementary.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-REDUCTION BY QUEBEC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AFFAIRS-AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can the minister tell this House if he is aware of the fact that new old age pensioners are compelled to give back large amounts of money to the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, from their old age pension cheque which was already reduced by a certain amount for this purpose?
Marc Lalonde: I am not aware of this fact, Mr. Speaker, but as I said in the House yesterday, I hope that all provincial governments will respect the wishes of the House to increase benefits to older people and that provincial gov-
Oral Questions
ernments will not, at least for the current year, increase expenses they charge older people who fall under their jurisdiction at the present time.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
May I ask the minister if a formal agreement has been reached between the Quebec government and the federal government as regards the claims of the Department of Social Affairs, which recovers certain amounts from these people by deducting them from their old age pension cheques? Is there any kind of formal agreement in this regard?


Marc Lalonde: There is1 no agreement, formal or informal, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which has never been raised during the discussions I had in this regard with officials of the Quebec government.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Now that this matter has been brought to the minister's attention, is he prepared to look into it?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED PROVISION OF SCHOOL MEAL PROGRAM
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the finding of Nutrition Canada that one-fifth of the population, involving over two million of our young people, suffers from nutritional problems requiring medical attention, and in light of the escalation of food prices mentioned today, is the government going to launch a school meal program as recommended by the National Council of Welfare and, if so, are talks on this specific matter being entered into immediately?


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is certainly ahead of Nutrition Canada itself. Concerning the status of the study, publication of recommendations will start during the coming months. Actually, the study as a whole will be completed only in mid-October and I therefore feel that any factual statements should be delayed until findings have been compiled and made public.
As for the question put by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, it evidently comes within the scope of both social security and provincial educational programs. That question might be raised in the course of the meetings we are to have with the provinces in April.


POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS POWDERED MILK TO SCHOOLS-NEW FAMILY ALLOWANCE LEGISLATION
William Heward Grafftey: Is the government at last going to finance the distribution of surplus

March 9, 1973
Oral Questions
powdered milk to schools where children are suffering inexcusable malnutrition, and is the government now prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Oh, be quiet!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question.
are, is 50 per cent. Fourth, a very important meeting is actually scheduled for the end of April with the representatives of all provinces and I hope we can quickly reach an agreement so we can have a more adequate social security plan to meet the needs of the people of Canada.
*
* *


William Heward Grafftey: Is the government now preparing new family allowance legislation and, if so, will it be introduced immediately to help low income families in particular?


Marc Lalonde: The first part of the question does not, of course, come under my jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning the second question, I have already stated repeatedly in this House that the government intends to introduce during the present session a bill on family allowances and I hope that the opposition party to which the hon. member belongs will then support the bill.


William Heward Grafftey: In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, these questions are not asked with partisan overtones.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: It is my assumption, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister that nothing is going to be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I seek the co-operation of hon. members to limit, if possible, the number of supplementaries.


WELFARE PAYMENTS-SUGGESTED EMERGENCY MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS ON INCREASE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact the minister indicated, as reported in the press, that the amount of money paid to people on welfare is a national disgrace, and in view of the fact that a couple aged 64 are only getting $149 a month, would the minister now take the lead in calling an emergency meeting of welfare ministers to discuss this problem so that an increase in the cost sharing-program can be instituted?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that the article mentioned by the hon. member is not a press release. It is a comment that was made at the meeting with the representatives of certain Canadian labour unions. Second, the problem of poverty raised by the hon. member does not exist only for people of 60, 64 or 65, it is also found at all levels of the population. Third, the funds spent on welfare are determined by the provinces but the federal government's share of the costs, whatever they


AUTOMOBILES-SUGGESTED PROVISION BY MINISTER OF CORRECT INFORMATION TO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS IN VIEW OF STATEMENTS BY SENATOR HARTKE
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the allegations made by United States Senator Vance Hartke on the television program "Encounter" last night, in which some rather serious errors in fact were conveyed, would the minister convey to him and other American opinion leaders that United Automobile Workers wages in Canadian automobile plants are effectively at parity with those of workers in the United States, that vehicles made in the United States do in fact come into Canada duty free to Canadian automobile companies, and that foreign cars coming into Canada are subject to a duty rate of 15 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Barnett Jerome Danson: -compared with 3 per cent on those going into the United States?


Mr. Hees:: Say "yes".


An hon. Member:: Do you like to answer your own questions?


An hon. Member:: After all, the hon. member read it and the minister wrote it so perhaps the minister can say yes.


Barnett Jerome Danson: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York North rises on a point of order.


Barnett Jerome Danson: In spite of the allegations of the hon. gentlemen opposite we are quite capable of using our own minds on this side of the House and retaining our independence.


An hon. Member:: Explain!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North on a point of order.


Mr. Coates:: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might allow the minister to reply first.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked three questions alluding to the broadcast last night-


An hon. Member:: Read them again.
March 9, 1973


Alastair William Gillespie: On the last one, with respect to the question of tariff duties, he is accurate. On the second question he is accurate. I cannot, on the first point, confirm or deny the parity of wages between Canadian automobile workers and United States automobile workers. One reason for that is that there are a number of different plants in the United States and a number of different plants in Canada. It depends a great deal on where these judgments are made-


An hon. Member:: What about the weather?


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to say that there was so much that the senator said that was based on ignorance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The minister has the floor to reply to the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation here where an hon. member from Toronto has raised three questions. In essence he was asking the minister to convey to the senator that the statements he made were not in order. Perhaps Your Honour was not listening or was reading notes, with the greatest respect, received from members. But if the questions are read when Hansard appears it will be seen that the hon. member, instead of asking a question, made a representation and also an argument. The minister is obviously aware of the answers that are supposed to be placed on the record, as he is prepared with all the data. He had been going on for four or five minutes and this is going to take up about a third of the question period. I contend that because of such actions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: -members on this side of the House who wish to ask vital and important questions from day to day are not able to place them on the record. If members of the Liberal party are having trouble reaching the cabinet, I contend that is their problem and it should not be forced on us in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member rose a moment ago on a point of order. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. We could go on like this for a long time and not much would be gained. The point is that questions should be asked briefly. The hon. member asked a number of questions because, obviously, from the way the minister replied he recognized three questions in what the hon. member had said.


George Harris Hees: He recognized them because he wrote them.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's reply should be as brief as possible. I think the matter would have ended some
Oral Questions
minutes ago if we had allowed the minister to reply briefly.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say that there were so many statements made by the senator in his remarks last night that to answer them all would probably take more time than I have at my disposal. Nor can I, every time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alastair William Gillespie: -an irresponsible statement is made, answer it in a way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the minister please resume his seat? I suggest that it is certainly not competent for the minister to deny or confirm a statement made outside the House, and if this were the essence and purport of the hon. member's question I could hardly allow it. At the same time, if the Chair were to object to and not allow any question which is argumentative in tone, perhaps very few questions would be permitted during the question period.


DISPARITY IN CAR PRICES BETWEEN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the question asked by the hon. member for York North and the minister's reply, would he explain to the Canadian people rather than to American senator why, if all the things the hon. member for York North is saying are correct, Canadians are not able to purchase cars for the same price at which they are purchased in the United States? That is the important point.


George Harris Hees: There is no answer to that question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister, with other members of the House, is going to Viet Nam and as the decision regarding continued participation of Canadian forces in the control commission must be made before the end of this month, will the minister tell the House if he intends to submit the government's decision as to the continuance of Canadian participation to parliament for approval or disapproval after his return and before the end of the month?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my intention to submit the decision that the government will make to continue or to withdraw, provided, of course, that the House is in session, for debate in parliament, at which

March 9, 1973
Oral Questions
time members of all parties can express their views on whether or not they wish to support the decision of the government.


VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR FURTHER DEBATE ON MOTION ON ORDER PAPER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is prepared to give the House the assurance that he will bring back before the House the motion he introduced, I think on February 1, to which there were certain amendments proposed? Will the minister give us an assurance within what compass of time this motion will be brought back before the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to talk to my colleague, the House leader, but I would not recommend that this particular motion and the proposed amendment be brought before the House again. It had been our intention, when introducing this resolution, to have a debate on the merits or otherwise of the decision the government made to go in for 60 days. That debate served its purpose. There was no one who took exception. Then an amendment was proposed which would have required the government to submit, before it had made its decision, its recommendation to parliament. That, I do not think, is in accordance with the principles of good government or the principles under which this House operates. Therefore I do not intend to proceed with that debate. However, I am prepared to bring before the House the decision that the government makes, which I think is the orderly way of doing it established by precedent and one that my hon. friend would support if he were prime minister of Canada today.


REPRESENTATIONS BY GOVERNMENT AGAINST BURKE-HARTKE BILL
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question related to the earlier questions asked by the hon. member for York North. I do not have the questions before me, as the minister had. Apparently his writing is no better than mine, but the minister will not need to try to decipher my writing. What is the government doing in connection with the Burke-Hartke bill in the United States? What complaints, observations or reservations have been made by the minister concerning that portion of the bill that would put quotas on all United States imports and place heavy penalties on foreign investment? I will not ask these questions by enumerating them as one, two and three, for if so mine would be four, five and six.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, to answer the right hon. gentleman, on previous occasions I have told the House that we have made, on a government to government basis, our

views known on this particular piece of legislation. It is not a piece of legislation that we like in any way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in order that these views may be known, will the minister set before the House a summary of the views? After all, we cannot understand what the views were, and that is why I must ask these further questions. With the repeal of the foreign tax credit, or double taxation on foreign earnings, the result in Canada will be, as I understand it, a reduction of a large portion of the Canadian industrial labour force. What specific statement has the minister made in this connection to the United States government, when was the statement made, and what was the reaction of the American minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first reply, it was not one statement. There have been a number of representations with respect to this issue. There will continue to be representations with respect to this bill. I stated that we do not like it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not seem to be able to get any answers. When did the minister himself make any objection? We should like to know what he is doing, except sit. When was the last objection that he raised, and what were the particulars of that objection? That is a simple question.


George Harris Hees: Answer!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister is silent because he has not done so.


BURKE-HARTKE BILL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSITION TAKEN BY CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to place this matter properly before the House would the minister undertake, in view of the questions asked by the right hon. gentleman, at the next sitting of the House on motions and not during the question period to place before the House the formal position the government has taken and the variety of the views that the minister claims he has expressed on this particular bill?


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe this is going to be an ongoing series of discussions with the administration on a government to government basis, and I do not think any particular purpose would be served at the present time by following the hon. member's suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: What are you trying to hide?

March 9, 1973


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the alarming situation that exists regarding bankruptcies in Canada and the considerable losses that creditors and governments suffer and which have increased by $52 million as compared with 1970-71, would the minister say if the task force appointed to study the problem is fulfilling its role adequately because it seems that fraudulent bankruptcies are having more devastating effects than ever before and that manufacturers are becoming more and more the victims of that situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take that very interesting question as notice and I will be giving the hon. member an answer at a later date.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether flying rights from Canada to China have been given to any Canadian air carrier and, if so, to whom?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet ratified yesterday an air agreement with China. Canadian Pacific Airlines has been designated as the carrier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean Marchand: Canadian Pacific will fly from any point in Canada to Peking and Shanghai, probably with a stopover in Alaska.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to ask the minister why these rights were not given to Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Well, this is not a new practice. Usually the Pacific region is served by Canadian Pacific and Europe, generally, is served by Air Canada. So the decision was made in accordance with the traditional pattern.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES ROUTES TO EUROPE BE TRANSFERRED TO AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: My supplementary arises from the minister's answer. In view of the fact that Canadian Pacific Airlines has been granted landing rights in Europe and in view of the decision to grant to Canadian Pacific the right to fly to China, will the minis-
Oral Questions
ter undertake to terminate Canadian Pacific's landing rights in Europe and reserve all of Europe for Air Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the assignment of international routes to the two large Canadian carriers, CP Air and Air Canada, is being considered by the department and undoubtedly within a month or two we will try to clarify what seems a bit confusing in the assignment of routes between these two companies.


GRANTING OF PERMISSION TO INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS TO FLY DIRECTLY TO AND FROM TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has there been any development in connection with allowing some international air carriers to fly directly to and from Toronto International Airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the ratification of the agreement between China and Canada took place yesterday as did that between Germany and Canada. The company which will serve two new centres in Germany will be Air Canada and in return Lufthansa will have the right to land directly in Toronto.


BURKE-HARTKE BILL-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question addressed earlier to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the hon. gentleman advise the House when he last spoke to the United States Secretary of Commerce on the subject of the Burke-Hartke bill.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is in the interest of international relations to be giving this kind of information. I have explained on a number of occasions that discussions with respect to this issue and others of concern are going forward on a continuing basis. I can say that this week I discussed this very important subject with a senior official of the White House.

March 9, 1973
Oral Questions HOUSING


NEW PROGRAMS TO REDUCE COST
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the alarming increase in the cost of housing in Canada, is the minister in a position to announce any specific new programs designed to reduce the cost of new and rental housing for Canadians?


Stanley Ronald Basford: should like to proceed on an urgent basis with the passage of Bill C-133 and would hope to have the co-operation of the opposition in doing so. I shall have something to say on Monday in terms of dealing with the problems to which the hon. member has referred.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that, at the present rate of inflation, by the end of the century the cheapest new house in metropolitan Toronto will cost well in excess of a quarter of a million dollars-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -does the minister now feel that the situation has reached a state of emergency sufficient to justify a recommendation to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, that some form of compulsory guidelines or controls be applied to costs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The question of the cost of land in metropolitan Toronto is an extremely serious one. This is why I have proposed to parliament certain provisions related to land assembly. That is why I have obtained the support of Treasury Board and my colleagues in the government for substantial increases in money allotted to land assembly, and why I have called upon the provinces and municipalities to join with me in developing a national land development strategy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are three minutes left before the end of the question period. Hon. members will have noted that we have spent most of the question period on supplementaries, so we might as well finish on supplementaries.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: May I
direct a supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. I assume there is a probability that the rent of armed forces married quarters will be increased around April 1. Does the hon. gentleman not consider that this might be a good time to forgo any such increase in order to dampen general inflationary tendencies?


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I will take the hon. member's representation into consideration.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: In view of the fact that neither of the bills we shall be discussing in the House in the next week or so has any direct bearing on interest rates in the terms of reducing them significantly for the average Canadian, would the minister assure the House that before the end of the present session he will introduce a measure designed to bring interest rates on mortgages down to five or six per cent?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Any announcement with regard to the introduction of new policies and new legislation will, of course, be made at the appropriate time. The effort of the government in terms of subsidized interest rates and subsidized housing is directed to those who are most in need, on a rent to income basis.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to a previous question. Since the minister has made it quite clear to the House that it is not the intention of the government to consult parliament before the final decision is made on Canada's presence in Viet Nam, can the hon. gentleman tell us what is the purpose of inviting members of the House of Commons to go to Viet Nam when the information they might acquire cannot be used?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since I have announced that I do intend to bring the decision before parliament for debate, I think it would be very useful if there were present, from the Conservative party, a representative who could ascertain the facts and not be dependent entirely on what the government tells him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the hon. gentleman inquired into reports that fertilizer companies are deliberately withholding supplies to farmers in anticipation of higher prices, and that their desire is to fill export orders rather than meet the needs of Canadian farmers?

March 9, 1973


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: All I can
say in answer to that question is that such a situation has not been brought to my attention. On the other hand, it has been brought to my attention that more deliveries of fertilizer have been made to farmers than for many years, at this time of year, and that the prices have not been exorbitant. If the hon. member has any evidence in support of his statement, I would be glad to have it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Several days ago I asked the minister a question regarding a work to rule situation in Vancouver involving Canadian National yardmen which had the potential of slowing down movement of commodities such as grain through that port. The minister said he would report to the House or answer the question at a future date as to what progress has been made in terms of an inquiry into this serious labour dispute.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as the labour dispute is concerned, I would ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to answer the question.


William George Knight: Then, may I direct the question to the Minister of Labour, if I can get his attention. In view of the work to rule situation in the port of Vancouver involving CNR yardmen, which could have a serious effect on the movement of commodities through that port, can the Minister of Labour give the House any progress report in terms of an inquiry into this situation?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that the situation had eased and this the practice was not going on at the present time. That was as of a few days ago, but I will doublecheck the situation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and relates to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In view of the fact that the CBC is cancelling a program that is par excellence for young children, and in view of the fact that we in the west consider the program to be very helpful in teaching young children the very fundamentals of and love for a second language, would the minister tell the House if he plans to intercede on behalf of the many Canadian families, especially mothers of young children, who appreciate the program "Chez Helene"?
Oral Questions


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to make that representation known to the CBC and get their reply.


William George Knight: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, I felt as the sun would feel when it goes behind a mountain. I wonder whether I could ask the minister a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Middlesex first and then try to have other supplemen-taries before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Middlesex.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I must have been leaning toward the hon. member for Middlesex since I am in fact the hon. member for Hastings.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hastings.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. There are those of us in the back rows who are also getting a little fed up with supplementaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Raymond Ellis: In light of yet another accident on the mainline CNR tracks between Belleville and Montreal, and being aware that slow orders and increased security have been ordered on this line, can the minister assure the House and the travelling public that all precautions have been taken to ensure the safety of citizens travelling by train in this area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. Traveller safety is certainly an important issue. As we know, in Montreal, a locomotive has hit a grubbing machine. There was one dead and a few wounded. We are inquiring to see if there was negligence. We will surely try to correct any mistake.


ALLEGED SLOWDOWN BY VANCOUVER YARD CREWS- EFFECT ON GRAIN MOVEMENT
William George Knight: In putting my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, since the two ministers are sitting in such close proximity to each other I hope they will be able to decide which one will answer. In view of the fact that the joint council representing the Vancouver area railway workers, numbering some 2,500, have sent telegrams to the Minister of Transport expressing serious concern about the fact that there has been no progress report on the inquiry into this situation, I wonder whether one or other of the ministers would answer the question?

March 9, 1973
Oral Questions


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would give me an opportunity to check into the present status of the situation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I have already discussed it with him and have raised the issue under Standing Order 43. I now raise it during the question period because of the urgency. In view of the fact only two months are left in the season and the fishermen have run out of benefits under the regulations, would the minister give serious consideration to making a statement on motions early next week informing us whether he will accept equating the benefit period with the qualifying period in order to prevent them from having to go on the welfare lines in the next eight weeks?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the hon. member advising me of this the other day, along with my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I am examining the matter sympathetically to see what we can do under the circumstances.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet might I answer a question I took notice of yesterday, asked by the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin who was concerned about the effect of the closing down of the plant at Ocean Falls.
With regard to the closure of the Crown Zellerback plant at Ocean Falls, which unfortunately affected some 325 workers and other persons in the community, we were successful in establishing a joint labour-management committee under the auspices of the manpower consultative service. As of March 8, 1973, there were 150 persons of the 325 still be be relocated. With the exception of only 33, most will be placed in other plants of the company and with other employers while some will accept retirement. A team of my officers, together with members of the consultative committee will be in Ocean Falls next week to arrange acceptable solutions for the remaining 33. We do not anticipate any real problems in relocating this group, although some time will be required to finish it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last June the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications recommended that all rail passenger services which were discontinued on November 1, 1970, in southwestern Ontario be re-established immediately and, second, that a joint study group of federal, provincial and municipal officials and railway employees be established to determine a minimum rail passenger network at the lowest possible cost. This unanimous recommendation to parliament was signed by 20 members almost nine months ago. When is the minister going to take action on this matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this matter is not one over which the federal government and the Department of Transport have exclusive jurisdiction. It also concerns the Ontario government and the city of Toronto. I know the hon. opposition members have a great deal of respect for provincial autonomy and they will understand these projects can only be undertaken with the interested parties. This is what I intend to do not only in the light of the committee report but also on the basis of the Soberman report and others which were made on transportation in greater Toronto and southern Ontario.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON FEDERAL APPROVAL OF WORKS CONSTRUCTED ON NAVIGABLE RIVERS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises from statements he made in the House on Wednesday of this week. I should like to know whether it is the position of the government that, according to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, section 5, construction of all bridges and dams on navigable rivers in the James Bay area requires the authorization of the federal government? If so, has this been communicated to the government of Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I gave on Wednesday would be the same if I had to answer again.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of
the minister's stated uncertainty at that time about federal jurisdiction regarding the Navigable Waters Protection Act, particularly since the federal government approved an application by the government of Quebec for a bridge across the Bell River at Matagami on January 28, 1971, is the minister aware that the James Bay Development Cor-
March 9, 1973

poration has awarded contracts for 12 bridges since that date, and can the minister say whether these projects have yet received similar federal approval?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the question put to me was about the possibility for the federal government to stop the construction of certain bridges in the James Bay area.
As for the private companies and individuals who want to build bridges, there is no doubt about this being under federal jurisdiction, if they are to be erected over waterways. It is less obvious when a provincial government is concerned. In the case of the James Bay area, there has been no protest, and I will inquire if a report has really been submitted to the department on that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day perhaps the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix to try to establish some kind of balance.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. I feel like saying a few words on this because since the beginning of the question period I keep rising and sitting down. However, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Could he say whether he intends to take procedures in order to clear his colleague, the hon. member for Lachine, from charges of malversation between him, the United Nurses Association Inc., and his friends, Messrs. Taylor and Fisher?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General, may I say first that this matter certainly does not come under the jurisdiction of the Solicitor General's department.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member as I did not want to intrude upon the question period with this point of order, but I would really like to correct something said yesterday by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) during his speech. He said of me that when I was younger I was a member of the Liberal party, then I went into the NDP and he expected I would eventually wind up in the Creditiste party. I had the opportunity of saying I had never been a member of the NDP, and I would have remained quiet about the allegation or the prediction about the Social Credit party, but enough is enough. I hereby solemnly declare I have never been a member of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Standing Orders and Procedure


An hon. Member:: That is very reassuring.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member for making that allegation. It is obvious that members of the Liberal party are just as happy as members of the NDP that he has never been a member of either party.


Mr. Muir:: It is all one party; a coalition.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be authorized to consider the Standing Orders of the House and procedure in both the House and its Committees with special regard to all the matters that Mr. Speaker suggested during the Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth Parliaments that may require the consideration of the said Committee, and to report to the House its views on any facets thereof that may require reform and to recommend what manner of reform may be required;
And that the Committee be authorized to travel outside of Canada during consideration of the aforementioned subject.
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like today, as a result of a previous agreement, to continue and conclude the speech which I began on March 7 concerning the Standing Orders and the procedure governing us as well as the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) aimed at enabling the Committee on Procedure and Organization to carry out its review of our Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of my speech on Wednesday last, I explained rather briefly why we are dissatisfied with such and such a point and I raised, as you know, some special problems.
I would like, since I have that opportunity, to conclude my speech by making some specific proposals. As for the oral question period, Mr. Speaker, we are embittered and frustrated, not because we do not get the floor, even if on some days we get it more often than on others. Speaker, the matter is beyond your control, since you have to deal with the influx of supplementaries.
Mr. Speaker, some colleagues wanted the oral question period to be extended. We believe that a 40-minute period is sufficient, provided it is well used. Even if we had an 80-minute oral question period, it would still be 80 minutes of clowning of we do not change the procedure.
Mr. Speaker, if we stick to the same method during the oral question period, and extend it, it will be 80 minutes of torture for you and for us. I believe we should consider, in the Committee on Procedure and Organization, serious

March 9, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure
reforms as to the proceedure during the oral question period.
During the meetings held by the Committee on Procedure and Organization and during that trip to Westminster, it was often proposed to proceed from now as follows: any member wishing to ask an oral question would give notice of it to the minister concerned who could thus reply in a more serious way. On the one hand, it would improve answers and the political aspect of our question period would be removed, while on the other hand, it would inable the Chair to put aside questions that lead to clowning, waste time or have but one reason, namely to get the member's name in Handsard. At any event, we are ready to consider most seriously the proposal concerning notices during the oral question period.
But we shall be more watchful in connection with the famous supplementary questions. Mr. Speaker, after a serious examination of the result of the oral question period, we have come to the conclusion-and we have statistics in support of that-that more time is given during the 40-minute oral question period to supplementary questions than to first questions.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that hon. members should be responsible enough to recognize the need to abolish, and I repeat abolish, the practice of supplementary questions.
We propose that a member be allowed to ask a question and even a supplementary to his own question. Then, another member could be recognized, but not under the pretext of asking a supplementary question.
Mr. Speaker, that is our position. Of course we don't have your experience and knowledge although we would like to very much, but in spite of our shortcomings in that regard, we intend to fight in all sincerity to put a stop to supplementary questions.
What happens? It happened today, it happened yesterday, it happens every day; there is an oral questions period.
Mr. Speaker, that is why we hate that period. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) rises to ask a question and then 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 backbenchers want to take the opportunity to ask supplementaries. If a serious examination is made, which I hope the committee will do, not only of the number but also of the content of these questions, one will note that very often their content has no relation to the initial question and as the question period progresses, the further the final supplementary is from the initial subject; as Speaker, you cannot refuse to recognize a member. The backbenchers who have a question on another subject cannot put it since the Chair must deal exhaustively with a matter before going on to another one.
Mr. Speaker, our suggestion comes to this: First, the question period is long enough as it is; second, an equal distribution of time between opposition parties must be made on the first round. We do not accept and we will not accept, Mr. Speaker, to go on putting up with the same ridiculous system under which the first question asked by the Speaker of our party practically comes at the end of

the first half of the oral question period, and this because of the supplementaries.
This situation is injust and antiparliamentary in that it does not equally respect the rights of each party on the first round. As for the first round, we seriously consider that the party leader or his delegate should be allowed to ask a first question, and then that a maximum of two or three supplementaries be asked on the subject. Thus, members of our party would be more quickly recognized. Then, Mr. Speaker, no supplementaries should be allowed from anyone other than the member who asked the question initially and only one supplementary should be granted if the member deems it necessary.
Since any procedural reform is made on an experimental basis-we must admit it since the House rules are continuously revised-this formula should be voluntarily accepted and made part of the rules so that the Chair will no longer have to do the thankless task of exhausting a subject before going on to another.
If hon. members were not so respectful of the Chair surely all those who are in our situation, and there are many, would protest. Everyone knows that those critics are not aimed at the Chair but at the system which turned the question period into a joke for the public in the House at that time and into a shame for the Chair because it is caught in this situation. I am saying it because your politeness and dignity will keep you from saying so, Mr. Speaker; it is our duty to say so ourselves and for the hon. members it is a source of continued and daily frustrations.
I sincerely hope, in the name of my party, that the proposal to eliminate the supplementary questions will be seriously examined to give new value to the question period which fundamentally is an excellent initiative based on excellent principles in that sense that current questions are raised daily and thus the government has to take position every day on his actions as a government, and it enables the opposition to check on those actions and to get information.
I think that with the implementation of Standing Order 39(5), which permits the Speaker to order that non-urgent questions be put on the order paper, we can have again question periods worthy of the name.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in connection again with Standing Order 43 I stated in my speech of last Wednesday that it was abnormal that the Chair be required to get involved to accept or reject a motion under section 26 because under this seciton it is incumbent on the Chair, which has been given notice, to decide as to the national importance or urgency of a question. I think that if Mr. Speaker is requested, under Standing Orders, to get involved and rule on the urgency of a question, I do not see why the other members, when they refuse their unanimous consent under Standing Order 43, should not have also to identify themselves and to get involved as the Chair does under Standing Order 26.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we would really move in the direction anticipated when we tried to amend Standing Order 26. Therefore, we are suggesting that each time fewer than five hon. members refuse unanimous consent, they be identified in order to clarify the official report of the
March 9, 1973

House of Commons, and that those who hide behind anonymity to refuse leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43 from now on be compelled to take their responsibilities and to identifythemselves, as the Chair does with such dignity and ability when making a decision on a motion moved under Standing Order 26.
Mr. Speaker, in this debate I wanted to make another remark: since entering the House in 1968, I have been trying to take interest in the procedure of the House of Commons, to learn the Standing Orders as much as I can. However, the task is not easy. The reason is that the documentation concerning the procedure is published in English.
Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms available for our guidance is an outdated book. The only decent book on the subject is the last edition of May's Parliamentary Practice, published in 1971. Now, that edition is exclusively in English.
Mr. Speaker, the government having one day recognized the right of each hon. member to speak in the House in his mother tongue, the importance of providing simultaneous translation and of publishing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons as well as the Parliamentary Rules and Forms in French, I consider that it would be sensible for the House of Commons, even at the price of increasing its budget, which should be recommended by the Committee on Procedure and Organization, to have the last edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice translated into French, in order to prevent the French-speaking hon. members from being caught off guard when it is a matter of knowing about precedents. That would be a positive step which would allow all hon. members, whatever their language may be, to really understand those citations.
I would like to make another suggestion concerning the work of committees. In the speech he made the President of the Privy Council quoted very interesting figures-even surprising figures-to illistrate a comparison between the work of committees and the work of the House. It is found that the work of parliamentary committees increases from one session to the other to the point of becoming a nightmare for all parties and all members.
We have looked into the matter. We met, studied the problem and came up with certain findings. First, committee meetings should not be held when the House is sitting. That means that it would be suitable for the Committee on Procedure and Organization-since its terms of reference are rather broad-to consider the possibility of scheduling the week differently in order to allow the same subject matter to be examined in committee and in the House at two different times.
We would also like to make another suggestion to give the House more time and allow hon. members who wish to introduce a bill or a motion to really participate in the business of the House. We know that at the present time private members' hour comes up four times a week and after the total of 40 hours has been reached there are only two hours a week after that on Thursdays and Fridays. We would like to propose that private members hour be abolished during the week in order to allow the House to devote more time to its business; furthermore, we would
Standing Orders and Procedure
like to have Fridays-except for the question period- devoted exclusively to private members' business.
So a good many hon. members could devote Fridays to their private affairs. On the other hand, hon. members who live far away could spend more time with constituents in their ridings, whereas they now have very little time to meet people, what with travelling back and forth between Ottawa and their residence. Hon. members who are not directly interested in private members' business could do what they what during that day as these motions are normally not put to the vote.
A third proposal concerning private members' business or committee work is that-especially when the government is in minority-the government could do much more work more quickly in the Committee of the Whole, even if the rules of the House must be changed, because it would be given more work. Let us change the rules of the House while giving the Committee of the Whole the opportunity to play a more efficient part in the House.
For some years we have tended increasingly to keep the parliamentary committees busy. The speech of the President of the Privy Council contains ample proof of this. I wonder why we could not, not necessarily put an end to committee work, but pick out certain very important bills from the government's list so that they can come before the House of Commons more quickly.
The advantage of a Committee of the Whole over a parliamentary committee is that all the latter can do is to approve a bill, hear evidence and then approve the decision of the House. It can amend a bill, but this happen very seldom. When a committee has reported and recommended that the bill be passed, the House of Commons has to study the bill all over again. A Committee of the Whole has the advantage of cutting out one whole stage. Clauses of a bill are studied and approved simultaneously, the report is made, and that is that.
I think that, in view of how important it is to speed up our proceedings, we should certainly look into the possibility of doing more as the Committee of the Whole.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in order to increase efficiency and improve individual members' contributions, the government should previously, as early on as possible, supply a list of the bills it intends to table at the opening of a session. The government should, in my opinion, give us a list of bills that they are ready to table, prior to each session; that would enable members to carry out research in their own time rather than in haste, and to prepare well-documented speeches rather than well-padded ones, and would thus improve the quality of debates. It seems to me only right that members should have copies of bills sooner in advance than at present, when a day or two is the rule.
These bills could then be put in order of priority and, under an agreement between House leaders, I believe that our proceedings could be speeded up, according to the experience we would have had.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks that I wished to make. My last point relates to a reform that has been made in the British Parliament. In the British House of

March 9, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure Commons, it is understood that second reading of a bill should not last more than a day, unless the House decides otherwise. This is not laid down in the rules of the House, but in view of the pressure of parliamentary business today, the principle has the mutual agreement of the government and opposition parties. It is one of the conventions or "gentlemen's agreements" governing the schedule of parliamentary debates. I wonder whether it might not be appropriate to try or adopt a similar policy in this House, namely to shorten consideration on second reading since, at any rate, one can see that in view of increased parliamentary business in committees, second reading of a bill has become of minor importance and is almost a formal procedure.
As the work done in parliamentary committees has been increased and that it is also intended to increase the work of the Committee of the Whole-this is obvious since the beginning of the present session-I wonder whether it might not be appropriate to come to a mutual agreement in order to cut down the time devoted to consideration of a bill on second reading to one day, for instance, so that there will not be any duplication.
What disappoints me most, Mr. Speaker, in this House, is the fact that we are constantly doing the same work. First reading of a bill is a formal procedure, second reading is a waste of time; consideration in Committee of the Whole or in a parliamentary committee must still be done. Our approach is piecemeal. We hear witnesses and then we make a thorough study of the question. At the report stage the House of Commons does over again from the beginning the study of the bill made at the committee level. Hon. members who were on the committee again take the floor. Then, after the report stage, the third reading is the most important step because it is final. Therefore, I do not see why the other parties could not do as we do and agree to reduce to one day the time spent on second reading so as to save more time.
We should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that each member had been elected according to a democratic process, to work efficiently. Moreover, we should not forget that the rules and procedure are nothing more than tools and not an end in themselves and that a tool is useful only to the extent that we use it to our advantage. We are not here to serve the rules; indeed, the rules must be our servant.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, this party is prepared to co-operate at any time to facilitate the business of the House, to make it more efficient, more modern and more active; but we also expect the other opposition and government parties to be more serious when they study the procedures so that each member be entitled to give his own views and that the House not be crippled by protracted debates.
I know that we will reach that objective, Mr. Speaker, if we show some willingness. Then we will have some results if we make a special effort with respect to the oral question period, a matter which happens to be the central issue right now.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say again that our fight will bear on the oral question period and that we will certainly urge very strongly that supplementary questions be abolished.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you must be delighted to be listening to a debate this Friday afternoon on a matter as dear to your heart as the rules and proceedings of this House. It will give you a great deal to ruminate about, I hope, in the course of what I hope will be a relaxing and pleasant weekend.
The comments that have been made so far on Wednesday, and again today, have contributed I think a great number of positive suggestions which, I am sure, will be seriously considered by the committee and, I trust, as well by all members of the House. I think is has become transparently obvious in a little more than the two months that parliament has been sitting that we have some particularly difficult problems to grapple with in terms of the effective procedures of this House.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), when he was speaking in opening the debate on Wednesday made two comments that he had heard when visiting parliament at Westminster. He said that over and over again those who were commenting on the situation with regard to the procedures of the British House of Commons said that they had discovered two things: one is that there were only 365 days in the year, and second, that after a certain amount of discussion enough was enough. I think that that is something with which all members would agree, but how we resolve the many intricate questions that balance off the competing interests and necessary requirements for this parliament is a most difficult exercise.
As the President of the Privy Council remarked, we are getting into an increasing progression of examinations with respect to the procedures of the House. I think he said that in the first 30 years of this parliament back in the last century there was really no re-examination of the basic rules that had been established, but that with greater and greater frequency up until the past decade we have examined and re-examined the rules of the House.
I do not think that this should concern us, and certainly it does not concern me. In fact, I would be disturbed if it were otherwise. I am, after all, a Progressive Conservative and perhaps, if I may say this without any particular label being attached to it, I think the approach one must take in examining the rules is a progressive and a conservative one. I believe there are basic elements which quite obviously must be conserved in the functioning of the House and in the protection that it affords to individuals as well as to the total society of this country. I think we have to recognize increasingly that parliament is faced with a vastly changing and, might I say, an accelerating change of situation with respect to our responsibilities and with respect to the country which we seek to serve.
I will not spend long talking about how we should deal with estimates, but I think it is important to realize how difficult this can be. If I remember correctly, the strong feeling that came from many members of the House when we decided to make a major change in our rules was that the debates that had taken place, literally since the beginning in the House, on estimates were increasingly being frustrated by the fact that when we were dealing with the estimates of expenditures of a particular department the debates often tended to fly off in all directions. For one

March 9, 1973

reason or another, because of either a member's particular constituency interests or some momentary distraction, essential questions and essential information with respect to a government department was not adequately dealt with. I say this regardless of which government happened to be in power at any particular time.
There was a sense of real frustration for Members of Parliament generally, and I think for the general public, that we were really not getting into the departments in a detailed way, that we were not probing to a sufficient extent so that the fullest possible amount of public stewardship could be exercised with respect to government expenditures. Therefore a majority decision was taken. The decision was taken to move the examination of the estimates from the Committee of the Whole into a growing number of standing committees. It was felt that there Members of Parliament would be free, not just for one or two hours, but literally for days and weeks, to examine not only the ministers-and ministers of course are fundamentally responsible-but all of the battery of officials who have such an important role to play in the administration of government business. From a theoretical standpoint I do not think anybody could seriously question that decision. But what has been the result in practice? It has been twofold.
In the first instance, there has been a tremendous number of committee meetings. There has been a tremendous increase at least in the amount of information put on the record. We might well ask whether or not the way in which that information has been presented, and the completeness of that information, would still be regarded as sufficient. I personally feel, from the time I have spent on a variety of standing committees, that there is still much room for improvement in the eliciting and the presentation of detailed information in committees. But further than that, we have found two structural problems. First since we have not yet arrived at a systematic arrangement for committees within the last few years we have found that the way in which committees have been examining estimates has been very erratic, to say the least.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, I think of the meeting that took place last year of the Committee on Health and Welfare, which is the committee also responsible for examining the estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. How those two are connected is somewhat of a mystery to me, but I suppose it results from the fact that our standing committees still do not match the various departments of government.
As a result of our having gone in a thorough manner through previous estimates under the health and welfare umbrella, we were then faced with the necessity of processing the estimates of the whole Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs within a matter of hours, with just the briefest and skimpiest kind of examination. As I recall it, the minister made an opening statement. There was little more than one hour left in which a few questions could be asked and then, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) himself suggested, the guillotine fell because under our rules, once we reach the end of May, all estimates are considered to have been passed by the committees. I think all hon. members will agree that that is a most unsatisfactory, in fact I would
Standing Orders and Procedure
say most irresponsible, way for use to deal with a basic responsibility, namely, our stewardship of the public purse.
Further to that, the usefulness which parliament achieved over the years, going well back into the last century, of being able to exercise final control over the expenditure of public money by its granting of supply, has well nigh been lost under our present rules arrangement. I think it is clear to all members of the House that we will have to look very closely at, and deal much more effectively with, the whole question of the granting of supply and the final right of parliament to grant supply, because if there is anything we can seriously criticize in the most recent rules revision it is the fact that parliament was emasculated with respect to its control over the expenditure of public funds. I think all hon. members will have to ensure that, when rules and recommendations come from the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, this serious fault in the present rules is corrected.
I have risen today, Mr. Speaker, not to speak principally about the difficulty with estimates but to put before you the problems that have arisen with respect to the growing pre-occupation with the effective functioning of the question period. I do this because I have long been a devotee of the question period, as you will recall, Sir. You, Sir, may be somewhat disappointed by the fact that I have not been nearly as active in seeking Your Honour's eye in this session as I have in previous sessions, although it may be that you are not so disappointed. In fact, I know that some of my colleagues to my left and even to my right are somewhat pleased that I have chosen to contribute one less body to the daily forest of figures attempting to engage Your Honour's attention. However, we have gotten into a very serious situation with the question period. I, for one, am extremely glad that we will shortly give the question period very effective scrutiny in this committee and, I presume, at a later date in a more general way in this House, when that committee makes its recommendations.
The President of the Privy Council, when he was speaking on Wednesday and dealing with this same problem, expressed concern about the way in which questions and answers had stopped being questions and answers, and had moved more towards being mini-debates or, to use my own phrase, had become more of a form of political posturing on one side of the chamber or the other. I think that his concern about this is valid. I think he would agree with me that all questions and answers, because of the very nature of this place, will carry a political edge with them. If they do not, then the individuals who are providing one or the other are really not effectively fulfilling their function. But I am more than a little concerned that the President of the Privy Council feels that a simple extension of the question period will not alone be a sufficient remedy. Putting it just in those terms there may be some validity to his concern, and I notice that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) made somewhat the same comment. But I think we have to recognize a physical situation when it exists.
In the adjustment of our rules during the last ten years we have moved to restrict increasingly the time of the

March 9, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure question period. Question periods, in a way, are the thermometer of parliament itself. Question periods get to be contentious, disputatious, active, vibrant simply because parliament, in any general political situation, is itself of that nature. It would be the strangest possible world indeed if we were to have, in the present particular situation, a question period where, after ten, 15 or 20 minutes, it was decided to go on to other business. The wonder may well be, given our present situation, that there are not more people either attempting to ask or answer questions during that period. It is a well known fact that in the last parliament, which had 50 less members on the opposition side, there was hardly a time, certainly within my memory during those three or four years, when we reached the end of the question period that Your Honour was still not trying to recognize about half a dozen members seeking to be recognized for the purpose of asking questions.
Now, we are in a situation where the opposition side has grown by 50 per cent. Indeed, I would argue in a de facto sense that it has grown by 100 per cent. It is not only that there are 50 more members to Your Honour's left in this parliament but it is also true that the attendance and concern for recognition, both combined, have grown by at least another 50 per cent to 100 per cent. We know, when it comes to the matter of voting, that we have achieved some unusually high voting figures during the first two months of this parliament. Perhaps we will not see soon again the 95 per cent batting average that we have recently displayed with respect to vote participation, but that same kind of participation has been and is a factor in the day to day question period.
We all know that this particular parliament is fragile and quite likely will be short lived. And members, whether they are new members, of whom we have roughly 100, or whether they are veterans of more than one parliament, realize there will be a very short space between the election of last fall and the next election in the close, foreseeable future. Therefore, no matter how long the question period is, it still will not be long enough. But that is not just the sole question. I think we will have to achieve an acceptable length of question period that can be adjusted somewhat depending on the realities of any particular parliament. Certainly, the reality of this parliament is that 40 minutes are not long enough, and I do not see that much of an argument can be made on either side of the House that 40 minutes should be long enough.
How should we do it? I think, quite frankly, that on an average basis the question period should last 60 minutes. I hope Your Honour will not shudder at the thought of having to put up with that. As a member of the opposition,
I want to say to Your Honour that I appreciate the way that at times you have been able not to see the clock. Today, you were kind enough to extend that brief period at the sufferance of all members so that individual members could be recognized, but I do not want to put Your Honour in the difficult position of having to make that kind of subjective decision too frequently. I do not think, however, that we should lose the virtue, and I believe there was some element of virtue in it, of what was in existence in this parliament for almost the first 90 years when there was no time limit on question period.

Lest hon. members believe that I am now going to argue for a unlimited question period, I am not. We need an equitable time which I regard as one hour, but I think that parliament has to be able to adapt to the realities of its political situation and there should be an additional safety valve to allow for this. I propose that on occasion, perhaps a designated day of the week, when at the end of the question period an hon. member requests additional time, if ten members stand to concur with this request, then additional time should be granted. I do not know how radical this will seem to some of my more conservative friends or how conservative to some of my more progressive friends, but I suggest that more flexibility must be built into the question period.
Some members may argue that the question period is already too great a part of the parliamentary day. To them I would point out that at the present time it occupies something like 12 per cent of the day, and 75 per cent or 85 per cent is left for other things such as government business. If we are looking for some greater sense of discipline and stewardship in the use of time, we should consider seriously suggestions such as that made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) about unlimited time for almost everything else. There is no coming to grips on such things as say, the time of debates to establish parliamentary committees, one of which took four days recently, or debate on second reading which goes on for a long period and other such matters. There are time limits on the budget debate and the Address in Reply debate. I think it is unrealistic to believe that parliament can function effectively without some effective discipline on our time. But there must be greater flexibility with regard to the probing that is part and parcel of the question period and it need not be unworkable.
The suggestion of the President of the Privy Council that we might make more use of notice in the question period has some merit. By tradition this has been an informal thing and has not been used to any great extent. I think there is a greater problem, however, in the use of the order paper. The President of the Privy Council referred to this briefly when he said that the written questions on the order paper had "gone out of sight". He has been around here longer than I, so perhaps one's vision depends on what one regards as the fundamental measure. He listed 1,420 questions of which 329 had been answered, but I would not think that was a great number of questions for the number of members we have. We need not be unduly alarmed about the need for expansion when we compare it to the expansion of government itself. We are dealing with close to $20 billion of public money and expending it through almost 30 departments and 300,000 employees, so the 264 members must try to do their job as extensively and resourcefully as possible. It would be a mistake to deny the possibility for vigilance.
The hon. President of the Privy Council would agree that there is a need to distinguish between parliament and government. Parliament is not the government; it is a forum, the nation's public forum where the rights of citizens are protected and government actions can be examined, ratified or rejected and where nationally accepted laws are put forward and passed. If this is to be done effectively, the number of questions will be increased. I was glad to hear the President of the Privy Council say
March 9, 1973

that he was working to improve the machinery of government in order to facilitate responses. Members will not feel like resorting to written questions if they are going to lie dormant on the order paper for months, not just days or weeks. While the President of the Privy Council took some pride in the fact that 329 questions have been answered, I must point out that more than 1,000 have not. It could well be that some of these questions need to be put in a more responsible way so that they can be answered in a reasonably short time. If we are not going to provide better machinery to deal with them and the production of papers, then obviously the frustrations will not be restricted to the oral question period.
I was glad to hear the President of the Privy Council suggest that guidelines will be drawn up for requests for the production of papers with the possibility of debate and further examination by a committee. This is an area which needs to be upgraded. The rules should be agreed upon and made known to all members of the House with regard to the presentation of government reports. As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) suggested the other day, I suspect that a good many of the ground rules, formal and informal, are concerned with the security of the government rather than the security of the state.
I have left open the assumption that there is a real necessity that all governments accept, that the public has a right and a need to know.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps this would be an appropriate time to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have just about exhausted the suggestions I wish to make about the question period, and I presume I have exhausted the listening capacity of hon. members of this House.


Mr. MacEachen:: No. We have all had a good lunch.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps a good lunch has fortified us. I want to mention a couple of issues that are related to the question period. A moment or two before we rose at one o'clock I was referring to the need for written questions to be answered rapidly. I also concede that there is much wisdom in one of the suggestions made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), namely that we should look at the form in which written questions are put so members will have the right to expect that, when written questions are submitted, they will be answered within a reasonable period of time. This will lead, I submit, to broadened and more relevant participation in the proceedings of the House on the part of hon. members.
With regard to starred questions, I think the committee should look at the usefulness of starred questions. I am
Standing Orders and Procedure
not sure of the original reasons for the introduction of starred questions. To me, there is attached to starred questions a somewhat odd quality in that they do not perform any function more useful than that of ordinary, written questions. Certainly, in the last few weeks we have seen some examples of time consuming, extended answers to starred questions. Perhaps we ought to consider the suggestion brought forward by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) from time to time, a suggestion which, so far, has not been incorporated in the accepted practices of this House, namely, that some time limitation be imposed with regard to answers to starred questions. Starred questions, if they are to be useful at all, should occupy an intermediate position between questions asked during the oral question period, when answers are given immediately, and written questions, the answers to which may take a few days, or even one week, to be brought forward. I think the 48 hour limit suggested by the right hon. member is workable, and should be considered by the committee.
So far in this debate the question of adjournment proceedings being used for the purpose of answering questions has not been raised. However, I would point out to Your Honour that at the present time there is a list of some 70 questions awaiting to be dealt with on the adjournment debate. If one computes by very simple mathematics that we have, when all is working well, roughly nine opportunities a week to present these questions, and then divide 70 by nine, it would show that something like two months would pass before we reached the end of the present list.
Now, we know that special debates, opposition days and other things occasionally intervene, so that not often do we in fact get nine opportunities a week to put these questions. Therefore, the time frame for the answering of questions becomes even more extended. What has happened, then, is that these questions have already backed up to a considerable degree. These are the questions which Your Honour has suggested are more appropriate for the adjournment debate than for extensive discussion during the course of the regular question period.
If I may just refer to a few of the questions listed to date, it will give Your Honour an idea of the kind of unworkable situation we have. There is one question submitted by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) dated January 15 in which he seeks information about a meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers. Mr. Speaker, if that meeting is the one to which I think he refers, it took place at the end of January. My hon. friend will have to re-word his question, obviously, so that he can talk about future meetings of that sort. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) placed a question on January 19 concerning veterans' allowances. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that this matter has been the subject of a bill since that time and is now before this House for consideration. Another hon. friend of mine, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard), on January 25 put a question on the subject of cost of drugs to senior citizens, a subject which was to be raised at the Conference on Old Age Pensions. Well that conference was held a month or a month and a half ago.

March 9, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) asked a question on January 30 seeking better information on the Local Initiatives Program. This program is rapidly approaching its expiration date. Finally, and perhaps the most bizarre example of the situation in which we now find ourselves on February 2 the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn), put down a question on the subject of the income tax forms and the difficulty some people are having in getting help with their forms through the use of the Zenith telephone number. Mr. Speaker, by the time the hon. member gets an answer the whole subject will likely be academic, for the present fiscal year, anyway. The present arrangements in connection with these adjournment proceedings are becoming increasingly unworkable.
I agree there is need for such a half hour period but I wonder whether there is need to provide as we do, for a seven minute question and a three minute answer. In most cases, half the time would be more than enough. I often feel that the questioner, or the responder, is trying to fill a much larger hole than the occasion calls for, simply to put in the time. We could process twice the number of questions and answers in the time now available and thus give these proceedings a reasonable chance of being timely.
Then, we have the old favourite, or new favourite, of Motion 43. The President of the Privy Council has already suggested we have covered a fair amount of territory with national emergencies which are raised on a daily basis. I certainly concur with one of his comments to the effect that there must be some better system for the carrying of these mini-debates, as he described them. I am not suggesting that this need be on a daily basis, but certainly an opportunity should be afforded to members from time to time to focus attention and response on issues which demand the attention of this institution.
I think I would agree with a comment which I believe the minister has made from time to time, but which was not part of his statement the other day. It is not quite fair for individual members to stand and present motions, sometimes at length, when there is no opportunity for a reply to be made. I think the President of the Privy Council has said that to be fair in this situation there must be some right of reply, limited as it should be, so that in dealing with the mini-debate a fair opportunity would be given to respond to the issue raised.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to one further area which I hope receives examination by the committee, that is, the whole area of standing committees. The President of the Privy Council made some remarks about the activities of the standing committees. There seems to be no doubt that the committee system will play an increasingly important role in the functions of this and future parliaments. But there are some very obvious shortcomings to our present committee system. I cannot possibly catalogue them all in the few minutes at my disposal here this afternoon, but let me briefly point to some of the more obvious aspects of the committee system which should be examined.
The size of the committees should be reviewed, to start with. We have, I understand, reduced the size of committees over the years as compared with the size of similar committees in the beginning. Only a few years ago, I 
understand, committees used to have memberships of up to 60. I do not know how they could ever have functioned in an effective manner and I rather doubt they did so. But I would argue that even committees made up of 25 or 20 members are still, in many instances, too large. My own experience in dealing with many committees, both of a political nature and of other kinds, is that once membership goes beyond 12, people are merely performing the function of being a body to be listed on the record. If these committees are to perform an active function, I think that something in the order of 12 members, and certainly not more than 15, is necessary to make up the permanent membership roll.
Another point I would make concerns membership itself. The President of the Privy Council rightly suggested that we have gone from one extreme with respect to membership to another. It used to be somewhat difficult, involving a time delay of one day, to change the membership on a committee as compared to the instant changes which can now be made. While I recognize there may be some necessity to retain an emergency procedure by which a full membership can be provided to a committee, the increasing frequency of changes which occurs in the membership of committees, a procedure which almost seems to be encouraged, is not good.
As anyone who has studied the committee system which exists in Washington will agree, there is a certain drawback in having a committee system which is so moribund that there can be no movement, as has happened under the well-known seniority system operating in the United States Congress. But I think we have gone to the other extreme, which is just as ridiculous, and has made the system almost meaningless. I believe that all members will wish to look very closely at the question of how we can upgrade the importance of the committees to the individual Member of Parliament, to the press and to the general public. We really cannot expect anybody else to take the committee system very seriously unless we do so ourselves. I do hope that this whole area will be given serious consideration.
There are, in my opinion, some straight physical problems we have not solved. It is ridiculous when you think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems we face when trying to arrange committee meetings is that of getting enough room. We do not have enough rooms available with translation and recording facilities to service the committees. In many instances we do not have enough staff. There is insufficient provision for the printing and distribution of reports. There is a whole host of just physical problems which should not be tolerated for one moment. If we are to operate in a contemporary and effective parliament we have to recognize that we need adequate committee rooms, committee staff and facilities to make the system work.
This ties in very closely with what was said by the President of the Privy Council about the scheduling of committees. We have made some improvements and experiments with regard to scheduling, but the cloak and dagger operation that we have now when scheduling committees is absolutely ludicrous. No modern parliament should put up with the kind of surprise and nonsense that
March 9, 1973

goes on in regard to when committees are or are not going to meet. We must have some established method whereby times of committee meetings are well known by all and are adhered to as much as possible.
I also relate this to the whole business of whether or not committees should be established on a permanent basis. It was questioned earlier in this debate whether we should have departmental reports along with estimates referred to committees, and whether this might well be made some kind of permanent arrangement so that, in effect, committees have a life that is ongoing.
There is another fundamental problem that I want to raise, and it is one of the reasons that I think the committee system is often turned into a cynical exercise by many Members of Parliament. I refer to the final product that often comes from a committee-its report and/or its recommendations. In this parliament, after a committee has laboured long and hard on a specific subject matter and makes a report to this House, there is clear cut machinery for the disposition of this report or its body of recommendations. During a brief conversation I had with a visiting British parliamentarian the other day, I was told that when his committee submits its report to parliament, the members of that committee know there will be a departmental or ministerial answer given within a recognized period of time. If committees are to become a serious element in our parliamentary processes, there has to be some kind of response to a report either from this institution itself, or from the minister or department to which the committee report relates.
I have spoken much longer than I should, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that this committee is an extremely important one and I hope it will do its job with great effectiveness for all members of this House.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I was amused by the theologian who spoke last who said "in conclusion" and then went on to make three or four additional points. I was expecting that we would soon hear him say: "Now let us pray", and then we would have known that he had finished.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: See me on the weekend.


William Arnold Peters: It is my opinion that this discussion has been a poor one, which is almost an indication that this committee's work is doomed to failure before it starts. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) spoke at length. The House leader of the Conservative party spoke at length. My House leader-this was a rare exception in this particular case-did not speak at all; he was out making points in another place at the time. I think he made the right decision. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) also spoke, but from a different point of view.
Those who have participated in this debate have discussed the subject academically, it is the backbenchers who are really the members who should have made some input into this discussion. They have been here for a while now and should have said what they think is wrong with this place. Let us not have the mandarins of parliament
Standing Orders and Procedure
setting the rules and changing the rules. They have been shuffling the rules about for a long time now, and the last time they made changes to the rules the results were not satisfactory. What they did had the effect of eliminating the three back rows on both sides of this House. This is why I say the backbenchers should have made some input. They think they do not know anything about the rules, which is the only credible position to take in this House, and in my opinion it is the only credible input to the deliberations of the procedure committee.
Considerable reference has been made to the question period, but again I have the same criticism. The House leader, the opposition leader, the leader of my party and the leader of the Creditiste party set the question period. It is no longer a question period for members of parliament; let us not kid ourselves about that. We hire people to set the questions, and we are paying people to provide the answers to those questions. Again, the parties are making the decision as to who will ask the first question. We provide Mr. Speaker with a list of names of those who want to ask questions. John Blow from Dry Gulch wants to ask about a problem he has which is important to the people that he represents. Obviously, it is not a party matter or a matter of national importance, and he will not be able to ask his question unless he is provided with a totally different format for the question period.
I do not care if the question period is extended. The last speaker convinced me that it may be a good idea to have nothing in parliament except the question period. Perhaps this could be the microcosm for the representations that we make, and we would not handle any legislation at all. But I do not think that this is what the backbencher wants. He wants a way in which he can ask a stupid question, one that everybody else thinks is of no importance at all but which is of vital importance to the people whom he represents, and he sure ain't going to get into this question period that is now becoming as highly organized as any other segment of governmental operations.
I have been here for quite a while, Mr. Speaker, but I do not consider myself an expert on the procedures or on the rules of this House. I think the rules should remain as they are so I can use them, break them, or do with them whatever seems to suit my purpose at the time. If we keep changing the rules, it makes it more difficult for me. As I say, I think the new members of this House, particularly the young members, should have some input into this committee which they have not been allowed to have so far. We should not do what three or four previous speakers have said. We should not start with the idea that we must make this place function like a well-piled machine. We should start with the premise that every backbencher who has a problem in his area should be given the opportunity of doing something about it.
When I first came here the backbencher had that right if he had guts enough to exercise it. He was given that right in several ways, and one of the ways was to wait until the estimates came before the House. When we reached a certain item that related to the bridge that he wanted to see built over a particular river in his area, that was his chance. I can remember Mr. Van Horne, who represented Restigouche-Madawaska or some such riding, discussing such a matter over a period of time, and eventually a

March 9, 1973
Standing Orders and Procedure bridge was built. I am not saying the bridge was built solely because he took advantage of that opportunity, but he did have the right to ask the officials questions about it. That right has now been taken away.
I think all hon. members should consider whether we should allow the parties to arrange the question period. I think Mr. Speaker has an obligation to the backbencher not to honour the list that is sent to him by the parties every day. I suggest that most Members of Parliament asking questions of particular interest to their ridings will not want to ask more than one supplementary question. The party microcosmic debate that takes place during the first and second questions usually relates to party matters rather than matters of concern to members.
For these reasons, I am sorry that more members do not take two or three minutes to outline the subjects they feel should be discussed by the procedural committee. They should get up and say what they think is wrong with this place, because obviously there is a lot wrong with it. There are too many who follow precedent and refer to authorities such as May and others. Most of us have never even bothered to open these books. They refer to precedents that are long gone. If the procedural committee looks at the Standing Orders and makes changes, I hope we can dispose of all the other books such as Beau-chesne's first edition, second edition, third edition, fourth edition as well as May's, Knowles and all the rest of them.


An hon. Member:: Knowles! That's the 50th edition.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order.


William Arnold Peters: That was Knowles senior. I hope they dispose of these books and refrain from the idiotic practice of using precedents that apply to a totally different set of rules than those we are now trying to adopt.


An hon. Member:: What about the "Peters' Principle"?


William Arnold Peters: An hon. member refers to the "Peters' Principle", but I honestly believe that we should be trying to make this a workable place. I believe there is as much intelligence in the back rows as in the front. I discount to a great extent the idea that the length of time spent here will change that, or even make it necessary to make change. I hope there will be an opportunity provided members in the back benches to take part in the discussion about necessary changes. They may not do that now because there is some desire to rush this through, but I hope there will be some format for this kind of discussion.
This committee has already asked for permission to travel. It does not even want to be exposed to backbenchers dropping in from time to time. It wants to hold meetings at some place where that would not be possible. There are a number of changes that should and will take place.
Before I conclude, I would like to suggest that if we are going to be rid of Standing Order 26, and replace it with Standing Order 43 requiring unanimous consent, we should require a number of members to stand and indicate that they are opposed to a matter being discussed. I think it is unfair to the person who moves the motion

when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) turns to the Speaker and indicates his opposition or requests that a matter be transferred for debate as a matter of habit rather than listening to the subject matter and making a decision.
I make those very few comments with the hope that history and my idea of the success of this committee will prove that the new rules are more workable than many of those we have now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears the House is ready for the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-3, to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-3 somewhat dismayed at its lack of scope. The bill, in effect, will increase the authorized capital of the Export Development Corporation from $7 million to $125 million and raise its allowable liability limit from $850 million to $1,500 million. What is lacking in my view is any mention of export assistance to small business. There is nothing whatever for our small, secondary industry in this piece of legislation.
The throne speech made mention of assistance to small business and here we have the first opportunity for the government to assist small business, yet nothing is forthcoming. I should have thought this bill would have made provision for a small businessmen's division. All over this country there are thousands of small industries making well designed products which could be exported, but they need help and guidance to enter this market. They should receive guidance, assistance and financial aid from the Export Development Corporation. We seem to spend considerable time in this House talking about wheat, fish, oil, Indians and even polar bears, and while I have every sympathy for these subjects and realize their importance, it seems to me far too little attention is paid to the labour intensive small business and secondary industry in Canada.
There is no shortage of talent or initiative in Canada. Only last evening I spoke by telephone with a member of my riding who started a new business in January manufacturing solid wooden toys. He asked me about a LIP grant of some $200,000 given to a motorcycle club in Montreal to assist it in manufacturing wooden toys. He asked me about the wisdom of the reduction in tariffs on toys featured in the budget speech of February 19. He
March 9. 1973

asked me to inform this government that all he really wants is a chance to have funds available to him at a reasonable rate of interest, allowing him to develop the full potential of his business. He also asked about export assistance.
That man is typical of the intelligent and aggressive Canadian businessman who must somehow get the attention of all governments to make them realize how vital the contribution of these businessmen is to our economy, and what a great contribution they could make in lowering the level of unemployment on a permanent basis. We have such promise and so much potential it is frustrating to those of us who see the picture clearly. There is such an abundance of raw material, a talented and intelligent population with industrial skills, business and secondary educational facilities to feed these industrial skills, and we know we need only put them all together to make things work.
So long as we continue to introduce into this House bills such as C-3, which completely ignores the small businesses and secondary industries of Canada, we will continue to flounder and flop with the grievous level of unemployment we have today. I think it is time we looked at that very seriously. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) introduced a private members' motion to raise the limit on loans under the Small Business Loans Act from $25,000 to $75,000. I spoke in support of that motion. The hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), I am sure on instructions, talked out the motion. In reviewing that action, and on reading the contents of Bill C-3, I can only conclude that although this government gives lip service to the cause of small business it is in effect antismall business.
I have travelled in approximately 35 different countries of the world. I have observed how other countries assist businesses. I have travelled over most of Europe and somewhat in Asia. In northern Sweden, I visited a town about 40 miles south of the Arctic Circle where there is an exhibition centre devoted exclusively to products manufactures in northern Sweden. Trade missions from all over the world visit this exhibition centre and orders are taken on the spot. All arrangements are made there. All export details are available at the exhibition centre. Their banks will advance funds to a manufacturer or processor against an export order. In other words, they are tuned to an export market as well as a domestic market.
In Great Britain, the merchant banking system is tuned to export business. A small businessman, whether a processor or manufacturer, has a relatively easy task compared to a Canadian small businessman. He prepares his export documents and has his money within 48 hours of presentation of shipping documents. The small businessman works closely with the merchant banking system in that country. I believe it is significant that our party leader has recommended this system or one similar to it for Canada. I hope we have the opportunity to introduce such a system in the not too distant future. German banks now deal directly on short-term paper with Canadian customers at pretty low rates of interest compared to what we have in this country at the present time.
Export Development Act
There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the government to take a stand on secondary industry and the [DOT] role of the small business in Canadian economic life. The Gibson Report of May 14, 1968 reads in part:
Giving exports a high priority does not take away from other desirable national objectives such as better housing or regional development. On the contrary the well-based industrial growth to which export-oriented policies would contribute is the essential element of the higher production on which advances on welfare must be based. Giving exports a high priority is essential if reasonable progress is to be made in other directions.
"Reasonable progress in other directions" were the last words in that quotation. If we are to make reasonable progress in the reduction of unemployment in this country, the government must take a firm stand on the part secondary industry and small business will play in our national economy. A sound export directive must be part of that stand and a strong aggressive policy for secondary industry and small business must be the key ingredient of that policy.
In my view the government must stop the practice of playing off the production of our secondary industry against export sales of unfinished and semi-finished raw materials when settling our balance of payments accounts. We will never establish a strong secondary industry position while this policy persists. The government, I believe, must also stop the practice of bartering away the tariff protection of our secondary industry at GATT conferences. Mr. Benson's move to accelerate the Kennedy Round tariff cuts turned out to be a major setback for secondary industry in Canada. We might look at Japan and Germany where there is zero unemployment. Both these countries have tariffs protecting their industries. We seem to be the leader in promoting absolute free trade at the expense of our small business and secondary industry.
I would have thought that Bill C-3 would have announced the establishment of regional offices for the Export Development Corporation in the five major regions of Canada. Small business and secondary industry has always been the whipping boy of Liberal governments. Mr. Benson reduced tariffs at an accelerated rate to control inflation, he said. He meant: "Get back in line boys; we will bring in outside competition and if you don't want to bring down your own prices we will show you how to do it". Canada is the only signatory to the GATT agreement who slavishly abides by all the rules. I do not advocate wholesale breaking of the rules, but we do see other countries bend the rules to suit their national purpose while we hold fast to the agreement. Other countries with whom we trade impose surcharges, set up special legislation such as DISC, or raise tariffs against our manufactured goods while at the same time seeking dutyfree status for their exports to Canada. I think that until we put all these pieces together we will not make very much progress. We have in this country, I believe, an abundance of talented people, creative, ingenious people crying out to express their talents as entrepreneurs. They are stalled at every turn of the road.
In my riding I have an aggressive, talented small manufacturer who has designed, and is marketing, a unique product. He exports almost all his production. He is frustrated by his inability to obtain adequate financing in

March 9, 1973
Export Development Act
Canada. He is considering moving his office to New York State. He was approached by a United States group and asked to move into a plant they will build for him. A new company would be formed and he would have 49 per cent of the stock. They suggested to him that they would set up a DISC operation and export back into Canada. I think this is a critical situation. We really must get together and talk to the small business people and the people in the secondary industries of this country in an effort to develop policies which would aid them in their efforts to move ahead.
Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the small businesses in this country are Canadian owned. We need strong policies to encourage growth in this area of our economy. An export policy tuned to small business and secondary industry is a cornerstone to the growth we must have in this area. Any thinking businessman will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the only way we will beat unemployment in this country is by encouraging our small businesses and secondary industry. It is the responsibility of the government to create an economic climate in which business, particularly small business, can grow and prosper. The essential elements in that climate are: banking facilities that will supply the financial needs of business and encourage them to venture and expand their facilities; a tax act that they can understand and work within; a competition act based on reality and devoid of the hollow protected idealism of that infamous instrument introduced in the 28th Parliament; consumer legislation that is fair and just to the consumer and the producer or manufacturer. We need tariff legislation that is realistic in today's market and tuned to the needs of our secondary industry; we need an export policy that makes provision for the needs and requirements of small business and secondary industry and that would serve as well the large established manufacturers who, of course, must be part of the package that we put together for business.
These six essential elements must be the cornerstone of any national industrial strategy, if there is such a thing. We hear it talked about. I have not heard it defined very well, but these are the things we need to make business go and to allow it to grow in this country. I am a businessman myself and I have gone through all the frustrations of tight money, through the experience of planning an operation for a long period of time, of acquiring property and of hoping to build, only to have my plan turned down by the bank. We cannot continue to develop with policies such as these.
If this bill passes second reading, let me, through you, Mr. Speaker, serve notice on the minister that we will make strong representations at the committee level to have this legislation amended. There is a feeling among some people that there is some urgency in the passage of this bill. It has been suggested that perhaps the Export Development Corporation has exceeded its allowable limits, and of course by passing this legislation we can legalize an illegality. Be that as it may, I do not think that should cause us to rush through our consideration of the bill because, as I said at the beginning, this is the first opportunity the government has to do something for small and medium sized businesses. I say that, regardless of

what else goes on, we should stop here, take a long look at this bill and do what we can.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you going to vote for it?


William James Kempling: The Export Development Corporation has within its ranks some excellent people who are well aware of the needs of small business and secondary industry. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has many talented persons ready, I am sure, to assist in the development of a strong policy for this part of our economy. I would like to see all these talents put together. Let us take the first step to encourage the harassed small businessmen and owners of secondary industry by developing export legislation that has some meaning for them. Perhaps I have answered the minister's question.


Alastair William Gillespie: No, you have not. Will you vote for it?


William James Kempling: You will see when the vote is called. In conclusion, let me say that if the government is not prepared to take this position, then they should move over and let others, who have a clear picture of what is required, get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who just concluded his speech. I must say that some of the proposals put forward in general terms by some of the Conservative members for the reform of the Export Development Corporation in order to make it more helpful to small manufacturers and businesses in this country have a considerable amount of merit. I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) will take a serious look at that aspect of the corporation's work. The Export Development Corporation plays an important role in a country such as ours which is so dependent upon export trade.
If I look at the table on page 20 of the report of the Export Development Corporation for 1971, I see an analysis of commodities insured in 1971 for export. I note that 32 per cent of the principal commodities insured were wood and other products related thereto and 23 per cent were agricultural products, which are of some significance to those of us in the west. Livestock, for example, was insured through the Export Development Corporation for a little over $2.5 million, and the shipment of wheat was insured for around $82 million. So, there is some merit in the activity of the Export Development Corporation. But a corporation which works in such close alliance with the large multinational corporations in our country is open to considerable criticism as well.
At page 6 of the annual report, you will see a breakdown of credit insurance policies as carried out by the corporation, and on looking at that breakdown you will see the types of goods that have been insured by the corporation. One area that interests me above all others is investment abroad. According to those who espouse the outdated free enterprise system, whether they come from my right or across the way, when you make an investment, either abroad or at home, you are supposed to be
March 9, 1973

taking a risk-at least that is what I have always assumed. In fact, some of my good friends close to my right often say that I have never taken a risk in terms of going into business. But I think this is one part of the Export Development Corporation which needs very serious examination.
It is a fact that the corporation is now moving into the area of insuring Canadian investment abroad. What this means is that $14 million of investment by Canadians is being insured by our government for investment mainly in the area of the Caribbean and Central America. We in this nation have often looked with a great deal of hesitation at the foreign control of our economy through investment by the United States and Great Britain. Now, however, we have established an Export Development Corporation, which in principle is of merit in terms of assisting certain nations to buy our commodities and to increase our exports, but which now moves into the area of insuring investment in foreign countries. To my mind that is eliminating the risk from investments, and I think the corporation should cease to involve itself in foreign investments of this nature. I find that 39 per cent of the inquiries concerning foreign investment relate to investment in the area of the Caribbean and Central America.
We have operated in conjunction with what is called the Inter-American Development Bank and we have been involved in it to the tune of $100 million for development in Central America. I do not think we should involve ourselves in backing private investors who are seeking, in some sense of the word, to exploit the areas of Central America and the Caribbean. We do not have to involve ourselves through a public operation in backing those investors. I suggest that if they wish to invest in those areas they should take the risk of investment. I think this is important.
Then, there is another area within the annual report relating to what I would call invisible exports. These cover such things as the sale and licencing to foreign customers of any right in a Canadian patent, trademark or copyright.
In that regard I think there should be serious examination of whether it is in Canada's interest for a public corporation to be backing such things as the sale or licensing to a foreign customer of any patent or copyright. I believe it is potentially dangerous for a public corporation to promote any such open trade on behalf of the Canadian public.
On page 7 of the annual report of the corporation it is stated:
EDC has, in co-operation with Statistics Canada, nearly completed a survey of the 'terms of credit' granted by some 1,100 major Canadian exporters. When the results of this survey have been studied, it is hoped that the information collected can be interpreted and translated by EDC to determine to what extent EDC is meeting the requirements of Canadian exporters.
Considering the fact that Statistics Canada has grown so much during recent years, it is good to see a reference in one annual report to the fact that it is doing some work. But we should not be dealing with this bill or giving serious consideration to amendments to improve it, such as suggested by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth 25789-59*
Export Development Act
(Mr. Kempling) in his excellent speech, until we see that report. I hope it will come before the committee when we are discussing this legislation there. I trust the minister is listening closely to this point.
The report details certain financing agreements with foreign countries. One is Australia, and the transaction involved railway hopper cars. As one who comes from the prairie region, this is a subject that interests me greatly. The amount of the financing was $10,355,916. It was for the purchase of railway hopper cars, the exporter being the National Steel Car Corporation Limited. It would be interesting to have a comparison of the price at which Australians bought these hopper cars with the price which our government paid for 2,000 hoppers cars for the railways in Canada, which was over $40 million. This is a matter we should seriously examine in committee.
There are many other items I could mention but I will not go into them all today. The Export Development Corporation shows us that to a certain extent a public corporation can be involved in promoting the export of Canadian goods and that the government can play a role. We can give our tacit approval to that. But there is a problem. That problem concerns whether the corporation is acting in the public interest when all it does primarily is promote exports by foreign-owned, multinational corporations.
The corporation is serving multinational corporations at the expense of smaller, independent businesses in Canada. It is giving multinational corporations an advantage in addition to those they already enjoy in terms of write-offs by the U.S. government, the DISC program and many other breaks that they receive. Now those corporations can play off the government of Canada against other governments, at the expense of smaller, independent operators in this country.
When I talk philosophically about the relationship between government and business, there immediately comes to mind the program called Interchange Canada. I wonder how far this is a sweetheart relationship between multinational corporations, large Canadian corporations and the government of Canada. Is it in the interest of the ordinary people of this country? For example, through Interchange Canada the president of Labatt's Ontario Breweries Limited takes a job with the Department of Industry and Commerce, and in exchange a senior civil servant will work for a large, multinational corporation in order to gain experience in the private business sector. This develops a sort of sweetheart relationship between the two groups.
The president of Labatt's will be running a foreign exchange, export program. He was recently quoted as comparing the role of the civil servant with the role of the businessman. He says the similarities are fairly easy to identify. The taxpayer would seem to occupy the same place in a public servant's mind as does the shareholder in the mind of the business executive. That was not good news to me, Mr. Speaker. It means that shareholders and taxpayers are both irrelevant so far as the upper echelons of the civil service and of the corporate elite are concerned. He also said that parliament, or more particularly the cabinet, can be compared to the board of directors of a private firm. That is not good news to me, either. This kind of sweetheart relationship evidenced in some aspects

March 9, 1973
Export Development Act
of the Export Development Corporation and the Interchange Canada program can be potentially detrimental to the public interest. It is not an open kind of relationship.
I am sure I could go back to my area and find a dozen producers who would like nothing better than to be able to operate the Department of Agriculture for a couple of weeks. They could probably straighten it out better than some of the economists who have been in it for 30 years. I tie these things together to underline my initial valid criticisms.
I believe that the government's moving in the area of insuring foreign investment and taking the element of risk right out proves there should be more involvement of public investment within this country simply because there is no real risk. By assisting investment in other countries the government is helping them to become imperialistic, a problem which we face in our own country.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on second reading of Bill C-3. I hope the debate will conclude today so that we can send this important bill to committee and have a detailed examination of the activities of the Export Development Corporation, its approaches and philosophies. In his speech on second reading, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) welcomed this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the Export Development Corporation is a successful part of this government. Its scope has been improved by us. We are proud of it and we welcome the opportunity to tell the public how good the EDC has been to the Canadian economy. It has provided jobs for Canadians by financing Canadian suppliers abroad and by making loans to foreign buyers of Canadian products.
Members of the opposition, especially in the Conservative party, have raised the question of the activities of the EDC, claiming that they are not oriented enough toward small business. Of course, this is a reflection of the narrow point of view that the Conservative party attaches to any discussion of this sort by trying to confuse the facts. They are attempting to say that because the EDC is involved in major loans to major suppliers, and because it looks after large projects, it does not do anything at all for small business.


William George Knight: I did not say anything about that.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) does not have to be concerned about this, because I mentioned the Conservative party and not the whole opposition, although I know that sometimes his party does not make any more sense than the Conservative party. I am speaking of the Conservative criticism of EDC in claiming that it supports only large suppliers. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Anybody knows that, by nature, assistance to foreign buyers or suppliers will be given to large companies. But we must not forget the spin-off across the country. For instance, a loan of $10 million to a foreign buyer to enable him to place an order with Northern Electric would result in orders for a multiplicity of small businesses across the country and as many as 4,000 sup-

pliers might be involved. Even if the loan is arranged so that Northern Electric is the supplier, it does not mean that it is the only company to benefit, because the components required to fill the order might be manufactured by various suppliers who are mainly small businessmen.
An assembly order placed with the Montreal locomotive works would result in only 20 per cent being spent with them; the remaining 80 per cent would be spread among small suppliers across the country. Because EDC is mainly involved with large transactions we should not conclude that they are not interested in small suppliers. Despite the positive effect that it has on small businesses through the larger transactions, there are other programs that affect small business directly, such as the export credits insurance program. This has about 1,000 policyholders, 700 of whom have less than $250,000 worth of exports per year: they can hardly be categorized as large companies. That is one program that helps many small businessmen across the country.
The Conservatives and members of the other opposition parties omitted to mention the re-lending program of the EDC which is available through Canadian banks in foreign countries and which, upon reference by EDC, arranges for assistance to be given to small suppliers.


Mr. Stevens:: What volume?


Herb Breau: Just a moment. Re-lending is available to foreign banks or foreign correspondents of Canadian banks, and they are authorized to lend as little as $50,000 to buyers of capital equipment or services in Canada from small Canadian manufacturers. When a state agency or buyer in another country is talking about a transaction with Canadian businessmen and it involves special financing, that automatically is a large order. Therefore it is normal that most transactions of the EDC are large.
In his speech the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) again attempted to confuse the public and members of the House by using the percentage of loans made to large corporations, saying that this government's program was helping large corporations only. He sinned again by saying that this is terrible because they are foreign-owned corporations: in other words, the Export Development Corporation should discriminate against foreign-owned corporations. If we are to follow his logic, we should come to that decision.


An hon. Member:: Keep going; you are hanging your program.


Herb Breau: That there might be a problem of foreign ownership in Canada, I agree. But I do not agree to the extent of some members of the NDP.


An hon. Member:: All members of the NDP.


Herb Breau: If there is a problem, then the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has placed a very good bill on the order paper. If the opposition is interested in that bill, then let us wait and discuss it when the time comes.


Mr. Baldwin:: Have you got NDP support on it yet?
March 9, 1973


Herb Breau: I should like to remind hon. members that when the government started the evolution of foreign ownership policy last year-


An hon. Member:: Evolution?


Herb Breau: Yes. The former minister of industry, trade and commerce brought in a foreign takeovers bill. Who stopped it? This government attempted to do something about it.


William George Knight: We stopped it because it was useless until you changed it. Give us the credit.


Herb Breau: I agree that it was the opposition, and maybe it was the NDP. The government attempted, but the bill did not go far enough so it has been changed substantially. It is to the credit of the government, Mr. Speaker, that my party is the first to come up with a positive step on foreign investment. It was not the Conservative party, who has never had any policy on foreign investment. The only policy they have had on foreign investment is: Give more incentive to Canadian businessmen.


Mr. Nowlan:: What is wrong with that?


Herb Breau: Be calm; don't be so sensitive. Does the Conservative party's non-policy take into account foreign investment across Canada?


An hon. Member:: You are against Canadian business.


Herb Breau: Again, the Conservatives on this issue are trying to throw a smokescreen before the public and leave the impression that they want to do something about the problem. They are trying to tell us that a satisfactory way of dealing with foreign ownership, which constitutes an important problem, is by giving incentives to Canadian businessmen. This government has given incentives to Canadian businessmen. It has done that for many years with many programs involving the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and all sorts of lending programs. Those programs are good for Canadian business. The opposition is trying to throw up a smokescreen on this issue by saying, we should deal with the foreign-ownership problem only by giving incentives to Canadian businessmen. Of course we want to give them incentives, but incentives alone will not deal with the question of foreign ownership. The best description of the Tory policy on foreign ownership was that given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he called it a nonpolicy; it was superficial nonsense. That describes adequately Tory policy on foreign ownership.
What did the hon. member for York-Simcoe say about this bill? He said, "This is terrible, because the Export Development Corporation is lending money to foreign-controlled companies." If a miracle were to happen and his party were to come to power, I hope that that hon. member will not have influence with the EDC because his suggested policy would not resolve the question of foreign ownership. He would say, even though a great percentage of our foreign manufacturing industry is controlled by foreign-controlled companies, "Those foreign companies will not get loans from the EDC." That is what the hon.
Export Development Act
member would do, but that would not deal with the foreign ownership problem at all.


An hon. Member:: Has the government dealt with it?


Herb Breau: Well, we will deal with it. We brought forward a proposal last year and we will bring forward another bill this year. Ours is a clearcut, positive policy, something which the Conservative party has not yet suggested. In this regard we have done more than the Conservatives. There could be a problem regarding foreign ownership in this country, but we will discuss that at the appropriate time. Let us discuss it in the proper context and let us not, in the meantime, introduce all sorts of confusion and distort facts by saying that the Export Development Corporation is not doing its job, or that the job it is doing is terrible because it lends money to foreign corporations.


An hon. Member:: When did we say that?


Herb Breau: If our manufacturing industry is controlled too much by foreign interests, we will deal with that question when the time comes. Surely we cannot deal with this problem by discriminating against foreign companies. In other words, surely we should not try to hamper the export of Canadian products merely because the Conservatives have no policy on foreign investment.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe tried to confuse the issue by raising the question of domestic needs. He mentioned urban transportation. I had to re-read his speech because at first I could not believe it. He spoke about the Export Development Corporation lending so much money at such and such interest rates. That was the speech of a man who has experience with the financial institutions of this country. Apparently he does not understand that there is a world of difference between lending rates domestically and lending rates internationally.


An hon. Member:: There sure is a difference.


Herb Breau: Of course there is. This situation is not confined to Canada alone; it is an international condition. Canadian exporters, whether foreign or domestically owned, must compete, not only with lending institutions of other countries which offer services to potential buyers of our products all over the world, and sometimes offer better rates and concessional financing, but with the financial organizations and institutions of other governments which specialize in export financing. Examples of these are to be found in the United States, Europe and Japan.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe was upset because of the difference between the interest rates the EDC charges exporters and the rates that are available to Canadian businessmen. Canadian businessmen in the domestic market do not have to export and meet competitive rates on the international market.


An hon. Member:: Why not change the Bank Act?


Herb Breau: That is another question. I do not remember the hon. member's party suggesting lately that there should be changes in the Bank Act.


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes, we have.

March 9, 1973
Export Development Act


Herb Breau: Well, I have not heard of it. I am saying that the Export Development Corporation must take into account international rates if that institution is to do any business at all. If hon. members opposite are against the EDC and against government intervention in the field of exports, they should say so.


Alastair William Gillespie: They should vote against the bill.


Herb Breau: Yes, they should vote against it if they do not want the Canadian government to help Canadian suppliers who sell abroad. If that is what the Conservatives want the Canadian government to help Canadian suppliers who sell abroad. If that is what the Conservatives
The hon. member is trying to make people believe that the government is subsidizing these low rates. Nothing is further from the truth. One must consider this question in the context of costs and benefits. In some cases, depending on the rates which the corporation has to pay for its money from the government, there could be a loss. As I say, it could happen that the corporation could lose money on some agreements in order to meet competition from other countries. When that happens, the loss is borne by the EDC and not by the government.


An hon. Member:: And who owns the EDC?


Herb Breau: One can look at the financial statements. The EDC accounts for its operations every year. If hon. members find that the EDC is operating at a loss, we could discuss in this House the question of whether we should pay that loss or not. Sometimes the corporation must lose money in order to meet competition. I emphasize this point: it must meet competition. It could be that a Canadian supplier who wants to sell his product in Turkey will compete with a Japanese supplier who has access to better rates of interest, or the Japanese supplier might offer the buyer better rates of interest. In that case it is up to the EDC to accommodate the Canadian supplier, because it is important for the Canadian firm to make the sale.
The cost of money from the treasury, as all hon. members know, can and does vary from time to time. It depends on the average cost of government borrowings. If it has cost the government 6 per cent to borrow money, the treasury's lending rate to the EDC would be 6-1/8 per cent. These rates vary every three months. From time to time EDC's borrowing costs are high because the government's borrowing costs are high, and losses occur when the EDC is forced to give guarantees at lower rates. It could be that the original arrangement was made when money from the government was available only at high rates. If there is loss, that loss must be borne by the EDC.
Currently, the average cost of money for the EDC to meet outstanding loans is 5-7/8 per cent, whereas the average yields on these loans is about 7-1/8 per cent. This means that there is a margin of about 1-1 per cent. That is hardly operating at a loss, no matter how the accounting is done in the banks. Even if the EDC at times has to sustain a loss, it is totally contrary to the facts for hon. members to say that the low interest rates charged by the EDC are subsidized by the government. The hon. member for York-Simcoe tried to argue that the government should subsidize domestic interest rates, or in some way
make available better rates for domestic needs. Priorities have to be decided in connection with spending on domestic needs. At this point discussions are going on between the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the provinces on the subject of urban transportation. To try to compare these two factors is not fair at all.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has expressed concern lately that the ceiling under which the EDC operates has been exceeded; that the loans outstanding amount to more than the ceiling allowed. I realize he is a new member of this House and that he may not be aware of the terms of the legislation, but I would invite him to read section 30 of the act. If after doing so he is still confused, I would be glad to spend five minutes showing him how it works.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did you read your own financial
statement?


Herb Breau: The hon. member who is interrupting is new to this House and I would hardly expect that he has read section 30 of the act. As I say, I would be happy to take five minutes explaining it to hon. members opposite. It might be, though, that they would still be confused.


Gerald William Baldwin: You don't understand it yourself.


Herb Breau: I do. Maybe the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has not read section 30, either. It has been alleged that because the EDC has to date signed financing agreements totalling $865 million, it has already exceeded its existing statutory lending ceiling under section 30 of the act. This is not the position. The confusion arises because of a misunderstanding as to what is meant by the ceiling. Under section 30, the corporation may not have instruments outstanding at any time in excess of $850 million. As of January 31, 1973, the level of instruments outstanding totalled $500 million.
Instruments become outstanding only when disbursements are made under signed financing agreements. Disbursements take place over an extended period after the signing of financial agreements. Concurrently during this period instruments are being retired as repayments of principal are made on loans outstanding. The corporation may therefore sign financing agreements somewhat in excess of the ceiling applicable to instruments as long as this never obliges the EDC to purchase instruments exceeding the statutory ceiling. And it has not done so. Maybe the hon. member has not read the act carefully. Maybe he thought the ceiling applied to financial agreements.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And I still do.


Herb Breau: That is not the case.


Alastair William Gillespie: He has tunnel vision.


Herb Breau: Maybe the hon. gentleman cannot read.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Check with your auditors.

March 9, 1973


Herb Breau: I again invite the hon. member to read section 30.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: I
should like to read an audited financial statement.


Herb Breau: If the hon. member would read the Financial Administration Act, he would be aware that a Crown corporation such as the EDC is required to submit its audited official statement by March 31 of each year if its financial year ends December 31. Today is only March 9, so it is hardly fair to suggest the EDC is not complying with the law.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Wait for the statement.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Peace River should tell his hon. friends that we on this side respect the Auditor General.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why you are getting rid of him.


Herb Breau: It is completely untrue to say that. The Auditor General was engaged for a definite term. It is totally untrue to suggest that the government is getting rid of the Auditor General.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you reappoint him, then?


Herb Breau: That is a policy question which will be answered in due course by the proper authorities. The statement will be submitted to the Auditor General. The government respects this procedure and wishes to follow it, despite requests by the opposition to bypass the Auditor General in this case. I might say, though, that it will be possible to give copies of the financial statement to members of the committee even though the corporation is not required by law to submit its report before March 31.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on Bill C-3 and try to get a few answers from someone on the government side in explanation of its purpose. I thought the parliamentary secretary might have given us some answers. It is Friday afternoon. I want to leave early today and I do not want to go home with my stomach and mind all upset.
After listening to the ranting and raving of the parliamentary secretary, I am beginning to wonder why he got to his feet at all. He gave us no reason for asking for this increase in the ceiling. He did make a number of vague accusations against member: on this side, alleging some of them had said the corporation ought to be wiped out, that it was no good. I defy the hon. member to show that anyone on this side has ever questioned the validity of the corporation's role. What we have said, and what I want to repeat, is this: while the corporation is worthy of support in principle, we question the way in which its funds have been administered.
We also question the tactics of the government of overspending and trying to do indirectly, by warrant, what it cannot do directly. We have seen examples of this before now. The latest concerned the Unemployment Insurance
Export Development Act
Commission. The funds were overspent and the government had to come back to parliament to get the ceiling removed. In that case there was some excuse because as a result of the government's policies and government bungling, unemployment insurance benefits cost a billion dollars more than was estimated; the money had to be spent and it had to be replaced.
Surely, though, there can be no excuse for bringing in this bill demanding another half a billion dollars to be made available to exporters. They will not tell us how much they have put out to date, or how much they are committed to advancing in the next few months. My hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) has been trying to get this information, and his words have been construed by the parliamentary secretary as a condemnation of the corporation. The parliamentary secretary had better read our speeches again.


Herb Breau: Would the hon. member permit a question before he goes on to another point? He referred to special warrants. Is he implying that the Export Development Corporation has benefited in some way from Governor General's warrants?


Charles Humbert Thomas: The hon. member had better sit there and listen for a while. He cannot understand what people are saying.


Herb Breau: Do you know what you are saying?


Charles Humbert Thomas: We are not denying the value of the principle here. I agree that exports are a vital part of the Canadian economy and it is essential we should develop exports in order to create jobs and keep the economy moving. I realize that over the past few years exports have shown a steady increase and that the prospects this year are excellent. But I question whether much of this development can be attributed directly to the activities of the Export Development Corporation.
To establish the basis for my remarks, which are an endeavour to get some answers and the reasons behind this request for an increase of half a billion dollars, let me say something about the rationale for the Export Development Corporation, about the reason that was given in 1969 for the formation of the corporation. At that time the minister who introduced the bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who at that time was speaking for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, said as recorded at page 7474 of Hansard:
-exports are an essential key to our industrial development policies, providing as they do outlets beyond our limited domestic market.
I will not quote the minister verbatim, but in the next paragraph he goes on to say this:
In the interest, then, of optimum growth of the economy and of employment opportunities, stimulation of exports, particularly of manufactured goods, should have high priority at this stage of our economic development.
The minister went on to say that the purpose of the act is to make it easier for exporters to finance their sales. That being the case, my interpretation of the primary purpose of the Export Development Corporation is the

March 9, 1973
Export Development Act
creation of jobs by increasing exports. Therefore, when the minister comes to this House asking for another half a billion dollars, I think we should ask him some questions about his request. Many questions have been put to him, but one question I should like him to answer, either here or in the committee, is what figures can he produce to indicate the number of jobs that have been created by loans granted to the EDC?
Before the minister rises to his feet, let me inform him I have looked through the annual report of the EDC and through other material in which I thought I might find these figures, but the only information I have obtained so far in this regard has been from the minister's speech of February 2 when he was talking about outstanding loans amounting to $700 million which had the equivalent value in jobs of roughly 100,000. I should like to know where he gets this figure. Is it a figure that he has just pulled out of the air? Does the minister mean that this $700 million has created 100,000 new jobs, or does he mean that if we had not financed these companies to the tune of $700 million, these 100,000 jobs would vanish? I have not been able to find the answer to that question, so I hope the minister will give us the basis for the figures when he replies.
The only explanation I have seen of this request to increase the ceiling by an extra half a billion dollars is the minister's statement that the corporation needs more money. The hon. member for York-Simcoe and others have tried time and again to get from the minister some accurate figures of the actual amount of money that has been expended or is left. The minister keeps telling us that the $850 million has not been used up. However, it is interesting to note that in reply to question No. 903 on February 28-a written reply to the question put down by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer)-the minister said that the total dollar amount of signed contracts under section 29 of the Export Development Act, as of December 31, 1972, was $841 million.
That was as at the end of December, and since then the figures I have been able to find indicate roughly $60 million more has been committed. That information I derived from news releases, and so on, put out by the Export Development Corporation. Between $6 million and $9 million has come back in the form of interest. This indicates to me that the total amount outstanding by way of commitments must be about $900 million, if the minister's figures are correct.
The parliamentary secretary went into quite a tirade, accusing members on this side of not being able to read or able to understand the act. He referred to section 30 of the Export Development Act. As I understood what he said, he implied that the ceiling does not matter until the funds are actually disbursed: in other words, you can go ahead and commit $1 billion or even twice that; the actual ceiling applies only when the funds are disbursed.
Another question that I do not think will be answered by the parliamentary secretary, but which I should like to put to the minister, is this. On page 18 of the 1971 annual report published by the Export Development Corporation, under the heading "Notes to Financial Statements" there is a statement that does not agree with what the parliamentary secretary was trying to tell the House. I will read it:
The authority to guarantee and lend on the security of instruments under sections 29 and 30 of the Export Development Act is limited to $850 million outstanding at any one time.
What does "outstanding" mean? The note goes on to say:
As at December 31, 1971, the corporation had undertaken undisbursed authorizations aggregating $262,539,000. The uncommitted authority to guarantee and lend on the security of instruments as at December 31, 1971, amounted to $212,769,000. The aggregate of outstanding notes receivable as at December 31, 1971, under section 29 amounted to $374,692,000.
If you total those three amounts, Mr. Speaker, you have exactly $850 million, so my interpretation of that section is that not only disbursed amounts but also committed amounts are to be considered under the ceiling of $850 million. Perhaps the minister would explain that point in his remarks here or in the committee.
I go back to my initial point, that what we are concerned with here is not so much an analysis of the EDC and its functions. Of course the corporation has made mistakes, every corporation has. But I want to know whether Canadians have received full value for their money. When putting forward the rationale for setting up this corporation, the minister made it quite clear that the primary purpose of these funds was the creation of employment. My question to the minister is this: Is he satisfied that this $850 million or $1 billion that is being granted in foreign loans is doing the job it is intended to do? Could we not have created more jobs, or as many jobs by assisting industries in Canada to sell in Canada?
To emphasize what I am saying, let me refer once again to the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity when speaking to this matter in the House on February 2. At that time he pointed out very clearly that while it is fine to export, there is a quid pro quo; something has to come back. The old philosophy that a country can survive by exporting alone probably goes back to the days when England ruled the waves. But the fact is that a healthy economy today depends on the total aggregate of demand, not only for exports but for what is produced for domestic consumption.
I suggest that if this $1 billion was spent in Canada to assist Canadian manufacturing to meet domestic demands, it would create more than 100,000 jobs, the figure that the minister tossed around so cavalierly. This is our point; it is not a condemnation of the EDC as such.
These are some of the things the minister has to answer in committee. How much has he committed over the next two or three years? What value did he get for this money? How many jobs has he created? Does he think it is fair to send money to foreign customers when we have provinces, municipalities and other government bodies crying for more funds but receiving the stock answer that this government cannot provide more housing or money for transportation because the economy cannot stand it? These are the questions I want answered when this bill is considered by the committee. In conclusion I say that we are anxious to get the bill to the committee where we can perhaps get some straight answers from the minister. If the minister can satisfy us that we are getting full value

March 9, 1973

for our dollars then, as far as I am concerned, we should let the bill pass third reading.


Gilles Caouette: My remarks will be somewhat brief, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Isabelle:: Good.


Gilles Caouette: That seems to please the hon. member for Hull, but to get to Bill C-3 which is before us, I observe that the aim is to increase the corporation's shares and at the same time enable it also to increase its loan possibilities.
Before introducing a bill such as Bill C-3, the government should perhaps review the use of funds invested in the corporation.
In the past, has the Export Development Corporation served the interests of Canadian manufacturers, or has it merely put its funds to use by large multinational corporations? These are questions that we should ask ourselves.
Under the terms of this bill, we would be accepting that the corporation be obliged to restrict its aid to basically Canadian companies. Since they are talking about industrial controls, I should have thought that this would be just the indirect way of favouring our Canadian industries and manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, increasing share capital and raising the ceiling for loans seems quite appropriate to me, especially considering the spiraling costs in all areas. I therefore feel that the government's request is logical.
We cannot therefore criticize the increase as such, but we can be most sceptical about the allotment of funds. We feel that it is necessary to assist exportation, even to promote it, but this bill and some others in no way guarantee that the Canadian people will be served first, before our products are sold abroad.
What protection does the government give to the Canadian consumer? The party in power seems to believe that we can resort to any means to export our production. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau) said a while ago that the corporation even granted loans to other countries to purchase our production.
In my opinion, if the government is in position to increase the assets and shares of the corporation, it should in the first place increase the purchasing power of the Canadian people who in many cases are deprived of the products whose exportation is now promoted by the government.
As always, this government reshuffles the order of priority of his motions and again, we see it favouring foreigners to the detriment of Canadians or, to be more accurate, coming to the aid of foreigners before taking care of the basic needs of Canadians.
I may be repeating myself but why should we not introduce a bill to restrict exports until we have satisfied the essential needs of Canadians? Then the government could draft a bill designed to protect Canadian producers through preferential export loans, granted only to Canadian firms and only for export of our surpluses. Should
Export Development Act
need arise to stimulate the export of these surpluses, the government could introduce a bill such as the one before us today and thus favour export as such. But again, I repeat, only as a last resort.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the gist of my remarks. I am not criticising the government for its intention to increase the potential of the corporation, but I regret that it did not deem necessary to respect the needs of Canadians and then guarantee protection of essentially Canadian companies before merely promoting exports.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I should like to say a few words before four o'clock, Mr. Speaker, on one or two grave concerns which I have about Bill C-3. On the surface it looks rather innocent. It will increase the capital shares of the corporation to $125 million and increase loan guarantees from $800 million to $1,500 million. There are two areas of grave concern. The first is that the corporation tends to be big business or multinational corporation oriented. Perhaps the experience members of the Liberal party have had with multinational corporations tends to prejudice them in that direction. At any rate, this is one of my concerns.
All one has to do is pick up the annual report of the corporation and look at the first, second and third pages to see who is on the board of directors. We find there is an interrelationship between the government and big business or multinational corporations. It might be of interest to the House if I named some of the directors. First of all we have James Grandy, who is the deputy-minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is chairman of the board. We have other government mandarins, such as L. C. Audette, who is chairman of the Tariff Board, Paul Gerin-Lajoie, who is president of CIDA, and S. S. Reisman, deputy-minister of the Department of Finance. We also have Louis Rasminsky, the former governor of the Bank of Canada.
Let us look at the corporate side. Serving as the corporation's president we have Paul Leman, president of the Aluminum Company of Canada; we have A. F. Mayne, president of A. F. Mayne & Associates Limited, Montreal; we have R. D. Southern, president of Atco Industries Limited, Calgary; and we have P. R. Sandwell, who is chairman of the board of Sandwell & Company Limited, Vancouver. All these people are presidents of various corporations, so obviously there is a tremendous relationship between government mandarins and the presidents of corporations in respect of the activities of the Export Development Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it four o'clock and pursue some of these ideas further at a later date?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being four o'clock, we will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.
2088

March 9, 1973
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River) moved: that Bill C-18, to provide for the establishment of the Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority (Alaska Highway), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the matter I have the pleasure to introduce to this House this afternoon is neither an ordinary bill nor an ordinary subject matter. It is a Canadian legend, a Canadian shrine-the matter of the Alaska Highway.
This year the Department of Public Works has a very ambitious maintenance and construction program in respect of the Alaska Highway. In addition to normal maintenance work, tenders have been called for two gravel resurfacing maintenance projects from mile 250 to mile 413, from mile 413 to mile 483 and reconstruction of another section. This work is scheduled for completion by the fall of 1973. There are other minor innovations to the highway plan for this year.
Hon. members probably assume that I will speak about the highway with the idea of having it completed, of having further work done and eventually having it built so that it will be a transportation link between the United States and that province of the north called Alaska. However, I would like to speak about some of the other aspects in connection with this Canadian dream, or legend.
The construction of the Alaska Highway had been proposed for many years before the outbreak of World War II. However, it was not until the Japanese occupied some of the Aleutian Islands and threatened the air ferry supply to Russia that a highway was actively considered. Construction of a pioneer road by engineer troops followed rapidly on the heels of the location crews. Speed was the first consideration and this road detoured around swamps, gullies, rock knolls and other obstructions, resulting in a very crooked road with many steep grades.
After August, 1942, efforts were directed to getting the pioneer trail converted to a passable road at the earliest possible moment. This road disregarded the public roads administration procedures, where design alignment and grade would delay completion, and followed the path of least resistance. In March, 1943, instructions were issued to complete the work at the minimum possible cost and standards were reduced still further. Road construction ceased in October, 1943, but bridge construction continued until 1944.
The resulting highway, while passable and providing a good gravel driving surface, had geometries of a varying but generally poor standard. After the responsibility of the highway was transferred from the United States army to the Royal Canadian Engineers, the terms of reference under which they operated did not permit major road relocations. Temporary bridges were replaced by perma-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
nent structures at many locations and some exceptionally hazardous areas were reconstructed, but the alignment of the highway is essentially that of 1943. In 1959-1961, the highway was paved to RAU 50 standard from mile 0 to 84. This standard provided two 12-foot traffic lanes and 5-foot shoulders. The British Columbia department of highways has been responsible for the maintenance of the paved section since 1962.
After this brief outline of history of this great highway linking our northern regions to the more developed area of our country, I would like the members of this House, whose support I am asking, to recognize the important part played in the past by the Alaska Highway and the much more important part that it will play in the future development of our last frontier. Many tales are told of pioneers, past and present, travelling this road and many chapters of history have been written about the legends of this highway. I am more concerned about the implications of the highway and its benefits in recent times.
First we must consider the economic state of affairs in the Peace River country and in the northern part of British Columbia, where farming has suffered a severe setback. The farming situation is disastrous. The copper mines have closed. The economy of Fort Nelson is in a disastrous state. The government so far has disregarded the plight of that area in respect of all its programs such as DREE.
In 1966, the Stanford report was prepared for the government. It recommended that any further action in respect of the highway be shelved for at least ten years and that the government should not be concerned about the development of our northland and the development of our resources since the highway is an outdated mode of transportation for the movement of goods and people today, when we have jet airplanes and other more up to date modes of transportation. I am not in conflict, of course, with that statement in the report if one considers only the need to find, extract and exploit our natural resources and does not consider the human factor, the people who live there, our first citizens and early settlers, and does not consider that even in that region, with all the modern facilities of transportation, people would be required in order to develop and populate the area.
I am also concerned about the industries already located in northern British Columbia and the Yukon territory, as well as the plight of these industries through not having a proper means of transportation for the shipment of their products and for the maintenance of the work force in their plants. All the resources of the great region of the Yukon must be shipped, or are presently being shipped by an outmoded transportation system to a port linked to Alaska and end up in ports strange to our land. I am very excited about the plans announced for the northern part of British Columbia in respect of the transportation network, and I am hopeful that the government will seriously consider helping industries locate in northern British Columbia and the Yukon territory by the provision of proper transportation facilities.
I am encouraged by the plans of the British Columbia railways. The line has now been extended to Fort Nelson, 300 miles up the highway. An ambitious program to extend the line even further is being planned. The empha-
March 9, 1973

sis on northern development in that region must not be concentrated around the extraction of our resources. Any strategy in respect of the development of that region must be related to the establishment of secondary industries as well. First of all, it must be geared to the development of our renewable resources, our great timberlands, which so richly endow our region. The type of industry referred to will again require people.
It is not necessary to elaborate on the importance the development of these industries will have in helping alleviate the unemployment crisis in Canada. Furthermore, an immediate result would be a great increase in tourist traffic, an industry of prime importance to that area. A traffic survey carried out by the Department of Public Works underlines this statement. As members of this House well know, a great number of our neighbours to the south use this road link in travelling to the state of Alaska. The people visiting our country, who share with us its vastness and its beauty in that area, take nothing home with them but memories of a unique adventure and pictures which they might have taken en route. However, they are contributing to the western economy to an extent that the tourist industry ranks second only in importance in our area.
The bill proposes the establishment of an authority that could act on behalf of our government in discussions with the United States, which has indicated its great interest in this endeavour. I am referring in particular to discussions held with that country regarding the sharing of costs. The authority could also represent our government in discussions with officials from areas and regions bordering the highway, such as officials of the province of British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I have lived in that area and I have been involved in the service and tourist industry for the last 20 years, so I know a little about the highway in question. If we are concerned about northern development, it is essential that we develop a transportation policy and a road strategy, which does not exist in Canada today, and it would help if the proposed authority could develop this strategy and a general philosophy concerning northern highway travel. Many people who live in the north and many leaders up there have voiced a need for such a strategy. In fact, some of the people living up there will have to take a stand soon. They will have to tell us soon that there should be no more construction of roads, highways and road links in northern Canada until a philosophy is developed and we protect the way of life which they have valued for so many years. So far as our native people are concerned, the first wars in Canada against our natives were fought over roads and railroads, the iron horse that traverses our country.
When we go up to our last frontier, we find that we have built the Mackenzie Highway, the Dempster Highway and now we are completing the Alaska Highway without any over-all plan, strategy or philosophy. In this bill I am proposing that we establish such a plan. I can visualize the highway and the commission developing a highway system with proper campsites for tourists to enjoy. Every 75 or 80 miles there would be an airstrip which would contribute to the safety and comfort of the people travel-
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority
ling on the highway and which could be used in emergency cases, because highway accidents do occur. I live there, and I know.
The commission could develop rest areas where people could stay for a day or two, visit with the people who live in the area and share their dreams. They could go home with rich memories. We could establish parks along the highway and negotiate with provincial and territorial governments for those things that we hold so dear. I would like hon. members to share with me for a moment a picture of what it would be like 100 years from now-and I am only dreaming-if we could develop this area. Perhaps we could have on each side of the highway a park reaching out 1,000 miles, and we could compare the benefits of that park in perhaps 50 or 100 years with what we would have if industry and commerce, with no proper control, were to clutter up the highway.
The commission could take into account the provision of special facilities for the maintenance and establishment of new tourist facilities. It could ensure that the necessary amenities are provided to ensure the safety and comfort of tourists. In other words, the bill would ensure that those of us who have pioneered on the last frontier may have some input into plans which are normally worked out by people who are not familiar with the area and are certainly not familiar with the dreams and ambitions of the local citizens, nor the dangers involved in carrying out such ambitious plans-dangers to the environment and ecology as well as to the native people who have lived there for so many years. They will be speaking out, and if they do not remember to do so I will remind them that if we carry on with a northern development concept such as the one we are embarking upon right now, without giving further thought to it, then indeed we will have spoiled our last chance to do something different for once.
The urgency of the Alaska Highway construction has been recognized by all governments affected by the route and they have made submissions to the federal government expressing their concern. The Alaska, Yukon and British Columbia Chambers of Commerce have always considered the Alaska Highway to have top priority, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has included the reconstruction and paving of the highway in their policy paper and has brought it to the attention of the government. As I have said before, the government has indeed responded and some minor improvements have been carried out in the past.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the highway from Dawson Creek to Whitehorse presents today as unique a challenge as it did in 1942. In fact, it represents an even greater challenge because we must surely have recognized over the last 100 years that we cannot just blindly pursue monetary and economic gains and that we must accept our responsibility, not just to ourselves but to the people living in the area.
We have a responsibility to the rest of the world to develop at least one region on this earth in such a way that we and our children can be proud of it. I am afraid that if we do not establish a commission to supervise this task, the highway will be just another road link and another mess such as we have in northern Canada and such as existed in the early days when the settlers trav-
2090

March 9, 1973
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority ersed our land. The highway holds so many answers to so many pressing national problems that it is even more urgent now than it was in 1942 that we embark upon the development of that great Canadian dream.
I therefore strongly recommend that if this bill cannot be adopted today, that at least the subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that I be given the opportunity to bring to the committee the dream of so many northern Canadians to establish something of which we can all be proud as Canadians.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member entertain a question for clarification? I may preface it by saying that these kinds of private members' bills which are of substance are the ones I appreciate and that I hope will be dealt with. I think this is a good bill to consider. Could the hon. member explain to the House the necessity for the establishment of a nonCrown corporation to take over the development of this highway? What non-Crown corporation is he referring to?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes that a commission be established which would incorporate members of this House and members of the territorial and provincial governments connected with the building of the highway. The bill also makes provision for officials from the United States and people in different walks of life to sit together and develop a strategy and a philosophy, regarding the development of the highway, with which we could live in the future.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for most members in this chamber when I thank the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) for giving us an opportunity to discuss one of the most important highways in Canada, a highway about which for a number of years we have heard a great deal in the House.
The hon. member's predecessor spoke on this very subject whenever the matter arose in the House, and I remember him lobbying behind the scenes also on the subject of the Alaska Highway. In 1970, or possibly in 1971 in the last parliament the hon. member for Red Deer introduced a private member's bill dealing with the subject of the Alaska Highway. In my remarks at that time I advanced a proposition which at first glance may have appeared a bit far fetched, but I think on analysis hon. members would agree it is the key not only to getting the Alaska Highway problem solved but also to solving another major Canadian problem, namely, a better, faster link between central Canada and the Maritimes.
My proposition, which I consider sound and has a good chance of success if we can convince a few more people, involves encouraging the U.S. government to construct a four-lane, high speed highway across the top of the state of Maine, linking the eastern townships auto route with a point in New Brunswick, possibly involving some part of U. S. Interstate 95, in return for the Canadian federal government spending an equal amount of money on upgrading and paving the Alaska Highway. The arguments in favour of this proposition are obvious. It would

promote Canadian unity; it would bring Canadians closer together by reducing travelling time between central Canada and the maritimes by a minimum of five hours. I am not talking from the eastern Canadian point of view.
In addition, it would reduce transportation costs between central Canada and the maritime provinces. It would make possible a large increase in tourist traffic between the maritime provinces, central Canada and the American mid-west. Residents of Montreal and of eastern Ontario would be able to drive to P.E.I. or Nova Scotia easily in one day. This would make a great difference for tens of thousands of Canadians who now normally vacation on the coasts of Maine and New Jersey simply because they can drive there in one day.

Considering that there would be two or three times more tourists visiting the maritime provinces and that the instability of the weather in the area might bring a premature end to many seaside vacations, it can be felt that more tourists could turn to other regions of the maritimes, and also to Forillon Park, in the Gaspe Peninsula, which could certainly attract many.
I also suggest that a national park be developed along the northeast coast of New Brunswick, which would increase the movement of tourists visiting all other regions of the maritimes.

Although Maritimers may feel more exposed to Upper Canada commerce as a result of such a highway, and I suppose this might worry some people, I am confident that competitive Maritimes business operators would benefit enormously.
There are growing protests in the state of Maine about speeding Canadian tourists on their present east-west roads. These complaints about fast-driving Canadians presumably would be eliminated or reduced. An additional argument is that such a route would open up for possible exploitation and development a new national park area in the eastern townships region of Quebec along the Maine-Quebec border. This is one of the most depressed areas of Quebec, the southern Beauce region. This would be an ideal location for a national park. This kind of highway, pushing the eastern townships auto route through to the Maine border, would be a main link to the park for the 21 million people in Montreal. In effect, it would put them two hours away from another major national park. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this project would do more in economic terms for the Maritimes and Quebec than scores of past projects and programs costing ten times as much.

It could well be that, in the Gaspe Peninsula, in Rimous-ki, in eastern Quebec as well as in northern New Brunswick, some people strongly oppose the construction of such a highway.
Indeed, they could fear that it would reduce the influx of tourists in their area. They claim that the tourists would head for the beaches of P.E.I. as quickly as possible, to return home by the quickest and shortest route. According to that argument, tourism, which is their best
March 9, 1973

hope for a more prosperous future, would really take a beating.
I do not agree with that argument; I am convinced that we can reasonably hope to triple the number of tourists in the Maritimes, and that those tourists will affect the whole area, including northeastern New Brunswick and the eastern part of the Gaspe Peninsula.

Undoubtedly, some maritimers would feel that they might lose the protection against Upper Canada's commerce that is afforded them by geography. But, as I said earlier, I am confident that competitive Martimes enterprises would be in a much better position than they are now. Maritimers in general would benefit from this closer and faster road link. Presumably, some negative feelings would also exist in southern and central Maine. The argument would be that tourist traffic would be diverted away from the Maine roads which presently carry a substantial percentage of the Canadian tourists going to and returning from our maritime provinces, and Maine tourism would suffer in consequence.
Maine environmentalists are also anxious that northern Maine be preserved as a wilderness area. Here I am pinpointing the problems to be faced in implementing this kind of road project across the top of Maine. I feel that the Maine fears of losing tourism are as unjustified as northern New Brunswick and eastern Quebec fears. If you pour three times as many people into an area, by a direct route, as went there previously, they will filter back in all kinds of different ways and by different roads.
The weather down there is never certain for two weeks at a time. As I said earlier, vacations are cut short. People will come back in a variety of ways, and as a result benefit all the maritimes and Maine. The time difference that this route would make in travel between, let us say, Ottawa, Montreal or even Toronto, and P.E.I. would be anywhere from four to five hours. This is enough to make it very easy to drive from Montreal to P.E.I. in one day. It would even be possible to drive from Toronto to Prince Edward Island in one day if one did not mind driving for ten or twelve hours. The potential benefit to the Maritimes through tourism would be enormous-far greater than any program we have ever developed in that area. The question is, Mr. Speaker, how do we get this project implemented? There have been proposals regarding the Maine corridor for quite a while. In 1969, Governor Curtis of Maine approved a $30 million bond issue to build a road across the state. In 1970, this bond issue was rejected by the voters. That is where the matter stands now as far as Maine is concerned.
What I am arguing is that Canada should hold out to the American government the incentive that we would spend a lot more money on the Alaska Highway, as they want us to do, and consequently could get them to put up a substantial sum of money for the highway which I propose- in fact, get them to pay the total cost of the highway across the state of Maine. Residents of that state would be delighted to find that they did not have to pay for it.
I am convinced that the American authorities are responsive. Indeed, in the discussions I have had with
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority
Senator Gravel and Senator Stevens of Alaska, they were most enthusiastic. I have also had discussions with several other congressmen and senators and all are responsive to the idea who have indicated that they are prepared to support it and help get it through Congress. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, congressmen and senators have the power to institute legislation, and I have a number of indications that senators and congressmen are prepared to sponsor such a bill. In their view it would have an excellent chance of success.
I have talked about the benefits to eastern Canada of such a project, and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has indicated the tremendous benefits that will accrue to the west. The Alaska Highway route has great tourist potential, of course, because nearly everybody wants to go to a place they have not visited before. When the Dempster Highway is finished, people will be able to go to the Arctic Ocean. With the facilities that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River has suggested, there would be a fantastic additional tourist potential in the west.
We can accomplish something that is rather wonderful for both east and west at one time, without an enormous expenditure above what is already required for upgrading the Alaska Highway. As the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River pointed out, the complete paving of that highway is a long way off. Perhaps two or three hundred miles of it have to be rebuilt. The upgrading must come before the paving, so the completed highway is a long way off.
To get back to the project which I am proposing, I am indebted to the hon. member for having been fortunate enough to have his private member's bill drawn so early in the session. I have a motion on the order paper which reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to entering into contractual arrangements with the United States of America providing that that country should expend an amount to build a highway of inter state highway system standards through the State of Maine, one of the United States of America, connecting the province of Quebec with the Atlantic provinces in return for Canada expending an equal amount on upgrading and paving on that portion of the Alaska Highway that lies within Canada.
That motion is so far down the list that it will not be discussed in this session, so I am glad to have the opportunity to talk about it this afternoon. To implement it, we would obviously have to obtain the green light from the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, the state of Maine and the governments of the United States and Canada. I think that if we can get the approval of Quebec, New Brunswick and Maine it should be possible to work things out with both federal governments. I certainly intend to do some additional lobbying to try to convince the provincial authorities that they will not lose by it. Some hon. members from northeastern New Brunswick and from Quebec seem to think that there will be a loss to their areas but, Mr. Speaker, every one would benefit from the Maine corridor.
Several options are available. One of the long-time promoters of the project, Mr. Douglas Fullerton, chairman of the National Capital Commission, has proposed that Canada should guarantee to Maine an immediate

March 9, 1973
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority
throughput on a toll road across that state, but I feel this approach might entail more difficulties than the project I am suggesting. Quebec may be hesitant because of pressure in the Riviere du Loup, Rimouski and Gaspe areas. I think this could be overcome by stressing the benefits which would accrue to the depressed Beauce area. If we threw in the sweetener of additional national parks for those areas of New Brunswick and Quebec, this would help convince any remaining doubters.
I believe there is no single project that this government could support which would provide as many side benefits, for as many people, and which would be as important for the Canadian balance of tourist payments as this. It would do great things for Canadians in the west and the east, and without question it would bring us closer together.


Frank Oberle: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going to interrupt the hon. member. It was obviously getting quite painful for him to continue this discussion, so I was going to give him the opportunity for a little rest. Mr. Speaker, he has obviously completely missed the point. I did not read the morning papers, so I should like to ask him if the state of Maine has been annexed to our country? What the hon. member has said has nothing to do with the question at hand. He has missed the point; he was talking about capital expenditures. I said that that highway is being constructed, but I am not arguing that; I am arguing on behalf of the people living in the northland of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member because he is extending the speech he has given. He is not asking a question, but seems to be raising a point of order on the ground that the hon. member is not discussing the bill that is before us. This is a valid point.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I point out to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River that if he looks at the map of Canada he will find that Maine juts several hundred miles into Quebec. What I am proposing is a direct road link north of the forty-fifth parallel which of course runs east and west. The road, as I say, would be above the forty-fifty parallel, would run east and west and would connect the eastern townships auto route with New Brunswick. This, in my view, would allow us to do more for the Alaska Highway and for the people in the hon. member's riding than anything that has so far been suggested.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is faced with a difficulty in that the time allotted to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River expired a short time ago. I see the hon. member is rising to ask a question. Unless he has unanimous consent he may not ask a question. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to ask his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. I know a little geography. I think it is quite obvious that the suggestion I made earlier in my remarks, namely, that this

matter be referred to committee, will not be consented to by hon. members opposite. I wonder if the hon. member would agree that I raise this subject when the main estimates are brought before the House, so that we may discuss this question again. Would the hon. parliamentary secretary agree?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would agree. I am as enthusiastic about the suggestion as the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. I simply feel that we should do a lot more than he is suggesting. We could kill two birds with one stone. I think we would have a better chance, on both counts, if we proceeded in the way I have suggested.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for only very few recorded paragraphs in the somewhat long hope that we can accede to the wish of the hon. member who has brought this timely and important proposition before us for establishment of an Alaska-Yukon Highway authority. In passing, may I say that we are living in a small world. The previous speaker, I was amazed to hear, managed to go from Alaska to Maine, back to Alaska and then back to Quebec in about 20 minutes. That is a wonderful achievement and shows the importance of our transportation links.
Our country is somewhat odd. Looking at the map, one will see that Canada is topless; the country goes on and on over the pole. On the other hand, some parts of Canada extend south of northern California. Proposed highways are easy to justify if one considers our geography. I think the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has brought forward a good proposition and we favour sending his proposal to the appropriate committee. Without doubt, the north and the area for which he speaks generally is ripe for better highway links and construction. Continuing in the way we have for many years, by bits and pieces and patchwork policies, is not good enough. We need a definite planning agency in this area. In my view, that agency or authority should be set up as a Crown corporation. Of course, if this bill were referred to committee we could discuss it in greater detail.
It is wonderful how times change. I can remember how, 35 years ago, the people of Vancouver opposed the construction of a highway, and certainly of a railway link, up to the Peace River country because it was thought that building links to that area would enable the people there to leave the area and come down to Vancouver. Now the people of Vancouver and of the west are as keen as members representing central and northern parts of the country to see a responsible authority established that will help to plan, establish and promote highways such as the one the hon. member has in mind. Such a highway, I am sure, will prove the key to the development of industry and the planning of the entire area contiguous to the highway. Certainly it will lead to better relations between our country and the Americans and will be a boom for the tourist trade.
Those are my thoughts, Mr. Speaker. I hope the House will permit the bill to go to committee, as the hon. member wishes, where it can receive detailed examination.
March 9, 1973


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to take anything from Your Honour's dignity, I think Your Honour cut short a rather pleasant occasion this afternoon when the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) occupied the Speaker's chair. There is a lady speaker in the other place and I am wondering if this afternoon, for the first time in Canadian history, a lady acted as Speaker of this House. I congratulate her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I realize that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) feels strongly about those matters outlined in his bill. I have had the pleasure and opportunity of visiting the west on several occasions, and I have visited the Yukon territory. I think Canadians cannot have any idea of the size and beauty of Canada unless they have made a trip such as I did.
The Alaska Highway was built to be an important road link, mainly in the war years. The hon. member referred to its history prior to that time. When one visits the Yukon territory and stands on the shores of the Yukon River, thinks of that river's past history and what it has meant to generations gone by, one cannot help being carried away by the beauty and magnitude of Canada.
The hon. member is to be congratulated for bringing forward a measure that would, if passed, affect his region to a large degree. He has done what other hon. members of the House have done. If we, as individual members of this House, do not stand up and speak on behalf of our various regions of Canada, we will hardly form a federal parliament.
I am greatly concerned about the hon. member's proposal to set up an authority which is to be a nonCrown authority. I do not quite know what he means by a non-Crown authority, even after reading the bill. I am concerned about the matter because I feel that the Department of Public Works has for many years been downgraded by various governments, and the money which the department is permitted to spend on projects in all Canada has been reduced. Rather than establishing a separate authority to handle any project in any particular area, it is my contention that we should use the Department of Public Works as a federal agency in order to establish the federal presence everywhere in Canada. For this reason, I feel it should have the capability of making a contribution to projects such as the hon. member has mentioned.
Let us look at the past. When the Department of Public Works, with the assistance of the military, constructed the Rideau Canal it had wide powers and almost complete authority over waterways such as the Ottawa River. Some of the department's achievements, such as the canal structures in Ontario, are an important part of Canada's history. Yet today, when minor items concerning tourist projects are brought forward, so many difficulties arise that one feels rather like an athlete trying to jump over a ten-foot wall.
The Department of Public Works should be a department making a considerable financial contribution in all
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority
regions. From talking to people who have been concerned about the Alaska Highway, I understand that a large section would need to be relocated before paving could be carried out. This involves a major construction project. I do not suppose it would be out of line with projects carried out in the past when the Department of Public Works was one of the major departments in government. That situation could return.
Not many days ago I was speaking about the Department of National Defence in the course of the debate on the budget. As we know, that department made an important contribution to the construction of the Alaska Highway in the early stages. I mentioned this in my speech. I also put forward a proposal with regard to a pioneer tourist train up the Ottawa Valley, a proposal which has received widespread support from my area, as I am sure the bill before us will be widely supported in the hon. member's region.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to get things done in connection with a suggestion of that kind. One feels like an athlete attempting to jump over a ten-foot wall. One is confronted with questions such as: Where shall we get a steam locomotive? Where are we going to find coaches? One is told, for example, that the roadbed is not firm enough. We are talking now about a fairly simple project intended to encourage the tourist industry by bringing back a semblance of the old pioneer days when the timber trade was flourishing. If a scheme like this seems difficult to realize, compare it with the relocation and paving of a large section of the Alaska Highway. Nevertheless, it is proposals such as these which all hon. members should encourage and promote with support from others.


Frank Oberle: I am sure getting it!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The hon. member says he is sure getting it. I am quite prepared to back up any effort the Department of Public Works may make. I believe the department should be a major factor in carrying out many of these projects. But it has been downgraded financially for the past several decades. I believe it should be restored to the position it held at the turn of the century. I am not criticizing the hon. member's proposal; I am simply taking it by another route. I am saying it would be good for the unity of Canada if it were done from Ottawa by a federal department in close liaison with the local authorities.
I am concerned by the recommendation in the bill that three Members of Parliament be appointed to the corporation which is envisaged to carry out the hon. member's plan. I am even more concerned when I see that the three Members recommended in the bill are members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. A number of bills have been brought forward in the last few years seeking to have Members of Parliament appointed to the boards of Crown corporations or agencies. All of them were talked out, no matter which government was in power at the time. I would be somewhat afraid that the presence of three members of the opposition on such an important body might jeopardize the project, rather than assist it. That is why I should like to see the work sponsored by the Department of Public Works, since that department involves all members of this House.


William George Knight: You have a good sense of humour.

March 9, 1973
Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority Mr. Hopkins: I have put forward my suggestions for the upgrading of the Department of Public Works. This can only be done if more funds are supplied to it. As chairman of the national resources and public works committee, I have in the past four years had occasion to get to know many of the officials of the Department of Public Works on a personal basis. They are dedicated people. Contrary to the impression held by some people, this is a department with imagination.
I have talked with people from the Yukon, and it seems to me they tend to downgrade the activities of the federal government and the Department of Public Works. This
disturbs me, and to my mind it constitutes another reason for making extended use of the department rather than setting up a separate authority. By our entering into every region, a contribution could be made to the unity of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The time appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House, looking forward to an early spring weekend, stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. March 12, 1973