1975-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the findings of the Food Prices Review Board that "substantial bread and milk price increases during the last two years appear to have caused considerable hardship for many Canadians, especially those with fixed and limited incomes", I would ask leave of the House to move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the report of the Food Prices Review Board on the consumption of bread and fluid milk in Canada released this day be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before this motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that over the past 10 years butter and cheese imports have increased from 14,011 and 176,519 to 537,658 and 487,624 hundredweight respectively, while butter and cheese exports have gone down from 1,607 and 320,552 to 90 and 83,061 hundredweight respectively, a situation which may still add to the problems of dairy producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. C.-A. Gauthier):
That the House immediately order the government to bring butter and cheese imports down to an acceptable level so as to encourage Canadian producers and thus bolster part of our economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this 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; the motion therefore cannot be put.



FINANCE


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of reports that refunds of the 10-cent a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for business by persons and corporations will be treated as taxable income under a change in the Income Tax Act, and in view of the fact that the House is presently considering Bill C-66, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, and any proposal by the government to deem refunds of the 10-cent a gallon excise tax on gasoline to be taxable income is directly related to the advisability of the implementation of this tax, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe:
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to make a statement on motions immediately with respect to the intention of the government to treat refunds of the 10-cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline used for business by persons or corporations, as taxable income.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, I fail to see how I can ask the House for consent to debate amendments to the Excise Tax Act, with or without unanimous consent, since it is the intention to debate the very same thing later today.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to raise a very urgent and important issue.
In view of the recent statement made by the President of the Price Company, Mr. C. R. Tittemore, that his firm was contemplating more temporary closures of pulp and

July 15, 1975
Oral Questions
paper plants during the third quarter of this year, which will contribute to worsening the already difficult situation of this branch of our economy, and considering this prospect follows on the heels of a general slowing down of the demand for the products of a Canadian industry which is very important for our economy in general and particularly for areas such as the Richmond riding where it is foremost in the economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House now consider the problem of the paper pulp and paper industry and analyze the situation in depth, indicating what immediate action is required to protect this job-creating Canadian industry and, at the same time, support our economy which has been severely affected in various other sectors of its activities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion cannot be presented.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the unemployment figures issued by Statistics Canada for the month of June, which indicate that there are some 401,000 Canadians under the age of 25 who were out of work in the month of June, some 351,000 seasonally adjusted, an increase of almost 60 per cent over the number of seasonally adjusted unemployed Canadians in June a year ago. In view of this and the discouraging and embittering effect that this will have upon Canadian youth, does the Prime Minister consider these figures acceptable to the government and justifiable in this country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do think that the Leader of the Opposition is correct to draw the attention of the House to this matter. I understand that the seasonally adjusted rate in June rose slightly to 7.2 per cent from 7.1 per cent, though in actual terms the rate was 6.8, down from 7.1 in May and 8.1 in April. I must tell the opposition that this does give the government great concern. The Minister of Finance referred to the question of unemployment in his budget, and I think we have realized that even after the economy begins to strengthen unemployment is liable to stay on for some time. We are taking consequent budgetary measures to deal with that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The unemployment figure for those under the age of 25 is 13.1 per cent, or seasonally adjusted 12.6 per cent. I should like to ask the Prime Minister why, in view of all the options the Minister of Finance and the government said they had in connection with the budget, the government chose the option that included, according to the Minister of Finance as reported in Hansard on July 11, "some short-term adverse economic effects as a result of the budget." In view of all the options the Minister of Finance said he had, I ask the Prime Minister why the government chose to fight inflation on the backs of the young people of this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition weighed his words when he said that the Minister of Finance made a choice, but perhaps that is a liberty one takes during the question period. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Finance rejected the option of bringing in restrictive measures in the budget, even though the inflation danger is one which the opposition, quite rightly, expresses concern with from time to time. The Minister of Finance kept up the expansionary posture that was brought in in last fall's budget, one of a very large demand for an increase in the cash balance.


STATISTICS CANADA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: wonder how the Prime Minister justifies these figures after seven years of being Prime Minister. May I direct a further supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I direct his attention to page 7 of the press release of Statistics Canada issued today, which makes reference to student data. It describes "student data" as Canadians under the age of 25. May I ask the minister whether the reference to these figures as "student data" is intended to give the impression that these percentages relate only to students, whereas in fact they refer to all Canadians under the age of 25? I should like to ask the minister whether he will take immediate steps to communicate to Statistics Canada that this can only give an unfortunately misleading impression to the people of this country.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should be pleased to clarify that question with the Chief Statistician.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, as today's labour force survey indicates that only 63,000 new jobs have been created in the first half of 1975,
July 15, 1975

would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he expects the creation of new jobs to proceed at a greater pace during the second half of the year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we expect some recovery in the economy in the second half of the year. As the Prime Minister has indicated, and as I said on budget night, there will be a time lag between the increase in employment and, more particularly, the reduction in unemployment following the recovery of the Canadian economy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has mentioned the budget which most of us find unacceptable in terms of creating employment. In view of the fact that the minister, in his November budget, predicted 250,000 new jobs in 1975, and that the June budget, referred to by the minister, contained no information altering this forecast, will the minister tell the House whether he has altered this forecast and, if so, by what amount?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in terms of new jobs, it is difficult to predict how many there will be in view of the uncertainty as to the pace of the recovery in Canada which will depend, in so far as our exports are concerned, on the pace of the recovery in the United States and of some of our trading partners. In the November budget, to which the hon. gentleman referred, I anticipated for the country the difficulty of the unemployment situation and moved into a strongly expansionary posture with a $3 billion cash deficit at that time which, through the operation of what economists call "automatic stabilizers", is roughly $5.3 billion at the moment. This is a very strongly expansionary posture anticipating the current problem of unemployment, reinforced by the budget of two weeks ago by a direct employment program in cooperation with my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, of $450 million. Those are very strong indications of the concern of this government about a very difficult problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Minister of Finance has declined to answer a very specific question, I should like to direct the following question to the Prime Minister. On June 26 the Prime Minister told the House that he would look into the matter of how many new jobs the government expects to be created in the economy of 1975. My simple question is, has he completed his look into the matter and can he make a report to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can report that job creation is continuing in Canada at a reasonably strong rate, and that the labour force growth has also remained high and the participation rate shows no sign of declining, but employment does continue to show surprising strength in the current economic buildup.


EFFECT OF GASOLINE TAX AND INCREASED PRICE OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS ON UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, since the unemployment figures released today reveal
Oral Questions
that for each of the past six months there has been a constant increase in the seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment in Canada, and we still have in excess of 700,000 unemployed, and since independent experts have calculated that the effect of the minister's proposed excise tax and increase in the price of natural gas and oil together will have a negative effect on unemployment of one-half a percentage point and a negative effect of one per cent on the growth rate of the economy, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether his own department has made calculations of the effects of these two measures and, if so, will he inform the House what those calculations are?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we calculated among a range of assumptions as one must do in terms of unemployment. It depends very much on the participation of various age groups in the labour force, and it depends very much, as I said, on the up-trend of the economy. What the hon. gentleman ought to realize is that whatever short-term, and I mean shortterm, adverse effects both in terms of growth and cost of living may result from the increased price of gas and oil and the excise tax on gasoline, they must be read in the context of a very expansionary fiscal posture.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the net effect?


John Napier Turner: The net effect is this: we have put the country into a far better position to sustain itself against what we have predicted to be a difficult unemployment situation in 1975, an unemployment situation which will not improve appreciably until the economy recovers, well into 1976.


SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF GASOLINE TAX IN VIEW OF POSSIBLE EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since those who decide to speak candidly about the tax increase, or the price increase have reached a negative conclusion, which means, in terms of lack of growth, that some 15,000 jobs will be lost in the province of Ontario alone, may I ask the minister, considering all the evidence supporting this analysis, if the government will reconsider its position on the excise tax.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must look at the entire context of the picture in 1975, 1976, and 1977. The situation at the moment is this: the federal government has introduced the strongest expansionary policy, in terms of the cash deficit required, in the history of this country.


GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS TO CREATE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the minister. Since the minister obviously will not reconsider the gas and oil policy, is the government considering other kinds of alternative employment programs which will
29576-6S

July 15, 1975
Oral Questions
create jobs, so that we do not reach the stage next December at which there are perhaps one million Canadians unemployed. Also, to repeat a point made by many members of opposition parties, will the government inject more money into the housing market?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby conveniently forgets the injection of $450 million into direct employment programs announced two weeks ago, following the strongly expansionary budget in November, in anticipation of the very problems the country is now facing.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SUFFICIENT GRAIN CARS AVAILABLE NEXT FALL
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. At this time of crisis the minister ought to show leadership. Owing to the layoffs, a minimum of work will be done to grain cars needing repair. Will the minister investigate, to make sure that enough grain cars will be available for grain shipments this summer and next fall.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the railway employees are represented by good unions, and if the unions think that this meeting can be useful, I am ready to listen to them. I am ready to receive both the unions and the employers.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that any import increase also means an increase in or import of unemployment and that an export increase also means lower unemployment, would the minister reconsider the whole export and import policy in Canada in order to promote further the domestic production of manufactured goods and thus improve job opportunities for Canadians?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which arises from the rotating strikes of public employees in my area. The strikes have gone on for some weeks and culminated yesterday in the total withdrawal of services. Will the minister indicate to the House that the operational capability of Maritime Command has not been impaired by these rotating strikes or by the total withdrawal of services?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that our domestic market is small when compared with the other major markets of the world. If Canada is to make its way industrially, it will need to be an exporter. We are an important exporter at present, perhaps 25 per cent of our gross national product consisting of exports. My department is making every effort to increase our exports in these difficult times.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct to say that the rotating strikes have continued since June 5. As of today there are some 49 personnel off the job in Halifax and 196 away from work in Esquimalt. In answer to the hon. member's question let me say that it is obvious, with that many men away from work there will be some effect on the operational capability, but I can say that to date there has been no serious effect on operations.


TRANSPORT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Owing to the deteriorating state of our two national railways, a condition caused by the tremendous slump in our economy, and in view of the large lay-offs of railway employees, will the minister arrange an immediate meeting between himself and the presidents of the railways, to find a solution to their problems?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of the indication from the Minister of National Defence that there has, in fact, been some impairment as a result of the 47 men being off work. I wonder what he would have said in response to the 1,700 men who were off work yesterday. In light of the very critical situation now developing and the very real responsibility that we have not only to our allies in the south but to our NATO partners with respect to our defence capability in the maritimes, not to mention the responsibility we have with respect to national sovereignty, pollution and fisheries work, I wonder whether or not the President of the Treasury Board does not feel it is
July 15, 1975

time now for the Treasury Board to take a positive step and to take the two sides, the government and the employees involved in the six weeks old strike, back to the bargaining table with some form of a new offer or at least a recognition of the potentially serious situation that is developing with respect to our defence capability?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have always said that the government would be ill-advised to negotiate in the House of Commons. The employees who can legally go on strike do so. However, as far as the Treasury Board is concerned, we do our utmost to settle it in the shortest possible time.


STRIKE OF DOCKYARD EMPLOYEES-DATE OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO EMPLOYEES' PROPOSALS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the one asked by my colleague, and I should like to direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. Has the government in effect rejected the conciliation board chairman's position by remaining silent and, if so, when will the board respond to the latest proposals of the employees of the east and west coast dockyards?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the comment I made earlier.


MANPOWER
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister aware of a study recently prepared by two research economists for the Ontario department of labour which indicates, first, that the availability of jobless benefits has been overemphasized as a cause of the unemployment job vacancy problems, and second, that the reluctance of employers to hire women, the young, minority group workers and persons from economically poor regions is a major reason for the coexistence of unemployment and job vacancies, and therefore is the minister prepared to have the Canada Manpower Centres urge employers to broaden their range of hiring practices?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the study carried out for the Ontario government in 1974 and I was pleased to hear what was said about employers' practices, which just confirms what I have bee saying in several public statements. I am also gratified to note the impression that jobless benefits from unemployment insurance have been highly overrated as a problem, as some people claim they are.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO BRANCH LINES CLOSED UNTIL HALL COMMISSION REPORTS AND CLARIFICATION OF ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the deeply aroused fear all over the prairie provinces, and particularly in the small towns and villages, over the question as to whether or not the minister would be prepared to give his assurance that there will not be any closure on the prairies of railway lines until the Hon. Emmett Hall Royal Commission reports.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman was in the House at the time we indicated how we are going to proceed. A certain number of miles of railway is frozen, for all practical purposes, until 1980. Some other lines of railway are frozen until next January, and there are 500 miles which can be negotiated with those who are interested. The only railway lines or branch lines which can be closed now are those 500 miles.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister this because the expectant minister of transport, the Minister of Justice, during the election campaign in Saskatchewan made the statement that there would be no closures until after the report of the commission, including the 500 miles now spoken of by the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he did not say it, but I heard him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know how many ministers of transport there are over there.


Mr. Blais:: One more than over there.


John George Diefenbaker: That hon. gentleman has a voice we have not heard on the western plains since the buffalo ceased to roam, and it is equally intelligent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Minister of Justice now whether on Friday last a Mr. Owen Buss of CJVR in Melfort got in touch with the minister by telephone in connection with this and told him that he, too, had heard the minister make this statement? What has the minister to say to that?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, throughout we made it very clear in all statements that when dealing with the 525 miles of line the very purpose of not protecting it was to indicate that the regular CTC proceedings could proceed, and I don't think anyone misunderstood that. There was some misunderstanding about the 6,000 miles, which are the subject of the Hall commission, and we indicated that as far as we were concerned we were prepared to protect some or all of those lines
29576 - 65/4

July 15, 1975
Oral Questions
further while the studies continue, but that the studies may well be completed in part rather than in total, and at that point decisions could be made. While the right hon. gentleman is constantly emphasizing whether as a result of such decisions certain lines can be closed, the more important thing is a decision that those lines are going to be saved and protected and can now be upgraded and transferred to the basic rail network.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: No doubt Mr. Buss, the farmers of Saskatchewan and myself are under a misapprehension because of the deception which the minister endeavoured to perpetrate on the voters of Saskatchewan, and unsuccessfully.


Otto Emil Lang: The right hon. gentleman may well be under a misapprehension. When occasionally the farmers are, it is often from listening to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They didn't listen to the minister in the month of June.


OIL-AMOUNT OF INCREASE IN RETAIL PRICE OF FUEL AS RESULT OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell the House what reply he has had from the oil companies concerning how much they plan to boost retail prices on fuel products because of the $1.50 increase in the price per barrel of crude oil?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a full report on the replies. I am afraid I cannot give that today.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Has the federal government done its own price analysis as to what the increase in retail prices should be, and will it require the oil companies to conform to these price guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have never attempted to analyse retail prices. We have confined our analysis to the wholesale level.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As unemployment has now been well in excess of 7 per cent for four straight months, and in view of the fact that following each of the previous four budgets both the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have assured 
the House that the measures in those budgets could be expected to reduce unemployment when in fact unemployment continued to rise after each of those budgets, would the Prime Minister advise the House what reason there could be to believe that unemployment will not continue to rise steadily, as most economists in Canada predict that it will?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot.


George Harris Hees: No answer?


FINANCE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It appears that the 10 cent tax on fuel is to be collected by the wholesaler. Would the minister consider putting before the cabinet a proposition that the wholesaler be allowed to sell directly to trucking firms no matter what they are hauling, without charging them the 10 cent tax because of the amount of money involved? Huge trucking firms and, for that matter, small trucking firms haul milk or farm produce daily. The wholesalers know what these truckers are hauling, and it is wrong for the wholesaler to charge them and then for this government to give it back. It seems to me like a very inefficient method, and surely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -through his good offices a better method could be devised.


John Napier Turner: Although we can deal with this in debate, it might well be that the fairer way would be to make provision for refunds on a monthly or a more frequent basis for large exempt users.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the minister aware that the provincial governments in nearly every province allow the wholesaler to make the deductions whether or not the buyer is going to use that gas for purposes involved in production or whether he is going to use it as a luxury?


John Napier Turner: I am also aware of the use of marked or coloured gas which has the same effect, and perhaps we ought to deal with that when we get into committee.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment, and I shall do so without making a political speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 15, 1975


Maurice Adrian Dionne: In view of the horrendous damage being done to the forests of my native province, and in view of the fact that industries based on forestry are the life blood of the economy in my constituency, can the minister say what concrete steps are being taken now to try to control an insidious menace before next spring so that our forests will not be completely wiped out?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the concrete measures which I am taking now for next year are not different from the ones I have announced previously in the House. As I said before, there is no sure cure for this kind of epidemic. Spraying has had no significant impact, as is well illustrated by the amount of money which has been spent by different provinces in spraying trees with little impact. Even the impact we think there has been has not been definitely identified. However-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interfere with the process unduly, but the question does relate to measures which will take place in the spring, and for that reason the hon. member ought to be entitled to some brief answer, which the minister has given. In view of the time involved, I do not think the minister should prolong the process.


SPRUCE BUDWORM-AMOUNT OF FEDERAL GRANT TO NEW BRUNSWICK FOR CONTROL MEASURES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, how much money did the Government of Canada give New Brunswick for the spruce budworm spraying this year?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which is further to previous discussions and questions on the same topic. Is the minister now prepared to clear the record on the status of Securex Safeguards Consultants Limited, a Montreal based firm which provides protective services for many clients, including the federal government?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am told by the RCMP that they have made no recommendation against this firm.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


REQUEST FOR RESULTS OF SEARCH FOR WEAPONS
William Warren Allmand: While I am on my feet I should like to answer the question put yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He asked me about searches in penitentiaries. I should like to tell the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that all maximum and medium security institutions have been searched and no firearms have been found. Four rounds of ammunition were found in one institution and a small number of handmade knives and other small handmade weapons were found. Small quantities of drugs were also found in some of the institutions.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Over a month ago the minister indicated that he did not have all the necessary representation to discuss the very important policy regarding bilingual ground to air communication. I am aware that most of those representations had been made by late June. Is the minister in the position to present that policy to the House today or in the near future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to do so.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Solicitor General. I do not wish to impose unduly on the House but the Minister used most of my time to answer the question of the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert. Would the minister consider referring some aspects of this Securex matter which I think has many implications, to Judge Rene Marin's commission so that there can be a thorough investigation as to whether there may be some injustice in the way investigators Brunet and McCleery were treated by the RCMP at the time of their discharge?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, officers Brunet and McCleery appeared before the Marin Commission and made a submission to it. I do not know if anything further can be done in this respect.

July 15, 1975
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


SPRINGHILL-INQUIRY AS TO DRUG SEIZURES AND ACTION TO ELIMINATE USE OF DRUGS IN INSTITUTION
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Solicitor General as well with regard to his comments in respect of drug seizures. I should like to ask if any of the drugs seized were from the Springhill institution and whether the size of seizure of drugs was anywhere near the seizures made a short while ago in that institution? What action has been taken to try to eliminate the use of drugs within the institution?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the searches that were made were searches of a security nature, to look for weapons. During the searches they did find what is mentioned as "a small quantity of drugs" but I do not know the institutions from which those drugs were seized.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the government be introducing changes to the Canada Pension Plan that will bring it in line with the Quebec pension plan whereby pensioners who earn more than $1320 per year will have fifty cents deducted for every dollar earned?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The matter is not under review, Mr. Speaker. In any event, any change of that nature would first have to be discussed with the provincial welfare ministers.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, does this change by the Quebec government now make the plan sufficiently different to be no longer considered identical and hence not portable in the rest of Canada, and does this action negate the principle of universality?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to give a legal opinion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to whom I sent notice. With respect to the announced cut of $30 million in the CIDA budget, can the minister state what projects and countries are

involved, whether the cuts are in present or future projects, and whether CIDA payments to non-governmental organizations are affected?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sending notice of his question. There are a number of proposals now before me from CIDA as to how these cuts may be effected. As yet I have not given approval to any of the suggestions, but when I do I shall advise the hon. member.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question. With respect to the special session of the United Nations on development which opens seven weeks from today, is the government ready to recommend specific measures such as greater international control over stockpiles of grain and other essential commodities and more multilateral programs in order to give leadership in realistic ways to implement a new economic order as called for by the Commonwealth leaders, which is far more important than the $30 million cut for CIDA?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a broad question of policy which cannot be answered at the present time. I want to assure the hon. member, however, that at the moment the cabinet is considering the proposals which will be the basis of its stand at the special session.


DATE OF TABLING REPORT OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL TASK FORCE ON ENERGY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When will the report of the Interdepartmental Task Force on Energy, Research and Development in Canada which would assist in the development of a public debate about the nuclear safety aspects of energy, be tabled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the document is now being translated and subject to the production of copies I hope to be able to lay it on the House later this week-perhaps Thursday.


George Harris Hees: How do you "lay it on the House"? This would be the neatest trick of the week.


FINANCE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the IV2 per cent increase in the cost of living last month, a very large part of which is due to the increased price of fuel, and in view of the statement of the president of the Canadian
July 15, 1975

Federation of Agriculture that this price increase would further increase the cost of food production as a result of the increased cost of fuel and fertilizer, I should like to ask the minister if his department has made any calculation of the effect the ten cent excise tax on gasoline will have on the price of food?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the excise tax will not affect farm production because it will not apply, nor will the tax apply to diesel oil. The general rise in the price of gas and oil in the next year or so will have some effect, it is true, but because of the tax we succeeded in keeping the national single oil price in Canada at two-thirds of the international price.


David Orlikow: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the sharp increase in the cost of food has been particularly serious for senior citizens, has the minister given any consideration to increasing the old age pension to protect people who are in such need against the sharp increases in the cost of food that has taken place and will take place in the next year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the
increase reflected in the cost of living index, of course, will be reflected in the indexing of the old age pension.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
ACTION BY GOVERNMENT TO SECURE PAYMENT TO MacLEOD FISHERIES BY RUSSIA FOR LOSS OF LOBSTER GEAR-REQUEST FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement by the minister on November 5 that the loss of $170,000 worth of deepsea lobster gear suffered on July 11, 1974 by MacLeod Fisheries Limited of Queen's county because of an action by Russian fishing trawlers is being pursued diligently with the Soviet Union, would the minister undertake to contact the Russians concerning this matter and endeavour to find out when the company can expect a financial settlement based on the 112 pages of information provided to the Russians by the company?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be seeing the Russian ambassador later in the week and I will consider raising this point.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. In view of the request from the Russians to MacLeod Fisheries Limited for further information which requires legal expertise, would the minister make some of his legal staff available for this work? It is obvious that a small private company does not have the legal staff or financial resources to wage a legal battle with a foreign country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will see if there is some way we can extend help.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


DATE OF DECISION ON FARE INCREASES-APPEAL OF CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister indicate to the House whether the government will make an announcement before the recess on its decision regarding the Canadian Association of Consumers appeal to cabinet on the recent air fare increases-in particular an announcement of an explanation by the minister regarding his request for the airlines to add restraint to the short-haul fares which have the effect of aggravating the cross-subsidization process whereby the western long-haul flights are supporting the Golden Triangle short-haul flights?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman knows that for the time being those matters are dealt with by a committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. I promised that in the new general policy, this is something we are going to look into. This is before the standing committee of the House. I hope that we are going to correct these situations.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This matter is before the cabinet. This is the appeal by CAC. It has nothing to do with the policy. God forbid we have to wait that long. On April 28, in committee, the president of the CTC stated that their study into the operational efficiency of the airlines had not been completed due to the heavy workload of the commission as the government moved toward producing a transportation policy. Will the minister now give an undertaking to the House to provide the priority to the CTC so that this particular study can take place and not await this new transportation policy implementation which could take months or years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that I cannot give this kind of an order to the CTC. I do not have the authority. Does the hon. member want to give it to me?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. At a defence committee meeting on October 17, 1974, the minister assured us that a decision would be made on the final selection of the long-range patrol aircraft in April, May or June of this year. Can the minister inform the House if this decision has in fact been made and, if so, can he give us a general outline of the terms of the contract?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the decision has not been made. The matter is being fully considered by cabinet at the present time.

July 15, 1975
Oral Questions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If the government procrastinates much longer on this decision, they will be able to wheel their final choice directly into the air museum at Rockcliffe. Can the minister now give us another of his firm dates for the decision to be announced?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe a firm date has ever been stated. The decision will be made shortly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. What reply has the minister given to the request of the British Columbia cherry growers for the immediate application of a surtax on distressed-priced cherries?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram this morning from the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association requesting that the surtax be placed on imported cherries. We have followed these developments since the provincial minister made a similar request two or three days ago. Because of the season in Washington being practically over-it will be over by the end of the week-our officials have told us that because of the ripening of their cherries, their inability to be shipped and so on, they do not foresee any need at this time for a surcharge. We will continue to watch the situation very closely.


Howard Earl Johnston: Is the Department of Agriculture any closer to developing an automatic formula that could be applied to this sort of situation without the inevitable delay that is so damaging to the local growers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they still have a 10 per cent ad valorem duty. There is a 3 per cent difference in the exchange. It costs the importers that much more for United States produce. There is not the tremendous loss that was expected. There is still discussion going on with regard to this automatic machinery that we need so badly.


ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING RADIATION LEVELS OF WASTE DUMPS OF ELDORADO NUCLEAR AT PORT HOPE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have given him notice of my question. The minister moved promptly to cause an investigation by the Atomic Energy Control Board into the serious allegations respecting the radiation and toxicity levels of the waste dumps of the Crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear of Port Hope. My question to the minis-

ter now is has he received the report, what is in it, what is he going to do about it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the question. As indicated, I did cause an inquiry to be made by the Atomic Energy Control Board which has now had an opportunity to inspect the sites in Durham County. They have made a report recommending tighter physical security of the particular site and closer monitoring procedures to be followed, both with regard to radiation activity and other environmental risks. The board representatives will be meeting with the Ontario department of the environment and Eldorado Nuclear on Friday for the purpose of discussing the report. I hope then to be able to give the hon. member and the House a fuller report on the conclusions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As this whole question of radioactivity and toxicity from nuclear waste is a problem that will be with us from now until eternity, will the minister be good enough to release that report or, to use his phrase, lay it on the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to lay it on the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: After the two levels of government have been able to discuss the matter on Friday, I think it might be useful to see if a combined report can be made available for public scrutiny.


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us whether he or his department are obliged to respect the long term policies decreed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the import and export of butter and cheese?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member's question correctly, he is asking if we agree with the program. At the present time, we do.


ALLEGATION PROSPECTIVE MOTHERS SENT TO UNITED STATES WHERE THEIR CHILDREN ADOPTED-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I believe should be directed to the Minister of National Health and Wei-
July 15, 1975

fare. Has the minister investigated the allegation in yesterday morning's Montreal Gazette that at least two abortion referral agencies in the Montreal area are channelling pregnant women to United States lawyers who arrange adoptions for prospective parents, who sometimes pay several thousand dollars? If so, has he confirmed that this is in fact taking place? Perhaps I could ask my supplementary at the same time. If this is in fact taking place, does the minister feel that such activities are proper or whether we, as Canadians, have a responsibility to provide for pregnant women who want to put their children up for adoption and for the provision of good homes for children of pregnant Canadian women?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of reading the articles in question; I therefore cannot commit myself as to the veracity of the allegations they may contain. In any event, the matter, to my mind, falls within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice rather than that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that a very important conference on communications is being held and that last Sunday the Quebec premier ventured to criticize the stubbornness of the federal government on this issue, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to discuss this matter as soon as possible with the Quebec premier and after that consultation try to have the responsible minister make an acceptable compromise to both Quebec and Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member previously put that type of question to the Minister of Communications. I remind him of the content of the minister's answers, that conferences have been held in the last two years. The federal government has proposed all sorts of arrangements, except, once again, a transfer of constitutional jurisdiction. That transfer to ministers cannot in all fairness be decided by others than first ministers and not at the level of ministers of communications. So, short of a constitutional jurisdiction transfer, the federal government made arrangements proposals of all kinds. The province of Quebec chose another course. As far as I am concerned, I hope the current conference will bring a fair solution for both parties.
Privilege-Mr. Trudeau



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

["1, 3 and 5. No. Every person seeking to come into Canada must first appear before an immigration officer at a port of entry for examination as to whether he is or is not admissible to Canada. The time taken for such an examination depends upon the circumstances concerning individual cases. In the instances referred to in parts 1, 3 and 5, there was no undue delay.\n2. Ministers Permits are issued to persons who, for one reason or another, are unable to comply with certain portions of the Immigration Act or Regulations but whose temporary admission would pose no threat to Canada's national security or health. Issuing of Ministers Permits is in no way influenced by an individual's country of residence or citizenship.\n4.\tNo."]
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On June 17, 1975, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raised a very important point, to wit, the sixty-fifth anniversary of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). On that occasion I promised I would follow up an application on his part for old age security and ensure that he received the appropriate card as a senior citizen.
My department has now completed this formality, and it gives me great pleasure to forward the hon. member an appropriate senior citizen's card. I also said at the time that I would be very happy to consider a New Horizons grant for the hon. member, and I am still waiting to hear from him in this connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that the minister's generosity has me completely overwhelmed- but just temporarily. Of course, this is a very exciting moment for me, as hon. members can guess, because I am told this certificate makes it possible for me to travel by bus and go to movies at half price. I can see that from now on my life is going to be simply a whirl of travel and entertainment. In making this generous gesture toward me, by which he has made it possible for me to enjoy these simple pleasures as I drift into the golden era of life, the minister has proved something which I do not think anybody in Canada up to this moment would be prepared to believe, that is, it is now evident that this government has a heart.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to you that unless there was a possibility of replying to a question during the question period in such a way as to permit me to clarify the matter, I would raise the subject of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) last Friday when he asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) a question and said that I had apparently misled the House. At one point he talked about "this apparent effort of the Prime Minister to mislead the House in this regard." The matter had to do with the invitation extended to the United Nations to hold its conference on criminology in Toronto.
I want to set the record straight on that question by saying that my words were correct, of course, as they were stated at page 7440 of Hansard: ".. . Mr. Grossman of Ontario government stuck his head out and invited this conference to come to Canada in the first place." That is technically correct, Mr. Speaker, but I understand it has been misunderstood by people who thought I was indicat-
7574

July 15, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Trudeau
ing that the Ontario government would, presumably, have the initiative of inviting the United Nations or foreign governments to Canada.
If the context is looked at, it is evident that my comment followed a series of questions by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) asking me why the government was not cancelling the invitation and, later, a question by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) enjoining us, really, to cancel the invitation.
I think it is quite clear-certainly it is clear in my mind-that of course this government has the responsibility for inviting foreign countries or international organizations to come to Canada. If we do not want them to come, it is our responsibility to take such a position. I have never tried to slough off that responsibility. As a matter of fact, each time I was asked a question either here in the House or by the press as to what we were planning to do about the conference scheduled for September, I said the government was considering the position it had to take.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Is this a point of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it will satisfy the opposition more if I call it a question of privilege, but I have referred to the statement by the Leader of the Opposition about "this apparent effort of the Prime Minister to mislead the House ..."


Some hon. Members:: That's right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members shout, "That's right". In that case, I would think they would let me give an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was given the Chair notice of his intention to raise this subject either by way of a question of privilege or a point of order. I propose, as has always been the practice, to hear the hon. member who raised the point and then to determine whether it is a valid question of privilege. It has also been the general practice, before doing so, to hear at least one member from the opposition side in order to balance the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to throw light on this matter, particularly because Mr. Grossman has sent me a telegram asking for an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do feel that the record should be set straight as, of course, will be done in my answer to Mr. Grossman's telegram. I repeat that my words, placed in the context in which they were stated, would, I thought, lead to no misunderstanding. Certainly, there was no attempt made by the government to state that it had no responsibility to decide whether or not the conference would take place, and with what participants.
This having been said, I repeat that the position I took is not only technically correct but is really correct in the sense that not only was the invitation extended by Mr. Grossman, on behalf of the Government of Canada-


An hon. Member:: He stuck his neck out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, he stuck his neck out and he issued this invitation.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What you should be doing is apologizing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have a lot of time and I enjoy these interruptions. If the hon. member wants to make some more, let us hear from the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I speak on this question of privilege?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would yield the floor for a question, but I have not made my point yet. I just want to help those gentlemen who are anxious to interrupt.


Mr. Nowlan:: What kind of hocus-pocus is this?
[DOT] <1510)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, would you please rule on whether or not I have the right to speak? I seem to hear some disagreement from the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already indicated that the right hon. Prime Minister has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege. I hope that the right hon. Prime Minister will be permitted to conclude his point very briefly and I will then hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will make two very brief points. The first is that in fact the Ontario government did write to the United Nations in the first place to ask that the conference be held in Toronto. The United Nations at that time expressed some surprise that the invitation came from the Ontario government rather than from the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Finally, after some exchange between the federal government and the provincial government, the federal government did extend the invitation to come to Canada. The form of the invitation was then discussed, and Mr. Grossman wrote the federal government on July 30, 1970, confirming Ontario's, and I quote, "agreement to join in invitation for the fifth congress" and suggesting, I am again quoting, that "while in Vancouver we prepare a statement extending joint invitation".
That is not the way we understand international relations, Mr Speaker, but the technicality is not important. The fact is that the federal government, the Government of Canada, did have this invitation extended through a participant at the conference at that time, who happened to be Mr. Grossman, and those working with him, and I think the correspondence indicates that they were at least as important fathers of the idea as was the federal government.
The only other matter I would add to substantiate this is to refer to an excerpt from the debates of the legislature of
July 15, 1975

Ontario for April 29, 1975-just very recently-a speech by the hon. John Clement, Attorney General of Ontario. As reported at page 1363 of those debates-this is my final point, Mr. Speaker-Mr. Clement said:
I refer to the fact that from September 1 to September 13 of this year, Toronto will host the fifth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of the Offender. I would like to express my appreciation to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) who, through his eloquent pleading at the fourth congress, was primarily instrumental in Toronto being chosen as the site for this year's meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: The PLO was not at
the UN at that time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is April of this year.


Mr. Fraser:: What year was the PLO at the UN? Put that on the record.
*


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, let us have all the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the record was quite clear, that it was


John Allen Fraser: You are darned right; the invitation was given in 1970.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the hon. member opposite is indignant over very little. If he will check what I said this afternoon, I began by saying that back in 1969 the government of Ontario had taken initiatives. If I did not make that clear, I make it clear now. Of course, this matter goes back four or five years, but the quotation I have just made from the Attorney General of Ontario dates from April of this year, long after the PLO were at the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Read the letter of May 9, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am prepared to apologize to Mr. Grossman if indeed I hurt his sensitivities in a way which I did not intend, and certainly that did not emerge from the context of my answers and the responsibility that I have always said the government had with regard to the holding or otherwise of this conference. So that should be quite clear. But I do think that when provinces seek to associate themselves with or even take initiatives in these matters they should be mature enough not to wash their hands of all responsibility for their actions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister of this country ought to be mature enough, when he misleads the House and creates a wrong impression, to admit it. If he wants to stand in the House and indicate that the Government of Canada issued this invitation in consultation with the Government of Ontario-in consultations had in 1969 and 1970, as the government House leader indicated in the House on Friday-that is quite appropriate. But when the
Order Paper Questions
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rises in this House on two occasions and gives the impression that the Government of Canada was in this situation today with regard to the PLO and this conference because a minister of the province of Ontario had "stuck his head out", which is precisely what I objected to on Friday, I would hope that the Prime Minister would be big enough to stand up in the House and admit he had done this and apologize for it in a gracious and graceful way befitting a Prime Minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question was raised upon proper notice as a potential question of privilege. It has been contributed to by both sides. No motion follows the proposed question of privilege, and therefore no action is called for by the Chair.
I indicated yesterday that at three o'clock today I would rule in respect of the situation regarding Bill C-66. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, following your statement of yesterday there were some consultations among the House leaders, and I have to report to you that we have been unable to agree upon any steps that would be without prejudice to the progress of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: In that event I have an order to make, but perhaps it might be more appropriate to dispose of routine proceedings first and then I will make the order.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,884, 2,250, 2,379, 2,469, 2,480, 2,549, 2,560, 2,565, 2,596, 2,599, 2,600, 2,601, 2,602, 2,603, 2,604, 2,610, 2,611, 2,612, 2,613, 2,639, 2,781, 2,787, 2,800, 2,822, 2,867 and 2,877.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 711 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 1,540 and 2,597?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
29576-66Vi

July 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Brisco: 1.	How many non-Canadians are presently on faculty in each university across Canada and, in each case, what is the name of the university?
2.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration require thaf the non-Canadian academic staff of schools and universities is no taking staff positions at the expense of qualified Canadian teachers?
3.	Would the Minister recommend to all Canadian universities anc schools that (a) employment opportunities at Canadian universities and schools be announced at least three months in advance (b) thai schools and universities satisfy manpower requirements in providing teaching positions for Canadians first before awarding them to non-Canadians?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. For the academic year 1973-74, 8,049 full-time teachers in Canadian universities were reported as not having Canadian citizenship which represents 33.7 per cent of total teachers for whom citizenship was reported. Data on citizenship of full-time teaching staffs in Canadian universities collected by Statistics Canada cannot be released by university. Such a release would violate the provisions of Section 16 of the Statistics Act.
2.	No.
3.	(a) and (b) The Department of Manpower and Immigration is not able to assess the suitability of candidates for university teaching posts, and therefore must rely on advice from universities that qualified Canadian teachers are not available, before approving the admission of foreign teachers. However the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will bring to the attention of Canadian universities and colleges the need to take all possible steps to recruit Canadian teachers before hiring from abroad. In doing so, the Minister will also bring to their attention the suggestion contained in 3(a) of the question.


Mr. Neil: 1.	For each crop year 1972-73 and 1973-74, what was the total number of grain ships delayed in (a) Vancouver (b) Thunder Bay (c) Prince Rupert?
2.	Since August 1, 1974 to date (a) what demurrage was paid for grain ships delayed (b) what was the total number of grain ships delayed in each such harbour?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: The Canadian Wheat Board has no record of the total number of grain ships delayed in 197273 or 1973-74. The fact that a ship was delayed does not necessarily mean demurrage was or will be paid. The board only pays demurrage on the receipt of a demurrage claim and where the board feels it has a legal liability. Accordingly, the term delayed in the question has been interpreted to mean vessels that loaded during 1972-73 or 1973-74 for which the board paid a demurrage claim. 1. 1972-73: Vancouver, 76; Thunder Bay, NIL; Prince Rupert,

NIL; 1973-74: Vancouver, 126; Thunder Bay, NIL; Prince Rupert, NIL.
2. (a) $5,230,559 in demurrage was paid by the board during the period August 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975. The demurrage paid was not necessarily incurred in the period, but rather only represents the value of demurrage claims paid by the board during the period August 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975. (b) The Canadian Wheat Board has no record of the total number of grain vessels delayed since August 1, 1974. As of March 31, 1975 the board has received demurrage claims respecting 26 vessels and anticipates further claims. Of the 26 vessels, 3 vessels incurred demurrage in Vancouver and were then directed to Prince Rupert where they incurred further demurrage. There has been no demurrage at Thunder Bay.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,022, are records kept of the length of time that the unemployed remain jobless and, if so, what percentage apply in each time period?
2.	For what reason is it not considered important to separate statistically those who voluntarily quit their jobs from those who are laid off or discharged?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The Unemployment Insurance Commission maintains records on claimants only and not on all unemployed persons. Claimants records for the first four months of 1975 show: 23 per cent of the claimants collect between 0-4 weeks of benefits; 37 per cent of the claimants collect between 5-13 weeks of benefits; 29 per cent of the claimants collect between 14-26 weeks of benefits; 8 per cent of the claimants collect between 27-39 weeks of benefits; 3 per cent of the claimants collect between 40 and more weeks of benefits; after serving a 2 week waiting period.
2. The Unemployment Insurance Commission does keep separate statistics on claimants who voluntarily quit their jobs from those who are laid off. The answer is as follows: (a) For the first six months of 1974, 41 per cent of job terminations were caused by quitting. Of those who established claims for Unemployment Insurance benefits, only 21 per cent were unemployed because of quitting, (b) For the first six months of 1974, 28 per cent of job terminations were caused by lay-off. Of those who established claims for Unemployment Insurance benefits, 40 per cent were unemployed because of lay-off.
Note: Other reasons for job termination include: labour disputes, return to school, illness or injury, pregnancy, retirement, etc.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Have there been discussions between officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Hydro-Quebec or the Government of Quebec concerning the electrical power which Hydro-Quebec proposes to export to the United States?
2.	Have any agreements been signed?
July 15, 1975

3.	Is it anticipated that there will be an adequate supply of domestically produced electrical power in Quebec to replace, in whole or in part, the imported oil presently used for residential heating and, if so, by what date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. There have been no formal discussions.
2.	It is understood that an agreement has been signed between Hydro Quebec and the Power Authority of the State of New York. The terms of this agreement are subject to regulatory approval by the National Energy Board.
3.	It is anticipated that adequate supplies of electrical energy can and will be available for electrical heating if and when conversion of oil heating equipment begins to take place in a significant way.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Of the total $688,751 granted in 1972-73 under the Local Initiatives Programme in the Constituency of Dollard, Quebec, how much was received by the Municipality of Pierrefonds for five projects and what is the breakdown of the figure (a) for construction of a sewage system, water pipeline and storm sewers for Lots 55, 62, 195 and 196 (b) for construction of a municipal garage (c) for construction of a storm sewage system between St. Jean and Paiement (d) for construction of a storm sewer system between Paiement and St. Charles (e) for verification and drafting of the registered survey of lands?
2.	In each case, what is the (a) name and address of the contractor
(b)	amount of the contract (c) were tenders called and, if so (i) what were the names and addresses of ail those who tendered (ii) the amount of each such tender?


Robert Knight Andras: $131,510.34; (a) $31,590.00; (b) $16,848.00;
(c)	$39,879.45; (d) $22,600.89; (e) $20,592.00. Local Initiatives Program funds are provided to sponsors under a contract between the sponsor and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The department requires the sponsor to report the type of expenditure incurred, but the sponsor is at liberty to deal with whichever suppliers or contractors that he wishes. Information concerning contractors only comes to the attention of the department if it is mentioned in audit reports or is revealed as a result of some special enquiry. In the cases listed, no information is available to the department on the contracts concerned.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,913 which stated in part that the advertising agency "will not get a commission but a fee based on work done and overhead" (a) in what manner did the government arrange that there would be no commission received when the matter of commission by an advertising agency is an arrangement between the agency and the media rather than between agency and client (b) what happened to the commission (i) was it not asked for (ii) did the government pay the agency fee over and above the standard charge for advertising resulting in the taxpayers paying more for the advertisements than normal commercial usage (iii) did the government and its advertising agency indulge in any form of fee splitting and, if so, what are the details (c) what was the exact amount of the fee paid by the government to the advertising agency Vickers and Benson Ltd.?
Order Paper Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) The agency was advised that only production costs plus a reasonable profit would be paid since the advertisement was prepared largely within the department's own information branch, (b) It was used to buy additional energy conservation advertisements, booklets, etc. (i) Not applicable, (ii) No, (iii) No. (c) The fee was the production costs of the advertisement, which amounted to $10,304, plus 25 per cent of those costs. This included 15,000 reprints of the advertisement for promotional purposes.


Mr. Epp: 1.	On what date did Mr. Jose Da Luz of Portugal receive landed immigrant status?
2.	On what basis was his deportation order of April 26, 1973 quashed on March 27, 1974?
3.	How many points did Mr. Da Luz receive out of the possible 100 on the immigration point system?
Hort. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): 1. August 7, 1974.
2.	After reviewing the material submitted by the appellant and the respondent in support of the appeal lodged by Mr. DaLuz the Immigration Appeal Board considered that the exercise of discretion under section 15 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act was warranted.
3.	On June 15, 1972, when assessed in accordance with Schedule A of the Immigration Regulations, Mr. DaLuz received 22 units of assessment. At an inquiry held on April 26, 1973, to determine whether Mr. DaLuz was a person who should be allowed to remain in Canada the special inquiry officer reviewed the original assessment and because of altered circumstances at that time awarded him 31 units of assessment.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. $300,000.
2. (a) nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) .Staffing and Recruitment, $39,000; Training and Development, $27,000; Departmental Language Retention Training Program, $60,000; Work Instruments, $10,000; Administration of Official Language Program in the Department, $164,000; Total, $300,000.

July 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Gaston Clermont: 1. Total language training costs in the 1975-76 estimates are divided as follows: (a) Replacement salaries for employees on language training, $1,170,400; (b) T.C.S. Program, $136,000; (c) Tourism Program, $80,000; (d) In-House Program' $35,000; Total, $1,421,400.
2. (a) None of the above costs are for salaries of personnel receiving language training however $1,170,400 covers the replacement salaries; (b) Salaries of instructional staff-NIL; (c) Services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission-Nil; (d) Other costs, $251,000 as outlined above in items 1(b), (c) and (d).


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	On the basis of present technological information, what is the anticipated (a) airframe life (b) engine life (c) efficient useful life of the electronic equipment of the Argus?
2.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 124 of the 3rd Session of the 28th Parliament, indicating that the predicted life of the Argus airframe was 11,000 hours, has this figure changed and, if so, to what?
3.	With reference to the same answer indicating that the manufacturer of the Argus had stated that appearance of cracks in the primary structure should not occur before 15,000 hours, has this figure changed and, if so, to what?
4.	For each Argus remaining in service, how many hours (a) have been accumulated on (i) the airframe (ii) the engines (b) remain before (i) 11,000 hours (ii) 15,000 hours have been accumulated on the airframe?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) On the basis of present technological information the airframe life of the Argus is anticipated to be in excess of 22,500 hours, (b) There is no specified life for the Argus engine. After each overhaul the engine is zero lifed. The ultimate life will be determined by the availability of spares for overhaul. At the present time the manufacturer has indicated that spares support will be available at least until 1985. (c) Detail of the various electronic sub-systems are classified. However, it is anticipated that economical support to the sub-systems can be maintained till at least 1982.
2.	Yes. The life of the Argus airframe is now predicted to be in excess of 22,500 hours.
3.	See parts 1 and 2 above.


[Stage Direction]
4 (a)	Accumulated Hours for each Argus Aircraft
Aircraft	Accummulated Hours	
Number	Airframe	Engine10710	11703	Not applicable see part 1(b) of this question10711	10928	10712	12218	10713	9792	10714	8953	10715	13388	10716	11502	10717	12071	10718	13212	10719	12482	10720	12583	10721	12844	10722	11007	10723	11747	10724	9638	10725	12139	10726	12402	10728	11555	10729	10293	10730	13152	10731	13827	10732	11813	10733	13308	10734	11379	10735	13020	10736	12142	10737	12823	10738	12437	10739	13113	10740	11833	10741	12423	10742	12014	ANNEXB	
(b)
Airframe Hours remaining for each Argus Aircraft
Aircraft Number	Airframe hours remaining to 11,000 hours 15,000 hours 22,500 hours		
10710	-	3,297	10,79710711	72	4,072	11,57210712	-	2,782	10,28210713	1,208	5,208	12,70810714	2,047	6,047	13,54710715	-	1,612	9,11210716	-	3,498	10,99810717	-	2,929	10,42910718	-	1,788	9,28810719	-	2,518	10,01810720	-	2,417	9,91710721	-	2,156	9,65610722	-	3,993	11,49310723	-	3,253	10,75310724	1,362	5,362	12,86210725	-	2,861	10,36110726	-	2,598	10,09810728	-	3,445	10,94510729	707	4,707	12,20710730	-	1,848	9,34810731	-	1,712	9,21210732	-	1,712	9,212
July 15, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Aircraft Number	11,000 hou	Airframe hours remaining to rs 15,000 hours 22,500 hours	10733	' -	1,092	9,19210734	-	3,021	11,12110735	-	1,980	9,48010736	-	2,858	10,35210737	-	2,177	9,67710738	-	2,503	10,06310739	-	1,887	9,38710740	-	3,167	10,66710741	-	2,577	10,07710742	-	2,980	10,480
Mr. Forrestall: Does the government intend to replace the Argus with a long range patrol aircraft and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a), and (b). In July 1972, the Government authorized the Department of National Defence to obtain proposals for the procurement of a fleet of Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPA) to replace the existing Argus aircraft. Proposals were received from contractors in March, 1973. In November 1973, approval was given for the selection of two of these contractors, The Boeing Company and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, to compete in a funded Contract Definition Phase of the Long Range Patrol Aircraft Project and contracts were awarded to the companies in May 1974. The Contract Definition Phase proposals were received from both contractors 3 February, 1975. The factors leading to a decision are now being considered in Cabinet.


Mr. Forrestall: In what year will the majority of the present Argus long range patrol aircraft fleet be no longer serviceable in their present role?


James Armstrong Richardson: Because engines can be rebuilt and there are many hours of airframe life remaining it is not possible to predict the precise time frame when the majority of the present Argus fleet will no longer be serviceable. (See also question No. 2,596).


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government contemplating the removal of the "kill" capability of the replacement for the Argus long range patrol aircraft and, if so, for what reason?


James Armstrong Richardson: The government is considering all aspects of the effects produced by having, and/or not having, different capabilities in any replacement for the Argus.


Mr. Forrestall: Would the government reject a pure single selection for the replacement of the Argus long range patrol aircraft and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): No.


Mr. Forrestall: What is the primary role of the DASH-7 in a military/civilian mix?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): The DASH-7 is being studied as a middle range surveillance aircraft. (See question No. 2603).


Mr. Forrestall: Is there a pure military justification for purchasing or for contemplating the purchase of the DASH-7 and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, are there non-military justifications for contemplating such purchases related to requirements of departments other than DND and (i) what are they (ii) what consideration is being given to having the departments pay their share of the purchase?


James Armstrong Richardson: With modifications the DASH-7 could be used in a limited military role but there is not a "pure" military justification for purchasing this aircraft. The Department of National Defence is presently examining the capabilities of the DASH-7 in a middle range surveillance role, (a); (b), (i), (ii): Not applicable.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the estimated lead-time required from contract signing to delivery for (a) the Boeing (b) the Lockheed replacement possibilities for the Argus?
2.	How many hours were accumulated on each of the remaining Argus airframes over the past 12 months?
3.	For each airframe, what was the average monthly accumulation and how many more months can each be expected to remain serviceable before (a) 11,000 airframe hours (b) 15,000 airframe hours is reached?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Estimate lead-time required from contract signing to delivery is as follows: (a) Boeing: First Aircraft, 48 months; Final Aircraft, 56 months; (b) Lockheed: First Aircraft, 41 months; Final Aircraft, 52 months.

Hours Accumulated on each Argus April 30, 1974-April 30, 1975
Aircraft	Hours
Number	Accumulated
710	788
711	819
712	530
713	462
714	430
715	844
716	875
717	624
718	773
719	769
720	560
721	803
722	382

July 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Aircraft	Hours
Number	Accumulated
723	833
724	950
725	767
726	823
728	315
729	544
730	845
731	804
732	412
733	745
734	931
735	437
736	747
737	669
738	931
739	684
740	807
741	693
742	470


[Stage Direction]
Average monthly airframe accumulation and months
	expected to	remain serviceable Number of months expected	
	Average Monthly	to be Serviceable Till	
Aircraft	accumulation	11,000	15,000Number	(hours)	Airframe hours	Airframe hours710	65.6	-	45711	68.2	1	56712	44.1	-	38713	38.5	17	71714	35.8	28	83715	70.3	-	-716	73.0	-	48717	52.0	-	40718	64.5	-	-719	64.0	-	35720	46.7	-	33721	66.9	-	30722	31.8	-	55723	69.4	-	45724	79.1	19	74725	63.9	-	39726	68.6	-	36728	26.2	-	47729	45.3	10	64730	70.4	-	-731	70.4	-	-732	34.3	-	44733	62.0	-	-734	77.6	-	50735	36.4	-	27736	62.2	-	39737	55.7	-	30738	77.6	-	35739	57.0	-	-740	67.2	-	43741	57.7	-	35742	39.2	-	41NATIONAL DEFENCE-PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS ORION AND DASH-7
Mr. Forrestall: What are the performance characteristics under optimum conditions of the (a) ORION (b) DASH-7 in terms of (i) range in miles (ii) hours 
of continuous flight (iii) minimum and maximum sustainable altitudes (iv) number of square miles coverable in search capacity after flying 500 miles and before requirement to return 500 miles to base of operation (v) electronic payload weight (vi) armament weight (vii) maximum and minimum speeds?


James Armstrong Richardson: The performance characteristics for the aircraft in question are listed in the table below:
	(a) ORION	(b) DASH-7 R*
(i) Maximum range in nautical miles (at best cruise altitude)	4,370	2,080(ii) Maximum continuous airborne time in hours	12.5	9.4(iii) Minimum sustainable altitude Maximum sustainable altitude	300 ft. 35,000 ft.	300 ft. 20,000 ft.(iv) Area coverable at 500 nautical miles radius from base	176,800 sq. NMI	54,000 sq. NMI(v) Electronic payload weight (Photographic sensors not included)	10,862 lbs.	2,590 lbs.(vi) Armanent weight	5,263 lbs.	Nil(vii) Maximum (Dash) Speed Minimum (Loiter) Speed	380 Knots 170 Knots	245 Knots 80 Knots
*Note: DASH-7R is an increased capability DASH-7 in terms of maximum fuel load.


Mr. Forrestall: What are the comparative optimum performance figures expressed in hours and miles for on station surveillance operations at an altitude of 300 to 500 feet for the (a) Boeing (b) Lockheed (c) DASH-7 contemplated replacements for the Argus?


James Armstrong Richardson: The optimum performance figures for the aircraft in question at a patrol altitude of 300 to 500 feet while on station are as follows:
Aircraft.
Time to on Station and Return (Hours)
Distance to on Station (Nautical Miles)
On
Station
Time
(Hours)
Patrol Coverage (Nautical M iles)
(a)	Boeing
(b)	Lockheed
(c)	DASH-7R*
2.5	600
3.0	600
5.75	600
8.00	2,340
8.00	2,015
3.33	035
*Note: The DASH-7R is not contemplated as a replacement for the Argus. See Answer to Question No. 2,(503.


Mr. Forrestall: Has the government had any conversations with our NATO or North American defence partners with respect to the continued requirement of a long range patrol aircraft with (a) hunter (b) killer capability and, if so, what was the nature of any agreement or understanding on the subject?
July 15, 1975

Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): Yes. But these discussions did not give rise to any agreement or undertaking.


Mr. Forrestall: How many additional bases would be required and at what cost for the effective operation of the DASH-7 as a replacement for the Argus?
Hon.	James	Richardson	(Minister	of	National
Defence): The DASH-7 does not meet the operational requirements established for the long range patrol aircraft, and is not being considered for that role. As an over the ocean capability is required the creation of additional bases is not a factor.


Mr. Hurlburt: For the year 1973-74 and by province, what was the dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases?


James Armstrong Richardson: The dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvement to military bases by provinces in Canada for fiscal year 1973-74 was as follows:
	Construction	Maintenance
British Columbia	$ 3,977,979	$ 5,780,205Alberta	11,789,526	9,355,601Saskatchewan	622,876	3,305,764Manitoba	3,234,604	3,999,818Ontario	12,840,722	26,026,793Quebec	7,159,091	13,676,664New Brunswick	2,230,488	4,820,999Nova Scotia	2,839,471	9,244,549Prince Edward Island	200,800	2,077,249Newfoundland	318,369	494,017845,213,926	$78,781,659


Mr. Robinson: Do the theatre groups (a) Factory Theatre Lab (b) Tarragon Village (c) Globel Village (d) The Theatre, Second Floor (e) Toronto Arts Foundation (f) Stratford Shakespearean Theatre Foundation (g) Young People's Theatre (h) Phoenix Theatre (i) Toronto Free Theatre (j) New Theatre (k) Toronto Truck Theatre (1) Open Circle Theatre have personnel in any capacity who have been charged and/or convicted of activity in an immoral theatrical performance within the past five years?


Otto Emil Lang: This question requests information which, to the extent that it would be possible to identify, could be provided only by provincial law enforcement authorities. As the question is phrased, it would appear to be almost impossible to answer by any one jurisdiction since it could involve offences arising in many or all provinces of Canada as well as other coun-
Order Paper Questions
tries. Furthermore, records of conviction or prosecution of such personnel would not necessarily reveal their present association with any of the groups mentioned.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By province, what is the total amount approved to date of loans for sewage treatment projects?
2.	By province, what is the estimated amount of the loan principal and accrued interest which have been and are to be forgiven by CMHC?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. See table following:
Sewage Treatment Projectshi Approved Under the N.H.A., Section 51 Canada
	1961 to 1974		Federal
Number	Amount	Forgiveness' Province	of Loans	($000)	($000)Newfoundland	42	6,197	823Prince Edward Island	33	6,296	989Nova Scotia	135	26,780	2,557New Brunswick	88	23,410	2,850Quebec	485	163,728	19,176Ontario	995	459,361	65,908Manitoba	194	39,658	6,469Saskatchewan	332	18,891	3,994Alberta	320	60,660	9,292British Columbia	208	141,340	18,684Yukon Territory	-	-	-Northwest Territories	4	264	67Canada	2,890	946,585	130,809(1) Data are net.


Mr. Kaplan: Are there any nuclear weapons on Canadian territory?


James Armstrong Richardson: The response to this question has previously been given and is contained in House of Commons Debates, Second Session-20th Parliament Volume I page 908 (March 27, 1974).


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	As of May 15, 1975, how many persons have been hired (a) by the Public Service Commission (b) under contract by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for duties relating primarily to the implementation and administration of Bill C-6, An Act to establish a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council?
2.	In each case, what was the date of the original employment or commencement of contract?

July 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) None; (b) None.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Has the organization of Scientology ever been investigated by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
2.	How many complaints were registered against this organization with the Department and what was the general nature of such complaints?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. No.
2. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has received approximately 10 complaints and enquiries about the Church of Scientology. Some have been of a general nature, while others have involved specific instances where a consumer sought the return of donations made to the Church.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Were Sabri Bader and Mohammed Aba Rafie members of the Palestinian Trade Union detained on Thursday, June 12 at Dorval International Airport and, if so (a) for what period of time (b) what was the purpose of the delay and interrogation?
2.	Is it government policy that no Palestinian may enter Canada without a special ministerial permit and, if so, what is the reason for such policy?
3.	Were Abdul Rahman Khadr and Avis Hassanien of the Egyptian Trade Union movement detained at Dorval Airport on June 11 and, if so (a) for how long (b) what was the reason for their delay and prolonged interrogation?
4.	Is it government policy that no Egyptian citizens may enter Canada without exceptional inquiry and interrogation?
5.	Was Fayez Sayegh detained at the Toronto International Airport when he came to Canada as a guest of the Canadian Arab Federation on May 18 and, if so (a) for how long (b) what were the reasons for such detention and delay?


Robert Knight Andras: 1, 3 and 5. No. Every person seeking to come into Canada must first appear before an immigration officer at a port of entry for examination as to whether he is or is not admissible to Canada. The time taken for such an examination depends upon the circumstances concerning individual cases. In the instances referred to in parts 1, 3 and 5, there was no undue delay.
2. Ministers Permits are issued to persons who, for one reason or another, are unable to comply with certain portions of the Immigration Act or Regulations but whose temporary admission would pose no threat to Canada's national security or health. Issuing of Ministers Permits is in no way influenced by an individual's country of residence or citizenship.
4.	No.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, 1973 and 1974, and for the six month period ending September 30, 1974, what was the aggregate expenditure by the Department of Labour for travel abroad by (a) the Minister of Labour and his immediate staff (b) departmental staff (c) the staff of boards, commissions, tribunals, Crown corporations or other similar agencies reporting to the Minister (d) others whose expenses were paid in part or in whole directly or indirectly by the government?
2.	In the case of an expenditure in excess of $200 (a) what was the purpose of the foreign trip (b) what was the furthest destination (c) what is the name of the person(s) who took the trip (d) how long was the person(s) outside the country (e) what was the nature of the expenditure (f) how many others were in the party making the trip?
Return tabled.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I would draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary starred question No. 2,124 which has been on the order paper for almost four months. It deals with the rumoured disbanding of the Prime Minister's economic advisory council, commonly referred to as the group of seven. With the budgetary papers still being before us, having recently heard the budget speech, I think it is very pertinent that members of this House understand whether this group is still functioning or in fact has been disbanded.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Mr. Baldwin:: Mrf>Speaker, may I rise on a point of order before Your Honour delivers your ruling? I understood from reading what you said yesterday that you thought the bill and the ways and means resolution should be brought closer together, hopefully without prejudice to the progress of the bill. I am just paraphrasing what Your Honour said as recorded at page 7550 of Hansard. If your order is to be predicated on the fact that there was no agreement reached between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), myself and the government, and for that reason the fault attaches to either of the opposition parties and the order is based on that, I think we should be heard before the Chair delivers that ruling.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I felt when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) made his statement a moment ago that each of us should be allowed at least a brief sentence. It is true that we had meetings and we were unable to come to an agreement, but this is a two-way proposition. We were not able to agree to the proposition put before us by the President of the Privy Council, but we made a proposal to which he was not prepared to agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to assure hon. members that I make the same assumption which I made when I left the matter to the House to be resolved upon consent, that this is exactly the process which should take place. I make no judgment at all about the difficulty of coming to
July 15, 1975

an agreement. I have put forward the view that I would leave it for the House to see whether a consent arrangement was possible. Consent would be required not only by the House leaders involved, including, of course, the House leader on behalf of the Creditiste party, but by the House itself as a whole and it would be impossible for anyone to commit all the members of the House to consent to whatever arrangements might be entered into. I left it only to see if that could be done. The fact that it could not be done is in no way prejudicial to either side of the House or to any member of that side.
We are in a situation in which objection was taken on a point of order to which I gave some validity and came to the conclusion referred to and described in an earlier judgment in December, 1974, relating to a tax bill. At that time-perhaps I should quote the paragraph again-I said:
Furthermore, I have considerable sympathy for the argument that once the ways and means motions have been adopted by the House changes of a nature any more substantial than the one before us now ought to be made by the House.
For that reason, and having come to the conclusion that a closer correlation between the resolution and this bill ought to be made, I felt that I ought to give the House the opportunity to do so. In addition, the way I propose to do it now is one in which I will leave it to the House to make the necessary alteration in the bill.
The ways and means motion has been concurred in and has met all the procedural requirements of the House. However, the bill has departed from that ways and means resolution, not in my view in a matter of substance but in a matter of form. It was not seriously contended at any time that we were dealing with an attempt to go beyond the provisions of the resolution, because if we were that would be a matter of a much different sort. In fact, it is generally agreed that the section which has been argued as being offensive is one that does quite the contrary and contracts the powers that were reserved to the cabinet or to the governor in council in the resolution.
There are a number of precedents to be found in our records where irregularities between a recommendation or a resolution and the bill based on it had been noted prior to the second reading of the bill. In every case we have examined, remedial action has been taken either by obtaining another recommendation amending the preceding resolution or by deleting the inconsistent provision of the bill. I want to refer hon. members to some of these cases. The first and most notable example is the naval forces bill of 1913. A later example is to be found at page 1903 of Hansard of March 6, 1957. In that case a motion was made as follows:
That the order for second reading be allowed to stand and that Bill No. 161 be reprinted without lines 20 to 23 inclusive.
A more recent precedent is to be found at page 649 of Journals of December 10, 1963. In this case, again, the bill was permitted to stand while a recommendation was obtained and a resolution adopted.
While the procedure in our House has not developed to the extent that there is a clear and specific procedure in relation to the amending of bills before second reading, such practice has long been followed in Great Britain. May I, in passing, refer to one decision of my predecessor in dealing with a substantial difference, that being in the tax
Excise Tax Act
bill of March 11, 1968. On that occasion, Mr. Speaker indicated that because the matter involved a substantial matter of substance in the difference between the resolution and the bill, such change could only be accomplished by discharging the order for second reading and withdrawing the bill.
There is a difference today. We are dealing now, not with an attempt to go beyond the provisions of the bill-in other words, not with a substantial matter-but, rather, according to all the arguments that were put forward, more with a matter of form and procedure.
I might indicate that in my view the change here is even less substantial than was the case in the situation, which was not identical but certainly analogous, in April of this year when the House was dealing with the Senate and House of Commons Act amendments. At that stage a ruling had to be made respecting certain amendments which had been made in committee. The ruling was on whether they were beyond the scope of that committee. The present situation is analogous. In my view, those amendments were a much more serious aberration than the variation which has taken place between the resolution and the bill. That was another precedent upon which this ruling is being made. It was then held that the offending provisions of the bill should be deleted, but that the bill should retain its place on the order paper and that discussion on it should continue at its then stage.
Having reviewed those precedents, the Chair is of the opinion that the inconsistency should be rectified in that manner. Therefore, the Chair is ordering the deletion of the offending words to be found in subparagraph (f) of proposed new section 47.1 which read:
a person within a class of persons exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act-
I further order that the bill be reprinted, that it remain on the order paper in its present status, but that the debate thereon be not resumed until after delivery of the reprinted version, which I hope will come in time for tomorrow's orders of the day. I have not gone on, obviously, to make any positive changes to the bill as that would clearly go beyond any precedent or authority that the Chair had taken unto itself in the past.
I indicated at the outset my prior disposition in a like situation of that sort. Once the ways and means motions have been adopted by the House, changes more substantial than the one which was before the House at that time ought to be made by the House. I feel that at the appropriate stage in the continuing debate on this bill it is open to the House to make appropriate alterations to the bill in the ordinary way, at the appropriate stage, and to bring the bill into line with the resolution in whatever way is appropriate and accepted by the House at that time. I therefore leave it to the House to make that alteration. As I indicated last December, that was the proper course to follow when dealing with anything more substantial than the kind of change then before the House.
Orders of the day.

July 15, 1975
Public Service


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House leaders have discussed the possibility that we might not proceed today with the debate on Bill C-66 and we have agreed to consider the following bills in the following order: we propose, first, to call Bill C-70, to be followed by Bill C-67, then S-25 and, if there is time, C-2.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-70, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be read the second time and referred to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70 incorporates into legislation a series of recommendations made by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service relating to the structure and powers of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Hon. members will recall that in April of 1973 my esteemed predecessor, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), asked the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Jacob Finkelman, to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and its administration and to make such recommendations for change in that act as he considered necessary in the public interest.
Mr. Finkelman's report was published in the spring of 1974. The special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to which I have just referred was established in November of 1974. An interim report of the committee was tabled in this House and in the Senate on May 29 of this year. I understand that since that date the special joint committee has concluded its public hearings and is now in the process of preparing its final report on all remaining matters.
The interim report of May 29 tabled by the co-chairman of the special joint committee, the hon. member for Nipis-sing (Mr. Blais), emphasized the need for immediate action in relation to the reconstitution of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. The committee's report quoted from representations made by Mr. Finkelman to the committee as follows:
The experience of the last year, and particularly of the last few months, has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the board as presently constituted to meet the demands that are made on it. If the board is to be able to perform its function both properly and in a timely fashion, no barriers should be erected to the effective use of all the resources of the board in relation to its responsibilities. Every member of the board must expect to be, and be capable of being, fully utilized in relation to his inherent capabilities.

The decision of the committee to deal with the matter of the board before completing its investigation and prior to the preparation of its full report reflects the sense of urgency which it attached to this issue. The government shares this sense of urgency and has moved with all possible speed to consider the committee's recommendations and direct the preparation of legislation necessary to give effect to them.
Bill C-70 adheres strictly to the recommendations contained in the committee's interim report tabled in the House and in the Senate on May 29, with one modest modification to which I shall return.
The following is a brief summary of most of the provisions of the bill. The functions and powers of the chief adjudicator, adjudicators and the arbitration tribunal are to be combined with the present functions and powers of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, and all these functions and powers are to be discharged by a newly constituted public member board. Officers and members of the new board will be full-time, but provision is made for the continuation of part-time members who may be called upon from time to time to facilitate the disposition of cases before the board. In relation to the hearing and disposition of cases, part-time members will have the same status as full-time members. The governor in council will appoint the chairman, vice-chairman and deputy chairmen. Members will be appointed by the governor in council from a list prepared by the chairman after consulting with representatives of the bargaining agents and the employer. The list will include all names put forward by the parties in the process of consultation and will also include such other persons as the chairman considers suitable for appointment as a member.
In relation to the conduct of the business of the board, the vice-chairman and deputy chairmen are to exercise such powers, duties and functions as may be assigned to them by the board. The board will be empowered to sit in divisions for the purpose of facilitating the hearing or determination of any proceeding before it. However, in relation to adjudication, the present provisions for a board of adjudication on the hearing of grievances, with representative side-members, is continued. Also, in relation to the arbitration of interest disputes, the existing provisions for panels of persons representative of the interests of employees and of the employer, and the participation of these panel members in boards of arbitration, is continued.
The modification to which I referred earlier is contained in a new section 62 which appears on page 6 of the bill and would make it possible for the chairman to refer a particular dispute to an outside arbitrator who is not a member of the board. This additional flexibility is seen by the government as in no way conflicting with the committee's emphasis on the need for continuity in the arbitration process. I might say that Mr. Finkelman considers this an improvement on the recommendations he made and an improvement on the report of the joint committee.
Resort to outside assistance in the resolution of a dispute would be wholly within the discretion of the chairman and would reflect his judgment as to the desirability of such a course of action. I hope that the members of the
July 15, 1975

House generally, and especially those members who participated in the deliberations of the committee, will support this modification in the committee's recommendations.
Though Bill C-70 appears to be a complicated bill, it is for the most part a consolidation and reorganization of the relevant sections of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as they now read. The vast majority of the amendments are consequential amendments which flow from the combining of the jurisdictions of adjudication, arbitration and board functions into a reconstituted, full-time public member board and the provision for the appointment of part-time board members. Other changes deal with appointment procedures of the board and the facilitating of the conduct of hearings.
Finally, I would like to direct attention to the transitional provisions. In brief, they permit the board, the arbitration tribunal and adjudicators to retain their authority and jurisdiction in respect of any proceeding before them which has not been disposed of at the time the new board comes into existence. It also provides for the present full-time statutory officers-that is, the chairman, the deputy chairman, the alternate chairman of the arbitration tribunal, and the chief adjudicator-to be appointed to the new board for the period established by the terms of their appointments to the existing board. The part-time chairman and alternate chairman of the arbitration tribunal and the part-time adjudicators would be appointed as part-time members of the new board for the period established by the terms for which they have each been appointed to their respective offices under the existing legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I think that in respect of Bill C-70 one or two observations should be made for our part. I will commence my observations by indicating to you, sir, that we in this party are in substantial agreement with the provisions of Bill C-70 and indeed support its introduction, although it must be said we had hoped the bill would come on Thursday or Friday when we would have the opportunity to look at the bill in greater depth. However, we will be able to look at it when it comes before the committee.
There are one or two things that should be said about it, and in part they echo the words of the government House leader when he stressed the urgency of the provisions of the bill for the present Public Service Staff Relations Board. It is true that in the last couple of years the board has been faced with an increasing number of referred matters which, within the context of the board's present structure, it has not been able to resolve. In other words, the present board was constituted some seven or eight years ago and was imbued with authority and jurisdiction to deal with the traditional problems relating to third party requirements in the labour contract process between the government and its employees. However, in recent years, because of certain procedures, the backlog of cases has grown to many, many hundreds.
The procedure followed in breaking away from one general report was not one that was welcomed by myself because it had a tendency to interrupt the flow of deliberations of the joint committee on employer-employee relations in the public service and the continuity of the flow
Public Service
from beginning to end of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts relating to employment in the public service. However, the evidence brought before us by Mr. Finkelman and others was sufficient to convince all of us in the committee that something had to be done very quickly, otherwise the board would bog down in procedural matters in the resolution of hundreds of individual cases and would not, in fact, be able to deal with the ongoing work which is required of a board of this nature. For those reasons, we did depart from a general acceptance of the presentation of one cohesive report to the House, which I think all members of the joint committee were confident would be a unanimous report to the House with respect to changes that we believe should be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
We have broken away from that principle and have come to the House with an interim report. It is one which I think commends itself to the House, particularly in light of the urgency today in not letting the dispute resolution process, the grievance or adjudication process, get too far behind. In order to do that, we now have in front of us Bill C-70 which substantially purports to implement the interim recommendations of the joint committee.
There are two or three areas which, on a hasty perusal of the bill-I have only had the bill for 35 or 40 minutes- require much closer scrutiny. As I mentioned, this consideration will be given them when we deal with the bill in committee. But one glaring and immediate omission that strikes me in the bill is the omission of a clause providing for the eligibility of members of the board to be reappointed after their initial appointment period. I draw this to the attention of the minister now so that he or his responsible officials will be able to consider the matter and prepare an appropriate amendment, unless in fact the government does not choose to permit the reappointment of members of the board.
I would refer hon. members to page 2 of the bill, new section 11, which deals with the board's establishment. I would draw attention in particular to subsection (2)(a) and (b) which reads:
(2) The members of the board shall be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during good behaviour for such period,
(a)	not exceeding ten years, in the case of the chairman, the vicechairman and the deputy chairmen, and
(b)	not exceeding seven years, in the case of any member other than
a member referred to in paragraph (a)-
I am not quite certain what that means. It is somewhat ambiguous inasmuch as it is important that there be a harmonious relationship between the government and its employees and that there be a continuity of understanding and of action with respect to the interpretation of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the related work of arbitration, adjudication, conciliation, and so on. I would draw that point to the attention of the government House leader because it is important.
The committee felt it was important that provision for reappointment be embedded in the act. On reading subsection (3) (a)(b) of section 11, I do not see anything providing for reappointment. Our report can be found at page 583 of Votes and Proceedings of May 29, 1975. We indicate the following under the heading "Tenure":

July 15, 1975
Public Service
The chairman, vice-chairman and deputy chairmen should hold office during good behaviour for a specified period not exceeding ten years and should be eligible for reappointment.
That particular phrase was left out. We will be asking in committee for the reason it was dropped and whether a simple amendment could effect its inclusion in the bill. Staying with section 11 which deals with the appointment of the members to this proposed new permanent board, there is further ambiguity or what appears to have the capability of being ambiguously interpreted. This is in the format, make-up or constitution of the members of the board. The committee expressed very real concern that all sides of the spectrum be represented and that the representation be of a tripartite nature.
We recommended that notwithstanding the fact that the distinguished professor, Mr. Finkelman, accepts that for the time being we would not want, philosophically, to be tied to it for all time. The members of the committee seemed to feel that for the transitional period of the next seven or eight years good relationships between employee and employer would be better served if the administrative board under the basic, primary and major piece of legislation governing relationships with employer and employee represented all points of view; and not only that it should represent all points of view but that publicly it should be seen to achieve that end.
The legislation is a little ambiguous. At page 2, subsection (3) of section 11, the marginal note reads "Appointments to be made from names on list prepared by chairman". I will quote from this subsection because I think it is important to put it in context:
Whenever the governor in council intends to appoint a member other than the chairman, the vice-chairman or a deputy chairman, the appointment shall be made from among eligible persons whose names are included in a list, prepared by the chairman after consultation with the employer and the bargaining agents, in which the chairman shall include
(a) the names of any eligible persons recommended to the chairman by the employer or by a bargaining agent-
That wording leaves me with the impression that the governor in council can accept from the chairman names from either list, whereas it was the clear intention of the committee that the chairman would prepare his list from all the lists submitted to him. At the very outset I think it is important to achieve all the things which will lead the employee to believe firmly that the government intends to provide legislation which meaningfully represents its intention to negotiate and bargain in good faith, and that it will have a board to interpret and administer the legislation which will be above criticism in respect of the way in which it is constituted. I think it is important that attention be drawn to that point.
We are pleased to note in the bill the fairly concise and clear separation of the arbitration process from the conciliation or the adjudication process. Here, again, there was a very real danger that in recommending any course of action to the House we would find ourselves caught up in a possible conflict of interest situation. At first reading, the pertinent clauses dealing with the establishment of the arbitration panel seem to satisfy the apparent separation of these basic functions.
[Mr. Forrestall.J
I will speak very briefly about the new dimension the government House leader alluded to in his opening comments. I refer to the provision which goes somewhat beyond the recommendations of the committee. It appears on page 6. In very clear and definitive words, the bill authorizes the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board to go outside this new, permanent structure for the purpose of finding an arbitrator in a particular case. If the government House leader intends this provision to facilitate the work of the board in cleaning up the backlog of cases and maintaining a caught-up situation, that is acceptable. However, it would be more acceptable if this provision were removed from the bill unless, for the purposes of dealing with a specific public interest dispute, in the opinion of the government it is in the best interests of the country.
I serve notice that that proposition will have to be reconsidered very closely in committee. In the absence of a clear explanation with respect to it, we will let it ride only with the understanding that it will be scrutinized very closely in committee. I am not satisfied that it is in the best interests of the country nor in the best interests of the employee to have authority as broad as that built into legislation of this nature. My recollection is that this question did not come before the joint committee in regard to employer-employee relations. The government House leader has now been kind enough to indicate that Mr. Finkelman suggested this is an improvement over what the committee recommended to the House. I gather the minister was implying that this is an extension Mr. Finkelman would accept and that he would welcome.
I find it very strange that the matter did not come up during our deliberations in recent months. In this connection I can recall quite the opposite. I can recall very clear instances when the professional employee associations expressed some fear about legislation which might extend to the board the authority to proceed in a manner which did not have their fullest understanding. In other words, earlier in our proceedings there was an undercurrent of fear about the size and structure of the board and the great dangers which lie in a permanent board with virtually unlimited authority and power under the legislation.
The evidence presented to us seemed to indicate that we should approach the structure, power and authority of the board with great caution and concern. We became somewhat enlightened and tended to view it in a slightly different way, but I can recall no evidence to indicate an extension of the authority and power of the board to go outside the existing structure in order to find an administrator who would, in effect, act in place of the board. As I understand the bill, it is the responsibility of the board to set up panels. Now we are talking about a new concept and I hope we approach it in committee with caution. I hope, too, that we get a more complete explanation there.
There is no reason why this matter cannot be tidied up very quickly, Mr. Speaker. Its urgency has clearly been impressed upon the joint committee and the report has enjoyed unanimous support with the exception of two or three things that we can see immediately-the omission of a provision for the reappointment to the board of officers, the chairman, vice-chairman and deputy chairmen, for
July 15, 1975

example. The language in new section 11(3) (a) strikes me as slightly ambiguous and I hope there will be a further explanation with respect to it.
I think we would be prepared to move this bill fairly quickly through committee and to give it third reading. I appreciate the bill, and I am sure it is welcomed by Mr. Finkelman and members of the board. I hope it will assist in relieving the tremendous backlog of cases now before the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity, the first since the joint committee commenced sitting, to express my thanks to the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. His contribution to our deliberations was at a high level, and he has done an extraordinary job of preparing recommendations with respect to the Public Service of Canada, particularly regarding recommendations for legislative changes in the act. His work reflects the 40 years he has spent in this field. Not only the government and employees of the public service, but indeed all Canadians are fortunate that in the last seven or eight years a man of Mr. Finkelman's character, stature, knowledge and wisdom has been available. I hope I am speaking for more people than myself. I acknowledge my debt to him in our lengthy deliberations, and I thank him for his kindness, wisdom, understanding and help.
i


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a valid maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that maxim also underlines the reason for this bill and emphasizes its urgency. In my opinion, collective bargaining in the public service of Canada was a good idea. There have been some problems, but in general it is working quite well. One of the difficulties is that too much time is required to deal with the problems, the disputes and the adjudications that have to be made under the legislation. The purpose of this bill, therefore, is to enlarge the Public Service Staff Relations Board, to put more of its members on a full-time basis and to provide technical changes that will enable it to deal more expeditiously with the problems that come before it.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall) pointed out, the bill is based on a unanimous report submitted to the House some weeks ago by the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. Although there is the one slight change that the President of the Privy Council pointed out, in the main this bill carries out the recommendations and we are happy to support it at this time. I am pleased it is being referred to the same committee that made the recommendations, namely, the special joint committee.
I join with the last speaker in the tribute he paid to Mr. Finkelman. I also want to say that we had before that committee a number of excellent witnesses from both sides of the table, if you will. The committee has done a good job.
Although there have been developments in the last few weeks that have made it difficult for me to be in attendance as much as I would have liked, may I say to fellow members of the committee that my not being there is a vote of confidence in what they have been doing! I look
Public Service
forward to the time when we shall bring forward our full report as well, and therefore it seems to me it is not necessary for us to spin out the debate on this bill.
The questions raised by the last speaker can be looked at by the special joint committee when we get the bill there. I hope that within a few days we can have this bill back in the House so that it can have third reading and be passed by the other place in time to become law before we rise for a summer recess, or a fall recess or whatever it might be.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to underline what I said a moment ago by way of an aside. I think it was an excellent move on the part of the government and the Parliament of Canada when we established collective bargaining in the public service in 1967. A lot of things have had to be ironed out, and when we make our total report there will be abundant evidence of that fact. But I think it is agreed by both sides that there is no turning the clock back; we must simply go on and try to make collective bargaining work even better.
The only comment on a specific issue I should like to make, since this gives me the opportunity to do so, is with respect to one area in which the government appears before the Public Service Staff Relations Board and seeks its permission. I have in mind the differing practices of the government when it is confronted with what are defined as illegal strikes. I do not wish to raise an argument about strikes, legal or otherwise, at this time but it seems to me the government should be more consistent in what it does.
Some months ago, for example, we had the extensive strike of the general labour and trades group. We have had strikes in the Post Office Department-strikes, slowdowns, and so on. I remind the House, also, that a week or two ago we had a one-day strike by prison guards. I mention these three groups to point out that the government has acted in three different ways with respect to these strikes.
In the case of the general labour and trades group, the government has appeared before the Public Service Staff Relations Board seeking permission to prosecute. In the case of the difficulties in the Post Office, no such appearance before the Public Service Staff Relations Board has occurred. Rather, the Post Office Department has dealt with the situation through its own forms of discipline. In the case of the one-day strike by the prison guards, nothing at all was said, either by way of discipline or by way of seeking permission to prosecute.
I submit that it raises questions in the public service when the government follows these different courses in relation to strikes that take place by government employees. I plead that there be some consistency. I also emphasize, as I did in the committee, that the answer to strikes is not the big stick. The answer is to try to resolve the problems. That is what this bill is all about. The purpose of this bill is to enlarge the board, give it more full-time members and give it the technical and administrative machinery to cope with the problems so that they will not be delayed endlessly, as has been the case recently. It is nobody's fault, it is just that there are so many

July 15, 1975
Public Service
problems that the board has not been able to cope with them.
We dare to hope that with the passing of this bill, the things which it does to the Public Service Staff Relations Board will be a step toward improvements in the relations between management and employees in the public service. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are happy to support this bill, implementing as it does the unanimous recommendations of the special joint committee.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, having personally participated in the proceedings of the joint committee where we had an opportunity to hear much evidence I must say we also received a lot of documentation. I think it would be fair to say that we received 200-odd pounds of papers on the various ways of meeting the difficulties that may come up in this area. That documentation also contains a host of suggestions summarized in Bill C-70, the passage of which I commend in the circumstances. An attempt must absolutely be made to get out of that situation which at a certain point paralyzes all economic activity because of decisions often taken on the spur of the moment and causing difficulties that should be circumvented by imaginative legislation.
The bill was referred to committee for further study. Then it will be brought back before the House. At that time we will see the kind of amendments that can be brought in. I also admit that there are a lot of complications in Bill C-70, and that this bill is not within the reach of all workers. I recognize that there is rather complicated terminology and wording in certain paragraphs and inevitably this brings workers to voice grievances arising from bargainings and collective agreements and to call upon lawyers.
I understand that to maintain balance between fair demands, rights and the requirements of the common good is not always an easy thing. However, the labour legislation must pursue that objective with simple wording. Most often I find legislative texts are always too complicated.
If one considers the experience undergone in regrettable situations in labour-management relations, amendments are called for at the earliest possible for the general good of the nation. That is why I am not opposed to this bill, and I hope it will bring good results.
Painstaking workers, a great percentage of whom have a family to maintain, have a right to request some form of happiness for their families, but they should be able to do so without having to resort to strikes, through which they may unknowingly play into the hands of an enemy who uses them to foster subversive interests. We should heed that and watch out for future developments.
Strikes only have the effect of plunging the worker into a vicious circle. He may get a little more, but will he be better off once the impact of the strike will have abated and new taxes will cut down the value of his dollar and prompt him into a new strike? That happens all the time.
I remember an international labour conference in Geneva when the French representative mentioned a number of facts and summed up in a fairly adequate speech the general outlook. He was advocating dialogue.

As a matter of fact, the theme of the meeting on that year was "Dialogue".
Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Our planet is going through a period of deep and quick changes appearing on a scale and at a speed up to now unprecedented. Unable to master that evolution, millions of human beings just put up with it and undergo its sometimes dramatic effects. The resulting greater gap in every respect breeds drop outs, generates bitterness and even stirs up wrath. The persistence of selfish attitudes and the intricate interactions of economic schemes make national actions almost inefficient in the light of the planetary dimension of problems to be solved.
He insisted more on dialogue. I know that you need talks to come to an agreement, but the negotiations must be started in time. We must not wait for contracts to have expired for five or six months and sometimes more before renewing them.
In my opinion, the agency provided in Bill C-70 does not go far enough. It should work on the preparation of negotiations, and this is not what I note in this bill, even though I consider that this board will be able to accomplish something practical. The government and the unions often do not speak the same language, especially as concerns the salary policy of the government and the workers. These are terms that many people use without giving them the same definition.
One of the professional afflictions of negotiators, on whatever side of the table they may be sitting, is to constantly go over the old clauses and invent new ones. Both sides of the table quarrel about commas and risk forgetting the basic objective of a collective agreement, which is to humanize relations between employers and employees.
Instead of really trying to guarantee security for everyone, certain agreements become elements of provocation. This is why if the bill contributes by establishing the proposed board to eliminate certain causes of disastrous strikes in the past, I wish that the work on this act will be completed, but I also wish that it will be more understandable for those who will have to work with it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the high degree of unanimity expressed by spokesmen in all quarters of the House with regard to the bill before us. As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) indicated, it incorporates the unanimous recommendations of a committee which has been sitting since last November. This being second reading, my remarks will be directed in general to the principle of the bill, bearing in mind that on referral to the committee it will be possible to consider in detail some of the matters which have been raised, in particular the very small respect in which the bill differs from the recommendations of the committee.
It was in 1967 that the government decided to engage in a bold experiment, introducing collective bargaining into the public service. Since that time a number of areas have been examined and the committee has held a substantial number of public hearings. Many witnesses have been heard. The committee is now in the process of considering in detail a number of matters, including a final report
July 15, 1975

which will be presented presumably after the House resumes its sittings following the summer recess.
The measure before us is a straightforward one. It replaces a part-time board with a full-time board; it strengthens the board and makes it possible for it to divide into panels and deal more effectively with the mass of work which has accumulated.
I joint those who have expressed appreciation of the work of the Chairman, Mr. Finkelman. Those who have listened to the testimony of both management and employee representatives have been impressed by the degree to which he has managed to retain the complete confidence of both sides, and his integrity and devotion to this work.
There is certainly recognition at this stage that a substantial backlog of work must be faced by the board. This is one of the principal motivations for the bill before us. Like many who have attended the committee hearings, I have been concerned about the number of prosecutions which have accumulated and by the inconsistency in the treatment of one illegal strike situation as compared with another. We recognize that the board has been grossly overworked and that a greater strain has been placed on the physical health and resources of those who serve, in many instances, on a part-time basis with the board. The measure before us is a means of rationalizing and strengthening the board.
I am confident, on the basis of the indications which have been forthcoming so far in this debate, that the bill will receive speedy passage and will soon go to the committee for clause by clause examination.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-67, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, once again I should like to express my thanks to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for permitting me, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, to handle the second reading of this particular bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should handle them all.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If I get the co-operation I am receiving today, I will. The bill we are now considering will implement the Customs Tariff changes contained in the notice
Customs Tariff
of ways and means motion which was tabled in the House on June 23.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said in his budget speech that because of the multilateral trade negotiations now in progress in Geneva, many requests for tariff changes will have to be considered in the course of these negotiations. The minister did, however, propose about a score of tariff reductions to come into effect on June 24.
One measure of considerable interest is the liberalization of the so-called gift item. In the course of preparation for the budget the minister received a number of representations requesting an increase in the $10 limit on gifts which could be sent by persons abroad to friends in Canada, or brought into Canada by non-residents as gifts to friends, without payment of duties and taxes. More important, however, were the representations objecting to the requirement that duty and taxes be paid on the full value of gifts when the value exceeded the $10 limit even by a small amount. In response to these representations it is proposed to raise the present valuation limit on gifts from $10 to $15. In the event that the value of the gift exceeds the new $15 limit, duty and taxes will be assessed only on the amount in excess of this limit.
Continuation of the temporary duty-free entry provisions for aircraft and aircraft engines and for certain petroleum products is also proposed. For petroleum products such as gasoline, fuel oils, aviation and diesel fuels, for which free entry would have expired on October 23, 1975, duty-free entry will be extended until June 30, 1977. Aircraft and aircraft engines of types or sizes not made in Canada will be allowed duty-free entry for a further year until June 30, 1976.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have heard that for 18 years.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Customs duties are being eliminated in respect of a number of other products, either by the introduction of new tariff items or by the amendment of existing items. Hon. members will have noted that duty-free entry is being provided for air conditioners for installation in combines. Also, in response to numerous representations, duty-free entry is being proposed for liturgical and certain other printed music, and for hymn books.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Dealing with Bill C-67, I think it is fair to say that the matters we wish to raise are more appropriately dealt with in committee of the whole. I hope government representatives will accept my remarks, which will be brief, in the understanding that most of my comments will be forthcoming at the later stage.
I would say, in a general way, that I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has failed to outline any over-all industrial strategy for Canada. This applies to the bill before us as well as to a number of other measures and to succeeding budget presentations. I believe that when one finds the Economic Council of Canada coming out with an extremely thoughtful study on developing trade trends in the world, it is time the Minister of Finance gave more direction to members of the House and to the public as to what, in fact, the government sees for the future as far as Canadian trade patterns

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
are concerned, and more specifically, whether the government intends to work toward some type of industrial strategy within Canada to ensure that industry at all levels becomes more competitive than it is at the present time. I am disappointed not to have found more information in the budget with respect to this subject.
I believe it would also be helpful if the minister would give us some direction. Perhaps he could indicate whether the study concerning the role of the multinationals in Canada is under way, and whether there are advantages or disadvantages respecting the activities of these corporations. For example, dealing with the Customs tariff, have we any evidence that the multinational companies around the world in some way or other are coming within our protective boundaries in a way that is unfair to Canadian manufacturers or producers?
Again I point out to hon. members that Customs revenue, which the minister has indicated in his budget has gone up, is one of the sources of revenue that has increased quite dramatically-something like $120 million over the forecast in his November budget. I am rather disappointed that the parliamentary secretary to the minister did not take the opportunity of giving us some details of this Customs revenue, about why the government forecast fell short and some breakdown as to what items are included in the $1.9 billion customs revenue that goes into the federal treasury.
On November 18 the minister brought in a bill touching on Customs measures that affected many commodities in Canada. Most members, as I have, have had correspondence with various Canadians who have suffered some hardship as a result of the Customs reductions that were made at that time. I hope that during committee of the whole proceedings the minister will respond to questions concerning studies carried out by the department on the effect of some of the Customs reductions that were made in the November budget with which this House has already dealt.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to prolong debate on Bill C-67. As I said at the beginning, we believe that the proper place to deal with most of the rather technical points in this bill is in committee of the whole, and I suggest we expedite the bill and deal with it more fully there.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take some time to deal with Bill C-67 at this stage because I am able to make a somewhat more general statement about the bill than is possible during committee of the whole, where I do not think there is really very much to say. The items themselves are not all that controversial or important in terms of the over-all economic effects that they will have on the country. However, what is important is the absence of a statement from the government regarding its position on trade generally, and particularly on the recommendations recently put forward by the Economic Council of Canada report in which there is the strong implication that Canada should be moving toward free trade.

From what I can see, the report of the Economic Council is a pack of nonsense and I am very disappointed at what the council has done. I am disappointed in the whole trend that is being evidenced by the reports of the Economic Council. At one time we looked forward to their reports because they were great statements on the human condition in Canada. I can remember the report on poverty, the report on education, and others: they were very much concerned not only about econometric models but also about the effect economics have upon the life of the people of this country.
In recent years they have become so technocratic that it is almost impossible for the ordinary layman with an interest in economics to make much sense out of what the council is doing. It is almost as though the council has deliberately designed a jargon to confuse, or to be understandable only by an inside group with little computers in their back pockets which they can pull out at will and decipher what the Economic Council report is saying. I think this is becoming a trend.
I presume that one of the purposes in setting up the Economic Council was to provide an independent source of information to people interested in a subject that extends beyond a few specialists, so they could think about the future direction of economics in this country. While most people would agree that free trade is a great principle, and while very few probably would argue against the idea of free trade in principle, what needs to be remembered is that free trade is valid and effective only when it takes place among equals. I can understand the principle of free trade in the European Common Market because there you have nations that are roughly equal in size. While they differ in language and culture, in some ways they are roughly equal in terms of their economic development and their various other capacities. In those circumstances it is quite feasible to contemplate a common market.
However, when we talk about free trade in Canada, both realistically and historically we are not talking about Canada's joining the common market, though I think that many Canadians would very much favour that. I would favour Canada's joining the common market. But I do not think it is a question of what we in Canada want to do in the common market; the question is whether the common market really sees us as part of what they are trying to accomplish in Europe. So whenever a discussion on free trade arises in North America, let us not kid ourselves that we are talking about free trade with Japan, with the Pacific rim countries or with the European countries. Essentially, to us free trade means continentalism. It is free trade with the United States and a merging of our economy with the United States economy.
In my view, the people who have researched this subject with all their figures and model studies really do not know what they are talking about, because they tend only to look at the economics and the mathematics of the question. They fail to take into account, as the Economic Council has been failing to take into account over the last couple of years, that there is something called politics, something called culture, and that the market does not work in the rather simple fashion that Adam Smith portrayed a couple of hundred years ago. If in fact the market
July 15, 1975

did work in that way, free trade might be something that we should look at; but the market does not work in that way.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate that with the growth of the large multinational corporations, the interference of governments in trade, and the new kind of mercantilism that has arisen in the world, a new way of dominating markets has been found that does not allow new entrants into the field. It is not the little shops that sprung up in eighteenth century England that we are dealing with now; we are dealing with great monoliths that move from country to country. I am not saying that they are all part of conspiracy; it is just the way our world has developed, and they are now a fact of life that we have to deal with.
Many large corporations have access to powers that are away beyond, I suspect, those of most national governments in the world. A corporation like General Motors of the United States has assets in excess of those held by most countries in the world, and it certainly has access to powers in excess of those countries. Theoretically, the countries we are talking about, even if they have a population of only 100,000 people, have the sovereign right to say no. There is the right of the poor to say, "No, we will not accept this"-except that the poor usually do not have that kind of choice: faced with the overwhelming wealth of somebody who does not possess sovereignty in the way that a government does, they usually have to succumb to the wealth, power and technology with which they are faced.
So far as the concept of free trade in Canada is concerned, what would we be matching up? We are not only matching up one country one-eleventh the size of the other; we are matching up Canada, which is very rich in resources, with a country which is the most highly developed of any in the manufacturing field. Canada is rich in highly desirable resources that are now becoming very scarce around the world, particularly in the United States.
What happens if we remove the tariff barriers? We have seen what happens, even when you do not remove those barriers, in the relationship between Canada and the United States. We have become a mining and a resource hinterland to the United States. That is what we are now. But what will happen if we take away the few barriers that are left? Economists tell us this is a comparative advantage. If we have iron ore, obviously we have a comparative advantage in iron ore and we should sell it. Why should we go into manufacturing, if we have iron ore? If we have forests, then we should sell forest products. If we have oil, we should get rid of that oil; and if we have gas, we should sell it as well. What are the consequences of this action? Will we establish manufacturing in this country, under those circumstances? I do not believe we will for one moment.
What we will get in Canada, if we sell off all our resources, is what we now have in the maritimes, in certain parts of Ontario and in certain parts of the west. When the resources run out, the people have nothing to do. When you have to go 28 miles under the sea to get coal, nobody wants you any more and the proud people then
Customs Tariff
have to look for something less worthy. What Canada would become, under those circumstances, is a played-out hinterland. This is what would happen over a period of time.
It is true that we could reduce our population very substantially because the resource industry does not require very many people. This industry does not employ the number of people employed in manufacturing. We could be a small nation of perhaps six million or seven million people with a slightly higher per capita standard of living. We could perhaps increase our per capita income by having less population. This is the kind of thing the economists proposed for the maritimes. They said the maritimes should let the people go, so the ones who remained would have a higher per capita income. Is this the kind of pattern we want in our country? The people in the maritimes rejected the idea and I think Canada as a whole would reject it. While we do not want to become the most populous country in the world, surely we do not want to become the most unpopulated.
If we follow the same pattern that has been followed in the past, we will require the same social set-up and taxing system as our trading partners. Our political arrangements would not matter much any more, but we would require the same system of taxation. We would be under enormous pressure, because industry is volatile and can move where it pleases, particularly in the case of multinational corporations with enormous resources with which to play not only one part of the country against another but one sovereign nation against another. These corporations now play one province against another very easily in this country.
What this all means is that if the United States had a certain value system which was reflected in its taxation system, Canada would be required to have exactly the same system, otherwise industries would say that because their taxes were lower in the United States than in Canada, they would move. They would demand that Canada make the same kind of tax arrangements or they would move back to the United States.
As a matter of fact, this is what has happened without free trade. The whole justification for the proposal brought in by the government to lower the corporate tax rate and offer substantial benefits to manufacturers in Canada was to offset the DISC program in the United States. The government argued that the United States, as a simple matter of policy, had decided to encourage its multinational corporations to come home and carry out more manufacturing in the United States. The encouragement was by way of incentives and favourable tax arrangements.
Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) had two options. He could consider this a discriminatory tax or a dumping measure and impose equivalent taxes on United States imports coming into Canada or, because we in this country have always had a feeling for liberalized trade-and I think that is good-the minister could follow suit. In other words, he would have to match, in Canada, the tax concessions being granted in the United States in order to offset the DISC program, preventing the exodus of all the branch plants of U.S. corporations. That is what the minister did. Without criticizing that judgment, I merely want to point

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
out what has happened as an indication of how you must match value systems once you become part of a free trade area.
The United States is a great country, with great prospects, and I am not one who despairs because the United States will not be able to come to grips with some of its problems. I think it will. I think it is a great nation and will continue to be great, but the kind of experiment in nationhood we have conducted in this country suits me and more Canadians better than the experiment in the United States. That is the way we feel; that is why we are Canadians and why we have made a conscious effort to preserve Canada as a separate nation.
This whole business of Canada is a sort of anachronism to the economists. Economists say we have no reason to be a nation strung out along a set of railway tracks east and west when we should be growing north and south. We decided that our values were somewhat different from those of the people to our south. We like them as friends and neighbours, but we want to be different from them and we made the conscious choice to be different. One can call himself what he will, but if your tax systems are the same, your value systems are also the same.
What makes us different is our old age pension, our family allowance, our hospital insurance and medical attention for our people. These are things the people in the United States do not value to the same extent. We are willing to take the wealth from one province and distribute it in another. We are more willing to tax the rich in order to benefit the poor. This is what makes us different. Those are some of the things our friends to the south have not been willing to do over the years. That is their value system, and I like ours better.
We cannot preserve what I think is a better value system, one which I like much better, if we get into this kind of free trade arrangement. Economists in general suggest many things. I suggest their difficulty comes from the fact they have not been in politics. Many economists are brilliant, perhaps even smarter than politicians, but their difficulty arises from a lack of understanding of politics; and I suggest they do not understand people. They do not understand that there are certain things which are important but to which you cannot attach a value figure. These are things you cannot put into input or output tables.
Let us talk about some of these things that are important to us, such as patriotism. Economists do not recognize the value of patriotism. People are going to favour the country of their birth. I think this is also true of American corporations who have subsidiary branch operations in other countries. It is just too much to expect that in any trade-off between the country in which the branch plants are located and the country in which these people are born, or where the parent company exists, they will show a tendency to favour the country of the branch plants. Obviously, they are going to favour the nation of their birth and to which they owe allegiance in times of crisis.
There are good reasons why they should feel this way. When they are in a foreign country they are subject to foreign laws; they do not have the same rights as the citizens of that country. They do not even have immigrant rights in Canada because we have different rules for

foreign ownership as against domestic ownership. We have done that deliberately because of our concern about foreign ownership. They do not have those rights. This means that if they invest in a foreign country they do not have the same rights and protection as they have in their own country, with the ability to influence their government in a way in which they cannot always influence a foreign government.
Because of this, they will want a premium over and above the average return on investment which they would get in their own country, under their own flag, where perhaps as part of a lobby they can talk to Congress or to the Senate in a way which makes them feel comfortable. If they cannot do this in a foreign country, then there is an extra danger. If there is an extra danger, they want a higher average rate of return on their investment. Translated into other terms, this surely means they will say that the people in the other country will have to work for lower wages than they are prepared to pay in their own country, because they must have a higher rate of return. This has been said in Canada.
These companies will say that if they have to pay the same amount in a foreign country as they have to pay in their own country, then they might as well take the investment back home where it is safer and where they have more control. If their own country should face a crisis in respect of high unemployment, and the government of their country should appeal to them and ask them to be good citizens by carrying on business and thus providing jobs in their own country, surely even with the best intentions and attitudes toward the foreign country in which they operate, they would be under enormous compulsion-even if it were not legal-moral and patriotic compulsion, to do more in their own country than they are doing in the foreign country.
Therefore, when we talk about matching up under free trade countries like Canada and the United States, we are really talking about national suicide. In many ways free trade would be more acceptable if the countries were joined in a political union, but free trade without political union creates the worst of both worlds because you really do not have a different, independent or separate values system from the country with which you are matched up. At the same time, you have no opportunity to make representations at the political level where it really counts these days.
These economic reports have been written as long as Canada has been a country. Admittedly, the people who took this position in Sir John A's day were not quite as sophisticated; they could not put down all these mathematical figures to support their arguments. I am sure they would have been laughed at then, but because today these mathematical figures are restricted to a relatively small esoteric group of people, other people do not even feel competent to laugh at the nonsense the figures represent. These figures do not take into account the political considerations. These people think the world is governed only by economics. It is not governed by economics. There is something called people getting in the way of the figures of these economists. There are people with desires, aspirations and value systems which the economists do
July 15, 1975

not seem to want to take into account. They seem to dismiss that as nonsense and as being irrelevant to the main argument as to what works best. What works best is what people want, what they aspire to and what they hope to achieve in their lifetime in the kind of society in which they hope to live.
I should like to sum up that particular argument by pointing out that under any free trade arrangement there is not free trade in the classical international sense of trading with the rest of the world. It is really continental-ism or free trade with the United States, even though the council's report goes to some lengths to say that is not really what is meant. It cannot possibly mean anything else, because the option of free trade just is not open to us internationally. That is not the way the world is constituted at this particular time. When it is constituted in that way, it certainly would be proper for Canada to examine the free trade option.
So it is continentalism. This means we will have to put our tax system in the same kind of range as somebody else's tax system, and when control is lost over a tax system, control is lost over the ability to create a different value system and to make different value judgments in a different society. If you do not have the money, you can only talk about old age pensions; you cannot pay for them. If you decide to spend the same percentage of your gross national income on private expenditures as the United States does, and are not going to tax for public expenditures, then you will wind up making the same kind of value judgment they are making. That is because the ability to have hospitalization, to bring in old age pensions or to have redistribution between provinces is based on the amount of money you are willing to take under public control and then redistribute according to the value system on which the people have decided.
Otherwise you really have no sovereignty. You can call yourself a sovereign nation and say you are different, but what will make you different if you do not have that power and behave in that way? If you are not going to behave differently, why bother being different? Obviously, the whole purpose of a desire to be different is to behave differently. I sometimes despair of Canadian nationalists. Because I consider myself a Canadian nationalist, I sometimes despair of fellow Canadian nationalists who say we must get rid of foreign ownership, we must separate ourselves from the United States, and so on. When one asks the reason, one finds they want to do the same thing the United States is doing. So why separate? The whole purpose of having a separate country, a separate identity and a separate economy is to exercise sovereignty, whether it is sovereignty in respect of social policy or in respect of foreign affairs.
Too often in this country we have a government that says we must do such and such to increase our independence. Our governments receive the independence, but what do they do with it? They do not do a damm thing; they do not exercise the sovereignty, the right they already have which they asked for and wanted. So the whole point is that if you want to be a different nation, you must have an industrial strategy, a commercial policy, trade relationships which enable you to do that, and you
Customs Tariff
must also have the will and the desire to behave differently when you have the power to do so.
Very often in this country we have made the tariff the whipping boy. We think we are not as efficient or as productive as the United States because of the tariff. It is the tariff that is always to blame. It is said that if it were not for the tariff, Canada would be a great manufacturing nation. This is just not so. Canada was in fact on its way to being a great manufacturing nation; certainly it started to show what it could do during the First World War. What prevented it becoming a great manufacturing nation was not the tariff but, rather, the intrusion of the multinational corporations and the American branch plant. That is what destroyed our economy-not the tariff.
There is a kind of circular argument. People argue that if the tariff was not there, the multinational corporations would not have come up here. They probably would have come anyway. The point is that, without the tariff, why would they have come or have bothered, under any circumstances, with Canada since they simply could have exported their surplus to this country without bothering with us?
It is interesting to study industrial history in this country. A number of good books have been written on this subject. A good book has been written on the history of Massey-Ferguson, the Steel Company of Canada and a number of other industries. Although there is not as much literature as I would like to see, there is literature which one can examine on the history of some of our industries. One of the industries that is worth looking at is the steel industry of Canada. We should be very proud of our steel industry. By any kind of comparison you want to make, the steel industry in Canada can hold its own with the steel industry anywhere in the world-in Germany, Japan or the United States. We can produce steel in this country as well as, or better than, any country in the world.
One of the reasons the steel industry here is so efficient, when other industries sometimes drive us to despair with their inefficiency, is that our steel industry has remained Canadian because a man by the name of Lord Beaver-brook put the industry together and it has remained strong. It is probably one of the few industries that has driven out its American competitors. Lord Beaverbrook put together the Steel Company of Canada out of fear that Bethlehem Steel would move into the Windsor area. He persuaded Canadian industrialists but, interestingly enough, he could not persuade Canadian bankers and he had to go to Great Britain to get the money because Canadian bankers did not want to put up any money. He put together the Steel Company of Canada and was able to drive Bethlehem Steel out of Windsor.
Ever since then there has been no massive intrusion of foreign ownership in the steel industry. It says something nice about Canadians, and also perhaps something not so nice, that the Lord Beaverbrooks, the E. P. Taylors, the Lord Thomsons and the Westons have had to flee their own country because they received no respect here. Unlike the Americans who worship the Fricks, the Rockefellers and the robber barons of their society, Canada has never done that. It is both a nice thing and a rather unfortunate

Customs Tariff
thing. These men felt they were people without honour in their own country. That kind of ruthlessness, whatever its eventual good or bad consequences may have been, did not go well with the Canadian people. But the point is that those industrialists, no matter how they brought and held together Canadian ownership, were able to withstand foreign intrusion.
The entry of the American multinational corporation, with its branch plants, came into industries which were just about ready to consolidate and to develop in new forms, and they prevented and aborted that development. Instead of foreigh ownership benefiting this country, historians will look back on this period and see the destruction of the ability of Canadians to organize and restructure their society. At any given time, industry is in a state of flux and it has to change, new organizations have to emerge and new patterns develop, and in many cases there have to be patterns which are indigenous and necessary to the kind of society that exists at the time. Foreign ownership imposed a foreign pattern that was alien, undesirable and unnecessary; it retarded the development of the Canadian industry.
This is not the usual reason for objecting to foreign ownership, that is, the terrible Americans and their interference with our sovereignty, although some of that is true as well. What is true is that they have destroyed the secondary manufacturing industry in Canada, and that is why we never really got off the ground. Admittedly, we might have had a head start; some of these industries might have developed two or three years before, but over an extended period of time what foreign ownership did was to prevent the healthy and efficient restructuring of the Canadian industry. If they had stayed out of this country we would have developed industries such as the steel industry, industries that made sense in Canada, that were efficient and internationally competitive.
When we talk about the steel industry and tariffs it is interesting to observe that that industry did not become efficient because the tariffs were removed. Tariffs were removed after the steel industry became efficient. Members of the House of Commons at that time raised objections and asked why the industry should have this tariff protection since they were making all this money and were competitive. They suggested we could take their tariff protection away. This was after the fact, rather than before. The argument of the economists is that if you take away tariff protection, it will force the industry to be nice and strong or else die. Usually they die, they do not become nice and strong.
What we could have done, as a matter of government policy, instead of leaving it to accident or leaving it to Lord Beaverbrook to restructure our industry, was to get rid of foreign ownership, encourage the coming together of Canadian entrepreneurs into internationally competitive units, and only then take away tariffs. I would take them away unilaterally; I would not even negotiate with another country, because we would want to remove the tariff to make sure they did not take advantage of their size, position and efficiency.
In fact, the Japanese government operates in that way. They invite foreign competition, not when their industry is weak and ailing and trying to get off the ground but

July 15, 1975
when it is strong and solid. That makes sense. What do we do? We invite foreign ownership when our industry is struggling to get off the ground. This kills it before it has a chance to grow. When you say that tariffs keep the economy in swaddling clothes, the fact is that it is not the tariffs but the kinds of government policies we have. Perhaps I should not just blame the Liberals; perhaps it is common to all Canadians not to see how destructive it is to impose a pattern of industrial development which is alien to our own country and based on the experience of another country.
There are other industries which are competitive and where you see the same kind of pattern emerging-the cement industry, the sugar industry and the beer industry. As a matter of fact, our beer industry became so competitive that the Americans passed a law against foreign ownership. They did not want our beer companies to locate in the United States and compete with their companies. But, again, Canadian entrepreneurs put these companies together in a Canadian pattern which enabled them to withstand the intrusion of foreign ownership.
I want to give hon. members one example of the effects of free trade, because we do have such an example in this country. The example I want to look at is the agricultural implement industry because there is absolutely free trade in agricultural equipment. In this new tariff bill, I notice that the government has recognized how that agriculture is no longer a primitive affair. Air conditioners designed for agricultural equipment are now exempt. If you till the soil, you might as well be comfortable while you are doing it, particularly when you can write it off.
In the agricultural equipment industry we find again that pattern of consolidation which took place at the very early stage. Massey Harris put together that industry and they became very competitive. The pressure of the agricultural community to reduce the tariffs was very strong. Gradually, the tariffs were reduced to the point at which there is no tariff protection on agricultural equipment. So what do we have today? We have a Canadian company, Massey-Ferguson, one of the largest in the world. Where are they operating and putting their new investments? In the United States. What is their argument? They say it is more effective and more feasible from the transportation point of view to locate in the American midwest than in Brantford, Winnipeg or some such place. Despite the fact that people point out that transportation charges are not very significant, that is what they are doing.
All the modern technology, all the new innovations and all the new investments are in the United States. And this is a Canadian corporation under free trade. When there was a strike at Massey-Ferguson in Brantford and the workers in that plant were asking for wage parity with the United States, the Canadian consulting firm of Hedlin Menzies was hired. If a regressive argument is wanted, a Canadian firm should be hired. Hedlin Menzies said that the only reason Massey-Ferguson established here in Canada was that Canadian wage rates were low. If the same amount had to be paid to Canadian workers as to American workers, then Hedlin Menzies said that Massey-Ferguson would go to the United States. But the great Canadian company, Massey-Ferguson, concentrated all its
July 15, 1975

labour-intensive activities here and moved its automated and highly productive facilities to the United States. Hedlin Menzies advised Massey-Ferguson to keep their labour-intensive activities in Canada and told the workers the only way to keep these activities in Canada was for them to work for lower wages. In this way it pays Massey-Ferguson to maintain the hand-assembly activities in Canada but all the tractors are made outside Canada. That has been the pattern of free trade.
This government, and perhaps all governments, long for easy answers. It is not easy to bring in an industrial strategy. It is not easy to make policy decisions. We have fought this government on many occasions and we know what rocks they are over there. Before they were moved and before they were persuaded that we should not be exporting gas and oil, we pounded them for years until sheer necessity forced them to do something. I would like to think that we had some influence on those rocks. I suspect that accidents happen and that they had not counted on being shafted by the multinational oil companies which did not give them accurate figures. I suppose they had as much influence on the government as we did, although I think our pounding persuaded a large segment of the public that the government had to answer more for its give-away resource policies than had been the case. To that extent I think the opposition has played a useful role.
For years and years the government took the easy way out and it is still taking the easy way out by exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is a very knowledgeable man and I have a very high regard for him. He asked a question which I would have thought had an obvious answer. He said the government should explain why the revenue from tariffs has gone up by $120 million. The answer is obvious. We are importing manufactured goods like crazy. We have such a high rate of unemployment because the things which would provide jobs are being imported, and the things which do not provide jobs are being exported. The minister has vaunted figures on how hard we are working on exports. He was talking about exporting raw materials. What does that do? It is not exporting that is important. Much may be exported, but if something more valuable is being exchanged for something less valuable, that is pretty foolish; and that is what we have tended to do over the years. We have tended to do the easy things. We give away what is enormously valuable and take back something which is less valuable to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you are getting restless; I think you are in a warning position. I want to conclude with a word on the urgent need for this government to make a statement about where it stands regarding trade, industrial development and the kinds of things which have made us a different nation and which I hope will continue to make us a different nation in the future.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, while perusing Bill C-67, I did not know that so much could be said about such a simple and short bill. I realize that the previous speaker has not so much dealt with the contents of the bill as with its shortcomings. This is why he spoke at length about what the government should have
Customs Tariff
anticipated concerning the imports of goods which could have been manufactured in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we can hardly criticize the contents of Bill C-67 since it generally abolishes custom duties on items which are evidently not manufactured in Canada. But such is not the issue. I think that in various sectors, we could manufacture those items in Canada, but we have failed up to now to encourage the establishment of responsible manufacturing industries which could produce goods required by the Canadian consumer and thus provide and create jobs for Canadian workers. We rightly complain about the increasing rate of unemployment. We have just been advised that the seasonally adjusted number of unemployed has increased by 10,000 in June.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that worries not only workers but all Canadians. We see for instance that the bill exempts farm equipment from duty. Not too long ago I read an article that said there is practically no more production of farm equipment in Canada. We no longer make tractors, mowers, harvesters and all those machines used in agricultural production. But we do export cereals to Russia. We are also getting ready to export some great quantities and Russia pays for those cereals with farm machinery to enable us to produce more food for them. It gets to be some kind of vicious circle. And we have proved in the past, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to produce farm equipment.
We have had in Canada important manufactures of tractors, mowers, harvesters, all kinds of ploughs with which Canadians were satisfied. Today most of the time one has to resort to outside markets to get farm equipment and parts, a situation that in many cases has become almost a nightmare for farmers. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is important, and the Canadian government should not allow free entry for such items, but see to the development of industries that might provide Canadians with those items we can produce.
The same story repeats itself in other areas. In agriculture, representatives of the Agricultural Producers' Union from the province of Quebec mentioned to us today at noon that Canada imports huge amounts of products which we could manufacture, such as cheese for instance, which accounts for imports of half a billion dollars. We import maybe even more butter than we produce in Canada. Those are again things which the government seems to be more interested in importing than producing and whose production it does not seem to be ready to foster in Canada.	\
This bill deals with customs. Sometimes our tariffs are applied inside out. Again in agriculture for instance, we now force Canadian dairy producers to pay an export tax of 90 cents per hundredweight of milk powder to be exported, whereas in the Common Market they subsidize dairy producers-exactly the opposite of what we do. In Canada, we apply tariffs inside out, we force Canadian producers to pay a tax on their exports. Mr. Speaker, that was one of the points to which I wanted to draw the attention of the minister. Even if he is not listening, I know his officials are here to remind him of those points.
Another point which caught my attention in this bill is the clause which deals with casual donations sent by persons abroad to friends in Canada or brought into Canada by non-residents. Mr. Speaker, the higher value of

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
those presents as provided for in this bill will certainly allow the free entry of more expensive presents of that kind, items which are usually offered to friends. It has probably been realized that this accounted for a very minor aspect of our imports, but there again, Mr. Speaker, I think those are items which we usually find in those shops where tourists are generally to be found.
Again these are things we can manufacture. When one visits shops or boutiques, either on Ottawa's Sparks Street Mall or elsewhere in Canada, one readily realizes that these establishments are full of products imported from Italy, Japan, China, from countries where production is cheap. Nevertheless, such items are often sold in Canada as authentic Canadian souvenirs. I remember that about two or three years ago, I wanted to offer a person who had done me a favour something representative of Canada's capital. Well, to my great dissatisfaction, I could not find anything that was of truly Canadian handiwork or fabrication. I had to offer that person something that represented neither the Canadian Parliament nor the national capital. These are things that are lacking in this country and that should be encouraged.
But, Mr. Speaker, once again I must say that this is a very modest bill that will yield very little results in the government's effort to encourage the creation of new jobs in Canada. Obviously, there are items that cannot be produced here in Canada; it is natural that custom charges should be dropped on such items; but for articles which can be produced in Canada, everything should be done to encourage domestic production and thus offer Canadians the adequate jobs which they are looking for.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie)-External Affairs-Inquiry whether government conveyed to Egypt its approval of opening of Suez Canal- Canadian representation at ceremonies; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Immigration-Suggested review of method of obtaining background information on potential immigrants; the hon. member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick)-Administration of Justice- Suggestion minister order new trial for Dr. Morgentaler- Possibility of new trial or pardon in subsequent prosecutions.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-67, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 3), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to become a bore and have lengthy discussion on this bill, but some parts of it are important. My concern is not so much what the bill contains but what it does not contain and the construction that could be put on some of the items it does contain. Of paramount importance to the House is the very first tariff item in the bill, the tariff on prayer books. I wonder if this is for the Canadian taxpayer, in face of the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on June 23! There is no question that the Canadian public now needs the power of prayer. Maybe it is for the benefit of members on the other side who in three years or so will need to turn to prayer. It will be of no avail, but at least they will be able to obtain the prayer books tariff-free.
Reference is made on page 3 of the bill to aircraft not including engines, and to engines of aircraft. I am not a technical man, and I fail to see the reason for separating the two, unless there is an accident and as a result you need an engine but not an aircraft, or vice versa. I wonder why some are tariff-free and some indicate a high tariff. I wonder, too, how the tariff items can be explained in relation to the aircraft industry in Canada, and more particularly in relation to the lack of federal assistance, support and interest in the developing aircraft industry in British Columbia.
The only area in which the Minister of Finance has addressed himself to the aircraft industry is to impose a tax on the use of aircraft for pleasure, in order to save fuel. That makes about as much sense as the tax he imposed, and subsequently withdrew, on small craft. It also makes about as much sense as the tax recently imposed on gasoline. If ever there was an engine devised by man to operate on a low economy threshhold, it is the aircraft engine.
Another area that is significant by its absence from the bill that I should like to remark upon is the tariff with respect to canning lids. I think if there were a federal election today, not one Liberal member would be elected in any agricultural area of Canada where the housewife has the vote.


An hon. Member:: You were wrong before.


An hon. Member:: You would not be back.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I hear a vague disturbance from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It was pretty specific.


Robert Hylton Brisco: They continue in their blissful ignorance. I am sure they have not been down to the Niagara Peninsula or to Kootenay West or Okanagan Boundary. They have not talked to the housewives who want to can food
July 15, 1975

because this government has so inflated the price of it. They would like to can produce but they cannot get the lids, and that is because this government has not put on a protective tariff. Canning lids are produced in the United States and not in Canada. This government killed the market in Canada for canning lids. All we get from this government is garbage answers. They have not solved the problem, they do not intend to solve the problem, and they do not care about the householder or the wife of the producer.


Mr. Anderson:: Why don't you talk to the manufacturers and find out why they are not making them in Canada?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I see the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is an expert on the subject. Perhaps he would like to speak.


John Napier Turner: If I could find a lid, I would know where to put it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the natives are restless and cannot stand the truth. I should like to move on to another matter of concern to me and high schools in my riding. This is the matter of the tariff on musical instruments. It has not been dealt with in the bill.
I would like to have seen it dealt with in this bill. I hope it will be dealt with in the future. With respect to musical instruments in the Rossland-Trail area repairs have to be performed in Vancouver, Calgary or Regina. If they are carried out in Spokane, Washington, 125 miles away, a prohibitive barrier is placed upon the cost of these repairs. All we are trying to do is repair musical instruments belonging to high school bands. However, the minister in his wisdom feels the repairs should be done in Regina or Vancouver. I do not think he has ever studied geography. He seems to feel those two cities are closer to Rossland, Trail or Castlegar than they are to Spokane.


An hon. Member:: What needs to be repaired, a G-string?


Robert Hylton Brisco: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) spoke on agricultural equipment. He made a lot of sense. However, he made a sweeping remark to the effect that all agricultural equipment comes in duty free. That really is not correct. I know of a farmer who wished to bring in a grain-box for his truck. Because it did not have and did not operate on an auger, it was a different type of mechanical device, the tariff item was exceedingly heavy. This man was denied the opportunity of bringing it in. Nothing like it was manufactured in Canada, but the imposition was there.
There has been talk about farm machinery manufactured outside Canada. It is very disturbing that farmers must experience delays of months with regard to farm machinery. In fact in the Creston area farm equipment orders have been delayed 14 to 16 months. What happens to those who experience such delays? They become frustrated over the failure of companies to deliver their goods. They turn to foreign markets and foreign manufacturers. There must be many Yugoslav tractors in Kootenay West and other parts of Canada. Japanese tractors are a better
Customs Tariff
price, are produced in a hurry, are shipped to Canada and delivered promptly. As a prime agricultural nation surely Canada can do better than that.
Finally, I suggest that the taxpayers of Canada deserve better treatment from the government with regard to the problem of canning lids. Instead of all the smart remarks and wisecracks from the government side, it is time they provided the Canadian people with an answer.
I can assure hon. members that Canadian housewives are not content to spend money on Mason jars and lids. There are thousands of Mason jars with lids in the supermarkets. The housewife does not want the jars. She has a room full of them. She wants the lids. Why doesn't somebody on the government side listen to the housewives and give them some assurance instead of lip service and double-talk?


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time to speak on this customs tariff bill, C-67. I rise mainly because the last time we had a customs tariff bill before us in committee of the whole I drew the minister's attention to an error with regard to the bag size for farm sprays. That was in committee of the whole where we are supposed to ask questions. That is why I again raise the matter at this time.
I agree with what the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) has said with regard to canning lids. I would also like to speak briefly on that because of the interjection by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). He may be interested in some of the reasons why there is an acute shortage of canning lids in western Canada. In addition, there is a shortage in eastern Canada for the first time this year. I checked in Ottawa on three occasions. I was not able to find many of these lids. The screw-type caps and jars with lids are available. However, that is not what the housewives in western Canada want. They already have a supply of jars. They want the snap-on lids for them.
For many years the western Canadian market has been served by two manufacturers in the United States. When there was a tinplate shortage they did not ship any lids to Canada. This is the kind of situation we get into when we rely on foreign manufacturers. We have to be ready to respond to their whims. In addition to the tinplate shortage there was an increased demand in the United States. The acute shortage in western Canada developed as 5 result of this.
There are two very good manufacturers in eastern Canada, Anchor Cap and Bernardin. They have been unable to ship to western Canada because they have not able to compete price-wise. The situation is not too different from the meat pie business. You cannot find a meat pie manufacturer in western Canada. They cannot compete. Let's hope there is not a meat shortage in the United States because we will not be able to get any meat pies in western Canada.
When the shortage developed, the eastern Canadian manufacturers were not geared to handle the extra market. They did not have the manufacturing lines or the tinplate. Two years ago they were on a quota basis of the three year average of their production in eastern Canada. They did not have any quota for western Canada. They
7598

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
were not able to manufacture the extra quantities required. Both Anchor Cap and Bernardin shipped lids to western Canada last year, but not in the quantities required. They are also shipping some there this year. However, a shortage has developed right across Canada because they are not manufacturing enough lids to pick up the slack.
Over a year ago I pleaded with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to do something about this situation. What happened? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in an answer to my question says that a strike at a plant in British Columbia is the reason for the shortage. There is not a manufacturer of snap-on lids in western Canada. There is a manufacturer of jars, but it is not the jars that are in short supply. It is the lids. These are the kinds of answers and these are the kind of things we are being told, and you know from the answers that ministers do not know, they do not understand. We hope they do care about the situation, because with the higher cost of food today housewives are turning back to canning.
We hear the Food Prices Review Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) say, "If you want to get food cheaper, do some canning." Mr. Speaker, how can they do more canning if they cannot get the facilities to do it with? This is the sort of thing we are talking about as far as canning lids is concerned. I hope it is not too late. I hope the government is ready to show some concern about this and do what it can to get the manufacturers to make more, because the situation in many parts of Canada today is extremely difficult.
To get back to the 21A-pound spray bags, I would not be making this request if it were not for the fact that agricultural spray manufacturing is done or controlled by multinational companies. This is what the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) was talking about.
These sprays are allowed to come in from the United States free of tariff as long as they are in bags weighing 2Vi pounds or more. I do not know why the 2Vz pound bags were left out, unless it was by error. I asked the minister if he would do something about this in the last debate we had on customs tariffs. He said he would look into it. When I heard he intended to bring a in a new budget I sent him a letter on May 27 asking him whether he could do something about the tariff on the 2V2 pound bags, hoping they would be included in the ways and means motion and in the tariff bill now before us. But they were not. I am very surprised that nothing was done. Maybe I should take some of the blame because I did not keep after the minister in between the time he introduced the two bills, but I thought something would surely be done to change this sort of thing.
The reason we are concerned about it is that due to inflation, or the policies of the government, we find a farmer having to pay more than one third more for his spray in Canada than he pays in the United States. Fruit growers in my area tell me I ought not to be surprised if a truckload is half unloaded in the United States and half of

it comes into Canada, and it is one third higher when it gets into Canada.
It is not hard to put a thousand dollars worth of orchard spray in the trunk of a car, and it is easy for these people to drive into the United States and buy spray down there where it is one third or more cheaper, and at $1,000 quite a lot of money is made on their trip.
Why the multinationals are pricing this way I don't know, but I would bet that if a start were made on manufacturing these sprays in Canada they would drop their prices immediately. However, this is the situation we face. I do not think anyone on the government side of the House can blame farmers for doing whatever they can to save money on their operations.
It may sound very strange, but the reason they use these 2Vi pound bags is because this is the amount of spray used per acre in spray tanks. It comes in soluble bags and farmers are able to drop them directly into the spray tank. Then they have the precise proportions needed. I do not think anyone in the Department of National Health and Welfare or in the Department of the Environment would want to change a method of operation which means that the farmer does not have to split bags of spray, or get his hands into them, or breathe spray dust, when he can get the exact size needed and drop it into the tank without having to handle it.
I had hoped the minister would have seen fit to change this in the bill before us. I certainly hope it is done very quickly, almost as quickly as the time a former minister of finance, Mr. Benson, took off the tariff on apples after he had made a deal with the United States that they were going to phase it out over a five year period. The first year he took it completely off, and left the apple grower in Canada with free trade. The tariff on apples going from Canada into the United States did not come off, because the Americans said, "When we make a deal that is the way we handle it." I hope this is done by the minister as fast as that customs tariff was changed.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this customs tariff bill. Its contents, I suggest, are of no great importance.
It is timely that the Economic Council should have just released its discussion paper on the possibility of free trade with various parts of the world, and especially with the United States. This is a subject which has been forgotten for a considerable time. It is an issue on which one government fell in 1911, but in recent years it has become of less consequence. However, the Economic Council is to be congratulated on bringing forward this suggestion about free trade.
As one who lives in western Canada I feel that free trade, or at least freer trade, is of considerable advantage to this country. Increasingly we are finding that our manufacturing industry is expensive by world standards. For instance, the textile trade is demanding that embargoes be placed on goods coming from other countries. Our wage structure appears to be very high, even in relation to the United States. The Economic Council points out that the productivity of the United States worker is considerably higher than ours.
July 15, 1975

I am not one who believes that if we had freer trade there would necessarily be a diminution in poverty. This would depend upon what Canadians themselves think and do. Certainly the tariff policies of the last 100 years have created great inequities in our country and produced a deep sense of disillusionment and alienation, particularly in western Canada. The hon. member who spoke for the NDP used as an example farm machinery, which has been free traded with the United States for the last decade or so. By and large this has been very advantageous to the farmers, particularly of western Canada.
Prior to the establishment of free trade, western farm machinery was largely bought in Ontario, and to a lesser extent in Quebec. However, the farm machinery industry of Ontario was not oriented or adaptable to the needs of western Canada farmers. Since tariffs have been reduced and since the establishment of free trade in farm machinery, as far as Canada is concerned the market has shifted to Des Moines, but there is growing up in western Canada a sizable farm machinery industry.
Reference has been made to the fact that American tractors below 80 horsepower are not manufactured nearly as efficiently as those imported from Europe, and that therefore only very large tractors are manufactured in the United States, those over 80 horsepower. The reason for this is fairly simple. The wages paid American employees are considerably higher than those paid their counterparts in Europe. Since the amount of labour to manufacture a small tractor is approximately the same as that required to manufacture a large tractor, the difference in price between the two sizes is accounted for by the materials involved in making the tractor. Thus the Americans are forced to manufacture tractors of a large size.
Similarly, Canada cannot hope to have a farm machinery industry of any size that manufactures tractors or grain combines. Therefore free trade in farm machinery has been beneficial to our industry. It has been beneficial to western Canadian manufacturers who have seen growing up a sizable industry to manufacture tillage and cultivation tools, and swathers. This is an area where small companies in western Canada have been able to penetrate the market and have been able to sell as far south as Texas. With free trade the industry in Canada will not necessarily be at a complete loss. I therefore commend the Economic Council of Canada on bringing forward this very timely paper.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, subject to what my hon. friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, I hope we can clean up this part by six o'clock. There are a couple of matters to which I would like to refer. Again I underline the strictures of my colleague from York-Simcoe regarding the deficiencies in the budget message vis-a-vis the pattern of trade that is now developing.
On the last occasion that we discussed customs tariffs the minister was good enough to give a progress report on the GATT negotiations to date. Six months have elapsed, so perhaps he could bring us up to date again.
Fisheries and Forestry
One matter that my hon. friend from Vegreville and I are very happy about is that the minister has looked after farmers who are now able to harvest their grain in the comfort of an air conditioned cab on a combine. I invite those hon. members who smile to go out on a combine on a hot, sweltering day, coping with the dust and everything, because they would laugh on the other side of their face if they did.
In addition, perhaps the minister can tell us when our patent on aircraft engines is going to change. I think I have heard this message now for about 18 years, certainly more than 18 budgets. When I first came here in 1957 this was one of the items in the budget that year.


John Napier Turner: Since 1952.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not know how long it will continue. There are some petroleum matters I could also mention and some little changes in other items, but perhaps in due course we can have a statement from the minister on the GATT negotiations.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on the bill, but since it is about one minute to six may I call it six o'clock?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has only a few remarks, no one wants to curtail him so perhaps we could not see the clock for a few minutes.


Howard Earl Johnston: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand there is a disposition to deal with two items under government business. There are two references to standing committees appearing on the Order Paper as Nos. 22 and 23 under government business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the House revert to motions in order to deal with these two items?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be authorized to study the questions of oil and gas pipelines and the supply of oil and natural gas from frontier areas; that the members of the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada and in Alaska, U.S.A., during the month of September, 1975; and that the necessary support staff do accompany them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff

Mitchell William Sharp: That the annual report of the Freshwaster Fish Marketing Corporation for the year 1973-74, tabled February 11, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for the purpose of hearing representations from the Fundy Weir Fisherman's Association, New Brunswick, and the Independent Gill Net Fishermen of northern Manitoba.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader a question before the House disposes of this item. Would the government House leader consult with his colleagues, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc), and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), with a view to having the very excellent report on the state of the fishing industry and the price of fish in Canada made by the Food Prices Review Board also referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-67, to amend the Customs Tariff (No.3), be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words regarding the customs tariff bill before us, and I should like to deal particularly with the first item on the list and the decision by the minister to lift the levy on hymn books, printed music, and prayer books. I feel this is a move that will be welcomed across the country.
This move may be taken as an indication that the government is realizing how seriously inflation affects the institutions of this land, and I cannot think of any which are being affected more than the churches across the country. These churches through the years have had programs which tended to take the load off government, and I realize this has not always been appreciated. Some groups that will be most affected by this particular move are of that old fashioned and stubborn quality who insist on

taking care of their own and refuse to allow any of their people to become a charge on the government. Some of them even turn back family allowances, and many of them take care of their aged. Some of the larger churches have even seen fit to enter into arrangements with CMHC with respect to residences for the aged. The move we have here is a small but an important move, and one that will be appreciated by churches and their congregations throughout the country.
This move might be taken as an indication that the hymnal recently introduced by the United Church has not caught on to the extent that it might, and in this 50th anniversary of that great church it is an interesting footnote to the bill to realize that the United and the Anglican churches together prepared a joint hymnal which is used by both congregations even though, unfortunately, and I consider it unfortunate, they seem now to be further from union than ever. Yet the hymn book will, I suppose, survive in both those churches.
It might also be taken as an indication that the people who have been saying the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is by nature more conservative than many of his colleagues on the government side of the House have uttered some truth. Possibly the inclusion of religious pictures here would indicate that the Minister of Finance is less iconoclastic than some of his colleagues on that side.
There is one other small item that intrigues me, and that is the lifting of the levy on devices designed for measuring the moisture content of agricultural produce. The constituency I represent has a good deal of dairy industry, and this involves putting up hay in great quantities during the season when on occasion summers are quite rainy. I do not really know whether anyone has come up with a sure-fire device to indicate the exact moment when you can put hay in the barn without burning it down, but if someone has, then certainly the decision to lift the levy on such a device is commendable. I suspect that this item really has more to do with the grain trade and some other crops than hay. With some of the newer machines that are putting up ever larger quantities of hay, this question of moisture content becomes very important, and this may well have a beneficial effect on that industry as well.
There is a final area of the bill about which I am curious, and that is the item dealing with casual donations sent by persons abroad to friends in Canada, and the decision by the minister and his department to allow gifts up to $15 in value to be received without the payment of duty.
When the subject of duty was discussed before, I made particular inquiries about wedding gifts being sent from abroad to Canada. The minister indicated at that time he would be looking into this, but it is a little difficult to see in this measure whether he had that actually in mind in preparing this exemption. This is partly because the government forever acts as if inflation were not around at all. One gets the impression that $15 could buy something significant, and that is really not true any more.
Quite some years ago during travels abroad one could purchase gifts from a section marked "$10 or less". Even in 1961-62 these items tended to be rather small. I would suspect now that, in most of the stores in the developed
July 15, 1975

countries of Europe particularly, the table for duty free gifts costing up to $15 would be the size of a tea tray, and the items would be very miniature indeed.
The sum involved would not seem to be large enough to accomplish a great deal, but I wonder whether it would be within the ingenuity of the minister and his officials to prepare a clause in a bill on duties that would permit the receipt of wedding gifts up to an appropriate sum. Certainly all marriages in this country must be registered, and therefore it would be quite possible to impose a 12-month time limit in respect of the receipt of a gift following the wedding.
The possibility of fraud in such a case would be very small because it would be a simple matter to request the couple claiming the gift to show up with their marriage certificate, which would establish the date of the marriage. This could very easily be checked. I would ask the minister again if he would look at this particular request. I am sure this is a matter which affects a great many people in this country in a particularly niggardly and biting way when, after the celebration, the young couple find they literally have to buy back from customs a gift that was sent from abroad without the knowledge that any taxes would be charged against it.
I would ask the minister to take a second look at that point. If he has given it some study perhaps he would consider it a little further and come up with a clause which, I believe, would gladden the hearts of many people and make weddings more enjoyable, especially for young people who at a time when they may not have much cash suddenly have to come up with the money to pay a tax that certainly cannot bring in very much revenue to the Department of Internal Revenue.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity during this debate to discuss what I believe is a glaring omission on the part of the government and the minister, even after significant representations have been made. I refer to the electronics industry in Canada. There have been numerous representations concerning the weakness of the industry and the need to continue the support which existed at the time the industry was built. It had been pointed out that without this support the industry would be in difficulty.
On May 9 of this year RCA Limited in Canada issued the following press release, which states in part:
RCA Limited intend to divest itself of two of its five Ontario manufacturing plants by not later than the end of this year,...
The press release further states:
Mr. Clark attributed the decision to give up the plants to drastically altered conditions in the Canadian market for electronic home entertainment products. It was a decision, he said, which has been taken with a great deal of reluctance and only after exhaustive efforts to find alternatives.
"The action being taken is the result of the fragmentation of the rather limited Canadian market for home entertainment products among a comparatively large number of manufacturers coupled with increasingly severe price competition," he said.
It is in respect of that last paragraph that the government's omissions come into play. There has been severe competition due to the alleged dumping of television sets
Customs Tariff
into this country, notably from the United States, Japan, and Taiwan. The government did institute proceedings through the anti-dumping tribunal. However, this action was thrown out on a technicality and it was necessary to begin once again.
We see, as of May 22 this year, the following in a communique from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford):
On November 20, 1974, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise caused an investigation to be initiated respecting the alleged injurious dumping into Canada of colour television receiving sets originating in or exported from the United States of America, Japan and Taiwan, having an over-all diagonal measurement across the picture tube of sixteen inches and over.
It is interesting to note what advance has been made in respect of the investigation. As of May 22 this year the investigation was expanded to include goods originating in or exported from Singapore as well. So, we have not proceeded very far in respect of the anti-dumping tribunal, and cannot look for very much in the way of remedies in this situation. This matter has been brought to the attention of the minister on numerous occasions in this House; by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on February 6, 1975; by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on occasion, and by myself on occasion. On February 17, 1975, I took the opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister a very lengthy letter, which I do not intend to read in total, setting forth the problem in respect of which there has been no attempt at a solution. The situation basically is as follows.
In the twenty-ninth parliament Bill C-172 was passed which allowed the government of the day to exempt from any duty imports from the so-called emerging or developing countries. As a result the government of the day allowed these products to come in from Korea, from Hong Kong and, I understand, from Malaysia. The products involved are the component parts of television sets.
The importation of these component parts, 60 per cent of which are from these so-called emerging or developing countries, with a partly Canadian content, which are coming in duty-free, is causing lay-offs in the electronics industry in Canada. The International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, in a brief presented to the government, pointed out that the influx of imports due to the reduction of these tariffs is having the effect of further decreasing the number of jobs and the security of jobs in this industry. It is understandable that the government would like to assist the developing or emerging countries but we cannot, as a country, help those countries if we do not remain strong ourself. The fact is that the imports of these component parts have exceeded 60 per cent of the market.
The brief indicates that in the television segment, where the picture is very bleak, although the market has grown by 80 per cent from 809,000 sets in 1968 to 1,480,000 sets in 1973, the "made in Canada" sales increased by only 50 per cent, while the American and off-shore imports increased by 230 per cent and 106 per cent respectively. In colour television the imports have grown by 320 per cent. So obviously we are now importing a great number of our

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
sets from abroad, and we do not have a tariff in this bill to protect the Canadian home entertainment industry. The brief estimates in fact that in TV assembly alone some
10.000	jobs have been lost.
In the appendices to the brief we read that, beginning in 1967, imports accounted for 39 per cent of the domestic TV market, and that by 1973 imports accounted for slightly in excess of 60 per cent. We see, following that, that in 1967 the trade deficit between import and export of electronic equipment amounted to $370 million but by 1973 that deficit has grown to $920 million.
Between 1969, when the total number of people employed in the electronics industry was 78,500, and 1973, that number has been reduced by a little over 10,000 to 68,000. In spite of the pleas of many people in the industry, of both the electronics union, and the electronics association which manufactures the sets as well as of the parliamentarians, we find that the minister has taken no action whatsoever to reimpose that tariff in order to protect Canadian jobs. At a time when unemployment is running at well over 7 per cent in this country with over
750.000	Canadians unemployed, we have in that group
10.000	who could have been employed in the electronics industry. The minister could have assisted them if he had re-imposed this tariff, and this would have been to the great benefit of this country.
In my constituency there is an RCA plant which is being closed down. A few years ago it employed 450 people, but by the end of 1975 there will be no employees. The minister has failed to act, he has failed to protect the jobs of these people who have worked for 15 years in the industry, and he has not found them new jobs. I have asked on a number of occasions what he wishes to do to remedy the situation, but he has said nothing in his letter, which is a rather ambiguous one.
I feel that a tariff could have been included in the bill before the House to protect the jobs of those people in the electronics industry before we try to assist other countries, because we have to stay strong economically if we wish to help people in other countries. We will not do this by allowing our electronics industry to shrink. In turn we are spending more money abroad and increasing our deficit by buying more of these products abroad, thus creating a loss of jobs at home and having to pay people through unemployment insurance and other social welfare schemes.
I ask the minister once again if he will reconsider this bill and bring in a tariff which was in existence until April of 1973. In this way we could protect the jobs of people in the electronics industry, especially those in the home entertainment field.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to add my voice to the debate on the problem confronting us in the electronics industry by the importation of material which is made cheaper than we can make it in Canada. It is coming in under the quota system and it is being dumped. This threatens the jobs of hundreds of Canadians today. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, our unemployment rate has risen to unprecedented heights. This causes a further drag on the economy, both from the standpoint of the employer and of the employee who will 
have to pay in more to the unemployment-insurance fund. This means that the price of manufactured articles will have to go up further to meet the cost.
In my own area of Simcoe North we have an RCA Victor plant which is located in Midland. It is a very fine industry which employs hundreds of Canadians. If you look at the statistics you will see that first black and white television made its presence felt in the imports that were coming to this country, small ones at first-then larger ones. Gradually, as we watched that picture we saw the number of television sets manufactured in Canada diminishing. Now the same thing applies to colour television; we are losing our markets.
As I said before, RCA Victor located its plant in Midland. The industry was assisted in the hope that it would be of great value to the economy of the country and to the people in the surrounding area. It has proved to be an excellent industry, but now it lays off its employees simply because we have this problem of television sets coming in from Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. If this continues the same fate will befall this industry as did the shoe industry and other industries. We have seen them go down and out. This is what will happen to the colour television industry which used to be a very viable Canadian industry.
I remember first seeing black and white television when it was started in Japan with the help of the United States under the plans that were then devised to help those countries recuperate from the ravages of war. I remember so well seeing the sets go down the assembly line in a matter of seconds. You, Mr. Speaker, and I would not qualify for work in that factory because people 27 years old and over were considered too old to work there. Those sets were mass produced by people who were very efficient in that field. We next saw them moving into the production of colour television sets. Today we find ourselves in the situation where our labour costs are much higher, our standard of living is higher, and we cannot compete if we allow those goods to come in. As a result, Canadian workmen lose jobs in these industries.
I hope that I brought to the attention of members of the House the situation with regard to black and white television as well as colour television. As I said before, we have lost many markets for black and white television. The same thing will happen with colour television if steps are not taken to protect that industry. With regard to radios, with the gasoline tax in effect there will be fewer cars on the road. If this is true, that will cut down the sales of radios for cars. We have an excellent radio plant in the town of Midland-Motorola-and it specializes in fields other than car radios. It is able to equip ambulances with two way Tel-Radio and communications to reach hospitals and to reach other ambulances all over the country.
We also have in the riding of Simcoe North two rubber firms which make tires. There is General Tire and also Mansfield Rubber. Both of those have been hit by a government which was certainly short on foresight when it put the tariff down from 17 'A per cent to 12'A per cent. This meant that there was a 5 per cent difference in this tariff, making it much more difficult for the Canadian
July 15, 1975

competitor to compete with the sales of people from south of the border, where there is not only a bigger market but also bigger plants and equipment with which to manufacture those articles. So I ask the government to give those people the protection they need so that we can carry on and keep the unemployment rolls down.
In conclusion I would say that the government needs to take a long look at two of the industries in my own riding which would be vitally affected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say. I would like to comment briefly on the customs tariffs in general. The speaker who preceded me made mention of the tire industry and how a long look has to be taken as far as customs tariffs are concerned. Many hon. members have had representations made to them from the various members of the United Rubber Workers concerned about tariffs on tires. Their concern was the fact that the tariff on tires has bounced up and down like the proverbial rubber ball or yo-yo, between 12'/2 per cent and 17*/2 per cent. The concern is really with regard to what they are doing at GATT regarding tariffs on tires. They looked back at the volume of our consumption and the amount which has been imported in the last few years.
In 1972, of the tires used in this country, 30 per cent were imported. In 1973, 45 per cent of the tires we used were imported. In 1974 the figure rose to 60 per cent. Part of that rise in 1974 was the result of a couple of long strikes at Firestone, and particularly at Goodyear. That is reflected in the numbers of tires which were imported, but the real concern is that in the process of our negotiations with GATT on tariffs generally we may find ourselves negotiating ourselves out of the tire industry in this country.
There are a large number of United Rubber Workers who are out of work for one reason or another, and they are concerned that if there is not some protection the industry will not continue to be viable in this country. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) told us that one of his sectorial studies of the industry is trying to restructure the tire industry to be more responsive to the need for the type of tires that are used in Canada.
One of the concerns which has been expressed is that only 50 per cent of the radial tires we need in this country are produced here, and the rest of them are imported. Inasmuch as the automobile manufacturers are primarily using radial tires, the rubber companies and the rubber workers can see a considerable market there, and their concern is that we really should be moving a little faster to try to produce more of what is required by the automotive industry in Canada.
These are the main concerns which have been expressed, and the United Rubber Workers have done a very good job in circularizing these concerns to members of parliament. We feel that some statement on behalf of the government has to be made regarding the tire industry and tariffs in general, so that adequate planning can go forward to produce more of the tires we require.
Customs Tariff
That is about the sum and substance of the remarks I wanted to make on the tire industry. Other speakers have commented about the television industry. We have heard representations from labour groups, primarily about small television sets coming into this country. In fact we understand that there is an action under the anti-dumping provisions which is looking into this, and I suppose it is really not proper that we comment very much on it while that investigation is going on, but there is a real concern that as time goes on we will negotiate ourselves out of the television business. I think in view of the fact that we have a good and viable industry in the country now, we should at least protect a good portion of it and see that we do not lose that expertise.
Someone suggested that because of my physique I should comment on wooden hoops, one of the tariff items here, but I think that person was being facetious when he said that. My wife has me on a very strict diet, and I hope when I return after our recess, whenever that comes, hon. members will see the results.
I would like to reiterate that we are really concerned about the tire industry. We hope that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be able to inform us later on in this session just what progress has been made in that regard, because it is of vital interest to a large number of Canadians and, of course, there is a considerable investment in that industry.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it certainly gives me great pleasure tonight to speak on Bill C-67 because I want to talk about the port of Churchill and how the Customs Tariff Act affects it.
Last year the port of Churchill did not have a single pound of imports for the simple reason that there was no incentive for anyone to ship through the port. Some incentive could be given to customers to bring goods in through the port of Churchill. The only thing that has been imported in recent years is Scotch from Great Britain.


An hon. Member:: Don't knock it.


Cecil Morris Smith: The customs tariff on that item was certainly too high and so the provinces discontinued bringing spirits through the port of Churchill.
A fair number of tractors from Germany used to come through the port, but this trade has also been discontinued.
I think what is happening is that the government is looking at places like Churchill and trying to write them off. What it should be doing is providing some incentive, and perhaps declaring the port of Churchill a free port. We would then have the problem of trying to bring imports in through the central part of Canada, but we would have customers flocking to Churchill to ship material in, and of course this would help the port develop to its full potential.
Free trade is what we need, and the government should look at making Churchill a free port. The facilities are there; the grainhandling facilities are there. The port is open three months of the year and it should be used every day it is open. When you only have an 88-day shipping

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff
season you should not only be looking at exports but at imports as well, so that the dock is filled to capacity every single day.
The minister should look very seriously at the customs duties and tariffs on imports, and explore the possibility of developing the port of Churchill into a free port. Let us use it to its full capacity.


John Napier Turner: How about a casino up there?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On Clause 1-Schedule A amended.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with clause 1 and other clauses of this bill I wonder if the minister could answer some general questions. At second reading stage I referred to the fact that the customs duties shown in the minister's budget had risen from $1,810 million to $1,930 million. I felt that the House would be interested in the minister's explanation of why he anticipates, in his current forecast, the customs duties to be up $120 million. I understand that it is probably the increase in goods imported into the country, but I think it would be helpful if we had something more specific concerning this rather substantial increase in customs revenue.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is referring to figures that can be found in one of the annexes to the budget package put out for the elucidation of the House and the people of Canada called "Government of Canada Statement of Financial Transactions 1974-75". On page 7 of that document one finds that excise duties this year, on a preliminary actual prediction, amount to $749 million, and the predicted customs import duties amount to $1,810 million.
The primary reason for the increase in those figures over the 1974 figures of $686 million and $1,384 million respectively can be traced to the inflationary effects on movement of goods imported from other countries.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that information. Could he give members a breakdown of what commodities yield the greater revenue? If he could give us the three or four largest commodities as far as customs revenue is concerned, that would be useful.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to table a complete breakdown. I do not have it at hand, but if the hon. member wants it I will table it in the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, in reference to some of the tariff items dealt with in the November 18 budget, most members have undoubtedly received a petition from people connected with the tire industry. They have

indicated their anxiety with respect to the lowering of the tariff on certain tire items from 17'/2 per cent to 12 Vi per cent. My colleague, the hon. member for Simcoe North, referred to this.
Could the minister give an indication if consideration has been given to restoring this tariff or if he has any particular comment to make with respect to those who have signed petitions stating that the reduction in tariff has resulted in the loss of about 1,000 jobs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, one of the bonuses of holding this portfolio is that I have been given a very efficient parliamentary secretary who has been dealing with this issue. I wonder if you would allow him to deal with the question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to compliment the United Rubber Workers for the excellent representations they have made for reinstating that particular tariff item at 17 Vi per cent. I met with the 10 or 12 officials of that union from across Canada. In a very fair and objective way they indicated their concern about this particular tariff item and gave us an appreciation of the problem as they saw it. They were honest in stating that the total problem was not due to the tariff alone and that there were other problems faced by the industry. As a result of their representation, however, we had a better understanding of the predicaments they face at the present time.
The companies which supply material to the tire companies also made representations to officials of the department. We then went back to the tire companies and discussed the matter with them.
I think it would be premature to indicate the action that will be taken, but we have had a very full and comprehensive briefing from the tire companies, those who supply them and those who work for them. I would say the decision should be forthcoming in the not too distant future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer with respect to the tariff on tires and related products.
At the time of passage of the last customs bill coming out of the November 18 budget certain anxieties were expressed with respect to the changes. This was with respect to certain fresh produce such as cabbage, onions, carrots and peas. Some of those items were dealt with at that time. Can the minister indicate if in fact there has been any particular complaint as a result of the changes he made coming out of that November 18 budget with regard to fresh produce items covered at that time?


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause I carry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister is getting ready to answer.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member and the House will recall that when we made these tariff adjustments we also brought them before the committee of the House in a way that if the adjustments
July 15, 1975

adversely affected employment or competitive ability with the United States, we would review them. We did get a general statement from the Canadian Horticultural Council. Aside from that, we have not received any particular submissions that our action in November has adversely affected any of those products mentioned by the hon. member.


George H. Whittaker: The minister may recall that I asked him about the two and a half pound bag for spray materials the last time we were in committee of the whole on a customs tariff bill. The two and a half pound bag for agricultural spray materials is the only bag size that is not allowed in duty free. Can the minister advise why this bag size was excluded from this bill, whether it can now be included, or whether this will be done fairly shortly?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the two and a half pound size reflects an historical problem between agricultural and non-agricultural use. We have had considerable correspondence with the hon. member. The matter is still being reviewed. It may be possible to segregate the general tariff from the most favoured nation situation. We are looking at it on that basis.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to clause 2 I wonder if the minister can give us an indication of the aggregate increase or loss in customs revenue resulting from passage of the bill tonight, if in fact it is passed. Has he an estimate as to the amount of duty we are talking about?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are not talking in terms of a significant amount of money. We are moving to relieve some of the complaints from various sectors of the country. The revenue consequences are, in general terms, compared to the total ways and means of the country, fairly minimal. There is no way, for instance, of estimating what the freedom from duty on hymnbooks will mean.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister sometimes deals very lightly with billions, certainly with hundreds of millions. When he speaks about minimal revenue, can he give us a ballpark as to really what we have under consideration here?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, when I talk about minimal figures, they are relative figures. I have, for instance, a good deal of respect for the amount of $1 billion in expenditure cuts, even if the hon. member was not impressed with that figure. In terms of revenue implications, to use the hon. member's own terminology, we are talking about a ballpark figure of about $1 million. I happen to think $1 million is a considerable amount of money, but in terms of the $35 billion in the total revenue picture of the country, it is a relatively minor item.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, with regard to this item where the customs tariff has been taken off hymnbooks with printed music, is that not in direct conflict with what the Secretary of State is trying to do with Time and Reader's Digest in so far as the printing industry in Canada is concerned?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Religion knows no bounds.
Customs Tariff


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we in this House are not putting a price tag on religion. This item merely restores a duty free entry for hymnbooks containing printed music. It is a restoration of a situation where the hymnbooks were duty free until September, 1974, when Revenue Canada reclassified them under a different tariff item. We are really restoring a former situation by legislation which Revenue Canada classified by way of administration.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made a change in the casual gift, the last item here. Did he give any thought to the question of the wedding gift which is never a casual gift? In many cultures it is a mandatory thing that, in a sense, has to be done. I think it adds to the problems faced by young couples who find that a gift may even arrive unwanted and yet becomes dutiable. The gift can hardly be refused and, therefore, the duty must be paid. Did the minister consider looking into that matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, because of the representations of the hon. member and others, we did raise the duty free limit on gifts from $10 to $15. Even more significant, the $15 only applies to the first $15 of the gift.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is a big jump.


John Napier Turner: As the hon. member for Edmonton West says, that is a big jump. It may help young couples in the hon. member's constituency.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Pembina.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you for the new riding, Mr. Chairman. However, it is Kootenay West. We will take any riding you can give us. Would the minister elaborate a bit on the response he gave to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary with regard to hymnbooks, prayer books and so on? I do not say this with tongue in cheek. Does this create an unfair imposition against Canadian publishers who may be trying to promote their own industry? Apparently that is the thrust of the bill put forward by the Secretary of State with regard to Time and Reader's Digest. Quite honestly, I do not feel the minister responded in that context to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, we are really restoring a situation that existed until September, 1974, when there was an administrative reclassification. I do not think the local printing industry is at stake. When we had very strong moral representations from all sides of the House, spearheaded by the hon. member for Hamilton West, it was pretty hard to refuse.


George H. Whittaker: I have a question about item 40916-1. Just what does "mowing machines" mean in this context? Does it mean lawn mowers?


John Napier Turner: It does not apply to lawn mowers.


An hon. Member:: What kind of mowers, then?
7606

July 15, 1975
Customs Tariff


John Napier Turner: This is a new item. It is of particular interest to the hon. member for Edmonton West and his hon. friend from Vegreville whose constituents wanted to ensure that when air conditioners came as part of a composite deal with a combine they got a composite duty-


John Napier Turner: As they did on the
tractor.


George H. Whittaker: You can't have an air conditioner on a mower.


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman can bring to mind a situation where he has an air conditioner tied to a mower, we will have a look at it.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Would the minister consider including in this clause grain boxes without augers? As things are, if a grain box has an auger it is O.K. but if it does not have an auger it is not.


John Napier Turner: We are prepared to look at this but we are under a definite restriction as a result of recent representations from the other side and the ruling from the Speaker-we are bound by the ways and means motion and we really cannot move too freely. If the hon. member wants to put his suggestion in writing we will look at it next time around.


William Gordon Ritchie: I should like to ask the minister to explain the significance of the tariffs on oil, particularly those coming into effect as of July 1, 1977. What is the significance of the increase as of July 1, 1977?


John Napier Turner: There is nothing new here. This item, 26906-1, merely provides for continuing free entry for heavy fuel oils Nos. 4, 5 and 6, following representations from the pulp and paper industry and the eastern fuel companies.


Mr. Hargrave:: I should like to point out as a matter of interest to the minister and hon. members that there is indeed an occasion upon which mowers and air conditioning are connected. I-am referring to self-propelled swath-ers. These have elaborate cabins and it is not uncommon for them to have air conditioning built in, which makes sense since they are used in the hottest part of the summer. This is quite normal, except that nowadays we use the word swathers instead of mowers.


John Napier Turner: If they come within the scope of item 40916-1, that is, mowing machines, harvesters, either self-binding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, harvesters in combination with threshing machine separators including the motive power incorporated therein; air conditioners for the foregoing, and cabs and parts for the foregoing-if they fit into this category, fine. If not, let us look at it again.


Mr. Malone:: I have a question regarding the excise tax on the undercarriages of wagons. It is my understanding that an old bill prepared some years ago places an excise duty on farm wagons from the United States-


An hon. Member:: Farm wagons?


Arnold John Malone: Yes. That was brought in at the time when those were deemed to be grain equipment. I am wondering if that is to be removed.


John Napier Turner: We shall check that particular item-it does not have much immediate relevance to the subject. We shall look through the 57,000 items in the tariff to see whether we can find that one.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, I beg the indulgence of the House but I should like to bring up this matter before hon. members of the opposition do so. I should like to take up a few minutes to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for having struck out the 15 per cent tariff on hoops of wood that are used in repairing potato barrels.
In fact, I wrote to the Minister of Finance in this regard and waited almost two years for an answer. But tonight, my efforts are richly rewarded. I am most happy that the Minister of Finance has heard the representations I made on behalf of the small and average potato growers in New Brunswick.
On their behalf, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for his decision. It may also be proper for me to say that he acted wisely when he refused to remove potato barrels from the customs tariff because in so doing he is protecting the few manufacturers who still exist in the area. I therefore thank the minister.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tariff item 41233-1 deals with certain materials used in the printing process. Can the minister tell us why there has been a move to abolish the tariff with respect to these items and why the change is to be applicable just to June 30, 1976?


John Napier Turner: This, again, is a new item. It will provide for free entry until June 30 of next year for photopolymer sheets to make printing plates for newspapers which use the letterpress printing process. The item also covers certain materials for such plates. These articles are now, for the most part, dutiable at 10 per cent BPT and 15 per cent MFN. At the moment neither the photopolymer sheets nor the rest of the materials used in making this type of article are manufactured in Canada. Free entry is being introduced for an initial period of one year to take account of the position of any Canadian company which might undertake the provision of these goods in the future. We are acting now on a trial basis to see whether we can foster Canadian production.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Dealing with the items set out with respect to petroleum, items such as 26906-1, could the minister tell us why he has expressed the temperature referred to therein in degrees fahrenheit as opposed to Celsius?


John Napier Turner: We have got the metric system and Celsius on the air but we have not yet got them into the tariff.
July 15, 1975


An hon. Member:: That's not good enough.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Chairman, item 41045-1, miners' safety lamps and so on-why would that be restricted exclusively to use at mines? These lamps and this sort of equipment are used in other industries. I can think of several, such as the diamond drilling industry and so on, where the same type of lamp is used. Would these parts as listed be duty free when used for uses other than mining? I was wondering why that provision was put in there.


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman would look at both items together, namely items 41045-1 and 41046-1, he will see they are not limited to lamps used exclusively in mines. Duty free treatment is also provided for parts thereof, such as batteries, light bulbs and lamps used in mines as well. The other item continues the duty free entry for miners' safety lamps for all purposes other than use in mines.


Cecil Morris Smith: Where do I find that?


John Napier Turner: Item 41046-1-miners' safety lamps, not otherwise provided, parts thereof. To give an example, take mushroom growing.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Chairman, may I draw the attention of the minister to the tariff item at the bottom of page 2, item 41233-1, which appears to be a new tariff item. Would the minister give me a brief explanation why this item was included?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I just spoke on that item in response to one of the hon. gentleman's colleagues. It is to provide an opportunity for those who want to get into the business in Canada to be able to import these items because of the new photo and offset processes that are now available in this country.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, if I may refer to item 44043-1, aircraft not made in Canada and aircraft engines, would the minister explain the reason for the July 1, 1976, limitation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on another occasion to the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, this item provides for duty free entry of aircraft and aircraft engines not made in Canada, and has been renewed periodically since its introduction in 1952. The provisions expired once, on June 30, 1974, owing of the failure of the House to approve the May, 1974, budget. The free entry was continued by remission of duty by order in council. In the November 18, 1974, budget the provisions were renewed until June 30, 1975. What we are doing here is renewing them until June 30, 1976. The item is limited to aircraft and aircraft engines of types or sizes not made in Canada.


Paul Yewchuk: Is it necessary to keep renewing them each year? Why not just forget about them?


John Napier Turner: I think it is a negotiating lever for my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade
Combines Investigation Act
and Commerce. In our view the shorter period will provide an opportunity for discussions between my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and importers, users and producers of aircraft, in order to see whether we can build up a better component of production in this country.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the Minister of Finance could also use this particular clause dealing with aircraft as a lever with the Minister of National Defence so that we can see the early replacement of the Argus aircraft.


John Napier Turner: I will convey that to him. I am sure he is listening intently to the hon. gentleman's comments.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill S-25, to amend the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration of Bill C-2, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 27 on page 23 the following: "(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 31 of this Act,
(a)	forthwith after this Act is assented to in Her Majesty's name,
29576 -68'/2

July 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
the Governor in Council shall, but otherwise as provided under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, refer all questions of law and fact concerning the constitutionality of section 31.1 and PART IV.1 and every provision of such section and such PART to the Supreme Court;
(b)	until the Supreme Court has certified to the Governor in Council its opinion upon each such question, no provision of such section or such PART shall come into force at the time of commencement provided therefor under this Act or the Interpretation Act and then onlv to the extent, if any, such provision is in the opinion of the Court within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada;
(c)	the attorney general of each province shall be notified of the hearing under this subsection in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit.".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, this particular motion by my colleague brings into play the constitutionality of some sections of the act. As far as I recall, and if Your Honour would refer back to the records, I believe there was some question raised by Mr. Speaker regarding this particular section and its acceptability. I believe this was the same question put by Mr. Speaker in respect of the acceptability of the amendment.
I do not in any way want to spoil my colleague's amendment, but I think one should proceed with a clean record. I am subject to error here, but I want to say that this bill has been brought on before negotiations had been completed with the minister. I thought my negotiations with him in respect of certain amendments were such that they will be acceptable, but they have to be brought over. In any event, if Your Honour is prepared to rule that his amendment is all right, then that is fine, but it seems to me that one should look at this.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has expressed some reservations about the procedure used for this amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was not I, but the Chair, that raised the question a few moments ago. I simply want to check what the Chair has said about the amendments being studied.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might draw your attention to the difficulty members in the Chamber are currently having in hearing the interpretation from the booth over in the corner. Perhaps if the interpreter could speak up a little bit we might follow more clearly.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It would seem that the Chair has some reservations about Motion No. 6. If the House agrees, perhaps we might move to Motion No. 7.

Is it agreed that we move to Motion No. 7 until the Speaker rules on Motion No. 6?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 6 being in my name I would suggest that it be stood and that the House go to Motion No. 7. I would like the opportunity to speak to the jurisdictional and procedural position of Motion No. 6., but in the meantime I would suggest that we stand six and go to seven.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: That is what I just asked. Is it agreeable to the House that we move to Motion No. 7 and let Motion No. 6 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved:: -That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 8 on page 24 the following paragraph:
"is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to a fine of $1,000,000.00, or to imprisonment for five years, or to both if in the case of an individual or individuals, and to a fine of $1,000,000.00 in the case of a corporation."
He said: Madam Speaker, when we are dealing with these welfare corporate bums we must deal with them quickly so they do not completely emasculate us.
Of all the offences against the consumer in Canada there is no more despicable offence than that of collusion with the intent to price fix and to rook the Canadian consumer for all he is worth; in other words, to milk him and bilk him. That kind of collusion in respect of milking the Canadian public in no way compares with what is often referred to as the people who rip off unemployment insurance and the welfare system, because they may do this to the extent of $60 a week, $55 a week or even $35 a week, but when these corporations take the Canadian public to the cleaners we are talking in terms of millions of dollars.
I should like now to put on the record for the benefit of members here what the minister said when I introduced the amendment in the finance committee. I quote from the committee minutes at page 54:20 of June 2:
Mb. Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to say that this amendment will, in fact, increase the penalty under Section 32 on cospiracy, of the Combines Investigation Act.
I have been on record on many occasions complaining about judges not giving harsh enough sentences. I find it very difficult now to oppose this amendment because obviously I think this type of offence, especially conspiracy, may be the most difficult and the most severe offence. If the legislator increases the sentence under which a person could be liable to imprisonment from two years to five years, it would be an indication that the legislator really means something. It will be a sort of indication to the court that the legislator wants more severe sentences. I, therefore, have no objection to accepting this amendment if it is the will of the committee.

July 15, 1975

That amendment did not carry in the committee, not because it was defeated, but rather because one Conservative member brought to the attention of the Chairman that it was not in order. The minister was quite clear, when it was ruled out of order, in suggesting that if this House were to rule it in order he would be prepared to accept it. As we all know, Mr. Speaker has ruled that this amendment is in order, so it has the support of the minister.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that we have had occasions in the past in this country when large companies have been found guilty of conspiracy and the fines which were assessed against them were nothing more than licences for them to continue these practices. I am looking specifically at a report from the director of investigation and research of the Combines Investigation Act for the year ended March 31, 1974. The one case which is very prominent in this little booklet, which I got from the minister, incidentally, refers to the situation in respect of the cement companies in British Columbia.
This case arose out of an inquiry by the director into the sale and supply of cement and ready-mixed concrete in British Columbia. The evidence was referred to the Attorney General of Canada pursuant to Section 15 of the act and charges were laid on February 19, 1974, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The accused companies pleaded guilty on March 11 and they were fined as follows: On the first conspiracy-cement-Ocean Construction Supplies Limited; $125,000; Lafarge Canada Ltd., $100,000; and Canada Cement Lafarge Ltd., $25,000. In the second conspiracy-ready-mixed concrete-the companies and fines were, Ocean Construction Supplies Limited, $65,000; Deeks-Lafarge Ltd., $40,000; Lafarge Concrete Ltd., $25,000; and Metro Concrete Ltd., $7,000.
The third conspiracy involved ready-mixed concrete. Ocean Construction Supplies Limited was fined $30,000. Butler Brothers Supplies Limited was fined $15,000. Obviously these fines were nothing more than licences.
Then we have the matter of a very common charge that was laid against the beer and tavern keepers of Quebec City, who were accused of conspiring to set prices for beer in Quebec City. On December 3, 1973, the accused pleaded guilty and were fined $350. One can imagine how long that matter continued before the situation was discovered. This fine in effect becomes nothing more than a licence to operate in that manner.
We have situations in which companies once fined went back and did exactly the same thing. We have the case now of the sugar cartels in this country which were convicted for conspiring to set prices. Now we find that they are back again before the courts for exactly the same offence. Very shortly the courts of this country will be hearing the latest in the series of the dredging cases concerning the corporations which have involved themselves in dredging. When this case comes to trial it would be interesting if we had this kind of amendment containing this type of fine and imprisonment so that the offence could be assessed in relation to the seriousness of the crime.
Combines Investigation Act
I have told the minister that we have a provincial prison in our area that has closed down and that the people of Nickel Belt would be quite prepared to accept all these white collar criminals if they were sent there, where we could find useful work for them in the community.
It seems to me that an amendment of this kind would certainly put some teeth into the legislation. I have heard the lobbyist from Edmonton West for the corporate sector. I have heard him in committee. Indeed this is the line this corporate body has taken in this House since the first anti-combines legislation was presented back in 1889. I realize the hon. gentleman is not that old, but when the first anti-combines legislation was introduced the same lobbyists were making the arguments that are being made today. Perhaps they made the country strong but they made the poor poorer and rich richer.
Now, Madam Speaker, it is very obvious that this kind of fine and this kind of punishment contained in this amendment which I have introduced would do much to improve the anti-combines legislation in respect of offering protection to the consumers of Canada.
I am often amazed at how tough our courts can be in respect of those who do not have the money to purchase the services of the fancy Dan smart lawyers who can stand up and defend people in the courts. I have been amazed by the two kinds of justice systems we have in this country, one for the rich and one for the poor. This is' most obvious in cases involving these corporations which break the law and fleece the public. Indeed it is not out of line for me to say that the same oil companies on which this government has been depending for its facts and figures, these American multinational oil companies, are the same companies which have now been accused of collusion in bilking the American public. It is the same system in both countries which produces this type of situation. It is the free enterprise system. It is a system in which there is freedom for those who have money to take advantage of those who do not have money.
It may not be proper for an opposition party to take crumbs from the minister's table when we should be sharing the meal, but it seems to me that, while I do not agree with this legislation, this amendment would certainly go a long way toward improving what is very much window dressing legislation proposed by the minister. I urge members of the House to support this amendment, which is a fair and honest one.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I should like to deal very briefly with the motion introduced by the hon. member and indicate my willingness in principle to accept his motion, provided I may introduce an amendment which will result in eliminating the penalty under section 32 of the act. When he introduced his motion, the hon. member unfortunately forgot to strike out the lines which mention the penalty. I should like to move therefore:

That the motion of the hon. member be amended by striking out all the words following the words 'Clause 14' and by substituting the following therefore:
'(a) by striking out line 32 on page 23 thereof and substituting the
following:

July 15, 1975
Combines Investigation Act
'of the said Act and all that portion of subsection 32(1) following paragraph (d) thereof is repealed and the fol-'
(b) by striking out line 8 on page 24 thereof and substituting the
following:
'competition unduly, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years or a fine of one million dollars, or both


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether, in a spirit of consistency, the minister has considered that by specifying the amount of $1 million in this case-and whether it is $1 million, or $100,000, or $2 million makes little difference-he would follow what he and I had discussed and say that the fine should be at the discretion of the court, or both.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: The cabinet would commute that to life imprisonment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As he knows, and I think he agrees with me, I have a particular objection to a mandatory term on an indictment, which is a jail sentence at the discretion of a bureaucrat and not of the court, because it is an official of the Department of Justice who determines whether proceedings will be by way of indictment or by way of summary procedure, and if sentence is limited to a prison term the judge has no choice whatsoever.


An hon. Member:: Good!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the other hand, we get all the nice nellies and everybody wringing their hands about people in jail. I would say that there is need for less jailing in this country, and it is the court which should determine the nature of the punishment, not a bureaucrat. I was wondering, in light of the amendments that I will propose, whether he sees any clear difference. Will this be known as the Rodriguez clause with a limitation, because in an appropriate case a fine at the discretion of the court will be $2 million, but with the hon. gentleman's amendment, a ceiling is imposed on the fine. If inflation continues, $1 million may turn out to be one million peanuts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to speak on this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am very interested in speaking, but let me say that the minister, instead of standing up to reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), moved an amendment and then sat down giving us no explanation as to why he feels his amendment should be accepted. When you asked the question, I was wondering if an opportunity could not be given to the minister at least to explain why he is suggesting the amendment to Motion No. 7.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize that the microphones have not been operating tonight, but I have always been struck by the inability of the hon. member to hear anything that is sensible. I have said that the purpose of this amendment is to put

some teeth into the legislation. I have also pointed out that the fine should fit the crime, and it seems to me that I have given some examples which indicated that in the past fines were not high enough to fit the crime.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know there is a close liaison between the socialists on my left and the socialists in front, but my point of order was that I thought the minister should be given an opportunity to explain why he intends to accept Motion No. 7 and wishes to have it amended before we consider the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment to Motion No. 7?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if this motion could not stand, as did Motion No. 6. Surely it is unfair to ask members of the House to vote on an amended motion that we have not seen and that is not in our hands at present. I do not think there is any great urgency. Let this matter stand, and we can go on to the next motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that Motion No. 7 as amended stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There being no agreement, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment? All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the amendment carried.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 7 as amended, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.	.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Rodriguez), as amended, agreed to.
July 15, 1975


André Ouellet: That Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an Act to amend an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 35 to 37 inclusive on page 27 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for five years."


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, this is precisely one of those areas in which I think the minister will agree with the amendment which I propose, which is in the following terms:

That Motion No. 8, as it appears on the order paper, be amended by adding, immediately after the word "years", the following:
", or a fine at the Court's discretion, or both."

This is one of those cases where, following the amendment introduced by the minister, there has been a mandatory jail sentence following the indication of procedure by indictment. It is true that there is section 646 of the Criminal Code in which, for those who are initiated-and I do not classify myself among them in questions of the Criminal Code-a judge may have a discretion to impose a fine in lieu of the prison term if the penalty provided is five years.
Here I have particular concern for the constituents of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I have not so much concern for his geographical constituency, but for all of those small, ordinary people-and particularly for him-who do not understand the law. For those people there should appear in the very text of the law dealing with consumer affairs precisely what are the penalties. If the minister, as he has done, limits in the bill a mandatory five years in jail, those who read the bill will expect to see a jail sentence, and that that is all there is, whereas in fact a judge, since there is a provision for a maximum of five years in jail, can impose a fine and a lesser prison term, or he can impose both.
It is my purpose in introducing this amendment, and the minister agrees with me in this amendment and in six or seven others where we have the same problem, that we will have under the indictment procedure not only the same prison term, but a fine at the discretion of the court, or both. In fact-and this should please hon. members like the hon. member for Nickel Belt-under this particular provision not only is the individual concerned liable to five years in jail, but the court can fine him, whereas under the amendment of the minister there can be no fine. So there is the lesser penalty, and I have provided an alternative by having the court determine what shall be the penalty.
There is no way that I will accept that a bureaucract, by determining what procedure shall be adopted, will determine that any Canadian citizen or resident shall go to jail. It is a travesty of justice under the Income Tax Act. It has its dubious origin in the Income Tax Act. We have seen it used with vindictiveness. We have seen it used with politi-
Adjournment Debate
cal vindictiveness. Here there is always an opportunity of amending what shall be the sentence arising out of what is determined to be a criminal offence.
Almost every day in our newspapers, almost every week, and certainly many times a year in this House we hear members complain about conditions in prisons, and yet almost every week those self same people will, by unwittingly and unknowingly passing legislation which they adopt in good faith, agree that more and more people shall go to jail. It is an exercise in a total lack of logic. This has happened time and time again under animal pesticide acts; under all sorts of administrative acts in this country there are provisions for people to go to jail. Why is it that they should go to jail? Even under the Criminal Code there are many offences where we could do much better than by sending people to jail.


John R. Rodriguez: We could hang them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am fascinated by these facetious and, shall I say, irreverent and frankly vapid remarks coming from certain sectors in regard to this particular point, and all I say is that this House owes it to the public in Canada to see that we do not-


Mr. Blackburn:: Multinational corporations?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course the multinational corporations go to jail. On that high note of silliness, Madam Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I would ask the government House leader if he is in a position to say what business the government intends to call for tomorrow.


Mitchell William Sharp: In view of the ruling made by Mr. Speaker today in which he said that it was his hope that Bill C-66 would be reprinted and ready for discussion tomorrow, that is the business which will be called.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Don't bank on it. Somebody else will make a mistake.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, before I begin what I am sure will be a great contribution to this hour, I want it to be known that I made an even greater contribution a while ago in another stage of the proceedings when I refrained from speaking on Bill S-25, and for that self-denial I expect the eternal gratitude of the multitude of hon. members who are still with us. I might have had difficulty criticizing Bill S-25-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. May we have just a little less noise in this House so that the hon. member for Hillsborough can speak on his question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Especially in International Women's Year, I thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me some protection in this unusually raucous House.
On April 10 I asked the minister a question concerning the re-opening of the Suez canal and whether the Canadian government would be represented at this auspicious occasion. I even went so far as to offer to accompany the minister considering the role my political ancestor, Benjamin Disraeli, played in the development and acquisition of that great waterway in the nineteenth century.
I realize, of course, that the minister was not at the opening ceremony. His schedule since attaining his new portfolio has been a busy one and I commend him for his zeal in taking on the burdens of office. But I would like to know that Canada was represented and by whom. Surely the function was one which merited a Canadian presence.
The construction of the Suez canal was a triumph of engineering skill and human perseverance. Ferdinand de Lesseps said in 1869 on its completion that the "waterway traced for civilization a pacific and productive route across the sands of the desert".
The re-opening exactly eight years after its closing as a result of the 1967 war was also a modern triumph. It was accomplished with the aid of trained personnel and up to date equipment from a number of countries including the United States, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. But while the international effort to clear out the debris and make the seaway useable again was a major achievement, the major credit must go to Egypt and President Sadat for the act of faith which the re-opening demonstrates.
In this country, as in the United States, it is very difficult to get anything like fair coverage of the Arab side in the continuing confrontation in the Middle East. Here is a bright piece of good news. The Egyptian government is prepared to have the canal open and to make vast expenditures to restore the cities on its banks. This reveals a commitment to peace by President Sadat, who has shown himself a statesman of wisdom and moderation. Such a step, such a posture should be commended. It should be welcomed and not ignored.
It is in the interest of Canada and the world that further warfare be avoided in the Middle East, or to be more positive, that everything be done to maintain and strengthen peace. We make no helpful contribution by

being drawn into the position of being the advocates of one side only. There has been nothing in history to suggest that between Canada and the Arab peoples there should exist anything but friendship and goodwill.
We should rejoice that Egypt has affirmed its faith and has re-opened to commerce the 101 mile canal through its ancient land. It is to be hoped that the commercial benefits to Egypt and other nations of the world will be substantial. More significant, however, is that it represents one contribution to the building of a viable peace in a part of the world that has known innumerable wars in ancient and, alas, also in our own times. To people of good will this is a worthy example and a splendid and positive gesture. I trust we have so conveyed our views to the Arab Republic of Egypt.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, while the government did not convey a formal message to the government of Egypt following President Sadat's announcement of his decision to re-open the Suez canal, it has informally expressed the Egyptian ambassador its appreciation for the Egyptian good will in re-opening the canal. Furthermore, the government sent the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) as its special representative to the re-opening ceremonies held in Egypt of June 5. I know that the hon. member conveyed to officials of the Egyptian government Canada's hearty approval of this contribution to the normalization of life in the Middle East. The positive gesture by the Egyptians can only hearten those of us in other parts of the world who earnestly desire to see peace in the Middle East region.


IMMIGRATION-SUGGESTED REVIEW OF METHOD OF OBTAINING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL IMMIGRANTS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am rather disappointed that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is not here tonight to listen to my brief remarks. I have been asking questions for the past eight or nine weeks and I am getting just "non answers".
My question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, which I asked in the House on May 28, was not related only to the two highly questionable individuals mentioned in it, namely, former South Vietnamese General Dang Van Quang and a former CIA trained Uruguayan police officer, Nelson Bardecio. Rather, it related to just how these two notorious individuals were able to enter Canada when so many legitimate refugees and immigrants must wait months to gain entry to our country.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I have persistently asked the minister over the last several weeks why it took only a few minutes to process General Quang at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas, even though he was well identified as a four-star general, and even though our External Affairs and Immigration people in Saigon had known of his personal corruption and illegal activities while serving as President Thieu's number one man before the fall of South Vietnam.
As for Nelson Bardecio, a self-confessed torturer, bomber, and accessory to murder, I have not as yet heard
July 15, 1975

the minister explain how he got into Canada, how long he was here and, if he is still here, where he is presently located.
In addition, there is the case of Mr. Nyuyen Tan Doi, the former South Vietnamese banker, who was charged with embezzlement in South Vietnam upon his return to his native country from Canada some two years ago. The Doi case is interesting as well as astonishing when one looks at the facts.
Doi came to Canada in 1969 with his family and was admitted as a landed immigrant. They presently reside in Montreal. However, between 1969 and 1975, Doi spent most of his time in South Vietnam. In fact, upon his return in 1972 or early 1973, he ran for and was elected to the South Vietnamese congress, clearly establishing his intent to re-establish his domicile in that country. This automatically should have voided his Canadian immigrant status, but for some strange, unaccountable reason, known only to the minister, his landed immigrant status was not revoked or, as far as I know, even challenged. Yet Doi, just a few weeks ago, assisted by Canadian officials in Bangkok, was whisked away from a refugee camp in southern Thailand and returned to Montreal with his immigrant status unchanged. Again the question, why?
Many people in Canada are also asking why. They are asking other questions too. Were the Quangs, the Dois and the Bardecios given special treatment? Were they allowed into Canada because they were rich? Was pressure exerted on Canadian officials to take these people in from the cold, as they say in the world of spies, because they might be an embarrassment to another country? Was there a highly organized escape route to Canada for certain highly placed and highly questionable South Vietnamese officials who apparently could easily masquerade as legitimate refugees because they already had substantial contacts in Canada, and who were afraid that U.S. public opinion would preclude their entry into the U.S. after the deluge in Saigon?
Why did it take the minister seven weeks to make up his mind to deport Quang when he had in his possession hard evidence from U.S. and other authorities substantiating my allegations in the House that Quang was nothing but a gangster?
I would also like to ask the minister why, in view of the fact that none of these persons I have mentioned who came from South Vietnam was in any danger to their lives because they were safe in refugee camps, there was such a great hurry in getting them into Canada?
I would like to ask the minister why, in view of the fact that he has publicly admitted that several Vietnamese persons in Canada are under investigation by his department, he did not see to it that these questionable persons were thoroughly checked out before entering Canada? I would like to ask whether these persons, before entering Canada, were screened by our own visa control and security officers in Guam, Camp Pendleton, Fort Chaffee, Bangkok or other refugee camps?
Maybe one answer is that the whole thing was a series of errors based upon utter stupidity on the part of several
Adjournment Debate
Canadian officials. In any case, the minister owes the Canadian people a complete and open statement on this whole shameful affair. I am not at all opposed to admitting legitimate refugees from any country, but I'll be damned if I'll sit back and remain mute when I know criminals are gaining easy access to Canada. We have enough of our own to handle. I would have preferred the minister to have been here tonight to answer my charges.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) asked a question in the House on May 28, 1975, concerning a review of our information gathering system for background checks on prospective immigrants he was informed that our adviser in this regard does not concentrate on the use of one or another agency but uses various sources.
Officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration maintain very close liaison and co-operation with all levels of law enforcement agencies in very many countries, including, of course, the RCMP, through the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand). I am sure hon. members know that the Solicitor General acts as our adviser in regard to background checks of prospective immigrants, but we cannot comment on his sources of information in the international community.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the immigration program is global in nature and information gathering facilities must also be global in their ability to provide the necessary information. It is for this reason that such contacts and sources of information are so widespread and far reaching. You may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the information needed is requested from as many sources as is considered necessary in any particular instance.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Gee! Thanks a hell of a lot!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-SUGGESTION MINISTER ORDER NEW TRIAL FOR DR. MORGENTALER-POSSIBILITY OF NEW TRIAL OR PARDON IN SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTIONS
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my representations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). I am happy to find him in the House this evening, and perhaps if he can disengage himself from conversation for a few minutes he might find himself able to reply to what I have to say.
On July 9 I asked a couple of straightforward questions dealing with Dr. Henry Morgentaler and the situation in which he now finds himself. The questions were simple and straightforwardly put. In spite of the minister's reply, I found that my use of the language was not too bad.
Unfortunately the minister got carried away by his own hysterics in this situation, could not answer a straightforward question, and got caught up in the emotionalism he finds in this issue. I agree that in the last few months while the debate on abortion has been before us and, while discussion has gone on about a jury verdict being overturned by a superior court, that emotions have run high.

July 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
Tonight, on the basis of the question I asked on July 9,1 want to develop an appeal to the minister. I do not appeal to emotionalism or from hysterics, but to justice and to humanity. The state has got its legalistic ruling that section 45 of the Criminal Code is not available as a defence in abortion cases. Let us allow the matter to rest there. As a result of that ruling, Dr. Morgentaler has been jailed for 18 months. In addressing myself to the justice and the humanity of the situation I want to say that I do know something about criminal prosecutions. I was a Crown attorney for some three years and I made my entire livelihood in the courts engaged in criminal prosecutions-


Otto Emil Lang: Let others blow your horn!


Paul Wyatt Dick: -unlike the minister, who has never made his living in court.


Mr. Prud'homme:: May I ask the hon. member a question?

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. It is my duty to remind the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) that no point of order, question of privilege or any question may be allowed at this point.


Paul Wyatt Dick: If the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) would be patient I would gladly answer his question in the House or outside. But perhaps I might be permitted to continue my remarks in the time allotted to me.
In dealing with this matter, and knowing how criminal charges are usually laid, there is generally an all-inclusive charge when a number of charges are being preferred, or the charges are usually set out in a number of counts in one indictment. However, that is not the case here. As a result of investigation into this gentleman in 1973, 12 charges were laid. They were separate charges and the first was brought as a test case.
I am not disagreeing with that and I am not arguing the points of law involved therein. But the Crown did not bring in the one all-inclusive charge which I think should have been preferred and which most Crown attorneys would have brought in; they brought in a test case and got their conviction. But they did not drop the other 11 charges once they got the legalistic problems out of the way.
On the other hand, they did not go ahead and put the other 11 charges into an all-inclusive charge. Nor did they put them all into one indictment. They laid a second charge, with the same result-a jury acquittal. The Crown appealed. On the same day that they launched the appeal, on June 11, they laid 10 more charges based on evidence gathered two years earlier.
In all my time as a Crown attorney I have never known the police and the courts to sit for two years on evidence relating to charges under the Criminal Code of this
nature, and then prefer charges when they had all the evidence. I appeal to the minister tonight. By going through the charges one by one, and taking into cognizance the fact that the government in that province, or the state, tied up all the finances of the accused due to alleged taxation irregularities, leaving him no money to defend himself, yet not preferring charges under the act, and with the minister taking the irregular step of preferring the indictment directly without going through a preliminary hearing in each case, I suggest in fact this is persecution. It is like plucking the wings off a fly one by one.
I plead with the minister to head off any subsequent persecution in this manner. If the minister cannot use his persuasive powers in deafirig~with Mr. Choquette directly then he should allow one conviction and sentence to stand-as the minister is going to, and I am not arguing that point. But as the Minister of Justice he should stand up to stamp out persecution. He should stand up for humanity and disavow the bringing of ten more charges that are coming before the court two years after the evidence was available.
If the state goes ahead with the charges in this manner, I ask the minister to use his powers under section 632(2) whereby he can grant a pardon, or to use his powers under section 617(a) to order a new trial so as to indicate that the abuse of power to prosecute will not be tolerated in our judicial system. He should give notice to the minister of justice of the province of Quebec that any further prosecutions of this kind will be futile and will not lead to further sentences. I make that appeal to the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Madam Speaker, I doubt whether I have for a long time heard so many absurdities coming from someone who calls himself a lawyer.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You have never been in court.


Otto Emil Lang: I may not have been in a courtroom, but as a professor I would have marked a paper that contained those sort of statements with an F, but only because there is no lower mark. I would not have said that had the hon. member not chosen to try to demonstrate his own knowledge of the law. I am not surprised now that, a day or two ago, I heard that even Tory Ontario at one time insisted that the hon. member stop being a prosecutor on their behalf.
As far as emotion is concerned, if the hon. member looks at the record he will see a simple answer on my part. I replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, I answered that question before and I said that while I thought it best to put to rest the largely hysteric worry about the jury system which developed after the decision in the Morgentaler case ... I had no doubt at all about the rightness of the Supreme Court decision.
That hardly sounds emotional, and it ill-becomes the hon. member to pretend to join the cause of those who so absurdly argue that any kind of emotionalism, or bias, or prejudice is at the root of the stand that I take in support of the law. That stand on his part is indefensible and at least beneath the dignity of a person or a member.

July 15, 1975

He should know as a lawyer that in fact no reasonable defence counsel would allow charges to be tried together. He should know that, if a conviction has been registered and you do not see other charges dealt with in sequence in the court proceedings, it is because they are often pleaded guilty to by counsel on behalf of the defence. These are the sort of procedures that one would expect to find, but about which the hon. member seems not to know or not to care. I do think it is rather unfortunate that he comes into this place and talks about emotionalism, about his great dignity and his record as a Crown prosecutor, when the record shows anything but that, and puts this kind of nonsense before us tonight.
Adjournment Debate


Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There cannot be a question of privilege or a point of order at this time.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Then I give notice of my intention of bringing it up tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Wednesday, July 16, 1975