1975-11-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, guided by your advice and the advice of others in this House, I would rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the impending proclamation of legislation making the use of seat belts compulsory in one and perhaps two or more provinces by January 1 of next year, and realizing the high density of interprovincial traffic which could be seriously inconvenienced by the proliferation of differing rules in this field of public safety, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane): That this House supports the efforts of provincial governments in implementing laws designed to protect Canadians through the legislated use of safety belts, and encourages these governments to achieve uniformity across Canada in such laws, where practical.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House before the said motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture said in response to my question on October 22 that marketing boards would be specifically subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board and that the Anti-Inflation Board would be in a position to demand justification from marketing boards for increases in prices, I should like to know how the Minister of Finance reconciles that with his position before the House committee yesterday when he said that the Anti-Inflation Board is welcome to "monitor anything it wants" but it will have no authority over the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman would note if he went on to read the transcript, I pointed out that the Act does not provide for enforcement procedures against the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. We had a very lengthy discussion about this in the committee, and I made it clear that indeed the board could monitor and could make inquiries of the agency in respect of any particular act, and then make reports to the government and to the public in this particular area, but it is the enforcement procedures that do not apply in that particular case.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, Mr. Speaker, the latest version is that the guidelines do not apply to marketing boards, contrary to the impression given earlier. I understand the Minister of Finance suggested before the committee yesterday that the government would be prepared to intervene where necessary in connection with practices of marketing boards. I want to ask the minister whether it is therefore the declared policy of the government that there is no regulation of marketing boards by the antiinflationary apparatus but that there may be intervention by the government to regulate prices by marketing boards where the government considers this to be politically expedient.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gave testimony at very considerable length yesterday on this matter and responded to questions. I just say to the hon. gentleman that he should not misrepresent the position. It is the one I stated this morning. It is clear that the enforcement provisions do not apply to the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency or other marketing boards, but that the guidelines do apply and the Anti-Inflation Board can indeed monitor the conduct of that or any other marketing board and make representations on the subject either to the public or the government. I suggest that the appropriate course of action to be taken at that point would be to act under the other law that has been passed by parliament to deal particularly with stabilization programs under which the board has been created. That was the position taken yesterday and the position taken today. It is of no particular assistance to have it misrepresented, Mr. Speaker.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-AREAS IN WHICH BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: It
is of no particular assistance to this House to have the position with regard to marketing boards misrepresented
9318

November 21, 1975
Oral Questions
from time to time by ministers. I am seeking clarification and am attempting to have the minister reconcile what he said yesterday with what has been said elsewhere and previously in this House. Finally, I want to ask the minister how he can say that in fact the marketing boards are subject to the guidelines when there is no one to enforce the guidelines unless the government intervenes. I should like to ask the minister also, in how many areas the government is reserving unto itself the right to intervene from time to time in this arbitrary fashion in areas where the Anti-Inflation Board and the administrator have no such authority?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are a great many laws passed by this parliament. This also was dealt with at length yesterday in the committee. I think it is very clear on the record that there are a great many other responsibilities given by parliament to various bodies, for example the Canadian Transport Commission and others, to apply the guidelines in their decisions. In no sense could this be regarded as arbitrary. We have said to the whole country we would hope the country as a whole would support the guidelines in the interest of restraining inflation in this country. I have said and repeat that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and other institutions in the country would be expected to observe the guidelines. If they are not doing so the AntiInflation Board can scrutinize their conduct and can report on this to the government. The obviously sensible course, under an Act which has been passed by parliament with regard to that agency, is that action be taken by the government under that law and that in no sensible way could be referred to as being arbitrary.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-AUTHORITY TO SEIZE BOOKS OF MARKETING BOARDS TO DECIDE ON JUSTIFICATION OF PRICE INCREASES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my questions flow from the testimony of the minister yesterday and the questions of the Leader of the Opposition today. Since the marketing boards under federal jurisdiction will be exempt from the enforcement provisions of the act hence the administrator would have no authority on the minister's own admission to seize the books of these agencies to justify their increases in prices on the basis of increases in production costs, may I ask the minister what or whom in the government will be examining the books of these agencies if in fact they do not adhere to the guidelines which are by his own admission voluntary guidelines; who will be examining these books to justify whether or not increased production costs justify increases in prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member of the opinion he was given yesterday by legal counsel that the board does not have the authority to seize anybody's books, but that the Anti-Inflation Board does have the right to seek information with regard to the operation of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and, under the statute which created that agency, the government of course is entitled to have full disclosure of information from that marketing board. If, from the scrutiny that the vice-chairman of the board has indicated she will be carrying on in this particu-
lar instance, there is some indication that there apparently have been unjustified increases, the government will have the power to follow this through.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT ON APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES TO MARKETING BOARDS
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the discussions that took place here in the last days with the federal and provincial officials, and in view of the fact that the government itself is not prepared to set the example for the provinces with respect to marketing boards that are under their jurisdiction, may I ask the minister what agreement has been reached with the provinces with respect to marketing boards, the majority of which are under provincial jurisdiction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As of
yet there has been no agreement with the provinces on the question of marketing agencies. There is an obvious difficulty in applying a policy to the marketing boards which, whether federal or provincial, have the long run objective of providing stability in agricultural commodities and thereby ensuring not only a fair return to producers but a fair price for consumers. But this does indeed remain an important consideration that the provincial bodies, just as the federal, should operate within the guidelines to which we have asked the whole country to adhere.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PRICE FREEZE ON FOOD ITEMS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that when Bill C-73 finally becomes law we will have effective wage and salary control but not price control and considering that the price freezes announced by some of the food chains yesterday exclude such essentials as meat, eggs and produce, items which account for the bulk of food purchases, would the government now consider initiating a real price freeze on all food items?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do
not accept the preamble of the hon. member's question. Of course, with regard to food, as with regard to other commodities, if there are cost increases from time to time then inevitably these will have to be passed on so that a freeze for any length of time would only make certain that there would not be adequate supplies coming through on the market for Canadian consumers rather than assisting the situation.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRICE FREEZE ON FOOD ITEMS ANNOUNCED BY SUPERMARKETS- WILL BE MONITORED
John Edward Broadbent: To follow that up and to follow the announcement of the food chains made yesterday, will the minister assure the House that the items that the chains have claimed they will freeze now for a given period of time will be monitored by the government to ensure that these freezes are in fact kept on for the period which the companies announced?
November 21, 1975


Donald Stovel Macdonald: think it is clear that the chains have recognized the effectiveness of the gross margin controls that are provided for in the guidelines and the Anti-Inflation Board will be responsible for making certain that these gross profit margin controls continue to be applied and will be monitoring very carefully any mark-ups that occur.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES TO OIL COMPANIES
John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question concerning prices but in the oil field. In view of the pervasive influence of energy prices throughout the economy, can the minister tell the House whether the government has reconsidered its position on oil prices and come to the decision that the antiinflation guidelines should apply to the oil industry as well as to other sectors in the economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They do apply to the oil industry. If the hon. member is talking about petroleum companies, they do indeed apply to them. They do not apply to the OPEC nations, I can assure the hon. gentleman of that, but they do apply to petroleum companies as they do to anyone else.

| Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
When my colleague from Rimouski put his question the day before yesterday, I had an important supplementary, but unfortunately I was not recognized. Therefore, I would like to obtain today from the Minister of Transport some explanations on the matter. Could the minister say how he intends to thwart the instructions of Mr. McLish concerning air to ground communications, so that in that field we may at least respect the minimum requirements of the French fact in Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons a couple of days ago, the current specific order to which the hon. member refers was not any essential change in policy in regard to the use of language in air traffic control. It had been understood, when my predecessor saw an order go forward which allowed the use of the French language in flights which are visual in nature, that those on instrument flights would not be allowed to use any language except English, and also that the airports would be limited to the five in question. The recent order which was issued was simply somewhat more precise in regard to definition of instrument flight as distinct from visual flight and was no change. I have been asking parties
Oral Questions
on all sides to act in the best possible faith in terms of our examination of the question of safety in relation to air traffic, while wanting to accommodate those pilots-to the extent possible and consistent with safety-who use the French language much more conveniently, or at all, compared with the English language.
The study in relation to the possible use of the French language in other areas of flight operations is going on with an assurance by me that safety will be always borne fully in mind in any change which is contemplated.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Could the minister say whether discussions are now being held on that subject between Ottawa and Quebec, taking into consideration the enforcement of the legislation making French the official language in Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, provincial legislation has no direct bearing upon the use of language in terms of federal government operations or those controlled under federal jurisdiction where, rather, our official languages legislation is the controlling feature. Discussions are going on between my officials and various persons involved in the air industry concerning questions of language and safety. I had a conversation a week or so ago with Mr. Lalonde from the provincial government in Quebec. He is the minister responsible for certain questions relating to language.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that the new Canadian ambassador to France, Mr. Pelletier, has been cooling his heels for the past three weeks and more without being able to submit his credentials to President Giscard d'Estaing or Quai d'Orsay, and considering that this was to take place the day before yesterday but was postponed to today, and yesterday it was postponed again, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would advise the House what is happening and why?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries about that, but I would not want anyone to draw the inference that there has been any deterioration whatever in relations between Canada and France.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: Would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to look into this matter, to communicate with the
299S6-38H

November 21, 1975
Oral Questions
ambassador and to advise the House if in fact this is not a further indication, in the aftermath of Rambouillet, of a deterioration of Franco-Canadian relations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear, but I said quite clearly that there has been no indication whatever of any deterioration in relations between Canada and France. Perhaps he is trying to create an impression like that. I deny it most vigorously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House the Postmaster General indicated in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition that union and government negotiations might soon resume in the Post Office situation, and that the monetary package contained some flexibility that the government was prepared to consider. Has there been any progress in the past 24 hours to indicate that the government will be able to resolve the dispute in the near future and not have it continue until next Easter or until kingdom come as the Prime Minister said in Grey Cup country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any further negotiations that have taken place but I would not want the position of the Postmaster General to be misrepresented in any way. He made it very clear that as far as the monetary package was concerned the government has said its final word on that. The details do not affect that particular principle.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question. Has the government received any indication that, as reported yesterday in the London Free Press, the union would be willing to accept the monetary offer of $1.70 an hour but now wants to return to the bargaining table to negotiate other items such as hours of work?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the union made that sort of offer to the Postmaster General I am sure he would accept it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has a decision been arrived at with respect to modifying the import tariff on cheap work

gloves into Canada in view of the allegations and the concern expressed by Canadian manufacturers that the Hong Kong imports are causing grave prejudice to our home grown manufacturing industry? Is the minister prepared to meet with the industry spokesmen in the near future to discuss the problem with them?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would be quite prepared to meet with them at an appropriate date. In the meantime, activities and studies are going on in relation to this matter. I have been made aware of it and I met with the Clothing and Textile Board on Monday. I hope we will have some decision on this matter in the relatively near future, although I cannot be specific as to dates at the moment.


OIL-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRIOR TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF REDUCTION IN EXPORTS-POSSIBILITY OF RETALIATORY MEASURES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister tell the House whether there was discussion with the appropriate United States representatives before the public announcement of the oil export cuts to that country?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met with officials of the United States about ten days ago.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House what the reaction of the officials of the United States government was in response to the announcement of the Canadian government's policy. Can he assure the House that no substantive retaliatory measures will be taken by the United States in other areas.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the United States officials understand the facts as well as we do. When there is no oil to export there is no oil to export. Clearly, it was an unpleasant piece of information that I had to convey to them but they accepted it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport is on the same subject as an inquiry directed to him the other day by the honourable and gallant member from Malpeque. Can the minister advise if appropriate steps have been taken to update the Borden-Tormentine ferry service to meet the heavy demand being placed upon it consequent upon the withdrawal of the Wood Islands-Caribou service?
November 21, 1975

Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my inquiry indicated that the capacity available was in fact meeting the needs of the moment. If the hon. member has any specific information to the contrary I will be able to look further into the matter.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Federal sales tax is normally paid by mail but in Belleville this week manufacturers are being told to bring their payments in to the federal tax office or face penalties. Will the minister countermand this very unfair order and allow manufacturers to mail their tax payments as usual so that the government will begin to suffer the consequences of their own policies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the people who can will comply with the order. The second part of the hon. member's question strikes me as being patently unfair, and I will have to look at it.


COMBINES
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Could I have one supplementary, Mr. Speaker?
In view of the fact that companies purchasing tobacco on the farmers' auction exchanges in Delhi, Tillsonburg and Aylmer have consistently offered prices lower than last year, despite increased cost to farmers, all of which have given rise to allegations of price manipulations on the part of the companies, will the minister immediately launch an investigation into the validity of these charges?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take this suggestion into consideration and refer it to the proper minister.


William David Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Acting Prime Minister discuss these allegations with the Minister of Agriculture upon his return to Ottawa, as he is familiar with the operation of marketing boards?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF RESUMING NEGOTIATIONS
Mitchell William Sharp: May I
clarify an answer I gave to the hon. member who asked me about the possible resumption of postal negotiations. I did not hear the question accurately. A colleague has told me that one of the conditions is a change in the hours of work, which is part of the monetary package and not negotiable.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and arises from the firm undertaking the parliamentary secretary gave last night to the special joint committee. He suggested, when dealing with Bill C-52, that the government would not entertain motions to expand the areas affected by the bill with respect to pensions beyond the royal recommendation. Is the government contemplating further legislation, perhaps early in the New Year, dealing with five or six major areas which the government, for whatever reason, has not included in Bill C-52.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board, at the appropriate time, will make a statement on this matter.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Will he confirm if Mr. Leslie Worsdale, the Chairman of CEMA, resigned last night and, if so, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm it. I am not aware of the fact, if it is one.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance? The Governor of the Bank of Canada having said that there has never been any doubt about where the ultimate responsibility for monetary policy resides, it resides with parliament, will the minister

November 21, 1975
Oral Questions
say if consideration has been given to allowing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to report regularly to parliament, say, every three months, when he could indicate what is to be the monetary stance of the Bank of Canada for the next ensuing period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may correct the hon. gentleman. Parliament, under legislation governing the central bank, has given ultimate responsibility for monetary policy to the Minister of Finance. When the minister makes policy statements from time to time, they result from discussions between the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance. I am not sure if it would be useful to initiate the periodic practice; certainly, it would be useful if the Governor were to appear regularly before the standing committee, to discuss the principles underlying the decisions taken from time to time on monetary policy.


STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA ON PERCENTAGE GROWTH IN MONEY SUPPLY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that when the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs he indicated that, according to his estimate, the proper monetary stance for Canada would be a growth in the money supply of not less than 10 per cent and not more than 15 per cent? If the minister is aware of this, does he agree with the Governor, bearing in mind that the suggested growth in our money supply is twice as large as the growth of the money supply in the United States, which is to be kept between 5 per cent and 7 Vi per cent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the hon. member opposes the Governor's point of view, he advocates for Canada a very strict monetary policy and, therefore, a very high rate of unemployment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Does the minister consider that a growth rate between 10 per cent and 15 per cent in our money supply which, incidentally, will be the highest rate of growth in the past 30 years after real economic growth is discounted, is acceptable? Second, how can he relate such growth to the government's announced restraint program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Apparently the hon.
member has not read attentively what the Governor said. The hon. member suggested that the figure would be 15 per cent, after real growth had been taken into account. The Governor made it clear that one of the elements included in the growth of the money supply would be the real growth rate. What is more, the Governor set it as an objective and said, in his testimony, that it would be below 15 per cent.


OIL-POSSIBLE TAKEOVER OF INDUSTRY BY PETRO-CANADA TO INCREASE EXPLORATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the National Energy Board report tabled yesterday shows that the oil companies are slowing their exploration programs, despite the substantially increased profits of the first nine months of this year, on top of their astronomical profits last year, is the government not convinced that the time has come for it to use Petro-Canada to take over a substantial segment of the western oil industry, for the purpose of expanding exploration and launching a secondary recovery program in the western oilfields?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has read more than the National Energy Board report when he suggests that there has been a slowdown of exploration in Canada. Dealing with the second proposition, that Petro-Canada should take over a substantial part of the oil industry, I assure the hon. member that my party does not stand for nationalization of the oil industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: We believe that joint public and private enterprise can and will answer the need for Canadian exploration and development.


OIL AND GAS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PRICE INCREASES WILL BE WITHIN ANTI-INFLATION GUIDELINES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister is reported to have said at yesterday's press conference that the prices of oil and natural gas will probably rise after July 1 next, will the minister assure the House that any increase in price of domestically-produced oil or gas will be within the guidelines of the anti-inflation program?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker. It has been made clear a number of times that the hon. member and the House cannot expect that. Indeed, the white paper makes it clear that the oil industry is in a separate category. There may be some confusion between the hon. member and his leader as to whether we are talking about wellhead prices, or costs after the wellhead. I think the Minister of Finance made it clear in his answer this morning that the guidelines will apply after the wellhead.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? I do not think my leader and I ought to get together; I suggest that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources ought to get together; if you put the two together, you will have one whole wit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask
the minister, will the consumer price of oil and gas be
November 21, 1975

raised after July 1, in accordance with the government's guidelines laid down in the anti-inflation program?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be an increase in the wellhead price of oil, I expect that increase, that crude increment, to be passed on in higher prices consistent with the guidelines.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.
Considering that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion sometimes dictates specifications to certain industries, such as those which install anti-pollution devices and which, to this effect, apply for grants, and considering that the payment of grants is delayed until the Department of the Environment has made its recommendations, in other words after the work has been done, could the minister tell this House whether final acceptance of the installation of these systems comes under the federal department or under the Quebec department of environment?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion gives a grant to an industrial establishment, the latter must comply with the norms set by the Department of the Environment in two ways. First, as the federal government finances part of this enterprise, the company must comply with the standards of the Department of the Environment on the anti-pollution equipment. The province is responsible for implementation of these standards. Any new establishment must comply immediately with the standards. Now, the federal government allows these industries to amortize this anti-pollution equipment over a period of two years, which is very quickly. Therefore, it does not hamper new industrial establishments in any way.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a supplementary question.
In light of the answer the Minister of the Environment has just given, may I ask the minister if, when subsidies are delayed because the Quebec department concurrence is overdue, it is his department's responsibility to speed up the answer or certification of the provincial ministry of the environment and can it do so to prevent the industry which is relying on the subsidies from being penalized?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the hon. member that it is not specifically our responsibility to do so, but there is no doubt our department is eager to make payments in keeping with the agreement. We try as much as possible to prevail upon our provincial counterparts so that
Oral Questions
the measures you are referring to may be accepted and the necessary inspections carried out before the payments are made. We try to be as informal as possible to win their cooperation.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On June 2 last the former minister stated that the government was considering what its policy should be on the matter of the Export Development Corporation and the Arab boycott of Israel. On July 25, I asked that minister whether the government had completed its consideration of the matter. He replied it was still under consideration. Has the cabinet now completed its consideration and, if so, what conclusion has it reached?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, it has not completed its consideration. This has been basically as a result of my preoccupation with other matters in the few weeks since I have taken over. However, I believe it is scheduled for consideration either two or three weeks from Monday coming.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Ninety-nine per cent of the inside workers and letter carriers in the vast area of the Churchill constituency are now back to work. When will this government make arrangements to get mail moving so that Canadians and postal workers in this large area who want to work will have that opportunity?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that inside postal workers throughout the country, will soon be following the same course as those in Churchill.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General. The report on the investigation of the November 3 gasing and beatings at Millhaven is now before the Commissioner of Penitentiary Services. Is the Solicitor General in a position today to give the House a full report on the incident?

November 21, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker,
I can only say that following the gasing incident, there was a suspension of a penitentiary employee. That employee has now appealed the suspension. There will be a hearing shortly.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether any of the guards involved in the November 3 incident were involved in the 1971 Millhaven riots?


William Warren Allmand: I will have to check that, Mr. Speaker, and report to the hon. member.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. It is supplementary to the one I asked yesterday. The minister has notice of the question. Now that his army of auditors in British Columbia have been stripped of their armour, what are these people doing in the regional offices? Is it now time for me to inform my constituents that the Income Tax Act is voluntary in the same way that the anti-inflation program will be?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member on the beautiful way he puts his questions. Because of the notice given, I checked into the information that went to the officers to determine if what in fact the hon. member is implying is true. The last thing I want to do is strip them of anything.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In August the minister told officials in the Okanagan that she was going to sign the implementation agreement within two weeks. In the three answers she has given in this House starting one month ago, she said she would sign it "shortly", "soon" and "in due time". This agreement is between the province of British Columbia and the federal government. Will the minister now tell the House the real reason why she is not signing this implementation agreement?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I will be signing the agreement as soon as I am able to determine from the province of British Columbia the period over which the money called for in the agreement will be spent. We are now in the process of doing that. As soon as this is completed, the agreement will be signed. We are most anxious to sign the agreement in order that the water basins of the Okanagan Valley can be properly managed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. A couple of days ago I asked a question about the accord arrived at between the Republic of France and the United States in connection with that part of the meeting which dealt with one of the major causes of inflation, namely the fluctuating rates for exchange that sometimes bear a direct relationship to organized rates. The answer given at that time was that the government of Canada had not received this agreement, although the President of the United States said the agreement was forwarded to 18 countries directly or indirectly affected. Has the government received any representation from the United States or the Republic of France in connection with that accord which should be receiving consideration to meet in part the problem of inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall take notice of this serious question. I will find out whether, in fact, we have received any messages from either of these governments.


REASON FOR DELAY BY FRANCE IN ACCEPTING CREDENTIALS OF CANADIAN AMBASSADOR
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe in respect of the Ambassador to France for Canada. Why has there been this delay in the acceptance of his credentials in Paris? The minister said it did not have anything to do with a depreciation of the relations between Canada and France. There must be some reason why Mr. Pelletier is cooling his heels when matters as important as the one to which I have referred should be receiving consideration.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand the reason is that the president has a very long list of ambassadors who have not yet presented their credentials. I should like to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to all members that once again I resent the effort being made by the opposition to create a rift between Canada and France.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the annoyance displayed by the usually equable gentleman indicates what actually is taking place is that France is fed up with the kind of treatment Canada is giving it.


Mr. Peters:: It is fed up with the kind of ambassadors we send, too.
November 21, 1975


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In a recent announcement, the Minister of National Defence seemed to recommend a priority in defence spending for the acquisition of a new tank for the Canadian forces in NATO. If this is so, does it indicate a reversal of priorities announced by the Prime Minister some time ago which put the defence of Canadian sovereignty first and the support of Canada's NATO forces third in priority?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in priorities. Even under the priorities which were established and still remain, it will be necessary to do something about the equipment of our troops in NATO.


POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF TANKS FOR NATO FORCES-EFFECT ON ACQUISITION OF LONG-RANGE PATROL AIRCRAFT
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. Assuming that spending priority is given to the purchase of NATO tanks, would this mean that the necessary funds to acquire the Boeing long range patrol aircraft would have to come from some department other than the Department of National Defence, and would the alternative acquisition of the cheaper Lockheed Orion have a capability for anti-submarine defence only and no adequate capability for fisheries and sovereignty patrol?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Prime Minister has said, our priorities remain as in the white paper of 1971. Our procurement decisions are now before cabinet. I expect to be making an announcement probably next week, but before going to Brussels in December, of the decisions we have made concerning a long range patrol aircraft and the re-equipping of our forces in Europe. This announcement will answer the questions that have been put.
I could go into a great deal of detail concerning the two aircraft that are in competition. They are both capable of performing the role but there are some industrial benefits that may be achieved which are currently being examined interdepartmentally. The conclusion will be reflected in the announcement next week.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I am sure the minister is well aware that almost 20,000 pulp and paper workers across Canada are out of work due to labour disputes, some entering their fifth month. In view of the importance to the Canadian economy of the pulp and paper industry, what action does the government plan to take to
Oral Questions
encourage both parties to begin serious bargaining in good faith?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned, this Anti-Inflation legislation is not designed to discourage the collective bargaining system from working within the parameters set by the legislation. We hope that the employers in question will sit down with the union, which has asked that negotiations be started and that they will keep the legislation in mind. This is what the government is urging the employers to do in this particular case, so that hopefully we can resolve this very serious strike which is most injurious to the Canadian economy.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that government employees are being sent to pick up federal sales tax payments from businesses in some areas, would the government consider establishing a similar pick up and delivery service for accounts due to small businesses so they will have the funds on hand to meet their obligations to the government and others?


Mitchell William Sharp: To that specific suggestion, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Various groups are making their own arrangements and the government is not discouraging them.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-ACCEPTANCE BY GOVERNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOSSES CAUSED BY STRIKE
Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government accept responsibility for financial loss caused by the postal strike and set up a claims agency or department to provide payments to business establishments that have suffered greatly through this strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question was answered yesterday.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister now recognize, as have all ministers responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation before him, that it is morally wrong for a government agency to select the lawyers who do the work for the mortgagors, and will he bring CMHC up to the

November 21, 1975
Oral Questions
practices of private lending institutions, most of whom have given up this disgusting form of patronage?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the corporation follows practices that are common practices in the lending field and they will continue to do so.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker; I think we are heading for a ten o'clock date. Would the minister also recognize that the suggestion would lead to less legal expenses in many cases, and this is supposed to be the age of restraint?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to look into the hon. member's representation.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that at a meeting held in Magrath, Alberta in November of 1972 the ex-minister of agriculture, Mr. Olson, informed the meeting that "if any producer suffered any loss due to inability to deliver grain as a result of plugged elevators, CP rail would be responsible", would the minister inform the House whether or not he has instructed the CPR to restore service to Glenwood and Hillspring?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rather think that the former minister of agriculture's words have been taken out of some kind of context. The question of restoration of service is one, as I have said before, that depends on certain action on the part of the CTC.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: A short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has informed me that he has to get ahold of the CTC, that the CTC has told me they have to get ahold of CPR, and that the CPR has told me that they have to get ahold of the Minister of Transport, would the minister please inform the House how I go about restoring service to Glennwood and Hillspring?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member earlier, we are all trying to get ahold of each other.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the recent report of the National Energy Board regarding shortages of oil and gas in Canada, and in view of the fact that there has been a
severe cutback in oil exploration work in the north due mostly to the failure of the government to bring forward oil and gas regulations, can the minister advise when these new regulations will be brought down in order that the oil companies know what the ground rules are so far as exploration is concerned?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept completely the purview that that is the major cause of the diminution of exploration activity in the north. As I have indicated before, I think the final date for the fall is December 21, so I hope it will be prior to that time.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the problems at Millhaven, problems with temporary absence leaves and possible cover-ups in the Farris inquiry, does not the Solicitor General now feel it is time we had a public inquiry into the whole penitentiaries system?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, the hon. member has made three or four allegations. There has been no cover-up in the Farris inquiry; this report will be made public as soon as the trial of the three individuals involved is over. We cannot make it public at the present time. I should point out to the hon. member that during the last parliament he and his colleagues asked for a parliamentary inquiry which was started, but it was never carried through by opposition members.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, is the minister willing to fully report to this House on the reports of members who were on that inquiry? This member has received copies of every report of every member of that inquiry and I think the minister is not telling the whole story in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that some of the members of the inquiry-


John Douglas Reynolds: All of the members.


William Warren Allmand: -wanted to make a report and were willing to complete their work, but there were several others who were not, and in fact the parliamentary committee made no official report to me.
Mr. McCleave.]
November 21, 1975

| Translatioti]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Comtois.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Regional Development, in both official languages-Mr. Lumley.
[Editor's note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of the Advisory Committee on Food Safety Assessment.

[ English |


BILINGUALISM
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the report of the Second Bilingual Districts Advisory Board.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making a statement in relation to the report of the Second Bilingual Districts Advisory Board tabled today by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp). The report in question is the result of a difficult and painstaking study. Under the chairmanship of Professor Fox, the board conducted its assigned task with unquestionable seriousness and competence, for which the government wishes to express its gratitude.
The findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are those of the board and not of the government. It is now the government's duty to examine the report and to determine what will be done with each recommendation. This process has already been initiated and will be carried out with the utmost diligence. However, the government has adopted a clear position concerning the report. It is this position that I wish to discuss at this juncture, Mr. Speaker.
In line with the observations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages to parliament in his second annual report, the advisory board examined the concept of and the reason for the establishment of bilingual districts. It concluded that the concept should be retained. The government supports this conclusion and will proceed with the proclamation of bilingual districts.
Bilingual Districts
The advisory board proposed that 30 bilingual districts be delineated in accordance with section 13 of the Official Languages Act, in a total of nine provinces, to be distributed as follows: Newfoundland, two districts; Prince Edward Island, one district; Nova Scotia, two districts; New Brunswick, one district-the entire province; Quebec, five districts; Ontario, five districts; Manitoba, six districts; Saskatchewan, six districts; Alberta, two districts.
In each of the districts proposed, at least 10 per cent of all inhabitants speak the minority official language as their mother tongue. As this proportion corresponds to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, these 30 districts appear acceptable in our view. The government will examine the geographic areas delineated by the board; in particular, special attention will be given to the recommendation that the entire province of New Brunswick be made into a federal bilingual district, in terms of the real needs of the various regions of that province.
[Translation ]
In the province of Quebec, the advisory board chose to recommend bilingual districts in the five areas only where, in their view, the English-speaking minority might require support and special protection. They therefore left aside certain areas where the official language minority accounts for 10 per cent or more of the population, including the Montreal area, for the reasons that the federal government already provides services there in both official languages, that it will probably never cease to do so and that the proclamation of bilingual districts would be unnecessary. The government does not accept the bases for that reasoning. The principles of the recommendation are not acceptable to us, and the government rejects the board's reasoning and conclusions to reduce in the province of Quebec the number of bilingual districts below the level authorized by the act. The government will therefore review all Quebec areas, including Montreal and Sherbrooke, and certain other areas as Rouyn-Noranda and Schefferville, using the same approach and principles that will apply to the final establishment of boundaries of bilingual districts in other parts of the country. So, Mr. Speaker, there will be one or more bilingual districts in the Montreal area, and there will be others across Quebec, according to the guidelines we intend to follow in other provinces.

The advisory board deemed it advisable, for which we are grateful, to formulate additional recommendations, the two most important of which relate to the provision of services in both official languages in a number of areas located outside the proposed bilingual districts. Instead of being concerned with the proclamation of bilingual districts, these two recommendations are designed, rather, to give meaning to sections 9(2) and 10 of the Official Languages Act which stipulate that in locations outside federal bilingual districts, government services be made available in both official languages where there is a "significant" demand.
The board therefore proposed that a "significant" demand for services in both official languages be explicitly acknowledged to exist in all the provincial capitals by reason of the fact that many federal offices located in these cities serve the entire province and that visitors are drawn

November 21, 1975
Bilingual Districts
to them from all over the country. In this respect, they have a major role to play in a bilingual country. The board recommended that regardless of the proportion of their population whose mother tongue or language of use is that of the minority, federal services to the public in these cities be made available in both official languages. The government recognizes the validity of this recommendation, which it accepts, and will ensure that where this demand exists, services will be provided by the federal government in both official languages.
| Translation]
Moreover, the board suggested that in any other large urban centre where 5,000 or more people currently use the official language of the minority, the demand for services of this minority be considered "significant" for the purpose of the act. The board therefore recommended that in these centres, the federal offices that come in contact with the public offer their services in both official languages. The government feels that this proposal is acceptable as concerns offices where there is a demand for such services, and as concerns the application proposed by the board for Vancouver, St. Catharines-Niagara, and four other large centres which are also provincial capitals, namely Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Quebec City. However, for the previously mentioned reasons, the government rejects the idea that this provides a sufficient guarantee of bilingual services in the metropolitan areas of Montreal and Sherbrooke. With this reservation, the government intends to implement this recommendation.
The advisory board recommended that all federal offices which acquired or will be acquiring the capability to conduct transactions in both official languages ensure that the public is fully aware of the availability of such services. The government intends to implement this recommendation as well.
Finally, the board recommended the establishment of a separate, continuing body to conduct research on language problems and policy in Canada. In view of present economic conditions and the scope of projects now being carried out in this sector by various public administrations, the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and universities and institutions throughout the country, the government considers that establishment of such a body is unwarranted.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the government gratefully accepts the report of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board, the considerable amount of data being placed at the public's disposal and the serious observations conveyed. According to the Official Languages Act, at least 90 days must elapse from today prior to any proclamation of bilingual districts. Accordingly, the government undertakes to proceed quickly but carefully, taking into account any further evidence which may arise and ensuring that none of these commitments involves any increase in the budgetary estimates. During this period we will be seeking the comments of the provincial governments.
|Mr. Drury.]


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we have today before us a report for which we have been waiting since 1973, according to the estimates of the Commissioner of Official Languages and the wishes of the government. I must however emphasize that it concerned a very complex subject, which probably gave a lot of difficulty to the commission that had to ponder over and over again the problems and the task it had been assigned. That is certainly the cause of the delay. The whole matter of bilingual districts is very knotty, and this is revealed by the fact that four out of eight commissioners issued minority reports or statements. True, the government has accepted the principles in some of the dissident reports. You will see, as Mr. Spicer was saying in his second report, in 1972 I think, that this is a matter which will stir a lot of emotion. He was then wondering whether in fact the setting out of bilingual districts would not cause bigger problems than those the B and B Commission was trying to resolve with this initial recommendation which was in fact a principle or idea imported from Finland.

In his second annual report of 1972 or 1973-I forget the exact date-we saw that Mr. Spicer canvassed the many arguments pro and con on the concept of bilingual districts. I think it is fair to say that, having seen what had happened up to that time with regard to the implementation and acceptance of the Official Languages Act, Mr. Spicer came down on the side of seriously questioning the need for this concept. I should like to quote from page 31 of his report.
Finally, and in the commissioner's view far more impressively, bilingual districts may be unnecessary because of empirical evidence that the act has protected language rights surprisingly well for 2Id years without them.
He also says that section 9(2) of the Official Languages Act is the main reason for that. We have progressed some three years beyond the date of the observations of Mr. Spicer, and I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that there has not been in that interval, or there has not been since that interval, much more evidence that the act has not only protected but has engendered a greater acceptance of the principle of the Official Languages Act in Canada, and in fact has seen a marked expansion in the learning and use of both official languages. Therefore, I think one has to re-examine and reconsider Mr. Spicer's original commentary pro and con in light of the situation today. [Translation]
As the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) has said, the government support the conclusion of the Fox commission recommending that the concept of bilingual districts be accepted, and they even said they were willing to initiate the proclamation of bilingual districts, while presenting at the same time the amendments they propose, in short, their decision on this question.
I have had the opportunity to read this report only this morning and it is difficult for me, as for my colleagues, to make elaborate comments on the matter because there is a trap in all this. I hope we will not fall into it. We should not be led into considering the detail of each district where the borders and limits have been indicated, and then lose sight of the whole thing.
November 21, 1975

I doubt that it will help the discussion any. Indeed, the government says it accepts, in principle, and not only in principle, but that it accepts the representations concerning the setting up of at least 30 districts as recommended by the Commission. Still, it rejects the majority recommendation of the Commission for I have noticed that at least three commissioners failed to agree with the idea that Quebec should include only six districts, and that Montreal, because it was already giving adequate services in English met the requirements of the Official Languages Act.
I therefore feel that the minority members were right, that the government also was right in accepting the recommendations of the minority members on that question, taken as a whole. As far as I am concerned, with regard to bilingual districts, I am afraid, and this is the personal opinion I expressed during consideration of the recommendations of the Dunton Commission, that we are creating some sort of linguistic reservations or ghettos. That danger is very real!
In addition, I have always felt that the Dunton Commission report, the principle of this Fox Commission, as well as the attitude of the government, rather reflect the way of thinking of central Canada.
What is good for central Canada, and particularly certain portions of central Canada, is good for all of Canada seems to be the guiding rule. No greater mistake can be made, in considering the affairs of this country, than that. Canada is a very complex country. I suppose that is the most trite sort of statement that can be made, but it is very true. These decisions which are tailor-made, shall we say, for a 200 or 300 mile radius of Ottawa, but apply to Edmonton, Calgary, Regina or Vancouver, do not necessarily conform with the spirit, aspirations, characteristics and rights of the rest of the people of Canada.
While my party and I accept fully the principles of the Official Languages Act, I would say that we must proceed with a great deal of caution. I would have thought that the government, having seen the reaction to the original proposition and the views of Mr. Spicer-whom, after all, they have appointed to monitor the progress of the Official Languages Act-must realize that in many parts of Canada the creation of bilingual districts may create more problems than tend to solve them. It will certainly set a lot of people on their ears.
Then, going beyond the recommendations of the commission that bilingual services will be provided in capital cities to serve the whole of the province, the government has said that there will be some sort of subcategory of bilingual districts in major urban centres where at least
5,000	people normally use the minority language as their language of communication. I invite the hon. gentleman to try that in a city such as Edmonton. We are not going after precise figures on ethnic origin as appeared in the census, but, as I say, this is going to create more problems.
The last comment I would like to make is this, because I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding. Let me point out that we have a report of this large size that has been considered in extenso for some considerable time on this
Bilingual Districts
important question, and surely a matter of seven or eight minutes, or even ten minutes, to use in making comments on it is well within the acceptable limit. However-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a very important point. I do not want to unduly restrict members in making their comments, but I would like to point out that the minister spoke for ten minutes. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has now been speaking for 12 minutes. Since there are two other hon. members to follow, who will probably take close to that time, it does not leave much time for questions before the lunch adjournment. However, there will be time after two o'clock to continue with questions, if necessary.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I did not want to abuse the time of the House, Mr. Speaker. I am fully aware of the time limitation and was coming to my last point.


Some hon. Members:: Good.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are not discussing Quebec here, but Canada.

The question that comes to my mind is that in the furnishing of bilingual services in the capital cities, according to the concept of the late Mr. Pearson that government services should be bilingually functional, there might be a tendency to move, as there has been within Ottawa, to minimum requirements in making positions bilingual. If there has been some difficulty in Ottawa with regard to that matter, I can assure the House that in Vancouver, Edmonton and other areas there will be a great deal more fuss about it, and I issue a word of caution. It is not a case of "full steam ahead, and damn the torpedoes." I think the end result and the objective of what parliament set out to do under the Official Languages Act is worth a great deal more than some of the impatience of those people who would say, "Let them have it with both barrels".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out, we were presented this morning with a report of some 272 pages. Actually, the volume is larger than that because of the numerous maps and other pages in the book which are not numbered. I have not had time to count the total number of pages.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You can go by its weight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister suggests we might go by the weight of it. I suggest that our rule about statements from ministers and the opportunities for reply and for asking questions is a good one and it is working very well. But I think that in a case like this, when we are given such a weighty document-weighty in more ways than one-it might have been more courteous on the part of the government to table the document one day and make the statement and have the comments on the

November 21, 1975
Bilingual Districts
next day. Like my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, I have had only a short while since I first saw the document, and I have been trying to peruse it while other things have been going on because it is, indeed, a very important matter.
It deals, of course, with an issue concerning which there is a good deal of emotion in this country. Almost anything that one says results in those who disagree with him wanting to put him in a certain category. My party, along with the other parties in the House, supported the Official Languages Act. We take the view that there are two official languages in this country, and there is no backing away from that fact. I do not want any word of caution that I say or that my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, has said to suggest in any way that we withdraw at all from the recognition of the two languages in this country. That is a fact, and we recognize it.
I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West has raised points that should be considered, and I hope that in the 90-day period which must elapse before the government issues any proclamations, further study will be given. I point out, as did my hon. friend who preceded me, that there were ten members on the commission. Only eight of them signed the report, and even two of those eight issued minority statements. The other two issued minority reports. Even on the votes on the various issues which were resolved there was considerable variation, so that all told it was not only a difficult assignment given to the board but the board had great difficulty in reaching its conclusions.
I think the board has done a particularly worth-while service by putting in at the very beginning of its report, on pages 3 and 4, a few sentences which seek to make it clear what bilingual districts are all about. On page 3, paragraph
3,1	read as follows:
Section 2 of the act declares that "The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada."
Also on page 3, paragraph 6,1 read the following:
When a bilingual district is proclaimed, the federal government is required to communicate with the public and to provide its services in both official languages at each of its principal offices in every department, agency, and judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body or Crown corporation in that bilingual district.
Now I draw special attention to paragraphs 7 and 8, which read as follows:
7.	Although the purpose of bilingual districts thus appears to be simple and clear, we have encountered so much confusion in the public's mind on this point that we would like to emphasize the basic intention by reiterating it. The objective of creating a bilingual district is to require the federal government to provide its services in both languages.
8.	However, it should be clearly understood that the existence of a bilingual district will not oblige the public to become bilingual. Far from it. In fact, just the opposite is true. A bilingual district can protect unilingualism by ensuring that an individual who speaks only English or only French can communicate with the federal government in his or her own language. The bilingual requirement that is imposed by a district does not fall upon the public but upon the government.
I should like to emphasize where the responsibility lies, on the government, not on the public. I should also like to
|Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
emphasize that every effort should be made to clear up the confusion which surrounds this matter.
Paragraphs 9 and 10, on page 4, are also very important and read as follows:
9.	It should be added that the obligation incurred by the federal government does not mean that all of its civil servants must be, or must become, bilingual. Only those employees dealing with the public under the circumstances described above would be expected to be bilingual.
Paragraph 10 means something to us in western Canada. It reads as follows:
10.	It is also worth observing that nothing in the Official Languages Act, whether it be the clauses in the statute establishing English and French as the official languages of Canada or any other section providing for the implementation of this declaration, derogates in any way from the privileges enjoyed by any official language. Section 38 of the act expressly forbids the diminution of any legal or customary rights or privileges possessed or acquired by any additional language before or after the act came into force.
I believe it is because of misunderstanding around the principles of bilingual districts that much of the opposition has arisen, and I contend that in the 90-day period it now has, the government should think seriously about the whole matter and should note the very effective criticisms, so far as I could judge from a quick reading of them, made by Mrs. Duckworth in her minority report and also by Mr. Justice Monnin in his minority report. There is one point in Mr. Justice Monnin's report concerning Montreal, which the government has accepted, but I suggest that the whole subject is such a complicated and complex one that further thought should be given to it.
Speaking for myself and speaking officially for my party, I wish to say that this is not said on the part of persons who want to downgrade bilingualism or to get away from the facts of life in Canada. We say that because we have a country in which we must recognize two official languages, we must make all aspects of bilingualism work, and it will work better if a great deal of thought is given to all these matters. I hope there will be more thought and, indeed, thought in light of the public discussion which will take place in the 90-day cooling off period, shall I call it, which is required under the act.
I said that I noted Mr. Justice Monnin's comment, or one of his comments, in his minority report having to do with Montreal, and I am glad the government seems to have accepted his recommendation rather than the recommendation of the majority of the board. The recommendation of the majority was that no bilingual district was necessary in Montreal; that the English-speaking minority was protected by tradition, and so on. Mr. Justice Monnin did not agree. I gather the government has not agreed either, but has concluded that just as French-speaking persons in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan, should be able to deal with government offices there in French and have that right protected by law, then so should English-speaking persons in Montreal have that right in their city.
I notice, also, a recommendation which the government has rejected-this is in the majority report-which calls for a new body to study the whole language situation in Canada. If I understand that correctly, it seems to go beyond the two languages. It seems to include the reference I made a moment ago, and I believe the government has made too quick a rejection of that proposal, saying that
November 21, 1975

it is doing so because of the restraint program which is on at the present time.
So, generally speaking we give our support to the idea of making two languages work in this country, but just as we do not think English should be imposed upon people in areas which are predominantly French, we think the opposite should not happen either, and that very careful consideration should be given to the way in which bilingual districts are established. However, in the main, the points I read out from this report in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 applying to the public generally and to civil servants, and in paragraph 10 applying to other languages, should be respected not only in spirit but to the letter.
I have just a couple of other comments to make. Let me put it this way: I think it is a good idea that a Frenchspeaking person in Gravelbourg should have the right to get service from the Canada Manpower centre in the language he speaks. Perhaps it is more important that he should get service. The other comment I should like to make is that having been given in advance a copy of the statement the Acting President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) was going to make, I had my eye glued on him as he got to the last sentence to see whether he could say it without smiling. Mind you, he added a sentence which was not in his text, but for a minister of the Crown to stand up and try to say to us today that these things will be undertaken, but that none of these commitments will involve any increase in the budgetary estimates, is just trying to kid us. Let us not try to kid anyone by saying that bilingualism does not cost money and that bilingual districts will not cost money. That just does not go down.
I confess that these comments are necessarily general. But they are a deliberate attempt to stay away from any bigoted approach to this issue. They are an attempt to support the idea that we have to make bilingualism work in this country, but to press the point that the considerations in the minority statements and in the minority reports, and the considerations advanced today by the hon. member for Edmonton West, should be considered. In fact, there should be further study of the whole matter by the government, with the aim of making whatever is done really work. It must not have the opposite effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the least we can do at first glance is to rejoice at the good will of the government which would like to implement the recommendations of the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board. What surprised me, however, was to hear the remarks of members representing the Conservative and the New Democratic parties. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that once again comments were expressed which bring me to think that there is a willingness, either in the official opposition or the New Democratic Party, there is readiness to accept the principles theoretically, but when it comes down to practice, they have all sorts of hesitations, all sorts of tergiversations. I find unfortunate the attitude just expressed by the two members who spoke before me since the only point they welcome is where the government says:
Bilingual Districts
The government does not admit here the basis of the argumentation of the board. The principles underlying that recommendation are not acceptable to us and the government does not share the argumentation and the conclusions of the board to reduce in Quebec the number of bilingual districts below what could be allowed under the law.
And that is precisely the only point, Mr. Speaker, that will stir up diametrically opposed comments in Quebec, and that is what I wanted to point out immediately before the government gets involved once again in a dispute that could prove disastrous. I wonder why the government does not endorse that part of the report of the advisory board. It should indeed.
I am all the more surprised that although I have had the report before me for only a few minutes, I still had time to see that when the commissioners sat in Montreal eight Liberal members appeared and out of the eight, seven said they were opposed to bilingual districts in the metropolitan area of Montreal.
The government of Quebec also appeared and it said it was against it as well. So the government knows in advance that the province of Quebec is against the creation of bilingual districts on its territory.
Now, it necessarily follows that if the government does not approve the wishes which have been clearly expressed by hon. members from the island of Montreal, who are sitting opposite, we shall have to face huge problems once again. I also would like to remind our Progressive Conservative and NDP colleagues that they seem to forget the main reasons which prompted the government to deal with the matter of bilingualism across the country. Those reasons were not that English-speaking minorities were losing ground in Canada. You have to be realists. The sole reason for that concern today is that Canada as a whole, including the province of Quebec, was becoming increasingly anglicized, since, as the report says, French-speaking people can sometimes hardly order in French in the Montreal area. That is a fact. English-speaking minorities in Canada have no problems, and you know that. Let us stop dreaming and fearing, they have no problem. The only problems are for the six million French-speaking Canadians who are literally lost in a crowd of 250 million English-speaking people in North America. There is the problem! I would even say the government are taking moderate steps in setting up 25 bilingual districts outside Quebec. So, when the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Cfentr^ (Mr. Knowles) come and tell us: Watch it, a great deal of caution will have to be exercised, I find it appalling that in 1975 my friends have not yet understood that there was only one problem in Canada, and that this problem was to protect the French reality throughout Canada. It is a very well known fact, and it could not be more obvious, that there are people in the province of Quebec who no longer have any hope in that possibility, to the point that they want a unilingual, French speaking, independent province of Quebec. That is a well known fact! Let us wake up, it is no longer time to waver to say if a formula which might preserve the French language should be accepted or not.
Only last week we could once again read in the Ottawa paper Le Droit that French speaking-minorities in Ontario were becoming anglicized at an even faster rate. There is the danger. There is no problem for English-speaking

November 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions
minorities in Quebec. There is none at all. The problem lies exclusively on the French-speaking side.
I think the attitude of my hon. friends from the Progressive Conservative and New Democratic parties is an indication of more huge difficulties in accepting a modest attempt at solving a national problem in Canada.
As for the government, I blame it because it deliberately tries to promote disorder in Quebec, by planning the establishment of bilingual districts in metropolitan Montreal as well as in other areas of the province. This is stupid, at a moment when we are fighting tooth and nail to save the French language and to get a true French-speaking management in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, there is no need to be so ridiculous and establish bilingual districts where they are absolutely not required.
I think I had to clarify this point. Mr. Speaker, we have indicated many times what we want. French Canadians do not want to get minor improvements here and there, what they want is a complete equality. Wherever you are in the country, it is not wrong to speak French and the federal government should provide its services in French anywhere. This is our minimum requirement and it must be met if we are to maintain Canada as it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure a number of members are anxious to pose questions. It is now ten minutes before one o'clock. In order to get things in some sort of order, I wonder if we could first clear up the rest of routine proceedings before we begin with questions; then we could take questions until one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the twentieth report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,100, 3,109, 3,113, 3,169, 3,172, 3,174, 3,252, 3,274, 3,294, 3,314, 3,316, 3,353 and 3,354.
[Mr. Matte.)


Mr. Fleming: 1.	Have any government contracts been awarded by the Department of Public Works for laboratory furniture and equipment since the beginning of 1972 and. if so, how many?
2.	How many called for the installation of equipment and furniture?
3.	What were the names of the successful companies?
4.	How many contracts was each successful in winning?
5.	What was the total amount of money paid to each?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: nil.


Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	During the fiscal year 1974-75, what was the total amount claimed in repayment for damages caused by flooding in the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Constituency of Laval (c) City of Laval?
2.	Of the total amount claimed in the Constituency of Laval and the City of Laval, what was the amount of money and the number of claims accepted for reimbursement under the federal-provincial agreement for (a) individuals (b) the provincial government (c) municipal governments (d) school boards (e) businesses or industries (f) others?
3.	Of the total amount accepted for payment in the Province of Quebec, what amount will be provided by (a) government (b) provincial government?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. The province of Quebec has not yet submitted a claim for payment in respect of the 1974 flood damage compensation and rehabilitation program. Accordingly, the amount of federal financial assistance to which the province will be entitled under the terms of the established federal peacetime disaster assistance program is not yet known. It is expected that the province will be submitting a claim for payment in the very near future.
2.	See above.
3.	See above.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was secret level security clearance authorized for the uniformed officers of the Department of National Revenue Customs and Excise at the Vancouver International Airport and, if so, by whom?
2.	Are uniformed Customs officers required to complete new personal history forms and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Did the government take fingerprints of uniformed Customs officers after they had previously been fingerprinted and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Which departments have access to or the responsibility for the records mentioned in Parts 2 and 3?
5.	What is the estimated cost of this operation?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Yes, by the Deputy Minister, National Revenue, Customs and Excise.
November 21, 1975

2.	Personal History Forms are required for the initial clearance. They expire at the end of 5 years at which time employees are required to complete new ones.
3.	Fingerprinting is a mandatory requirement of the security clearance process. Employees are normally fingerprinted on entry into Government Service, however, they may be required to be fingerprinted a second time in instances when records have been misplaced.
4.	The R.C.M.P. Branch of the Solicitor General's Department has access to security documents. In this Department, access is restricted to the Chief of Security Services.
5.	The estimated cost to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is $15.96 for each security clearance. As we do not have the number of security clearances requested by the Department of National Revenue, we are unable to provide the total cost.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For what reason was a security system set up at the baggage counters for incoming passengers at Vancouver International Airport?
2.	(a) Did the system cost in excess of $75,000 and, if not, what was the cost (b) is Air Canada's share 50 per cent?
3.	For what reason was this system installed when in the year 1974 there were only twenty-six incidents of loss and theft reported at the Airport, which under the present regulations would only cost the airlines $5,200?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. At
request of airlines to prevent theft and the possibility of unintentional passenger error in claiming baggage.
2.	(a) No. The cost was $30,360. (b) No. The installation was funded by Transport Canada. The Airlines pay for security personnel on the basis of numbers of arriving passengers.
3.	Airline experience has been that losses have been greatly reduced since implementation of the system in 1974. Present regulations limit airline liability to $500 for any one piece of lost baggage.


Mr. Marshall: Have any applications been received from fish processing plants in the Province of Newfoundland under the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance Programme to take advantage of the two year write-off programme and, if so, what are the names of the plants who have applied since the inception of the programme?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: No
such applications have been received from fish processing plants in the Province of Newfoundland.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have any applications been received from the Province of Newfoundland under the accelerated capital cost allowance programme by the Environmental Protection Service of the Department of the Environment?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What efforts have been made to advise all farmers in Canada of the availability of the ACCA Programme?


George Baker: 1. Yes. Eleven such applications have been received from Newfoundland.
2. Publicity for this program has not been directed towards any particular sector of the economy. All polluters and/or potential polluters are included and considered for eligibility under the regulations.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted a loan to the Quebec Housing Corporation for the Municipality of Lac-Etchemin or its Housing Corporation and, if so (a) what was the amount involved (b) at what rate of interest (c) for how long (d) under what terms of reimbursement?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the answer to this question may be found in the answers to Question Number 322 and Question Number 676, of the 29th Parliament, Second Session. (Hansard March 13, 1974 Page 467, and May 6, 1974, Page 2047, respectively.)


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	Since the inception of the Opportunities for Youth Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Villeneuve and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency what (a) is the title (b) is the allocated sum (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Statistics for the Opportunities for
Youth Program prior to 1975 were not maintained on a constituency basis, and thus the total amount of funding to the constituency since the inception of the Program cannot be determined. Under the 1975 Program, however, a total of $83,790 was contracted to projects in Villeneuve.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e): See Statement following: (This information is available for the 1975 O.F.Y. Program only).
			Number
Project title	Amount of	Location	of Jobs
	funding		Created
Carrefour des jeunes	$7,592	Chibougamau	7Tiens-toi occupe	6,963	Chapais	7Animation	4,345	Val d'Or	5Operation Sondage	5,230	Barraute	4Optimiste Developpement socio-	6,695	Landrienne	6culturel de Dubuisson Activites culturelles et	9,208	Dubuisson	6touristiques Organisation de nou-	9,220	Cadillac	10veaux endroits recreatifs	5,482	Obedjiwan	8
November 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Project title	Amount of	Location	Number of Jobs
	funding		Created
Atelier d'expression			
dramatique	9,640	Malartic	6Centre d'animation	4,740	Val d'Or	4Vive l'ete	8,340	Senneterre	9Occupation Jeunesse	6,335	Barraute	6


Mr. Landers: 1.	What is the proposed (a) starting (b) completion date of the expansion and improvement of the Saint John Airport, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the (a) anticipated cost (b) nature of the navigational improvements (c) nature of other improvements?


Otto Emil Lang: Subject to the completion of a master plan study and the availability of funds: 1. (a) Work on a three-phase programme is planned for commencement in FY 1976-77. (b) The three-phase programme will extend to FY 1983-84.
2. (a) Overall costs have not yet been estimated and cannot be verified until the Master Plan is completed, (b) and (c) The first phase involves a Maintenance Garage, Firehall, Field Electrical Centre and the provision of essential services to prepare for phases two and three. The second phase consists of navigational improvements including a second instrument landing system and extensive improvements to visual aids and runway lights. The final phase involves access roads, car park, new passenger terminal and control tower, new taxiways and resurfacing of both runways.
GRANT TO MAYNARD AMBROSE PAUL AND/OR LUCY AGNES PAUL, CASTLEGAR, B.C.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	What was the total amount of money advanced to Maynard Ambrose Paul and/or Lucy Agnes Paul of Castlegar, British Columbia, either in the form of a loan or grant for the purchase of equipment to operate an entertainment centre?
2.	On what date was this money advanced?
3.	What portion, if any, of money advanced by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to either Maynard or Lucy Paul has been returned to the Department?
4.	Was the equipment seized by bailiffs and, if so, has it been sold and, if not, for what reason?
5.	If the equipment was sold, what sum has been realized and what portion of the original loan or grant has been recovered?
6.	At what date were funds advanced to Mr. and Mrs. Paul to establish the entertainment centre and what controls or constraints were placed upon them in order to monitor the success of their business venture?
7.	How often was this business venture monitored by the Department?
8.	Have criminal charges ever been laid against Mr. Paul since he established the business and, if so, what type of charges were they?
9.	Were criminal charges ever laid on the premises of the business of Mr. Paul either against him, Mrs. Paul or some other person on the premises at the time and, if so, what was the nature of the charges?
10.	What has been the total cost to the Department or to the Crown, in recovering the goods and merchandise seized by the bailiffs?
|Mr. Andras.|
Hon, Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): 1. Loan $45,000; Contribution $4,500.
2.	Contribution, September 18, 1974; Loan, November 21, 1974.
3.	$41.50 applied to interest was received. No other principal or interest payments were received.
4.	Equipment has been seized by the Bailiffs and is in the process of being sold. Written Offers were accepted until Friday, October 31, 1975.
5.	The equipment has not yet been sold. We estimate $4,000 will be received from the sale. Property is in the hands of Justice and will take approximately eight months to sell with possible recovery in the neighborhood of $20,000.
6.	The contribution cheque of $4,500 was received by Mr. and Mrs. Paul on or about September 18, 1974. The cheque was to be deposited to a control account with the co-signature of a Department official required for release. The loan cheque of $45,000 was received by Mr. and Mrs. Paul on or about November 21, 1974. The cheque was deposited to a control account with the co-signature of a Department official required for release. Further conditions were: to maintain books and accounting records and to allow examination of these records; provide invoices, receipts, cancelled cheques as evidence proceeds of the loans were used for the purposes intended; not to encumber security, incur capital expenditures in excess of $1,000 per year, or make loans, investments or assume liabilities on behalf of others; agree to accept and act upon advice and direction of the Minister; engage independent legal counsel, accountants or other advisors as the Minister considers necessary; provide unaudited quarterly financial statements prepared by a professional accountant; maintain a general bank account to deposit all receipts and to make disbursements; renovations to building will not exceed $3,000 without prior permission from the Minister. The amount to be established by firm contract or prices.
7.	The venture was monitored three times during 1974 and three times in 1975 (to June 19, 1975) by Department officials. The business was abandoned July 1, 1975.
8.	A criminal charge was laid and subsequently dismissed. The charge was related to the possession of marijuana.
9.	To our knowledge the afore-mentioned charge was the only charge laid on the premises of Mr. Paul.
10.	The cost to date of recovering the goods seized by the Bailiff is $1,357.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane): 
Robert Knight Andras: The Unemployment Insurance Commission does not maintain individual statistics for (a) Kapuskas-ing (b) Hearst (c) Smooth Rock Falls. Geographically they are included in the Timmins District Office Statistics.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the estimated shortfall between contributions to the UIC fund and the pay-out of benefits that will occur by the end of the present fiscal year based on present projections?
2.	What are the projections for the period October 31, 1975 to March 31, 1976?
3.	What was the loss to the fund for the fiscal year 1974-75?
4.	(a) What was the position of the fund for the years (i) 1960 (ii) 1965 (iii) 1970 (b) was there a shortfall between funds available and benefits paid in any of the years and, if so, what was the amount?
5.	Was there a surplus in the fund in (a) 1960 (b) 1965 (c) 1970 and, if so, what was the amount?
Bilingual Districts
2.	In the absence of a Constituency Advisory Group, Departmental officials of the Job Creation Branch regional office in Halifax consulted with local representatives from Information Canada, the Department of Recreation, the Municipal Council, the Social Services Department and the Canada Manpower Centre in the consideration of 85 applications submitted from the constituency of Cumber-land-Colchester North. Although the application met the basic Program criteria, other applications in the Amherst area were assessed to be of higher priority in that they more closely met the needs of the community. Consequently, due to lack of funds, the project was not recommended for funding. The final decision, however, rested with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who subsequently concurred with the recommendation not to fund the project.
3.	No.


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. It is forecast that at the end of this year, there will be a current year surplus of $295 million which would have the effect of reducing the cumulative deficit to $123 million.
2.	Bill C-69, Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1975, is currently before Parliament, and costs for the period October 31, 1975 to March 31, 1976 will be affected by the outcome of that Bill.
3.	Nil. There was a surplus of $85 million in 1974.
4 and 5. The operations for 1960, 1965, and 1970 were as follows:
	Balance in Account Surplus/(Dcficit)	($ Million)
	Current Year	Cumulative
1960	(150)	3211965	81	1621970	(73)	473


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 3,124 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	As of January 1, 1974, how many persons employed by the Department of Supply and Services were in positions earning (a) $30,000 or more (b) $20,000 to $30,000 and, in each case, what were their names and job designations?
2.	For the same period, how many additional persons in the Department are earning (a) $30,000 or more (b) $20,000 to $30,000 and, in each case, what are their names and job designations?
Return tabled.
Note: Under the present Act, the UIC Financial year corresponds to the calendar year.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the decision of LIP application BB 1200-9 for the Constituency of Cumberland-Colchester North, submitted by the Com-merical Association of Downtown Amherst, that had as an objective a traffic and parking survey of the Town of Amherst?
2.	At what level of consideration did the rejection of the application take place and for what reason?
3.	Were any objections to the application directed to anyone associated with the consideration of LIP applications and, if so (a) to whom (b) by whom (c) were such objections oral or written?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The application was not approved.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. gentleman to deal with the matter in terms of the review, having regard to the public servants who would be providing services in these areas. In view of the obvious principle that it involves in the provision of services in both languages by the federal government in these districts, has the government come to any conclusion as to what level of capability would be required in that area, or how the process of designation would be operated? Would there be any requirement for units working in French in those areas that would be bilingual districts? That is my first question.

November 21, 1975
Bilingual Districts


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the system of designation will not, as a consequence of this report, be changed. I think the hon. member is generally familiar with the current system of designation, the criteria used and the progress being made. This will not change as a consequence of these recommendations. I would ask him to repeat the second part of his question as I cannot recollect it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question concerned the requirements with respect to bilingual districts outside the national capital. I was thinking of units working in French.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Units working in French are a matter of internal organization of the government. This question is not related to that of bilingual districts. As has been said, bilingual districts are to be delineated and proclaimed to ensure that the public in those districts can receive services from the federal government in either one of the official languages of their choice. The requirements necessary for units of the federal government working in French may or may not be related to those of the bilingual district but should not have any effect on their proclamation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question? I am concerned about the question of designation and the necessity for the government's proposals to go forward in terms of the application of this capability. I ask if this capability for government services in bilingual districts is to be established by way of the process of decentralization, which is the cornerstone of a policy set out in certain documents I produced on September 3, 1975. Is it to be done in that way? Is the government contemplating additional man-years of employment in order to provide for positions which may be designated in bilingual districts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we have formulated a plan with which, I think, the hon. gentleman is familiar, to meet the requirements of the Official Languages Act. That plan has been elaborated and budgetary provision made to fulfil it. This proposal is, in a sense, merely declaratory of that plan, instead of an alternate plan. This is what we mean when we talk about implementation of this report without additional budgetary resources.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question concerning the government's present plan? Are we now to understand that when positions in bilingual districts in Alberta or Nova Scotia are designated bilingual, that people in those positions will be sent for language training? Or, will the government utilize additional man-years of employment or implement the program through a process of decentralization by moving public servants, in order to bring about what the government intends to do by reason of its acceptance of the report just brought forward? That is the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman contemplates the achievement of a multiplicity of objectives through one plan. Unfortunately, this cannot be done. We have a plan for establishing institutional bilingualism within the public service, as required by the Official Lan-

guages Act. In addition, we have a proposal for decentralization in the interest of making the federal government more responsive to the people of Canada. These two programs are not directly related; they are separate. Attempting to achieve both objectives with one move will only lead to confusion in perception and execution.


Walter David Baker: I thought decentralization was related to phase two.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, at what level of employment in the bilingual districts will employees need to be bilingual? How far down in the structure, so to speak, will employees need to be bilingual? In other words, how far down will the prime consideration for employment be bilingual capacity?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, briefly, it will vary from office to office and function to function. The requirement for bilingual capacity, or for institutional bilingualism, is based on ability to communicate with the public in either official language. In some instances it will mean that the elevator operator, to the extent that he must communicate with the public, should be able to do so in both official languages. Or, the person answering the telephone should be able to do so in both languages. The point is, there should be someone around who can perform all public functions necessary in this way. It is necessary for some person to do this in both or either of our official languages. How far down or up the scale such employees will be depends on their function, office and location.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for a supplementary question, I ought to tell hon. members that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), as well as the hon. member For Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), want to ask questions. If questions are brief, I am prepared not to see the clock. But perhaps it is unrealistic to expect hon. members to limit themselves to a few minutes. I think therefore, the remaining questions should be put to the minister at two o'clock.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock there was a question period in progress following a statement by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury). Upon direction from the Speaker, I will recognize four more questioners and then we will go to government orders.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is in two parts. It has to do with the consultative procedures envisaged
November 21, 1975

from this time on. What consultation is contemplated with the provinces with respect to the report of the advisory board? The implications in two instances are quite wide. As well, what consultation procedures are contemplated with regard to the professional associations within the public service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be aware that the board did have very extensive consultations, in his province of Nova Scotia, with the provincial government and with municipal authorities in some of the larger areas, as well as with local associations. We generally found ourselves in agreement with the conclusions the commissioners reached in relation to the province of Nova Scotia. I think that is clear from the statement I made this morning. However, the comments of the provincial governments on the report itself, of which they are now in possession and this will be the first time they have seen the conclusions, have been sought in a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which is already in their hands, and we have asked for a response with the utmost expediency.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the further consultative procedure. It is necessary not only with respect to Nova Scotia but all the provinces. In New Brunswick there will be a significant change from the old system. Will the professional associations of the public service, such as PIPS, the Public Service Alliance, and so on, be given an opportunity to express further views on the conclusions which I presume they, too, are now seeing for the first time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably aware of the existence and functions of a very useful body known as the National Joint Council, wherein discussions of this kind of thing and a number of other matters are undertaken as a matter of routine, continuing procedure. It would be my expectation that Treasury Board would ensure that the comments of the National Joint Council would be obtained.


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assist me by confirming my understanding of some details with respect to the statement which he read this morning? Is it the intention of the government literally to overrule the report of the bilingual districts board and thereby assure the Montreal island population, or perhaps the Montreal urban area population that it will be served in both official languages? The essence of my question is whether that service will be given, not only as a matter of fact but, indeed, as a matter of government regulation and/or law.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that the standards of availability of federal government services in both official languages which are applicable to the provinces of Canada other than Quebec are equally available by formal steps to the residents of the province of Quebec. The federal government services in that province will be under the same obligation as they are in any other province to deliver their services, where there is sufficient demand, in the language of the citizen's choice.
Bilingual Districts


Roderick Blaker: I thank the minister. I now take the next logical step be referring to the minister's statement. I quote:

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there will be one or more bilingual districts in Greater Montreal.

The question which arises immediately as a result of the concept of one or more bilingual districts within the island of Montreal or the Montreal geographical area is the problem of the mobility of the population. If, for example, the government chose to begin drawing lines on the map of Montreal, it would not take into consideration, or might not make the distinction between the characteristic of residence and the characteristic of place of work.
I wonder whether the minister would be so kind as to explain to the House what he means by the statement that there might be one or more bilingual districts on the island of Montreal or in the Montreal area. I suggest that the distribution of population is such that the whole area should be considered as one bilingual district.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because of the argument made by the hon. gentleman that perhaps it ought to be one district. This provides certain advantages, but equally it provides some disadvantages in terms of availability of services. For instance, the act requires that the principal offices of government departments or agencies in each bilingual district must have this bilingual capacity. If there is only one district, it means only one principal office. Obviously, the greater the number of districts, the greater the requirement by law for bilingual capacity. A balance has to be struck between the considerations expressed by the hon. gentleman and affording the maximum practical service to the public.


Roderick Blaker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the minister, but may I put the question in reverse form? Is it foreseeable that there is some geographical location on or around the island of Montreal that would not provide bilingual service to its citizens?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me to provide the answers to a study that we have said we are going to undertake immediately. If I knew all the answers, I would suggest that we did not need a study. It would be presumptuous to endeavour to anticipate the results that a serious and profound study of this question will yield.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the minister to paragraph 10 of the report as it appears on page 4. I will read it for purposes of clarification:
It is also worth observing that nothing in the Official Languages Act, whether it be the clauses in the statute establishing English and French as the official languages of Canada or any other section providing for the implementation of this declaration, derogates in any way from the privileges enjoyed by any additional language. Section 38 of the act expressly forbids the dimunition of any legal or customary rights or privileges possessed or acquired by any additional language before or after the act came into force.

November 21, 1975
Bilingual Districts
My question is this: In those areas of Canada where additional languages have, by the evolution of time, acquired rights and uses in the public service in the dealing of people with the Government of Canada, is the implementation of this bilingual districts program likely to derogate in any way from the continued use and growth of any additional language or languages in that bilingual district?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is no. It is not the intention, either of the Official Languages Act or this report, or the intention of the government in relation to it, that bilingual districts should have that effect; nor will the program be allowed in any way to derogate from the rights, customary or statutory, acquired by any other language or language group in Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. The reason I ask the question stems from the implementation of, shall I say, any minority language working unit where there is now within the complement of the federal service a sufficient number of employees that it is determined there should be a French or English or minority language working unit. In most cases it will be a French language working unit. In order to preserve the additional language capability of the service, will there be a requirement to add personnel to the office or establish the French language unit in, say, a city like Edmonton, in a post office, where Ukrainian is an essential language for serving the public?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. gentleman has confused me a little. The creation and operation of units of work in which the working language is French does not, by definition, call for additional people. It merely establishes an understanding whereby the people in that unit will be able to work more efficiently in a particular language, in this case French, than they can in English. It has nothing to do at all with the speaking of a variety of other languages and the provision of services in those languages to the public.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), which I think is what he is today, if the government is prepared to affirm that it stands by the position set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report, to the effect that the purpose of bilingual districts is to impose an obligation on the government, not an obligation on the public? Does the government also stand by the principle established in paragraph 9 that the creation of bilingual districts does not carry with it a requirement that the public servants in those districts be or become bilingual?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the point raised by the hon. gentleman is a very important one. I hope that readers of the report will pay particular attention to this underlying principle against which the whole report should be seen and which consequently is the basis upon which we are establishing and intending to proclaim these bilingual districts. I am not sure I agree entirely with his interpretation of paragraph 9 when he says that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have put in the word

"all"-that it is not a requirement that all public servants in the district be or become bilingual?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, with the addition of "all" I have no trouble at all in agreeing with the important point the hon. member has made, namely, that the purpose of the bilingual districts and the purpose of the proclamation of bilingual districts is to ensure in a formal way that the federal government and its offices will have the capacity to deliver services in either of the two official languages to those of the public who apply. Rather than forcing bilingualism upon the public, it enables them to continue to deal with the federal government in the official language of their choice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As I mentioned at the outset of the afternoon sitting, Mr. Speaker did suggest that I recognize four questioners, and this I have done. I would be ready to recognize two more on very short questions, because two additional members are standing up, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I hope questions and answers will be short because questions and answers generate other questions. I will then call orders of the day.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, during this morning's session, when Mr. Speaker made reference to the questioning this afternoon, it was my understanding there would be no limitation on the questions. There are numbers on this side of the House who have questions, and I feel there should not be a limitation in respect of a matter as important as this one.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I intended to raise this point at the end of whatever the question period might be. I object to the fact that Your Honour has not, in fact, agreed or tacitly supported the position the Speaker took shortly before lunch. At the time there were a number of members standing, whose names he called. I had the floor at the time and I expected your bias to show in that regard, and when you did not recognize me I did not rise again. But, I, as a member, object violently to this arrangement where an agreement is not honoured by Mr. Speaker because the Speaker may have changed, and also to the bias that is becoming pretty evident from my own point of view in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair does not accept the last part of the remarks of the hon. member. I think it is a reflection on the Chair and the occupant of the chair.


An hon. Member:: It is, and it was meant to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it is something the hon. member should consider withdrawing both as far as the Chair is concerned as well as the present occupant of the chair.
In addition, I wish to reply to the first point raised by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). I did not mention the Standing Order, but it does provide for the Chair to decide how long the question period should last. It is not the responsibility of the Chair to decide whether an
November 21, 1975

hon. member might have a question if he does not rise. I am not sure the hon. member for Laprairie did rise from his seat before lunch. Mr. Speaker mentioned to me that four hon. members had risen and had not been recognized before one o'clock. He put those names on a list and, of course, the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was included.
The hon. member stood up, but if he thinks that any time he stands the Speaker will go to him immediately, let me point out that it is the prerogative of the Speaker to recognize hon. members in due course when he feels it is fair to recognize them. The hon. member yielded to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and that was his decision. As far as the reflection on the Chair is concerned, I do not accept it, and I would hope the hon. member would at least modify it or put it in other words.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should not make suggestions reflecting on the Chair, but I had the floor and therefore did not have to yield to anyone. I called it one o'clock. What surprises me, Mr. Speaker, is that some occupants of the chair either do not know the rules or they misunderstand-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


William Arnold Peters: -my relationship, and this had bothered me on a number of occasions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Members in certain parts of the House are amused by this, but I personally am not. If I made a reflection in respect of the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that reflection, but the other remarks stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As a means of explaining, perhaps I might say I was not here at one o'clock and the hon. member's name was on my list as number three.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). From the report, it seems now agreed that there is no call for establishing bilingual districts in the province of British Columbia. Now that it has been recognized that there is no call to create such bilingual districts in British Columbia, I wonder whether the Acting President of the Treasury Board could indicate that the tower which was being erected for the creation of a French language television station in British Columbia is now to be dismantled or put up for auction to anyone else who wishes to use it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any advice from the CBC on this, so I cannot answer the question. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that his questions about bilingual districts and the provision of services in two languages by the broadcasting corporation are really not related. The radius of action in respect of the population to be served by a radio or television station is quite different from the radius of action and service to be pro-
Bilingual Districts
vided to the constituents through a particular government office.


Donald W. Munro: You wait and see.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have one question of the hon. gentleman about the statement he made regarding the fact that the government did not intend to increase any expenditures as a result of the creation of bilingual districts. How is the capability of providing services in two languages to be established-by training, by transfer, or by recruitment? If it is one of those that is chosen, how can the minister justify the statement that there will be no additional expenses in respect of language training in order that public servants in Canada will be able to comply with the requirements of providing these services within the districts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, obviously the training at public expense of these people in order that they shall have the additional capacity will cost money. This is additional to a regime under which there would be no training and where there would be no upgrading of that character. The statement I made qualifying the word "additional" was "additional budgetary expenditures". We have a plan, of which I think the hon. gentleman is aware, to train, to recruit and to otherwise give effect to the designation plan of the government that has been in existence for some time. What my statement was intended to do was make it quite clear that there will be no expansion and no increase in this plan as a consequence of the proclamation of bilingual districts.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, does that mean, therefore, that the government's program, or the proposal before the government in respect of a pay differential of from 2 per cent to 15 per cent for those with the required language capability is not going to be used in respect of this particular program? Can the minister inform me whether it is the intention of the government now to proceed with that pay differential program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I cannot inform the hon. gentleman whether we will be proceeding with this plan or not. No decision has been taken on that particular topic. It will not, however, be as a consequence of or bear a direct relationship to the proclamation of bilingual districts.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I indicated that I had a question to ask with regard to this announcement today by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should just like to mention to the hon. member that I was ready to recognize him, but he should know the basic rule, that if he wants to be recognized in this House he has to stand in his place. The hon. member did stand after I had called orders of the day. However, I will recognize him, but I wish he would

November 21, 1975
Maritime Code
not try to complicate the life of every member of this House.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Government of Canada's rejection of unilingualism in the Montreal area and its affirmation that it will proclaim bilingual districts in that area. There is one thing, however, in the government's announcement today which somewhat bothers me: it will not go along with the recommendation that a special commission be set up to study better ways to implement bilingualism. In light of the number of failures in several areas of the bilingualism program, and the lack of real progress in bilingualism, it seems to me this is hardly justifiable on the basis of a tight budget. Does the government have any clear indication that this recommendation for a special commission can be accomplished in a different way? If so, I would like to know what that other way is.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the statement I made this morning would have adequately covered this point. In the statement it was pointed out that there are now quite a number of institutions, both governmental and non-governmental, devoting considerable resources and energy to this particular question. It was our view that in a time of restraint we would be merely adding another body devoted to the same task, without any clear assurance that this new body would accomplish more successfully than the existing ones what is being done now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
|English \

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, they say that becoming a parliamentary secretary is a broadening experience. In my short time in this role I am certainly finding that to be true. As proof positive of that fact, here today is a prairie boy with a farming background and some background in broadcasting and law engaging in discussion on this very important bill in respect of a maritime code for Canada which is, of course, of special interest to Pacific and Atlantic Canada.
Let me say I very much look forward to the debate which will now come forward concerning this legislation, and I am particularly anxious to hear the comments of my colleagues in this House, on all sides, particularly those from the coastal areas. In May of this year, the former
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.)
minister of transport introduced in this House a most important piece of legislation, Bill C-61, the Maritime Code Act. It is part of a comprehensive program of reform and revision of Canada's shipping law and pursues the modernization of admiralty law provisions which were enacted in the Federal Court Act some years ago.
This bill is intended eventually to replace the Canada Shipping Act and a number of related laws dealing with navigation and shipping. It is a modern statement of Canadian law designed to keep the best of previous statutes and agreements, and at the same time to recognize today's shipping world and its practical complexities.
In spite of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which have been made over the years, many provisions are obsolete by any modern standard. Contemporary use of water transport for both commercial and recreation purposes has increased substantially, and with that increase there is a growing concern for protection of the rights of all Canadians with respect to the economic, sociological and environmental consequences of that expanded use.
The patchwork-quilt approach of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act has not proved satisfactory, and it is appropriate at this time to carry out an over-all revision of shipping law in the light of current and expected future needs. The study program supporting the revision and reorganization of shipping law is, of course, an ongoing one and it would seem that the most suitable way to proceed with legislative action thereon is to present the material to the House in progressive stages rather than as one single, massive enactment. This provides a better opportunity for informed comment and debate.
It might be useful to outline briefly the physical arrangement of Bill C-61 as it stands now in this stage by stage process. The main body of the bill primarily does two things: it enacts certain provisions with respect to the coasting trade in Canada, pursuant to the Darling report, and it provides the power of authority for the maritime code itself.
That code is to be found set out specifically in schedule III of the bill. The first two schedules deal simply with a series of related and consequential amendments which flow from the act. They also provide a vehicle for phasing out the old Canada Shipping Act over time, and the phasing in of the new code.
The maritime code as set out in the third schedule consists of two major sections, or books as they are called, of maritime law. The first deals with general matters; the second deals with ships. When fully completed by subsequent legislative action, the code will consist of five major books altogether. The three yet to come will relate to the law on crew standards, cargo and cargo safety, and operational standards. While the total act will necessarily be a detailed and lengthy document, some appreciation of its intent can be gained by looking at a few of the major provisions in a summary way.
First, the act will apply to all Canadian ships no matter where they may sail. It will also have force over all foreign vessels operating in Canadian waters. This means Canada will control all shipping in its own waters but will also be in a position to answer for Canadian ships anywhere in the world.
November 21, 1975

A major provision of the Maritime Code Act is a new statement of what constitutes a Canadian ship under law. Since a law is only as good as the ability to enforce it, ownership requirements have been clearly set out. Perhaps the most important of these is that two-thirds of the directors and two-thirds of the officers of any company desiring to own a Canadian ship must be citizens of and resident in Canada. This means that we will be able to preserve expertise in marine management in Canada and that owners will be available to answer in law for their ships.
As I have mentioned, the main body of the Maritime Code Act contains substantive provisions dealing with the coasting trade of Canada. Hon. members will recall that following a report by Mr. Howard Darling on Canada's coasting trade, the government announced that it was withdrawing from certain articles of the 1931 British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement and that the Canadian coasting trade would be reserved to Canadian flag vessels. Last year we gave other member countries 12 months' notice to this effect.
The Maritime Code Act gives a new definition of the coasting trade of Canada that includes the carriage of goods or passengers from any port in Canada to any other port in Canada, whether by way of a foreign port or not. This will prevent unfair advantages by foreign ships in the cruise trade; these practices are detrimental to the economic interests of Canadian shipping. This definition also includes exploration or drilling platforms which are operating under Canadian jurisdiction. Dredging and salvage, which were implied in the old definition, are now expressly included.
Only Canadian ships will now be permitted to engage in the country's coasting trade, except when the public interest or an emergency demand otherwise. Non-Canadian ships enjoying the five-year grandfather rights will also be allowed to engage in the coasting trade. These grandfather rights will expire in April, 1980. They apply to ships registered in a Commonwealth country since September, 1973, and that have been regularly engaged in the Canadian coasting trade since September, 1972.
Non-Canadian ships will be issued licences to engage in the coasting trade upon payment of a fee. This fee will replace the duties of Customs applicable at present to foreign-built ships under the customs tariff. Fees will be set by the governor in council; they will be subject to various criteria and thus may vary from ship to ship, thereby allowing flexibility. The Maritime Code Act provides for fines up to $5,000 in case of non-compliance with the act. It also provides for detainment of the ship and forfeiture of the goods carried.
The definition of "port" in the act is more encompassing and include now, for the first time, all ports in Canada. The new definition will apply in areas where federal jurisdiction is clear, bringing within our scope supervision of cargo stowage in respect of grain, timber and concentrates, and supervision over certain crew matters.
Now I would like to turn to some of the specific provisions of the two books of law set forth in schedule 3 in the maritime code itself. Book one establishes the applicability
Maritime Code
of the maritime code and it provides for Canadian law to be extended to Canadian ships in foreign waters and to foreign ships in Canadian waters. Recognition is given to the rights of innocent passage of foreign ships passing through our territorial seas and express recognition is given to the right of intervention on the high seas in a case involving a shipping casualty where there is a threat of damage to Canadian interests or the environment. These sections involve law of the sea issues and take into account the possibility of future international agreement on these subjects.
In order to allow for greater public participation in the regulation-making process, provision is made in book one for prior publication of regulations in certain specified cases and, at the minister's discretion, for public hearings. The regulation-making power is quite flexible, allowing classification of ships for administrative purposes and the establishment of zones which may, in future stages of legislation, be used for a number of purposes such as environmental protection or traffic safety control.
The enforcement provisions contained in book one have been revised substantially in comparison with those in the Canada Shipping Act. Matters related to the detention of ships have been expanded and clarified. Arrest in civil cases has been extended to sister ships to conform with international practice and the procedures related to forfeiture have been set out in detail. As with respect to enforcement, the procedures relating to offences, penalties and fines have been clarified and co-ordinated where necessary with provisions of the Criminal Code. A new procedure for the service of a summons in the form of a ticket, and for payment of fines by mail in the case of minor offences, has been instituted. In ticketing situations, ships would be able to continue in trade. Shipowners will be able to acknowledge their guilt by paying the required fine, similar to the ticketing of cars, or they may contest it in court.
Provision has also been made for distribution of fines to enforcement agencies and to compensate persons suffering damage by reason of the offence. A fair degree of flexibility has been introduced in the detention provisions by permitting the minister to approve security in amounts less than the maximum fine provided for the alleged offence. A detention order may also be lifted where the person charged appears to answer the charge in court or where security is given in lieu of the anticipated fine.
The main categories of the provisions of book two, the ship, are intended to deal with the ship as a structure. First, with regard to the national character and status of a ship, provisions have been clarified and related to Canadian registration instead of registration of Commonwealth ships in Canada. New provisions dealing with the marking of ships will make identification easier for enforcement agencies. But appropriate exemption provisions exist for very small vessels.
Second, in connection with ownership, the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act have been substantially changed. Ownership through the present system of 64 shares in a ship has been eliminated and replaced by a percentage system. Qualifications for ownership have been changed from Commonwealth to Canadian and, with respect to corporations, there is a requirement that two-thirds of the specified directors and two-thirds of the officers of the
9342

November 21, 1975
Maritime Code
company be Canadian citizens resident in Canada. The primary purpose of these provisions is not to control foreign investment in Canadian shipping companies but, rather, to ensure that there will always be responsible persons within Canada to answer for the actions of a Canadian ship outside Canada. There is a clause in the act that permits present owners who will not qualify under the new law to remain owners of their ships as long as there is no change in their personal status.
Third, the system of port registry has been changed to a centralized registry system and a construction registry has been instituted to replace the recording system for ships under construction in order to allow ratification of the 1967 international convention on registration of ships under construction. The registry will be focused in the national capital region. However, it will be possible for shipowners to continue to file documents anywhere in Canada through local Customs offices which will act as a forwarding agent for the centralized registry. All the procedures relating to registry have been substantially altered in order to fit the new system, and this has made simplification of such procedures possible.
The point I think I should emphasize here, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this registry system is that centralization of records is really essential in order to provide an effective, reliable and universal registration system to ensure titles. But we will want to preserve the direct, personal aspects of registration, such as the ability to file documents, on a local basis as has traditionally been the case.
Fourth, with regard to the measure of ships, provisions relating to this matter have been considerably improved to take into account both the metric system and the new international rules relating to measurement of tonnage, and these should enable us eventually to ratify the 1969 international convention on tonnage measurements of ships.
Fifth, there are provisions relating to provincially-regis-tered chattel mortgages. These permit any schemes concerning registration of chattel mortgages of Canadian registered small craft to continue unaffected where such schemes are provided by the legislation of any province. The only requirement is that notice be given of any such registered mortgage to the registrar of the federal registry. Thus, where there exists a provincial scheme in this respect concerning small craft licensed under the Canada Shipping Act, that scheme may be continued under the maritime code without change, provided simply that notice of the registered chattel mortgage is given to the federal registrar in order that the registry system may provide full title protection.
It may be argued that the ownership provisions of book one are too restrictive in view of the fact that the provisions of this bill require that a two-thirds majority of directors be Canadian citizens resident in Canada. It should be understood that these provisions of the code are not directly related to foreign investment but to exercise the necessary control over a ship which may be outside Canadian enforcement jurisdiction. Such a ship may engage in activities embarrassing to Canada and for which, in some cases, the Canadian government may be held responsible. In addition, these provisions are concerned

with preserving an existing body of Canadian management expertise.
Subsection 6 of the Maritime Code Act provides a saving clause whereby owners of ships registered under the Canada Shipping Act remain as persons qualified to own a Canadian ship notwithstanding the new provisions, but only in relation to ships owned at the time the new provisions on ownership enter into force and only as long as there is no change in personal status of the owner. This clause will enable a smooth transition from the old requirements to the new ones and should not cause any disruption to the shipping industry.
It is possible, too, that the registry provisions of the bill may be criticized by those who object to the centralization of federal powers and agencies. Let me make it clear here that, as a westerner, I am very much one of those who generally sympathizes with these sorts of objections. Centralization simply for the sake of centralization alone, without good and substantial reasons apart from that, is something to which I object. Canada is too diverse, complicated and sprawling a land for a tightly clenched, centralized system of government and administration.
If centralization in some aspects of the government's work is to come about, it must be prompted by compelling reasons and these reasons exist, I believe, in the case of the registry system proposed in the bill. It should be pointed out that the existing port registry system under the Canada Shipping Act could be regarded as a rather wasteful and expensive one. The central registry is more efficient, both from the government's point of view in reducing cost and from the public's point of view with respect to inquiries into registration details. Centralization is necessary in order to take full advantage of modern registry techniques such as computerization of records. At the same time, the most personal aspect of registration

the filing of documents by owners-has been retained as an optional local procedure.
There may be some objection to the elimination of licensing for small craft and its replacement by the registration system on the grounds that it means increased paperwork. There is some merit for this criticism because the documentation under the licensing system was completely inadequate. Every effort has been made, however, to simplify the documentation procedure. Only craft of a sufficient value, related to size and horsepower, to warrant title protection will be registered, and all other boats will merely receive an identification number which implies no greater documentation than licensing.
Registration and the issuing of an identification number will carry a user charge. This is necessary because of the increasing cost of administration of the system. On the other hand, registration of small craft will give the boat owner adequate title protection which he did not have under the licensing system.
Mr. Speaker, may I conclude these remarks in the manner in which I began. Bill C-61 brings to Canadian maritime law a new and important measure of modernization and co-ordination in a comprehensive fashion, designed to be consistent with the practical realities of today's world. It will also place Canada in a position to speak more strongly in international maritime circles, in keeping with our position as a leading world trader. As I
November 21, 1975

have said, I look forward to the contributions which no doubt will be made in this debate by hon. members from all sides of the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to congratulate that fellow from Saskatchewan, the parliamentary secretary, not so much for his delivery of a technical address to us this afternoon but for following in the finest tradition of seafaring men from Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: -of which the Royal Canadian Navy had many and of whom we were very proud during the war, many of whom have found residence in the Atlantic provinces.


Donald W. Munro: There is only one in doubt, and that is the minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: Having said that, I must say that I could not follow the parliamentary secretary at all because he delivered a highly technical and, I am sure, a very valuable summary of the maritime code which is in front of us. Canadians have been waiting for this code since 1854, when we had the old, British system. I suppose this is a bit of watermark for us. We have tinkered with and made hundreds of amendments to this act. We took it from what was referred to as the old merchant shipping act. Now we call it the Canada Shipping Act. It has been called the maritime act; it has been called everything. Now we call it the maritime code. The fact of the matter is that as Canadians we have been waiting since 1854 for it, and before we do away with what we have lived with for 120 years or so, perhaps our appreciation to the United Kingdom and to the British shipping community should go on record for having lent us their expertise, guidance, direction and laws until this point in time.
In a sense, I suppose I am saying I welcome this effort by the two distinguished gentlemen from Saskatchewan with respect to maritime matters, and I say that very sincerely. Frankly, credit for it, I think, must go directly to the predecessor of the minister and to those with whom he worked and with whom the present minister must work in putting in place this bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And Howard Darling.


J. Michael Forrestall: And, of course, Howard Darling, from whom all good blessings in the direction of an ultimate Canadian merchant fleet seem to have been flowing in recent months.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is everybody's "darling" except the government's.


J. Michael Forrestall: We welcome this bill because, as the parliamentary secretary said, it brings together in one unified code the various sections of a number of different statutes. It brings together in one single document, as the parliamentary secretary said, five separate books which in fact will bring some order into the chaotic situation we have had until this point in time. We welcome it. We note,
Maritime Code
as well, that it reflects pretty closely the sentiments of Bill C-216 which had an abortive introduction in the House back in July, 1973. In the process of considering this matter, I hope the minister will have a few minutes to speak, but I wish to place in front of him an inquiry as to whether this bill reflects any philosophical differences from the bill introduced originally in 1973. Most of us are too lazy to go back and reread it all, and perhaps the minister could tell us the basis of his briefing.
As I have said, we recognize the need to codify and bring together under this new code the somewhat confusing legislation which we find at times in our Canada Shipping Act, the steamship act, the steamship inspection act, and on through our various fisheries acts, environmental acts, and so on, and to present it in clear language. I emphasize the need for clear language not only in the legislation, but also in the regulations which will flow from it. In that respect, I would also place before the minister an inquiry as to whether he might give the shipping community interests in Canada, as well as the House and the standing committee, an opportunity to question him with respect to certain of the regulations which it is anticipated will flow from this legislation. We would appreciate the opportunity of commenting on them and to make some observations, if the minister feels that is a proper way to approach this particular bill. The regulations cannot be changed substantively because in effect they are doing the same thing as we were doing under old acts, so I hope that in this particular instance the minister will give us an opportunity to review certain of the regulations.
We also await with some eagerness the remaining chapters in connection with this new law and the long-promised section to deal with the general headings of crew, cargo, and operational standards. These are equally important to us. Hopefully, the community will not be kept waiting too long for clarification of the attitude of the government in these areas. Hopefully, we will be able to see the balance of this legislation before the end of this session, if in fact we get around to dealing with it, and perhaps the minister might respond to that at a later date.
In connection with this matter we file the caveats which have been alluded to by the parliamentary secretary. They have to do with the registration procedures and the centralization program, and the impact this will have in terms of the convenience of shipowners, particularly small craft owners, fishing vessel owners, and so on. A further caveat which would naturally flow from that would relate to a fear we might have-and we hope for some expression, again, in committee or from the minister this afternoon- as to the administrative burden which this legislation will place upon shipowners in terms of documents to fill out, papers to file, certificates to register, and so on. We reserve the right to look fairly closely at that particular aspect.
If I did not miss too much of what the parliamentary secretary had to say, I suggest he did not deal with the intentions of the government with respect to the shipping community interest. We will very much want to have the views of the shipping community generally, the maritime associations and shipowners associations. I think we should hear from the CBRT, and probably the SIU, with respect to the implications of this for the Canadian ship-
2995 6-39V2

November 21, 1975
Maritime Code
ping industry. I am sure the minister is quite prepared to go along with this.
There is a further caveat we should like to place on the record at this point. It has to do with my concern about the process of exemptions from the provisions of this bill. There are one or two clauses the purpose and intent of which we are not certain about. If I were to be partisan, I might say that they are to permit the polar icebreakers of the United States coastguard to go into the Arctic and transport, lead or escort massive tankers from the slopes of Alaska out through the Northwest Passage and down to the great ports off the New Jersey coast. This is being contemplated. I am not a partisan person when it comes to maritime activity, so I simply ask the minister, at some point in time in committee, or preferably this afternoon, to expand slightly on the opting out sections of this code. I ask this because I think the minister would readily agree that the exemptions in the past were granted on a sort of wholesale basis. It has been virtually a rubber stamp process for the CTC, and we would like to see this come to an end.
In a general way we are also concerned with the ad hoc approach to transportation in Canada. The movement of goods and passengers is a mode of transportation with which we are concerned. In two or three years' time when we complete the transportation overhaul we might end up with conflicts if not in practice at least in philosophy, and this might lead to difficulties. While we are a little bit concerned with the ad hoc approach I hasten to add that it is better than no action at all. At first blush I think it serves the shipping community reasonably well.
It is what this bill does not do that concerns me in a personal way. It sayS nothing about the need for a Canadian flag fleet for international seaborne trade. It says nothing about the Canadian army. As I understood it, what Mr. Darling was doing was in preparation for the rebirth of Canada's international marine fleet, which would put us in a strong, secure position with respect to the extractive industries of the north in those waters north of 63 degrees. It would be a mistake for the government not to secure the extractive industries in the north exclusively to Canadian ships, built in Canada to Canadian standards, crewed by Canadians, and subject to Canadian law.
I spoke of this matter last night with the parliamentary secretary, and I see that the minister is here this afternoon. I hope he will take my suggestion with respect to the north seriously. I do not suggest that the government is not concerned about this, and I do not suggest that we are not aware of the difficulty. As a matter of fact there is nothing in the north to take out right now, but in anticipation of what is there, the natural gas, the iron ore, the lead, I think we have a responsibility to indicate to the shipping community at home and abroad that it should develop the necessary technology and capacity to send our ships north of sixty.
There are one or two other reservations that we will deal with in committee, such as the substantive conditions of the code starting at page 12 and wandering through to page 16 or 17. We also want to look at the regulations. My colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. 
Munro), will raise a question with respect to the opting out clause and its impact on the carrying of passengers on foreign ships between one Canadian port and another.
I come back to what concerns me more than anything else with respect to this bill, although I believe it is not within the capacity of the maritime code to deal with the remarks I want to leave on the record. I will be very critical with respect to the books that are to follow this first book of the general maritime code. I am concerned with the ownership of vessels and the fact that shipping procedures are rapidly changing, increasing the cost of shipbuilding and fleet operation. This has driven many small firms out of business leaving control in fewer and fewer hands, technically known as monopoly situations.
Not only that, but governments around the world have begun to look again at the century old subsidization policies. Instead of of shelling out public funds with no strings attached, they say, "We want control of your business, we want men on your boards, we want voting shares in your companies". So the foreign fleets upon which Canada is totally dependent are increasingly the arms and tools of the express national interests of foreign powers. Mr. Darling suggests that Canada cannot safely rely forever on the whims of foreign governments for the vitally important shipment of Canadian exports and imports.
Remember here that about $8 billion worth of Canadian goods were sold abroad last year and about $7 billion worth of foreign goods were brought into Canada, and not so much as 1 per cent of this enormous total was carried in ships over which Canada has legislative control. If even a portion of Canadian imports and exports were to be crippled by a decision of offshore interests, the resulting financial and economic chaos would be staggering.
Standing alone between Canada and this unthinkable situation, protecting this vital trade, are the foreign shipping cartels, responsible to Athens, London, New York, Tokyo, Amsterdam, not Ottawa, completely beyond the reach of Canadian law and even specially exempt from it. They serve us well today, Mr. Darling suggests, but they might not even be here tomorrow.
He points to the growing trend of the South American governments to insist that all trade to and from those countries be carried in their national bottoms. He points out the increasing number of bilateral arrangements between even great "free trade" proponents like the United States, enacted with no regard whatsoever for third parties such as Canada. He points to the diminishing ports of call brought about by containerization, and wonders where Canada will stand at the next notch in the ever-advancing development of ship technology. He points out that with all the federal and provincial money spent at Port Hawkes-bury, St. Romuald, and Come-By-Chance, no one had the initiative or the foresight to require any type of shipping clause to protect some percentage of the traffic for Canadian ships. This is what we are hitting at.
We have closed the gulf but we have not closed north of sixty. Why? Even if the legislative process takes some time, let us tell the world that we intend to do it, and not spend 20 years in the doing of it. Nothing was done with respect to Come-By-Chance, for example. The principle is that first in will get the business, and keep it. Who is
November 21, 1975

hauling oil for the refinery at Come-By-Chance? Are Canadian ships carrying oil?


James Aloysius McGrath: It is in British bottoms.


J. Michael Forrestall: There is not one Canadian bottom carrying that oil.
All around, without and within, the ability of Canada to counter effectively world pressures on our foreign trade is severely limited. Worst of all is the over-riding neglect and, to a degree, international mockery to which this Liberal administration has subjected our maritime shipping policy. In a word, we are being laughed at. Mr. Darling tells us the obvious: the government simply does not care.
In the 15 to 20 years of my involvement in politics I have known only one government member, a former minister of transport, who was interested in maritime matters. Twenty years after he began talking about maritime policy the government is acting. I suspect his interest was created by his concern for labour. At least he proposed a maritime policy. Nobody else on the government side did. If the government had shown interest in shipping ten or 15 years ago, the legislation would now be in place and Canadian shipping would be carrying our goods. The north also would have been protected. If the United States had asked for our co-operation with respect to the north, we should have been able to oblige.
I also raise the question of where we buy our technology. We have bought expertise affecting the north from Finland. If the appropriate laws had been in place that would not have been necessary. If we had wanted to buy a certain technology from Finland, for example, we should have been sure that those in Finland would not pick up a telephone, buy the information from a Canadian engineering firm in Montreal, as happened recently, and sell it to us.
The minister probably has not been fully briefed by his department. At some point someone will tell him the amusing story of Canada purchasing information from the United States. The United States people, in turn, obtained the information from Finland, and the Fins obtained it from Canada. And you know what Canada paid for that information? The price was 17 times higher than it would have been a year and a half before, when it was sitting on a shelf in this country collecting dust. That is an interesting story.


James Aloysius McGrath: And is part of the reason for our present mess.


J. Michael Forrestall: On the matter of a Canadian flag fleet, Mr. Darling expressed the following clear view:
... the use of Canadian flag shipping remains a valid long term objective not to be achieved at one stroke but step by step as our ability to protect our interests in the field becomes established and yields practical results.
We shall see those practical results when the government, conforming to the expressed will of the Canadian people, develops our offshore fleet and protects the extractive industries of the north.
Maritime Code
Let us put it another way. There is not a single container ship, single tanker, single bulk carrier-and only three merchant ships-flying the Canadian flag on the oceans of the world.
Our oil, bauxite, and general cargo are imported in foreign flag vessels, for a fee. Our wheat, grain, coal, aluminum, steel, and general manufacture are exported by foreign flag vessels, also for a fee, which as noted last year came to an estimated $1.5 billion.
In addition to the impact upon our maritime regional economies a Canadian merchant fleet would have, it could also provide upward of 10,000 jobs for Canadian merchant sailors. Having said all that, I express to this House the attitude of virtually the entire shipping community that the policy process involved in shipping matters within the federal cabinet is totally inadequate for the 1970's and 1980's. The cabinet being the threshold for all decisions, most necessary decisions simply are not made. We are going too slowly. True, we must go step by step; yet surely we need more than one piece of legislation every three or four years. Let us pass legislation in this area as one package and thereby determine the impact it will have on rail transportation, air transportation, transportation by pipeline, etc.
We have the fullest confidence in the ability of Mr. Illing and his shipping advisory committee to make recommendations to government on this score, and trust the government will act on them with haste. I pay tribute to Mr. Illing and his associates. The task ahead of the committee is enormous, but it seems to be coping reasonably well. We wish him and his associates well in this work, and trust the government will adopt the recommendations of that group expeditiously.
Let me conclude with some general comments. We welcome this bill but wish it had been brought forward in
1973.	We wish that we could be considering the balance of the necessary legislation, and that the government had declared its interest with respect to extractive industries north of 60 degrees and its intention to restrict those industries to the exclusive use of Canadian ships, when those ships can perform the task.
Those are all the points I wish to raise at this time, being confident that we can raise substantive matters in committee. We welcome the bill and wish the government success with the implementation of the first part.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Speaker, Bill C-61 is designed to provide a maritime code for Canada. It belatedly and only partially answers the long standing need for a Canadian shipping policy.
Canada is a leading trading nation in the world. We realize, whether one represents a maritime constituency, as I do, or lives in another part of Canada, that a shipping policy which will enable us to send our goods to the markets of the world is absolutely imperative. Unfortunately successive governments have shamefully neglected Canada's shipping interests.
As the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) showed, we export annually about $8 billion worth of goods and import about $7 billion worth. On this $15 billion worth of goods leaving and entering Canada

Maritime Code
annually, we pay charges of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion annually. Less than one per cent of this tremendous tonnage is carried in Canadian ships. This difficulty has confronted us for the last 20 years.
Although I do not wish to be discourteous to the parliamentary secretary who explained the bill concisely, I was disappointed not to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) make a statement about the government's long term shipping policy and the objectives it has in mind.
For many years members on all sides have urged successive ministers of transport to formulate and put forward a clearly defined Canadian shipping policy. True, Mr. Howard Darling was appointed and his group has made two excellent reports. Yet, apart from the one or two provisions introduced in the legislation which I shall discuss in a few moments, we have not seen any clear-cut formulation of Canadian shipping policy.
The nub of the matter is that Canada has allowed itself to be entirely at the mercy of the world shipping cartel. The effects were evident in 1973 and 1974 during the oil crisis when we were forced to move western crude oil to Vancouver, thence down the west coast, through the Panama Canal, and up to east coast ports.
At that time, when some of us were pleading with the then minister of energy, mines and resources, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), to enter into state trading arrangements by which the Government of Canada could purchase oil from oil-producing countries, the minister admitted that the multinational oil companies controlled a very large part of the shipping facilities for moving oil on the seas of the world. That situation is not going to improve. It is likely to get worse. The Arab countries are investing very large sums of money in the construction of oil tankers.
It is significant that in the last ten years there has been a switch in our sources of oil supply. Ten years ago 80 per cent of our imports came from South America, mainly, Venezuela, and the balance from the Middle East or Africa. Today 75 per cent of our oil imports come from the Middle East and Africa. This means we are going to be increasingly dependent upon the oil tankers of the multi-national oil companies and of the shipping cartel, and we will be paying a very heavy price for the movement of that oil.
One fact is very significant. During the period when we were moving oil from western Canada through the Panama Canal, of the 32 tankers used in moving western oil through the canal not one tanker was a Canadian ship. I make reference as an illustration to the UNCTAD proposal which was supported by many of the sea-faring nations. It suggested that 40 per cent of a country's trade should be handled on a national basis. Canada 'in that instance abstained.
Canadians have a right to ask why we are in this unenviable position. It is not because we cannot build and man ships. We who are old enough will remember that during the war Canada did develop a merchant fleet. We built ships and manned them. We had the materials with which to build ships and we had the personnel to sail them. In 1947, we had between 200 and 300 ships under Canadian

registry. Today we have less than ten. In fact, the last figure I saw showed a total of only three.
Some of the ships that have been built under the government's shipbuilding subsidy program were transferred to foreign registries after the required period of time expired. That is not a situation or condition of which any nation can be proud, particularly a leading trading nation. It was for this reason that Mr. Darling was appointed to make a report. He recognized very clearly and distinctly the need for a Canadian merchant fleet. In his first report in October, 1970, he said, and I quote:
The use of Canadian flag shipping remains a valid long-term objective not to be achieved at one stroke but step by step as our ability to protect our interests in the field becomes established and yields practical results.
When Mr. Darling said "not to be achieved at one stroke", he certainly did not mean the government should take five years from the time he filed his first report to take only a very faltering step, with no long-term objective as to whether that faltering step will lead to successive steps that will eventually give us a Canadian merchant marine.
Mr. Darling quite properly pointed out that there was a need for haste. He made it clear that shipping was being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Therefore we are not dealing with a free market with respect to major shipping. We face the prospect of being subservient to a shipping cartel. He points out that more and more foreign governments are investing in shipping and directing that shipping under their control so that they can use it for whatever political purpose, economic or trading objectives they have in mind. Some South American governments are now discussing the advisability of requiring all shipping to and from their ports to be carried on ships of national registry.
Because he recognized the seriousness of the situation Mr. Darling recommended that the first step should be that all ships engaged in trade between Canadian ports must be of Canadian registry. Since 1970 members on this side of the House have been bombarding the government with questions as to when this particular recommendation of the Darling report of October, 1970, would be implemented. We now have legislation which we welcome in so far as it takes this first step as recommended by Mr. Darling.
We think this legislation will be helpful. We are, however, concerned about some of the loopholes which are to be found in Bill C-61. I express the hope now that the standing committee which will be examining this bill will give some of these apparent loopholes very careful consideration. I also hope the government might be prepared to clarify and amend some of the provisions of the legislation so as to plug these loopholes.
The effectiveness of this legislation depends almost entirely on how the government handles the exemptions provided for in the bill. There are two main loopholes, as I see it, providing for exemptions. The first is clause 10 which gives the Canadian Transport Commission authority to grant permits to Commonwealth Country ships so that they are allowed to operate in our coastal trade until 1980. I commend the government for having given the required notice under the British Commonwealth Shipping Act. The notice was given in 1974 so we have complied with
November 21, 1975

the required 12 month notice. We are no longer bound by this agreement.
This legislation extends to 1980 the right of Commonwealth ships which operate in our, coastal waters if they are granted a permit by the Canadian Transport Commission. The only requirements are that a ship must have been registered in a Commonwealth country on or prior to September, 1974, and that 12 months prior to that date and since it must have operated in Canadian waters. There may be very sound reasons for this grandfather clause. Some of those reasons may apply in the Atlantic provinces, but I do not think they apply on the west coast of Canada.
I believe the committee should examine clause 10 very carefully to make sure that the criteria set out are relative to the situation, and that there is some compelling reason why this five years of grace should be granted to ships of other members of the Commonwealth.
The second loophole which provides for the granting of exemptions is to be found in clause 11. This clause allows the Canadian Transport Commission to issue licences where it is satisfied that the use of a ship other than a Canadian ship is in the public interest. That is a very general phrase. I think one could drive a convoy of trucks through a loophole like that. Mr. Darling suggested that exemptions to permit ships not of Canadian registry to participate in the coastal trade of Canada should only be granted where Canadian vessels are either unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate for the purpose. That is much more specific.
If an applicant for an exemption has to show that there are no Canadian ships available, or no Canadian ships that are adequate or sufficient for the task in mind, that is a clear cut limitation under which the Canadian Transport Commission would be empowered to grant an exemption. But for a clause to provide that the Canadian Transport Commission can issue an exemption to any ship where, in its opinion, the public interest is involved, seemed to me so general, so vague, and so indefinite that it makes the legislation which the House is now debating almost meaningless.
I think there would be a good deal of concern on the part of those who have been pressing for the implementation of this recommendation in the Darling report that under clause 11 the Canadian Transport Commission, on the grounds of public interest, could hand out exemptions to ships of all classes and sorts, with the result that the intention of preserving the coastal trade of Canada for Canadian ships could be completely circumvented.
I would also draw to the attention of the House the fact that clause 11(4) gives the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the authority to order the CTC to issue a licence to nonCanadian ships to participate in the coastal trade of Canada. This could mean that even where the Canadian Transport Commission has not been convinced that it is in the public interest to grant an exemption, the minister, by applying to the cabinet, can secure an order in council ordering the Canadian Transport Commission to issue a licence permitting non-Canadian ships to carry cargo between Canadian ports and in Canadian waters.
Maritime Code
I think it is interesting that the provisions relating to how these powers will be exercised are to be spelt out in the regulations. But I point out that the regulations themselves are going to be passed by the Governor General in Council, so that the cabinet will set its own guidelines as to the terms and conditions under which it can order the CTC to grant an exemption. I submit, Madam Speaker, that this is not good enough.
If parliament in good faith is going to pass legislation requiring that Canadian ships shall be used in Canadian coastal trade, I think this House has the right-and I hope the committee will demand that right-to insist that the grounds for granting exemptions must be spelt out in some detail, so that exemptions are not granted easily, either on the recommendation of the minister or by the Canadian Transport Commission on such a vague premise as the claim that to do so is in the national interest. If we do not do this, the legislation we are now dealing with will be little more than a farce.
Let me close by saying that this legislation, which we welcome in so far as it takes the first faltering step toward the objective I have been talking about, is not a cure-all for the shipping problems that confront the country. This is why I hope that the minister early in this debate will set forth what are the government's long-term objectives.
One of the first actions that must be taken is the adoption of a shipbuilding policy by which we can build ships in Canada. When one stops to think, almost every type of material which goes into the building of a ship can be produced in Canada, be it steel, aluminum, copper, or any other ingredient. We certainly do not lack the manpower to build those ships. We demonstrated during the war that we had the personnel to sail ships.


James Aloysius McGrath: We can give you all the sailors you want, Tommy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, and not only from the coastal provinces. During the war we demonstrated that Canadians from every part of Canada could sail ships, with proper training. The government ought to be prepared to tell the Bouse now that it has in mind as a long term objective the construction of a Canadian merchant fleet, that it is going to move progressively toward that end, and that the measure now before the House to give Canadian ships preference in Canada's coastal trade is but the first step-a welcome step, but it is still only the first step-in the long-term program that the government intends to put into effect.
I also think the government should take a look at its shipbuilding assistance program. I see no reason why a shipping company should be able to get financial assistance at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, keep a ship under the Canadian flag for the required period of time, and then put it under a flag of convenience over which we have no control, despite the fact that the ship has been built with the assistance of Canadian taxpayers. It seems to me that the boot should be on the other foot.
If a ship is going to be built with Canadian financial assistance, it should remain under Canadian registry, unless the Canadian Transport Commission can be persuaded that there are good and rational reasons for allowing the owner to tranfer the ship over to the flag of another

November 21, 1975
Maritime Code
country. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I hope the minister, who has not yet taken part in the debate, will outline what the government's policy is with reference to a shipping policy for a trading nation like Canada.
I hope the minister will indicate what steps the government intends to take to make sure we are not left completely at the mercy of the great shipping cartels, and indicate what we intend to do in order to use our own materials and our own manpower to take Canadian goods in Canadian ships to the markets of the world. That is the kind of policy we want to hear enunciated by the minister. We shall listen to what he has to say with interest and with the devout hope that at last Canada is going to have a genuine shipping policy.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief. I must first thank the parliamentary secretary for his statement in which he quite adequately summarized the bill. I will not reveal anything new by admitting that I have not read the 84 pages that make up the bill.
I am not a shipping expert and I do not even live in a coastal area as is the case with the previous speakers. Accordingly, I will merely make a few general comments to show the minister what the people of Quebec, since I am from Quebec, expect from this legislation the purpose of which is to create a Canadian maritime code. The minister must be congratulated, because this code will be the first one in Canada. At last, we will have our own Canadian maritime Code to replace the old British shipping act which was our basic legislation since the early days of Canada. I think it will amount to Canada being recognized on the seas.
But despite all the minister's good intentions, we are concerned with the matter of Canadian and foreign vessel registry. I presume that everything will be clearly stated in the act. But our main concern here is that when it comes to defining the minister's special powers to licence ships, I feel we must exercise extreme caution. The act must be quite specific so as to limit the extraordinary powers given the minister. I note that every time we enact some legislation, there is at the end a provision to the effect that the minister will decide in special cases. Too often special cases become the general situation. There are good ministers, and I have no misgivings about the present one, but although ministers change the act remains. We are left with the same permissive statute whereby the minister might act against the interest of Canadian shipping. This is why I wanted to draw the minister's attention so this may be adequately debated in committee, in order that the door is not open to ministers to grant licences in "special" cases.
There is a second question of interest to every Canadian, that is merchant shipping. We are establishing a shipping code, but this is by no means establishing a merchant navy. I remember after World War II, there had been perforce a shipbuilding boom and at a certain time we had some kind of a merchant navy we could call Canadian, although it was not entirely under Canadian registry. But since that time, I believe things have deteriorated to the point that our shipping is on the verge of disappearing, as other

members said before me. We have almost no more merchant ships and I wonder where the blame lies? Was there a lack of ship owners, of men interested in helping Canada have its own merchant navy, or have there been a government that did not do the effort needed to maintain and upgrade such a merchant navy?
I believe that is where the problem lies. As a matter of fact, I have been reading for years about the regressing of our merchant marine. On the other hand, our government has offered subsidies to foreign countries to come in our province in our country, to build merchant ships, because, they said, they needed to ensure a livelihood for our workers.
I believe that this was done with good intentions, namely to provide work, but in my opinion it was temporary work. There is a Chinese saying to the effect that if you want to help someone for a day, you must give him something to eat, but if you want to help him for the rest of his life, you must show him how to fish. With this in mind,
I feel that the government would have been better advised to use this money in providing wages for our workers and guaranteeing them. This would have enabled Canada to won its own vessels, to have today a merchant marine which could meet at least 50 per cent of our requirements. Instead, millions and even billions of dollars were used to promote foreign companies while Canadians were neglected, they who could have created something for Canada, something which we now have to create.
As the previous speaker said earlier, we shall depend and we now depend on foreign monopolies for our shipping trade. We shall suffer the consequences of this situation. This has been the case for some years already. Foreign companies will set their own rates and tomorrow they will rule the seas. Transportation is increasingly becoming monopolistic. If the government does not change its mind and say it is essential to set up our own merchant marine, I believe, Madam Speaker, even with a good Maritime Code, the Canadian economy will gain nothing.
I mention this to attract the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) so that we may discuss this matter seriously when the bill is referred to the standing committee. If we cannot guarantee that Canada will have its own merchant marine in the years to come, it is useless to waste our time passing such bills. Once again, I hope that we shall take a step forward and that work will go on. I should like to add just a few words to draw the minister's attention to the issue of the environment and sea pollution.
Because the Canadian government was not motivated enough, because it has no merchant marine, it was not interested enough in supervising our territorial waters. I trust this legislation will be severe enough towards the polluters of our waters to oblige them to clean them up. Some ships come through our waters, pollute them, to oblige them to clean them up. Some ships come through our waters, pollute them, then leave it up to the government to clean up behind them.
I do hope this act will be severe enough to make the owners whose ships pollute our waters responsible for cleaning them up, and force them to clean up the mess when they have been proved responsible for the pollution.
November 21, 1975

I hope therefore that this bill will bring what seems, at first glance, to be something good for the Canadian people. Such a bill cannot be rejected off hand because it is for the good of the Canadian people, and I trust it will give us what we expect from our shipping trade.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, it seems to be my fate to be called at the hour in which the debate is to be interrupted. This has happened to me on a number of occasions. I am prepared to have my speech interrupted on this occasion. However, I believe this debate is really too important for a Friday afternoon. Friday afternoon debates might be reserved for less important matters than the one before us today. I am glad we will have the opportunity to carry this over into next week so that we may have a close look at the measure before us.
May I say that I am at least the third Saskatchewan born person to participate in a debate on the Canadian coasting trade, the merchant marine. There might have been one more. I do not know whether the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was born in Saskatchewan. I do not think he was. In any event he has certain relationships with Saskatchewan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He gave birth to it.


Donald W. Munro: Saskatchewan is having its innings. We have a noble vessel, the HMCS Saskatchewan, which performed veteran service and of which we are all very proud. Saskatchewan produced many sailors for our navy during the war. It has produced many of our maritime servers, the members of our present maritime forces.
Once again another person born in Saskatchewan stands to defend, support, and urge the creation of a merchant marine for Canada. This stands to reason after all because one of the great shippers of bulk products from Canada is Saskatchewan. Since many of our products that are being sent abroad in foreign bottoms come from Saskatchewan- and I think even the parliamentary secretary is prepared to admit this-it is right that Saskatchewan should have its say in respect of this bill.
My interest in matters relating to maritime affairs has been heightened because of the fact that I look out from my home on Vancouver Island on one of the great sea lanes of the world, a sea lane which leads Canadian commerce to and from Vancouver. We did have a large international harbour, particularly for passengers and less for trade, but still partially for trade, in Victoria, but the big trading port is Vancouver. I remember as a young man in Vancouver going down to the pier and seeing vessels bring in and carry away our trade. This gave me the inspiration to develop my interest in maritime affairs. With that I should like to call it four o'clock, Madam Speaker.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 2 in the
name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is the motion allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 15 in the
name of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion 19 in the name of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 20 in the
name of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 34 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 37 in the
name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 5 in the
name of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 1 in the
name of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 6 in the
name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Member:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 42 in the
name of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith). Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 4. Shall the motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
9350

November 21, 1975
Deductions for Volunteer Services INCOME TAX ACT


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE DEDUCTIONS FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICES PROVIDED FOR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reynolds:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to provide for deductions for volunteer services provided by a taxpayer on behalf of either a charitable organization or a federal, provincial or municipal agency.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: No, Madam Speaker. On this particular motion I understand that the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) will be leading off the debate on behalf of our party.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Madam Speaker, may I start by commending the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) for having brought this issue before the House. If I join in the debate it is in a spirit of constructive criticism rather than destructive nihilism. As I said, I commend the hon. member for the dedication and tribute he has paid to the volunteer sector which, until now, has all too frequently been treated with reactions widely ranging from enthusiasm to polite tolerance, and thinly veiled apprehension, to downright exploitation.
Personally I firmly believe that the presence of a strong, creative and dynamic voluntary social service force is of vital necessity to the social and economic well-being of the community. If the government is to serve the community in a way best fitted to its requirements and aspirations, then independent links in providing information about needs and gaps in services is essential, and who better than the private, independent member can assess the real human needs of that community?
More and more the peer or lateral view is accepted as authority rather than the generational or hierarchial one. More and more organizations are seeking their board members among individuals who are noted for their special experiences and personal involvement rather than, as was the case before, among those who were sought for their wealth, status or connections. In the social field particularly workers recognize that people within the situation are the ones who really perceive and can attack the problems. It can thus be argued that an ex-inmate is probably the one with most expertise on the needs and aspirations of prisoners, and that a reformed alcoholic can best help the habitual drunk. The list includes many other sectors and in each, indeed, volunteers are already working with remarkable success.
Perhaps the most pressing need of a rapidly changing society is the necessity for innovative and even experimental action, but all too often institutions tend by nature to react rather than to initiate. My own city of Toronto provided an example of this in the immigrant community. For years immigrants had been left very much to their own
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
resources with consequential hardships, isolation, and other grave social and economic results. This was harmful not only to the immigrants themselves, particularly where language and cultural values were concerned, but also to the recipient community as a whole.
That these problems were recognized and alleviated was due in a large measure to the efforts of three independent individuals, themselves immigrants, who over the years volunteered their indefatigable efforts toward the eventual establishment of an institution now dedicated to the integration through education of these immigrants. I am happy to remark that one of these volunteers of whom I have just spoken sits on this side of the House; he is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). However, before those services were instituted, there was no existing establishment which could have carried out the invaluable work done by COSTI.
In other words, even if tax amendments such as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta now advocates were allowed, people such as the three I described above would not benefit because the ideal to which they contributed their efforts did not exist, and therefore could not qualify as a charitable institution. Surely there must be countless similar examples.
I would now like to cite an example of a different kind, but again of the impossibility of benefit as proposed in this bill accruing to the volunteer. I refer to people who are themselves on welfare and yet do incredible good for their fellow men at the bottom of the poverty scale. The person who runs a hostel to help destitute women in Vancouver is a prime example. The mission is operated entirely from donations received. The organizer herself lives on welfare, and therefore could not benefit from tax concessions for the simple reason that she does not pay tax.
Finally I would like to add yet another example to prove why a proposal such as the one under discussion would heap upon a special sector of our society yet another inequity. Although happily the composition of the volunteer force is rapidly and dramatically changing, the fact remains that according to a recent study entitled, "Volunteers, the Untapped Potential", the largest single category, that is 52.9 per cent of volunteers, is found in the occupational category of housewife, and here again not too many housewives have to pay income tax and therefore they do not fill out income tax forms.
Even the finest of human legislation contains loopholes and inequities, but when the inequities are as obvious as they are now, then I believe that we should oppose even the proposal.
There are other considerations too. While many charities welcome volunteers, many need cash much more than they need volunteer service. This latter category would undoubtedly be prejudiced by such a change in the law. Organizations such as Save the Children Fund, UNICEF, and others such as humane societies, are examples. Look at the Red Cross-it and society will benefit more by having a surgeon operating in a hospital and donating his fee than by rendering his services to drive a car.
The administration of the scheme would create a horrendous problem, and more important still, especially in view of the present economic situation, it is estimated that the
November 21, 1975

cost to the federal and provincial governments would be well in excess of $100 million a year.
Because of these and other reasons, while I do have sympathy with the substance of this proposal I must oppose it on grounds that it would lead to inequities, administrative problems, and substantial loss in revenue.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to join the debate with similar feelings to those of my colleague who has just spoken. As she so well pointed out, we all agree that the idea of encouraging people to do good works is commendable. No one would want to dissuade any citizen from good works and charitable undertakings. My question is quite simply whether this is the way to do what the motion sets out to do. The methods, not the aims of the motion, are what give me concern.
When we are considering this subject we find that definitions are the all important question. What is charity? What is a charitable work? I say that this motion is about motivation. Leaving aside the specific personal reasons why individually we do charitable work-whether it is from some hope of personal salvation or to make amends or receive absolution for our sins, or perhaps as a way of thanksgiving, not a selfish way but a grateful thanks for our own good fortune and, our desire to be brotherly or sisterly and give human comfort to those less fortunate- what would this sort of motion or suggestion do to the subject of motivation? I suggest to you that there is a pyschological need or motivation which encourages us to undertake such charitable good works. In return there is a psychological and emotional feeling of accomplishment and of good will towards men.
I am afraid that the good intent of this motion may find itself translated into a self-defeating mechanism. Instead of volunteers, we are going to wind up with a system of paid workers. Instead of giving, people may only be seeking a tax refund. I am afraid that we will be bureaucratizing charity; that we will be purveying good will.
There is an old maxim that it is far better to give than to receive. I am afraid that we will be turning that into the statement that we should give so that we might receive. We will be defeating ourselves. This motion will encourage nothing more than a great deal of government interference, a bureaucratic control of good works.
If I may say so, I am a little surprised that such a motion springs from my friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), who is usually very concerned about the growth of bureaucracy and the amount of government control of our economy and our lives. This measure will do nothing more than encourage a further bureaucracy in what is essentially an individual undertaking.
Good works, charity, love, a feeling between human beings and a feeling for the less fortunate, are all things which come from within the human breast on an individual basis. They are not things we do because we expect a benign wink from the tax collector. They are not something we do because we are looking for write-offs or gimmicks. By all means, let us continue to promote and
Deductions for Volunteer Services
encourage charities and good works, but at what cost? I am afraid there will be a distortion created by the encouragement of such undertakings by means of a tax gimmick.
When we are legislating I think we are subject to some laws and principles ourselves right here which are akin to the various laws of physics. One of Newton's laws is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every law we devise, for every one we put on the books looking for a certain result, we must always recognize that there is another side to the coin, or another reaction to that which we propose and put into force. I am afraid that by this motion, which seeks to encourage the doing of good works, we will translate whatever motivation for those good works which now exists into an attitude not of "what can I give?" but of "what can I get?"
Let me pose the hypothetical and ask what would happen if it were to go ahead. I think we get back to the two questions with which I began: what is a charity, and what is charitable work? What is an adequate degree of comparable compensation for those who do charitable work and for those who provide services? Is it to be a varying compensation for varying levels of people, or is it to be a variation dependent upon the service given?
Is the professional man or the rich man of more value in doing his charitable work than an hourly paid worker who is also involved in charitable undertakings, or is this dependent on the service or the performance either of them give? We can have a situation where a professional man or high salary earner does a very important job for charity and the hourly paid worker does a less important job for the same charity or a different charity, but there can be the reverse as well. There can be a case where the hourly paid worker gives a far greater service to a charity than the professional man. How are we to judge the compensation for such Services and for time?
I suggest that the maze of computations is incalculable. It would be impossible to administer such a system fairly, and while we attempt to begin with a motion which seeks to create a situation encouraging good works, good will, and benevolent and charitable undertakings, I fear we will wind up with a result which will amount to gnashing of teeth, cursing of the taxman, and a feeling of bad will amongst mankind because of the jealousies which will undoubtedly arise from the fallibility of the human spirit, and the jealousies which will arise as a result of the differing prizes awarded for differing good works done.
What is a charity? Is it to be one which is already approved by the Department of National Revenue and recognized by it, one of those which has a charitable number to which you can now make a donation and receive a tax refund, or is charity a charitable undertaking? Can it also include the doing of good, the conferring of a benefit upon the less fortunate, in the kind of broader definition of charity as we now know it?
When we talk of compensating charitable services, who is to say that work for the Red Cross, the United Way agency or some other, is any more charitable than work done by the man who, without recognition to himself, but at cost, on any street in any town in Canada shovels the sidewalks in winter, or the goodhearted fellow who fixes the window which is broken, fixes shutters, or puts a hinge back on a door for the four or five old age pensioners on his
29956-40(4

Deductions for Volunteer Services
block? Is he any less charitable than the person who gives a service-let alone money-to a recognized charity? What happens to him if his kind of charity is not recognized in terms of a motion such as this? I suggest that we will be creating a disincentive for those kinds of people to undertake such charitable good works.
Aside from the feeling a man can get, or his own personal rewards, I suggest there would be a disincentive because everyone will be encouraged only to give services or money to those charities which are recognized by the Department of National Revenue. That will create a disincentive for good will in the broader sense in this country. As a result there would be no return for the donor. I think this will destroy individual character and individual incentive because a person can only receive a refund if donations are given to a government recognized charity.
In summary the point I wish to make is that we all know how very difficult, if not impossible, it is to attempt to legislate morality. Legislators have known that since time immemorial. If we cannot legislate morality, how do we begin to attempt to legislate good will amongst mankind?
We have various holidays every year. We are approaching Christmas, the celebration of one who almost 2,000 years ago gave His life trying to promote feelings of good will among people. How well has He succeeded? How well will we succeed in an attempt like this, or will we really wind up defeating ourselves in the long run?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon on the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).
I am sure the House is well aware of the responsibilities of the Department of the Secretary of State in strengthening the voluntary sector of society. The department does this through the provision of financial and technical resources. Across Canada there are 25 field offices from which the department's social development officers maintain contact on a regular basis with a wide variety of voluntary and community organizations. Sometimes these officers assist organizations by providing them with information about governmental and other programs. Sometimes it is necessary to assist a group with a grant.
The citizenship sector has several programs designed to assist citizens' groups which are working to promote government policies such as multicultural citizen participation, the status of women, human rights and group understanding, native citizens development, and the improvement of the position of francophone communities across the country. The emphasis in all these programs is on encouraging Canadians to take a more active part in community affairs. The activity and financial support of the department's field staff help to improve the quality of Canadian citizenship.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has spoken on numerous occasions in the last three years on the importance of the voluntary sector and on the significant role that volunteers play in Canadian life. Among other government programs the student community service program, Madam Speaker, was introduced in the summer of

1974,	and one of its most important objectives was to encourage more young people to take part as volunteers in all kinds of voluntary organizations. This program has been very successful both from a standpoint of the student participants and the volunteer organizations and we are encouraged that it is making a contribution to the strength of the voluntary sector.
It should be recognized, however, that the voluntary sector faces many problems. They often find it hard to raise funds. Some are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit volunteers. Others find it a great problem to communicate with their members across the country. There is concern for a bilingual capacity among national organizations, and so on.
It was in consideration of these problems and others that the Secretary of State established the National Advisory Council on Voluntary Action a year ago. This council, composed of 15 individuals all with an active background in the voluntary sector, and chaired by Miss Raynelle Andreychuck, an able woman lawyer from Saskatchewan, has been given the mandate of studying the problems in the voluntary sector and making recommendations to the Secretary of State for ways in which the federal government can improve the situation. Hopefully this council will make some important recommendations to enable the federal government to improve the effectiveness of its support to voluntary services.
The Secretary of State has mentioned on several occasions in his speeches the possibility of changing the income tax legislation to give encouragement to volunteer activity. Most recently he mentioned this subject at the annual meeting of the Big Brothers Association of Ottawa and District in April, 1975. This is also a subject about which the Advisory Council on Voluntary Action is concerned. I am confident the council will be considering the kind of proposal made by the hon. member. It is likely in fact that a discussion or working paper on the subject of the tax system and voluntary action would be available by the council within the next year.
A most important recent study by the Canadian Council on Social Development, "Volunteers: The Untapped Potential", has provided a wealth of information about the motives, activities, and problems of volunteers across Canada. The aim of the study as stated in the book is "to test the hypothesis that there are large numbers of people in Canada who are potential volunteers; to explore the characteristics of volunteers and those who are not volunteers; and to inquire in a preliminary way into present administration and organizational practices related to volunteer activity."
One of the points this study makes is that volunteering is no longer the preserve of the upper middle class woman, and that more and more Canadians of different socio-economic backgrounds are getting involved in volunteer work. I should like to record some of the people and ideas which are attached to volunteers in this report-slightly more than half of Canada's people are involved in some type of volunteer work or charitable giving-more men are volunteers than has been believed, some 44.5 per cent-people of all ages are involved, with substantial representation of people under 25 years as well as people over 60-the percentage of volunteers reporting family income of less than
November 21, 1975

$12,000 per annum was 48.2-a substantial number of volunteers are labourers, skilled workers, and clerical employees-church or synagogue work, work with youth, and fund raising provided the first volunteer experience for most people.
It is interesting to note that this report points out many aspects of volunteering and maintains that in no way do they wish to destroy the volunteer concept. In considering the future of volunteer action in Canada we must ensure that such groups as the young, the elderly, the working poor, the native people, are not prevented from volunteer service because of financial or other problems. To provide deductions to tax payers for volunteer service may not be the most effective means of accomplishing this objective.
Some voluntary organizations have already mentioned to the department the desirability of looking at provisions in the United States tax legislation dealing with support to volunteer groups. Some preliminary study of this subject indicates that these provisions are difficult to administer, and we should be very careful about adding further complications to the tax system in Canada.
Another problem which some organizations have told us about, and it is worth looking at seriously, is that under the present legislation it is not possible for some citizens' groups to obtain charitable organization status because they are essentially self-help organizations. This may be a case of the law-and as a lawyer I can speak here-not keeping up with changing social conditions. Perhaps there should be some form available to those groups by which they can incorporate themselves and obtain charitable organization status. This is one way of helping these organizations.
More and more in recent years we have seen low income groups and other disadvantaged citizens group together to improve their situation. This is a healthy trend. We need to change our traditional concept that charitable organizations are only valid when they are helping other people. So in considering ways to strengthen volunteer activity in Canada we should also be re-examining our notions of what constitutes a charitable organization.
There is no doubt that the volunteer tradition in Canada is very strong. The Canadian Council on Social Development Study has shown that more Canadians are involved in volunteering than had been believed, and that there is an even greater potential for, volunteers. The proposal by the hon. member presents one way of strengthening volunteer service, and I am confident it will be very carefully considered by the Department of the Secretary of State and the National Council on Voluntary Action.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, it is with regret today that I cannot support the motion of the member of the opposition as introduced, however commendable the apparent motive underlying that motion. Actually, the hon. member is asking this House to accept that donations of time be tax deductible. I think that beforehand it would be necessary, as my colleague for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) did, it would be necessary at least to give some description of what is charity, self-sacri-
Deductions for Volunteer Services fice. It should also be said how dangerous it can be to want to change the rules of the game when it comes to morality and charity. Finally, it should be said how we might attempt to reach an acceptable compromise and review that concept. But how could we achieve desirable and acceptable results without at the same getting trapped in a bureaucratic maze?
Here are a few examples. We have ski patrollers members of associations like St. John Ambulance who are being taxed on the amounts of money they receive from various ski slopes. Here is another example: Mr. X, of the St. John Ambulance, decides to go and give a weekend in a ski resort, be it Sutton or elsewhere, and that ski resort will give him $40 for his weekend. That $40 represents the equivalent of what he has to pay precisely to be able to offer his services on a voluntary basis. However, the Department of National Revenue considers that amount to be supplementary income. I think that is a clear injustice, and I think if there were changes to be made it should rather be there-accepting as expenses amounts paid by organizations, by people who give some of their time but who have to incur expenses to do so.
If one went further and calculated as tax deductible the amount of time people give, once again that would promote the development of what I call a society outside society. And I think that, perhaps by mistake, the government is unduly inclined to foster the growth of this kind of parallel society that can only be dangerous.
Here is to illustrate: in my riding, there is a program that can have very good results in some cases, and I mean the Local Initiatives Program. Every time one of those programs is used to help in recreational activities, we hear remarks being made. I met with mayors of various small municipalities that were being helped through such programs and they said to me: "Mr. Loiselle, if you could give us $10,000 grants directly instead of those LIP grants of $20,000, it would be much easier to ask for volunteer help which we used to have in the past but not any more since we can afford to pay people for services that once could be provided by volunteers in our community."
People used to help in organizing various activities but now there is too much of a tendency to pay wages. We are too strongly inclined to give people tax benefits, all kinds of hand-outs, so much so that the meaning of charity is changing. Specialists in charity work no longer exist but to take advantage of the system.


Mr. Prud'homme:: How true!


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: So, Madam Speaker, such a measure would only consolidate this dangerous trend in our society, precisely the one we must fight. As my colleague said before, I think the federal government, through the Secretary of State or through the Department of National Health and Welfare, is helping our senior citizens clubs, through the New Horizons program. That is the kind of activities we should encourage, rather than privileging individuals. There is no better service than the one provided by someone doing it out of devotion. I think we are all politicians, and there are all kinds of self-sacrifice. There is the kind we see in election campaigns, for instance. Who will deny that the best election campaigner is the one who is doing it for the first time and who for

Deductions for Volunteer Services
once has to defend oneself and fight for a cause. I think this is also true of all charitable activities. We should rather consider other ways of encouraging volunteer work, as I said earlier. I therefore suggest, Madam Speaker, that we wait for the tabling of the review conducted by the Department of Finance on that question, and I am sure that the hon. member opposite will be given the opportunity to resume his attack with the support of his colleague and try to find original programs which will promote voluntary work in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I should like to contribute a few short remarks to this debate. I want to suggest to the House that our society should increasingly resort to volunteer action. I do not feel, contrary to the previous speaker, that self-sacrifice, or volunteering to provide services to a community that needs them should be paid. I can give instances of this and this is what I meant.
First of all, when we consider what is being accomplished on a volunteer basis in many organizations, whether they are hospitals, schools or social institutions, we realize that, more and more, our society must face very difficult problems, although it is supposed to be rich and affluent. I am referring to volunteers working in hospitals.
Formerly there were women's clubs and auxiliaries, people who gave part of their time voluntarily. Nowadays, even if there are still in my constituency people who are very dedicated in such endeavours, we see that people are not as available as before because there is no money available.
The motion before us which proposes the refund of the cost seems to me to go against the principle of asking people to give part of their time. I also know that some people in my riding devote part of their time to go and visit patients at Christmas time, to look after sick children in institutions such as Eastern Ontario's Children's Hospital, to care for elderly or needy people.
All this problem will disappear because these people have no interest in participating in a kind of service, expecting a payment in return.
Madam Speaker, as one who has been involved in that type of occupation for years, I wish to say that if voluntary work is to be remunerated, it becomes usury. For me this is not in keeping with the traditional society we are familiar with, not the standards of a society which claims to be charitable and humanitarian.
I am thinking in particular of school commissioners, or of people who give away their leisure time, freely or for very little renumeration. And if we were to judge the worth of a physician, a barrister or an ordinary worker, we may have to think that their work is important while the retribution is not.
In my view this motion is not progressive: indeed it is rather a retrograde step, typically conservative. It would be unfortunate if the act were to be amended in such a way that those voluntary workers would receive a salary or their services would be assessed in terms of financial considerations.

I think that we should encourage people to give more of their time. And they have more time now as the 40 hour work week leaves many people with leisure time and more personal freedom. I think that the problem of society is rather to orient and encourage voluntarism, to encourage people to participate in the activity of their society rather than always think in terms of dollars and cents and retribution. We should increasingly encourage people to participate, to play an active part in society without trying to get something from it, money or some other form of retribution.
Madam Speaker, I only wished to say that voluntarism is important and that we should encourage people to participate as personal involvement is very important. As one hon. member said, I think that Local Initiative Programs particularly may have fashioned voluntarism and created in our society a class of people specialized in so-called social or voluntary organizations, but always looking forward to their $100 or $130 a week. I do not say it is bad but it does twist the reality of things. Finally those people depend on needy social groups. I think it is bad to encourage that kind of groups.
I shall conclude by saying that as policians we should involve more and more Canadians in voluntary endeavours so that society can be valuable. This is why I hope the motion will be defeated.


Roderick Blaker: Madam Speaker, I chose to speak on the topic this afternoon because upon first glance at the motion I found it particularly attractive to think that, as a result of some calculations I did in the House this afternoon, at $3 an hour for every volunteer who worked to elect me in the last election, it would have cost the Government of Canada in tax revenues $150,000 to put me in this House!
I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) would not want to see that amount of money spent to have me or any other member elected. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta informs me that, under the terms of the Election Expenses Act, charitable donations or consideration of time for volunteers would not be applicable. I am well aware of that. I mention that only because I was somewhat interested in finding some way of compensating those volunteers who work for me at election time.
Other than that I speak on the motion because in my constituency there are in excess of 135 volunteer groups and organizations; everything from service clubs to Alcoholics Anonymous, groups assisting senior citizens, single parent family operations, tel-aid operations, and so on. There is a population of 100,000 in the three cities of Lachine, Dorval, and Pointe Claire.
I would assume that the departmental figures as to the cost of this motion are wrong. Revenue Canada is of the opinion it would cost approximately $100 million to put such a motion into effect and thereby give the volunteers a credit for the amount of voluntary time they give. My own guess is that in one particular area of Canada alone, that is, the constituency I represent, it would cost $100 million simply for the people in that area to volunteer their time
November 21, 1975

and services. They now number in excess of 5,000 people who, in one way or another, are giving time to their community. In that sense I put to the hon. member that the proposition that these people ought to be allowed to deduct their time is not likely to be very well received in terms of the amount of money it takes to run the government.
I would take up an element that I think other speakers have mentioned, that is, the question of how we can better and more efficiently assist groups of this nature. One of the most common characteristics is that they are constantly in need of good, sound advice as how to identify their problem, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, and how to incorporate themselves if incorporation is the best procedure under the circumstances. Finally, they need advice on how to seek funds from any particular level of government which may make funds available for that purpose.
As some other members in this House do with respect to the Local Initiatives Program, I try to encourage the citizens in my area to make application to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for these LIP programs in order that they can pursue their volunteer activities with what I might call some seed money. In my area this year we put in something in the area of a quarter million dollars, a great deal of which has gone to projects the nature of which are of a mixed full-time and volunteer character. They are considered by the applicants and by myself to be essential to the well-being of the community.
I suggest to the hon. member that the problem is not so much a need for tax deductibility to attract volunteers. Rather, there is a much greater need to provide the kind of professional assistance to these people which would better enable them to identify the problems they are attempting to resolve and to obtain assistance from various levels of government in order to resolve them.
The proposition that these individuals should have their time deducted from their income tax would in some cases, such as associations for the benefit of retarded children, inevitably lead to a lessening of the amount of financial contributions made to such groups and associations and to an increase in the number of people who would prefer to volunteer time. I suggest that associations which seek to support those involved in the care, education, and concern for retarded children will not be significantly improved nor be able to increase significantly the type and quality of their production and assistance to such children by having an income tax deduction for voluntary time. Their problem is to seek and obtain more money because of the type of services they render.
The administrative problems of such a proposal have been noted in prior debate to be horrendous. I would draw an example or two to the attention of hon. members. Such a proposal would create some horrendous administrative problems, most of which relate to valuation of time. Two people volunteer to drive a car for the Red Cross. One is a doctor whose time is billed at $150 an hour, and the second is a housewife who does not earn. A driver who was paid would receive $2 an hour. Should our volunteer driver receive a receipt for $150, $2, or nothing? If we say that the value is $2, obviously the doctor will not volunteer his services at all.
Deductions for Volunteer Services
In addition, the charity would have the problem of determining for each and every volunteer chore what is the fair market value of the services rendered. The problem of recognizing service donations for tax purposes was acknowledged by all four parties in the House in respect of political contributions. All parties have agreed to the amendment to the political contributions provisions contained in Bill C-65 which will forbid a credit for services rendered to candidates or political parties.
I referred earlier with some amusement to the possibility of considering people who work in elections as volunteers. I would remind the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta that he is among those who have agreed not to permit such activities at the political level. In view of the district that I represent and the incredibly large amount of volunteering services that continues to be provided in that area, I suggest to the hon. member that this motion is not the way to resolve the problem. Rather we should look to what one of the previous speakers said, the parliamentary secretary, who indicated that the Department of the Secretary of State would be taking a very close look at more efficient and sophisticated methods of helping volunteer groups.
I would re-emphasize that the most important characteristic that we can provide them is not a tax deduction for the services of their volunteer group, but rather direct assistance to them in getting set up and in understanding how to work their way through the three levels of government, so as to be able properly to address themselves to the task for which they are created and to obtain direct funding, not on an individual basis but on a group basis, to resolve the problem at hand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Kitchener.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the happy side very much for the recognition that they are affording me this afternoon, especially in the closing minutes of such an important debate. I am very happy to make a contribution to this well-merited suggestion that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has given us to consider. He has added a few additional thoughts to what he has put on paper, and has asked us to consider what the income tax department might do in the way of providing volunteer workers with a receipt instead of their actually receiving payment.
Many volunteers have been mentioned, but a few groups have been missed. For example, there are the volunteer mothers who are assisting the teaching profession by helping their children spend a little more time in an environment other than the school, under the visible eye of the tender loving care that only mothers can give their children. They are doing a very commendable job and I am sure their husbands, who are making a valid contribution to the economy, would appreciate a receipt for their donating their services.
Then there are the many volunteers in our minor hockey associations who get up at four, five, and six in the morn-

November 21, 1975
Deductions for Volunteer Services ing, returning home at night at nine, ten, or 11 because we do not have sufficient rink ice time in this great winter country for our children. They drive our children, teach them and advise them, and they are spending time with the very people with whom they want to spend our time, our children. More time should be spent in that way. These volunteers would also love to have a receipt acknowledging their contribution for income tax purposes.
Then there are the coaches who volunteer their services for minor sports activities; we place a great deal of confidence in them. Then there are mothers who spend hours and hours cooking for special occasions, such as visiting teams that have to be fed and housed. Many people do this work for absolutely no consideration at all. I think it would be worth while to provide them with a receipt too.
Then there are the volunteers in our hospitals. How many hours do they spend as hospital auxiliaries supplying voluntary nursing care that patients cannot always afford for themselves? Meals on wheels are also a great contribution to our society, calling for the skill of many people who not only drive canteens but do the cooking and prepare the small utility meals that are so nutritional in value. They provide a service to people who otherwise could not afford such comforts. Again a receipt for tax purposes would be a very commendable gesture.
This week I had the experience of putting my mother into a nursing home, where I watched volunteers at work.
They spend many hours supplying the teaching skills needed for embroidery, knitting, writing and reading. They spend hours making sure that sick people are happy people. I commend them to our country for the contribution they make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Joseph Flynn: Let me tell the House that to record in an analytical and statistical way the services that these people perform would be an erroneous and time consuming task that would be endless. It would create unnecessary work, even more LIP projects that we do not need. We would have to supply volunteer service to look after the volunteers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: Thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It being five o'clock the hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to thank all the "volunteers" who contributed this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 24, 1975