1976-06-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statements made by Superintendent J. M. Gillingham of the Headingley Correctional Institute in Manitoba, that the four-year old federal program of weekend jail sentences is an administrative nightmare, and one-third of those serving weekend jail terms are not showing up and also many of the prisoners arrive drunk or under the influence of drugs, and as the Chief Judge of the Manitoba Provincial Judges Court has called on magistrates to stop handing out weekend prison sentences, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House direct the Minister of Justice to prepare a report on weekend prison sentences and, if necessary, rescind the legislation allowing weekend sentences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of some urgency. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation to implement the recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on the Public Service, made on February 3, 1967, to the effect that employees of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament should be accorded the same collective bargaining and other rights that are accorded to federal public servants under the terms of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That once Bill C-84 for abolition of the death penalty is reported to the House that this House do adjourn for the summer recess and that report stage and third reading be allotted five days debate in the fall with a vote to come at the end of the fifth day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a question of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Mr. Fernand Seguin has just resigned from the important position he held at the Science Council of Canada because of the content of the advice next to be presented to the government by the council concerning the attitude it should take toward the Third World and the imminent world food crisis, and that this disagreement underlines the possibility for Canada to adopt a policy of food imperialism toward the starving countries, as was pointed out by Mr. Omond Solandt, former president of the Council, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House of Commons review the entire Canadian aid policy towards the Third World in light of the advice of the Science Council of Canada, in order for such aid policy to be realistic, taking in account our surpluses and our production capacities, instead of becoming a disguised form of pressure on nations of the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing

June 28, 1976
Alcoholic Products Labelling
Order 43, such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, to seek the unanimous consent of this House to move a motion. Given today's announcement of an agreement resolving the work disruption in Canada's commercial aviation sector, and given the attendant prospect of a full and complete investigation into the relationship between safety and bilingual air traffic control, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme):
-That this House do express its appreciation to the Minister of Transport for his efforts in securing a resolution of the current air traffic situation in Canada by involving the major parties in the aviation industry and commend his commitment that the maintenance of Canada's high aviation safety standards will be the key consideration of the study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Worthy though that objective may be, it is not the proper subject for a motion under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Nowlan:: Make sure you mail a copy of the motion to Pierre.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDIES ON WHICH WARNING
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the stated intention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to compel distilleries to label alcoholic products as dangerous to health, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the minister table all studies and other information which show the basis for this move by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the procedure which we will follow in the question period. The matter pertains directly to the difficulty of asking questions in the House following news reports that there has been a settlement of the air dispute. My point of order concerns the procedure which is to be followed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to this important issue.
The understanding I have from his office is that he does not intend to make a statement in the House today but, rather, intends simply to table the order in council establishing the terms of reference which have been agreed upon by all parties, I take it, and which are to be followed by the commission.
My point of order is this: if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I and other members of the House are to ask questions on this important dispute, if our questions are to make sense, we have a right to know the terms agreed on by the minister. But if the minister intends to follow the procedure his office has indicated, he will not be making a statement; he will simply table the document later in today's proceedings. In that case, the opposition parties will not be able to ask questions on this important issue.
I doubt if Your Honour will consider that I have raised a prima facie point of order. Really, I am trying to appeal through Your Honour to the Minister of Transport to please not foul up this procedure, to change his mind and tell the House that he intends after the question period to make a statement on this important question, so that members of the opposition will be able to ask sensible questions following that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, following the point of order raised by the leader of the NDP, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? The first part of my question is simple: is the minister going to make a statement on motions, so that we will all understand clearly the exact conditions of the settlement? Second, can he assure the House and country that all parties, direct and indirect, have accepted the settlement?
June 28, 1976


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure how broad the hon. member meant to make his question by referring to everyone "direct and indirect;" therefore I will not even try to grapple with that part of his question. I had not intended to make a statement on motions because I had nothing in the way of principle or policy to add to what was said in the course of the debate on motions last week where the principles were very clearly set out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I am in the situation where the rules allow for the tabling of documents at three o'clock and I propose to do that, at which time the documents will become available to all members of this House. That is probably an important consideration as well. I did have the agreement of the parties which had worked on these various documents that we would not make them public at the time of indicating to the public that we had reached an agreement; that we would speak broadly about them but not make them public so that they could indeed be tabled in the House in order that all members might see them. A day of reflection on what is in the documents may be of benefit to members opposite. I will be glad to be here tomorrow to answer questions on them. As I say, if I felt that there was any important change in any policy or principle involved in the documents, I would have made a statement. However, as hon. members will see, the basic principles to which we really all agreed last week stand very firm, so this is simply a matter of settling a dispute at this time and having the airlines fly again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister concluded his remarks by saying that it was simply a matter of getting the airlines flying again. We on this side of the House want the airlines to fly again. However, we feel that in some ways the minister's inflammatory statements and the Prime Minister's inflammatory statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should put his supplementary question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -have in fact in some ways delayed a fruitful settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question to the minister is quite simple. Can he assure the House that all factions in this dispute have in fact agreed to the settlement? In other words, will he proceed with his legal cases? If someone is sentenced to jail, are we to expect another walkout? These are matters still in the minds of the public and I wish the minister would clear them up.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to say to the hon. member that those suggestions almost smack of something
Oral Questions
inflammatory. However, I would only say that matters before the courts are still before the courts. It was very clear in these discussions that we could not bargain or discuss those matters in any way, but let them pursue their ordinary course. We believe that in this regard the law must be obeyed and pursued. I have some confidence that the air controllers and pilots in this country will be back at work in a full way as a result of this agreement. If the hon. member wants me to assure him that will be true of every pilot and controller in this country, I cannot do so. We have done our very best to give the various assurances that should quiet the fears of almost everyone. I know there are some other people who would like to create additional fear, but I do not think that should be done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to the minister's last remark, we on this side of the House are particularly pleased that he accepted a recommendation made in this House last week that a third party satisfactory to the other side of the dispute be appointed. We graciously gave the minister that advice and we are thankful that he has accepted it. However, his evasion and non-statement today do not help to assure the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AIR TRAFFIC
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering about some of the legal procedures. For example, a number of public servants have been suspended or had penalties assessed against them. Will the minister make a statement as to whether these will be proceeded with in the normal course of events or whether they will be waived?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows of some suspensions or actions of this kind, I would be glad to know about them. I do not have any in mind at this point.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House and the country when he expects domestic service to be restored to normal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, just as soon as that can be done mechanically. Upon arriving at a firm understanding, I am told by the pilots, their various members told the various airline managements at that point that a firm arrangement was in prospect and that shaping of the operation could begin. They felt that some planes might be flying by this very hour and just as fast as normal operations can be resumed, they will be resumed. There are always, of course, technical difficulties in connection with making sure that aircraft are in the right places and that crews are in the right places after a period of disruption such as we have just come through. However, it will only be a matter of a number of hours before fairly normal service is resumed.

June 28, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: I assure the minister that I do have special cases to tell him about but I do not intend to mention names in the House. My further question refers to foreign airlines services. Has the hon. gentleman or his officials had any conversation with foreign airlines to ascertain when their services will return to normal?


Otto Emil Lang: It was quite clear why certain foreign services were being suspended from Canadian operations and this happened only in certain cases. There were at all times a significant number of foreign services flying into Canada. I take it the reasons for the suspension of services by some airlines have now disappeared and I anticipate seeing an early resumption of those services, too.


FORM OF RECOMMENDATION TO PARLIAMENT FOLLOWING REPORT OF COMMISSION ON SAFETY OF BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: My question is also to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Having had to change his mind on a number of crucial items in the past 48 hours, it is delightful to see the minister has regained his traditional modesty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister say whether in the order in council which we are to see later today it is clear as to the form of parliamentary agreement which will be necessary to implement recommendations from the Commission? More specifically, will the minister tell us what form the recommendation to parliament will take following the Commission's recommendations? Will it be a detailed recommendation submitted to parliament to be voted on, or will the vote be more on a question of principle as it applies to air traffic control?


Otto Emil Lang: I am happy to note that the hon. member is finding it a little difficult to keep on talking about rigidity in the face of flexibility, but that will not take him too long to get over. I will not try to predict the exact form of the resolution because that will no doubt be decided at the time we receive the report of the commission. But the gist of what we are proposing is that at that time the Commission, in order for the report to be before us at all, has indicated that certain additional air traffic services in a bilingual way are fully consistent with safety in the Province of Quebec. This report will be put before the House in a way which will allow the House likewise to endorse the view that safety is indeed consistently satisfied by the changes in procedure and implementation which would follow from them.
I say most emphatically to the hon. member that this is not in any way a proposal that the House in any way question the bilingual policy or indeed the broad proposition that to the extent safety is not degraded or in any way jeopardized we shall propose to move forward with bilingual aircraft services in the Province of Quebec. That is a principle for which I believe this House stands firmly now and needs no further resolution. It will be only a question of the actual report and the adoption of certain implemen-

tation measures as being consistent with safety. This is a further triple, quadruple assurance we are seeking to give to any who doubted that, indeed, safety did come first and that no steps will be taken to jeopardize safety. I will be glad to put that proposition before the House and before going forward, therefore, the majority of members of the House will also have to say that safety was not being jeopardized.


REINSTATEMENT OF COST IN TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the House on Friday, and certainly outside the House, the minister indicated that the government would be prepared to reinstate cost as one of the three principal elements of the investigation of the commission, in addition to the crucial element of safety and the element of efficiency. Would the minister tell the House whether cost has now been reinstated as one of the three principal areas of investigation for the commission?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in the House when we were last discussing this matter, while there had been no great interest in or question about this matter on the part of the controllers, I was prepared to reintroduce it into our discussions to see whether it would sit well with the controllers. I did do so and they were agreeable to it, and as a result the implementation cost is an item specifically mentioned in the document, as it had been in the draft we had worked on earlier.


POSSIBILITY OF FREE VOTE ON REPORT OF COMMISSION ON BILINGUAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the important area of what has been described in the news media as the government's decision to have a free vote on this issue. May I ask the minister whether, once the commission makes its recommendation, it is the government's intention simply to bring a motion before the House that will not have the specific endorsation of the government but will be left to government backbenchers as a free vote on the issue-that is to say, it is not a matter of government policy-or is it the government's intention to bring forward a specific recommendation which it is prepared to support as a party in the House of Commons?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, so far as this part of the policy is concerned I can only think in terms of the government side, there having to be some decisions on the other side in order to have it work in full. The position as described by whatever words were used is that we really wanted a general attitude that would reflect sufficient consensus, and I was saying that even among opposition members there would be found to be some reasonable people who were willing to support the position of safety being met. That is the approach we are taking in this matter, though in the end, of course, it will be the majority in this parliament who will decide the issue as to whether the report shall be approved.
June 28, 1976


REQUEST THAT REAL CAUSES OF AIR CONTROLLERS' DISPUTE BE IDENTIFIED
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
The Minister having gone to France where he found out that it was possible to fly in French and English, and given the statements made Friday night by the Prime Minister concerning that matter, can he tell the House whether that question of bilingualism, which seems to be exaggerated by the parties involved in the conflict, is as serious as it seems to be? Does it have to do only with bilingualism or is there anything deeper than that?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some very complex issues that can combine together, and I think in this case they did. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by my trying to analyse the exact nature of the issues at this stage; I do not think the rules of the House would give me the time that may be required to do that.


SUGGESTION COMMISSION STUDY ASPECTS OF BILINGUALISM OTHER THAN THOSE RELATED TO CONTROLLERS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
In view of his answer, can the minister tell us, with respect to the commissioners who will be responsible for the inquiry on that matter which so far seems to be limited to bilingualism whether the commission will deal with other problems which are related to the question of bilingualism and of which practically everybody is aware?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference will speak for themselves.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, will the Solicitor General advise whether there was any meaningful consultation with prison guards or other correctional officers in reference to Bill C-84 prior to it being introduced in the House, and prior to the vote being held on second reading, other than ad hoc discussions with various officers at various institutions from time to time? In other words, was there collective consultation and did the minister discuss with officers of the union whether they would continue to work?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, before we introduced the peace and security program we
Oral Questions
met with officials of the correctional officers' union and told them the different items we had in mind, including the abolition of capital punishment. I must say there was considerable disagreement with us on that point and there was not much room for discussion. The same opinion was conveyed to me on other occasions that I met with the executive of the union, and of locals of the union at different prisons throughout Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary question because this is a very serious matter. Did the minister determine from any of these ad hoc discussions that the personnel in federal institutions, whose grave and grim responsibility and duty it is to see that society is protected against escapes and, indeed, to protect inmates against homicide by violent, incarcerated criminals, particularly in light of the fact that 15 inmates have been killed from 1971 to 1976, will continue their jobs, or how many will quit or resign if the bill becomes law immediately?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall on the occasions that I did meet with the union that they ever threatened to withdraw their services or quit if the bill were passed. I must point out also that I have met with other people who work in the prisons, such as classification officers, parole officers and so on, who also work in close contact with dangerous inmates and they do not hold the same opinion as correctional officers. I might say that in other countries where they have abolished capital punishment, and in many states of the United States, the correctional officers have carried on quite successfully after abolition of capital punishment.


CONTINGENCY PLANS IF PRISON GUARDS RESIGN
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that those in the administrative branch would take a different position. May I put this question to the Solicitor General. What contingency measures has he set up, in light of his statement today in committee that if guards and correctional officers wish to resign because of the law they will have to do so? Therefore, the penitentiary would be left with a dangerous situation in relation to the protection of society and other inmates who are serving terms for various offences, and whose disposition and character, irrespective of the offence for which they were convicted, make them ideal prisoners, and as such they are entitled to the same protection as if they were free persons jn society and not incarcerated?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. member this morning at the committee meeting, or the commissioner of penitentiaries told him, that following the vote so far only three persons have resigned and those were in the Quebec region. We have no indication that there will be mass resignations or a strike. If there were to be a strike we do have a contingency plan similar to the one we had last year when there was a one day walk-out in Quebec. We had people to man the prisons on that occasion.

June 28, 1976
Oral Questions HEALTH


REASON FOR REFUSAL TO REVEAL CONTENTS OF DRUGS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not supplementary but has regard to a matter which is more mundane. It is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, through his official position, at least qualifies as an expert. I have received a letter from a correspondent who says that following recent reports in the press about the effects of estrogen used in a contraceptive pill she made certain inquiries of the Department of National Welfare, to which an answer came back in a stereotype form letter stating:
With the new government regulations, we cannot distribute material which shows the contents of drugs.
Please contact your doctor for further information on the pill.
I would ask the minister if there are such instructions on what they are based, and the reason behind refusing people of this country information of this sort.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to investigate the particular incident to which the hon. member is referring. But I believe there is, indeed, a standard regulation to the effect that the composition of drugs coming under the patent laws of Canada cannot be revealed by the government to competitors or to the general public at large. I think this is the situation, but I will investigate it further and report to the hon. member.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, now that the airlines will once again be operating I should like to repeat my question to the Minister of Transport regarding airport security, specifically at the Toronto international airport. In an answer to a question on May 28 the minister said that those who have access to security situations are processed for security clearance. Would the minister advise this House whether Air Canada computers and immigration offices in Canada are classified as security areas and, if they are, would he explain why members of the cleaning staff at the Toronto airport who, as he knows, have not been processed for security clearance, continue to have access to those areas, thereby creating a potential break in the security system at that airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously if the hon. member wants information about specific employees or groups of employees I would want to check before answering him.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is a known fact that security for the Olympics, including passenger areas, at our major international airports is indeed excellent. However, because potential dangers continue to exist as far as security is concerned, in respect of employees working at these airports, be it because of illegal immigrants or the

lack of appropriate security clearance of employees, would the minister undertake to initiate an investigation into this specific matter prior to the start of the Olympic games to assure Canadians the absolute safety they deserve during this potentially explosive period of time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member knows that very special steps have been taken to assure security, and I think he may be satisfied that that is the case.


INQUIRY AS TO CONTINGENCY PLAN IN CASE OF NUCLEAR ACCIDENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and relates to recent reports that the United States government is developing a disaster plan to cope with the casualties, property damage and loss of civil control which might be caused by a serious accident at a nuclear plant or by the explosion of a nuclear device by a terrorist group. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether similar contingency planning is being done by the Canadian government and, if so, which government departments are involved and what minister is responsible for the co-ordination of this planning?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: 
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence in a position to indicate that by the end of this week, or if parliament should be sitting at the end of next week, he will announce changes in the defence infrastructure in Canada having regard to the closing of certain bases and the possible reduction of the reserve strength of certain units?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate making any announcement concerning changes in the infrastructure before the House rises.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there is considerable interest and a great deal of unrest in certain communities, is the minister able to give us the target date at which he is aiming in this regard, bearing in mind the fact that he told several members of this House, including myself, that the decision could be expected first of all in April, then in May, and now we are at the end of June, so presumably he is taking us into the middle of July? Is there any particular date by which he
June 28, 1976

thinks he can make this announcement, or is this to be another one of those things that is to be ducked?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker, the matter is under study but I do not want to set a date for an announcement at this time.
[DOT] * *


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is basically supplementary to those questions asked earlier by the hon. member for Crowfoot. My question is in connection with the timing of the commission which is on everybody's mind today. Can the minister indicate when the three man commission will start its work or deliberations, and will he inform the House whether the government has set a deadline on when the commission is to report back, or is the work of this commission to in fact be open-ended?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commission will begin its work in terms of assembling its advisers and staff as soon as it can get together. The procedure to be followed is that the expert staff of the commission will be expected to work alongside the other experts from the department and the various associations through the development of the procedures in the simulation exercise which at all times was a contemplated requirement to develop a satisfaction about safety. The work will go forward to a point where my own safety advisors are satisfied with the procedures which have been developed and at that point in time they will say so and, according to the terms of reference, the commission must report within 90 days of that exact moment. That report will then be laid before Parliament.


STATUS OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IN QUEBEC DURING COMMISSION INVESTIGATION
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he could inform the House if there will be any change, I suppose of status for lack of a better word, of air traffic control in the province of Quebec while the commission is investigating this matter or will we have a situation in which nothing will move ahead so far as the two major airports are concerned until after a recommendation has been made by the three-man commission.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the most recent attitude, a good deal has been accomplished over time in respect of a general agreement. That may still be possible. In addition there is a provision in the terms of reference for interim reports by the commission so that if a specific item we found where traffic in a bilingual way should be advanced or put in place because it is clearly and fully consistent with safety, then there is the possibility of that happening on the basis of an interim report before the elaborate work of the commission has been completed.
Oral Questions MANPOWER


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO LABOUR COSTS OF REBUILDING HOUSES AT MAIN A DIEU
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower. In view of the fact that Nova Scotia's provincial government has announced that it will make available $125,000 for materials to rebuild the houses lost by fire in Main a Dieu, can the minister give a general figure on what his department will offer toward the labour costs of rebuilding the houses.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House the other day we are making special local initiative program funds available to Main a Dieu in view of the disaster which hit that community. Program officials have visited that community. There have been meetings on the problems. I cannot say specifically the amount of money that will be decided on. We want to stay flexible. I expect to see the projects and be able to judge them in a matter of a very few days. There will be substantial funding for that. The exact amount will have to wait until we assess all the projects.


FISHERIES
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, although the main thing is housing, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. I hope the minister will not feel I am bugging him too much on this matter. I wonder if he has made up his mind regarding our request for an extension of the breakwater in Main a Dieu, as a means of giving the small fishing community a needed lift at a very trying time?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I well understand the words the hon. member used in the interest of his constituents. I certainly recognize his efforts. The decision as to the possibility of reorganizing our schedule of work still has to be taken because most of the money which was committed for this present fiscal year involves contracts for which tenders have already been called. But we are trying to gather enough funds to advance this project. If I succeed I will let the hon. member know.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the statement made this morning by the president of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association
14882

June 28, 1976
Oral Questions
before the Minister of Transport that CATCA will not commit itself to accepting the recommendations of the commission of inquiry even if they are unanimous, if they support the use of French as a factor of air safety, will the Minister of Transport advise the House of the measure he intends to take to make sure that we shall not find ourselves at the end of the commission's meetings in the same situation that has prevailed over the last two weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the greatest respect may I say that question has a largely hypothetical element in it.


REASON FOR LABELLING ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS AS DANGEROUS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF RESEARCH STUDIES
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the skepticism with which spokesmen for several distilleries have greeted his department's plans to force beer, wine and liquor companies to label their products as dangerous, and in view of the conspicuous lack of success which a similar warning printed on cigarette packaging material has had in regard to smoking, I wonder if the minister could explain why he thinks such labelling will be useful in the case of alcoholic beverages?


Marc Lalonde: I shall refer the hon. member to the statistics which were made public concerning tobacco consumption in Canada over the last few years. He will realize that his statement is, as usual, unfounded.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the intention of the minister to expend public funds on this program in an effort to reduce the excessive consumption of alcohol, could the minister say whether the sociological, economic, political and philosophical implications of this program have been thoroughly researched and if so would he table the reports in the House?


Marc Lalonde: In answer to the hon. member's questions, I shall say that even spiritual studies have been made on this subject.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to weekend jail sentences and prisoners not showing up. Superintendent J. M. Gillingham of the Head-

ingley Correctional Institute, Manitoba stated that the four-year old federal program is a nightmare. Harold Gyles, Chief Judge of the Manitoba Provincial Judges Court has called on magistrates to stop handing out weekend prison sentences because they are impossible to administer. Has the Minister of Justice any plan to renew the weekend sentences program or is he preparing any legislation to rescind weekend sentences?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are press reports along the lines of the hon. member's question. I can say we have not received any complaints from officials about the operation of serving sentences on weekends. I have recently completed a meeting with the ten provincial attorneys-general at which sentencing was discussed as a specific topic on the agenda. This matter was not discussed or complained about at that meeting. Of course, if there have been complaints made from Winnipeg I will examine those complaints, but I think there generally have not been complaints. Such a technique where appropriate is a desirable one.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Minister that the Winnipeg Free Press has conducted a study across Canada in consultation with the provinces. They all have the same complaint. The deputy director of the B.C. Correctional Institute stated he had been complaining for four years. Perhaps the minister would investigate this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There has been some criticism of the government's federal shipbuilding subsidy program by the president of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association. Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicate what active consideration is being given to the proposals of the association in order to achieve a more flexible subsidy program, while at the same time providing much needed employment opportunities for some of Canada's unemployed.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I met last week with some of the authors of the particular submission to which the hon. member referred and indicated to them, and indeed as recently as this morning, that I was prepared to sit down with them again to try to figure out the kind of flexible program to which the hon. member has referred. In the meantime, I think it is fair to say that some accommodation has been reached with the shipbuilding industry, not entirely satisfactory, but nevertheless an improvement over the previous situation with regard to the disposition of the funds as provided in the current year's estimates, that is construction programs which are presently underway. The short answer is that we are in constant touch
June 28, 1976

with the association and its members and I feel the atmosphere is good. Certainly, my own commitment is to give them all the assistance we possibly can under the present circumstances.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue of which I have given notice. In view of the fact that Campeau Corporation has either paid or reserved a $13.8 million exchange transaction loss on a 1972 $27 million loan from a Swiss lender, has the minister satisfied himself that this loan arrangement causing a potential loss of tax revenue to the Receiver General was and is an arm's length deal?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the interests of confidentiality we do not discuss individual taxpayer's situations or investigations which may or may not be taking place. I can only say to the hon. member that when we see transactions which are not at arms length, we consider them very carefully, but I do not think the hon. member would want me to comment on an individual taxpayer's return.


AIR TRANSPORT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, and it is supplementary to the questions asked by the Leader of the NDP. To expedite proceedings my question is in three parts. First, did I correctly understand the minister's explanation in answer to questions to be that there will be a motion for approval of the commission report regardless of the conclusions of the report? Second, since everyone has said that this issue is a technical one involving safety, and since a commission has been chosen to hear and assess technical evidence in a very complex field, does the minister think parliamentary approval by a so-called free vote is going to help or hurt the resolution of this technical question? Third, is this unusual and potentially divisive procedure to be a precedent in all future labour-management problems involving federal public servants, or is it to be restricted just to labour problems in the federal field where bilingualism is an issue?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no, the second question is clearly argumentative, and the answer to the third question is also no.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


INQUIRY IF CANADIANS ON AIR FRANCE AIRCRAFT HIJACKED IN AFRICA
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell us if there were any Canadians implicated or involved in any way with the Air France aircraft which was hijacked in Africa this week.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I understood, the hon. member is worrying about Canadians who were on the plane hijacked to Uganda. To the best of our knowledge, unfortunately there are five Canadians involved, probably six. I think it would not be appropriate to give the names in the House, but I could do so in private to the hon. member. I wish to assure the House that the department immediately sent a telex to our High Commissioner in Nairobi, urging him to send an official to Kampala to discuss with the government of Uganda and to do his utmost to save the lives of those Canadians who, for the moment, appear to be safe.


EFFORTS TO STOP NATIVES EATING FISH FROM WABIGOON AND ENGLISH RIVERS-SUPPLYING OTHER SOURCES OF PROTEIN
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the most unfortunate news that Minamata Disease has been confirmed in Canada, would the minister tell us what efforts he is making to stop the eating of all fish from the Wabigoon and English river systems which are affecting the Indians at the White Dog and Grassy Narrows areas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that one case of Minamata disease has been identified in Canada. The individual concerned was sent to Winnipeg to pass more elaborate tests so as to proceed with a necessary extensive follow-up.
With regards to Indians eating this fish, there is an extensive education, follow-up and control program for them which has been in force for almost two years now. There is also the problem of sport fishing which is done in this area. My colleagues are to meet the Ontario ministers responsible for those matters in early July. I hope that the government of Ontario will agree to close completely this river to sport fishing.


Arnold John Malone: In view of the dangers of Minamata disease, and in view of what we have witnessed in Japan, would the minister guarantee that he will stop the eating of all fish from that system and supply supplementary diets to
14884

June 28, 1976
Oral Questions
the people who require fish or other products for a protein diet in that area to guarantee that they will not be eating diseased fish?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I cannot personally stop people from eating the fish caught locally, but the Ontario government should absolutely forbid even sport fishing in that area. As far as we are concerned, we did advise people not to eat that fish. We have taken steps, with the collaboration of the Ontario government, to have fish from other areas available. Further, commercial fishing in these rivers should be forbidden. There remains, however, sport fishing, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government. Once again, I hope that in the future months, the Ontario government will take the necessary steps.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board regarding the biologists in the public service. In view of the fact that the biologists concluded their agreement on June 30, 1975, and the minister in a letter to me dated May 18 said that he would undertake to make sure their pay adjustments were made to them up to the Anti-Inflation Board levels, can the minister advise why these people after one year have still not received the pay increase to which they agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has indicated, we have decided to pay them as much as the Anti-Inflation Board will allow. However, if the cheques have not been issued, I shall inquire immediately and report to the hon. member, because, if I remember correctly, the decision has been taken along these lines.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On March 31 last when I asked the minister about the lack of uniform application at different airports of safety regulations with regard to air passengers' carry-on baggage, the minister indicated that it was not a serious question and declined to answer it. In view of the current surge of interest in the topic of air traffic safety, I would now like to ask the minister whether steps have been taken during the past three months to assure uniformity of application of safety regulations at Canadian airports.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what was not serious was the way the hon. member asked the question on the previous occasion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is not for you to judge.


Otto Emil Lang: The department, of course, is endeavouring to see that regulations are enforced in a uniform way.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Can we now assume that ground security for air passengers will be applied, when there is an opportunity, in a uniform manner throughout Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member may recognize that a certain human element may still be involved.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, and I gave him some notice of it this morning. My question deals with the case of Regina versus Palmer, in which a Crown witness received some $25,000 for testifying. Could the minister now advise the House by what authority those funds were paid out and by whose authorization those funds are paid out to Crown witnesses in cases of this kind? I accept the fact that there is difficulty getting convictions in these drug cases.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to get a precise answer to the question, but from time to time the RCMP and other police forces do pay informers for testifying in cases or providing evidence. In this particular case there is a dispute between a witness and the RCMP with regard to the amount paid, and that is going to court, so I do not want to comment on it any more. However, I will attempt to get more information.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: While the minister is trying to find more information, would he determine whether the amount is $25,000 or $60,000, as alleged by the witness, and would he also advise the House as to the source of these funds in terms of whether those funds are directly from the public purse or another source the RCMP is using for paying witnesses in these kinds of cases?


William Warren Allmand: I know that in general these funds come from the public purse, and I approve a general amount each year for purposes such as this, investigation purposes, and so on. However, I will try to find out if there are other sources of funds.
June 28, 1976


STATISTICS CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Air Transport EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Following the question I asked him on Monday June 21, 1976 concerning some forty permanent employees declared in excess at Statistics Canada, who will lose their jobs if they are not given other functions by September 30, 1976 and about whom I sent the minister some documents before the beginning of this sitting of the House, can the minister tell the House whether he has been in touch with the management of Statistics Canada and if so, what were the results; if not, when will he check on this matter?


REASON FOR TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ON MEMBER'S PASSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. I received my passport this morning because I am going to travel in the fall. I notice it is stamped "invalid for travel to North Korea, Namibia, Rhodesia and Taiwan". May I ask the Acting Prime Minister on whose authority my passport was stamped to the effect that I could not travel to those four countries?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked that question a few days ago and indicated he would shortly be making further information available on the matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the hon. member asked me the question I did communicate and I have a response with me at the present time. As a result of certain documentation which the hon. member was good enough to send me today, however, I am not entirely sure that the two letters are consistent. If he will bear with me, I will have his correspondence of today checked out with the appropriate officials and give him a response probably in writing tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture is absent, I shall ask my question of the President of the Treasury Board.
Considering that next month milk producers, particularly in Quebec, will perhaps have to pay fines of more than $15 million and considering also that the minister is aware of their demands and difficulties and that the new milk policy will result not only in difficulties but also in bankruptcies, is the minister in a position to urge cabinet to delay the implementation of the new milk policy? I have already expressed the view that it was advisable and that last week the Quebec Order of Agronomists recommended that this be done to enable both parties to find a more equitable solution.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Department of Agriculture is in contact with the APU, which is expected in Ottawa, I think, but we are not yet in a position to make an announcement on this.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the arrival of athletes in the city of Montreal who are to take part in Canada's Olympic games, and since it is now appparent that the facilities to house them are hopelessly inadequate, may I ask if the minister has consulted with his colleagues in the province of Quebec who are responsible for the Olympic Games with a view to examining some options that may be open by which the federal government could assist in bringing some additional facilities into service?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to entertain any representation from the hon. member indicating in a specific manner that the accommodation of the athletes in Montreal will be, as he indicated, totally inadequate. I shall be pleased to look into any representation from the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table two copies, in both official languages, of the amended terms of reference for a commission of inquiry and also a memorandum of understanding concerning the recent air traffic dispute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wide interest in the

June 28, 1976
Order Paper Questions
documents the minister has just tabled, could there be agreement to have them appended to today's Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This would require unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For documents referred to above, see appendix.]



MEDICAL CARE ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that at the conclusion of the debate on C-68 there was agreement that the vote would be held at a time to be announced after consultations amongst the House leaders. It is my understanding that it would be agreeable to have this vote tomorrow evening at 9.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is that understood and agreed?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['for leave to introduce Bill C-96, to amend the Excise Tax Act (No. 2).']
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,139, 5,165, 5,374, 5,489, 5,524, 5,536, 5,541, 5,654, 5,729 and 5,754.



Mr. Beatty: 1.	Did the Minister of Transport visit Calgary on Grey Cup Day, November 23, 1975 and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) what are the (i) times (ii) locations (iii) persons involved in any meetings?
2.	What are the (a) names (b) responsibilities of passengers aboard the Minister's aircraft and, in each case, were they on official government business?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. (a) and (b) Inter-alia representing the Hon. Marc Lalonde at events connected with the Grey Cup.

2.	Yes. (a) and (b) Mr. Ralph Goodale, Parliamentary Secretary, Mrs. Adrian Lang, Special Assistant, Miss Marian Hooge, Special Assistant, Mr. Dale Verbeke, Special Assistant, Miss Judy Cedar, Special Assistant.


FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURES IN GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Dominion Fire Commissioner address a letter dated February 6, 1976 to Mr. David Morley, a Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Board on the subject of concern on the part of Mr. C. A. Edwards, President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, of fire alarm systems and procedures in government buildings?
2.	Did the letter state in part "as a result of the fire protection equipment installed, testing procedures and training of personnel in government owned or leased buildings, we feel that the protection provided far exceeds that provided in the private sector for similar occupancy"?
3.	What is a detailed description of the (a) testing procedures (b) training programme for personnel in government owned or leased buildings followed by the Dominion Fire Commissioner?
4.	Is a complete descriptive list of all fire protection equipment installed in public buildings maintained by the Dominion Fire Commissioner and (a) if not (i) for what reason (ii) can the Dominion Fire Commissioner properly function without such information (b) if so (i) since what date has such a list existed (ii) can such a list be readily and immediately produced and made available for public scrutiny?
5.	Do government owned or leased buildings receive inspections (a) for fire prevention (b) of fire alarm systems by the Dominion Fire Commissioner and, if so, how often?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Testing procedures for installed fire protection equipment are listed in the Fire Protection Engineering Standards of the Dominion Fire Commissioner. Copies of these standards are available from the Department of Public Works, (b) The training program for personnel in government owned or leased buildings is outlined in the Dominion Fire Commission Fire Protection Standard No. 14 and Dominion Fire Commissioner Guidelines for Phased Evacuation Training. Copies of both publications are available from the Department of Public Works.
4.	No. It is not considered essential for the Dominion Fire
Commissioner to maintain a list of installed equipment,
(a)	(i) The Department of Public Works, Property
Administration Branch maintains such a list for maintenance purposes in all federal buildings; (ii) Yes. Testing of all equipment is carried out during the inspection of buildings; (b) (i) Not applicable; (ii) Such a list may be obtained from the Property Administration Branch of the Department of Public Works.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes, during scheduled inspection at five year intervals.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Reynolds: Did a drug shipment mailed to the Vancouver General Hospital disappear on or around March 11, 1976, while being processed through the Vancouver Post Office?
June 28, 1976


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Post Office officials are not aware of such an incident.


PRESIDENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL-STAFF
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names, job designations and annual salaries of all persons employed in the office of the President of the Privy Council as of July 8, 1974?
2.	Since July 8, 1974, what are the names, job designations and annual salaries of all persons who have joined the staff of the President of the Privy Council?
Order Paper Questions
3.	What are the names, job designations and annual salaries of all persons employed in the office of the President of the Privy Council as of the date this question was answered?
4.	What is the date this question was answered?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1, 2 and 3. See following statements.
4.	The government takes responsibility for the answers it provides to questions and for the process involved in replying to such questions. It is not appropriate therefore to provide information about internal administrative arrangements. The President of the Privy Council assumed his portfolio on August 8, 1974.
			Appointed	Resigned
Champagne, G.	CR-4	$ 9,280-$10,146	Church, J. S. C.	Executive Assistant	Up to $25,000	December 31/74Dugal, J.	Special Assistant	Up to $21,000	May 1/76Lee, F.	ST-SEC-04	$ 9,797-$10,715	Monette, J.	ST-SEC-02 Bil.	$ 7,743-$ 8,462	February 25/75Morin, L. G.	ST-SEC-04 Bil.	$ 9,797-$10,715	Winkler, I.	ST-SEC-05	$11,043-$12,086	Legislative Unit	Cloutier, A.	ST-SEC-04 Bil.	$ 9,797-$10,715	April 1/75Deadman, I.	ST-SEC-03	$ 9,239-$10,102	May 28/75Labelle, J. D.	Research Assistant	$10,500-$14,500	November 28/75Lay, R.	Research Assistant	$10,500-$14,500	Millson, L.	ST-SEC-03	$ 9,239-$10,102	Morris, D.	CR-3	$ 8,360-$ 9,136	November 1/75Van Dusen, T.	Legislative Assistant	Up to $25,000	Yanover, J.	Legislative Assistant	Up to $21,000	(b) Public Service Appointments	LeBoeuf, L.	ST-SEC-02 Bil.	$ 7,743-$ 8,462	McNamara, T.	CR-3	$ 7,777-$ 8,499	McDonald, L.	CR-4	$ 8,633-$ 9,438	2. As of August 8,1974. (a) Appointed under Subsection 37(1) of the Public Service Employment Act.	Bryan, W. L.	Special Assistant	Up to $21,000	December 9/74	Menard, S.	ST-STN-l Bil.	$ 5,665-$ 7,877	February 26/75	Paget, D. D. A.	Executive Assistant	Up to $25,000	January 1/75	Wiebe, J.	GS-MES-2	$3.79 per hour	October 8/75	Legislative Unit	Carter, W.	Legislative Assistant	Up to $21,000	December 2/74	David, M.	ST-SEC-03 Bil.	$ 9,239-$10,102	August 5/75	Haldorsen, D.	ST-SEC-03	$ 9,239-$10,102	May 28/75	By Contract	Robert Anderson Associates Ltd.	Special Advisers-see replies to part 1 of Question 5,437	Douglas Wilkinson	and to Question 5,454, answered May 31, 1976.	Owen, V.	Technical Assistant, Broadcasting of Parliament	May 3/76	(b) Public Service Appointments	Bates, K.	CR-2	$ 6,936-$ 7,568	February 10/75	February 2/76Bialy, S.	CR-3 Term	$ 8,360-$ 9,136	March 25/75	Lajoie, L.	A/CR-5	$10,532-$11,519	March 17/75	3. Presently on Duty (a) Appointed	under Subsection 37(1) of the Public Service Employment	Act.	Bryan, W. L.	Special Assistant	Up to $21,000	Champagne, G.	CR-4	$10,394-$11,364	Lee, F.	ST-SEC-04	$10,532-$11,519	Menard, S.	ST-STN-l Bil.	$ 5,665-$ 7,877	Millson, L.	ST-SEC-03 Bil.	$ 9,239-$10,102	Morin, L. G.	ST-SEC-04 Bil.	$10,532-$11,519	Paget, D. D. A.	Executive Assistant	Up to $25,000	Wiebe, J.	GS-MES-2	$3.79 per hour	Winkler, I.	ST-SEC-05	$11,871-$12,992	
June 28, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Legislative Unit
Carter, W.
David, M. Haldorsen, D.
Lay, R.
Van Dusen, T. Yanover, J. D.
Legislative Assistant ST-SEC-03 Bil. ST-SEC-03 Research Assistant Legislative Assistant Legislative Assistant
Up to $21,000 $ 9,239-$10,102 $ 9,239-$10,102 $11,500-$15,500 Up to $25,000 Up to $25,000
By Contract
Robert Anderson Associates Ltd. Douglas Wilkinson Owen, V.
Special Advisers-see replies to part 1 of Question 5,437 and to Question 5,454, answered May 31/76. Technical Assistant, Broadcasting of Parliament
(b) Public Service Appointments
Bialy, S.
Lajoie, L.
LeBoeuf, L.
McDonald, L.
McNamara, T.
CR-3 Term CR-4
ST-SEC-02 Bil. CR-5 CR-3


$ 9,363-$10,232 $10,394-$11,364 $ 8,324-$ 9,097 $11,796-$12,901 $ 9,363-$10,232 CANADA WORLD YOUTH PROGRAMME
Mr. Brisco: 1.	Who were the original organizers of the Canada World Youth Programme?
2.	What is Canada World Youth's past and present arrangement with the government?
3.	During the years in which Canada World Youth has been in operation, what (a) have been the sources (b) was the amount of its funding in each year?
4.	Are there any provisions (a) to ensure that indebtedness incurred by the organization will be provided for (b) to guard against the participants being stranded in foreign countries or being subjected to undue personal financial loss and, if so, what are the details of such provisions?


Monique Bégin: According to the Canadian International Development Agency, the answer is as follows: 1. (a) Prof. Pierre Dansereau, then Dean of the Faculty of Science, University of Montreal; (b) Prof. Frank Scott, former Dean of the McGill University Law School; (c) Prof. Leon Dion, sociologist, Universite de Laval; (d) Mrs. Gertrude Laing, President of the Canada Council, Calgary; (e) Mr. Jacques Hebert, publisher and President of the Civil Liberties Union; (f) Mr. William Neville, executive consultant, Ottawa; (g) Mr. David Bartlett, Secretary General of the Canadian Commission to UNESCO, Ottawa; (h) Mr. Maurice Champagne, Vicepresident of the Quebec Government Human Rights Commission; (i) Mr. Harold Baker, Director of the Extension Division of the University of Saskatchewan; (j) Dr. Michael Oliver, President of Carleton University, Ottawa.
2.	The Canadian Government has for the past four years entered into an agreement with CWY for the financial support of the program of Youth Exchanges between Canadians and youth from selected developing countries.
3.	(a) and (b): 1972-73, Secretary of State, $1,400,000; 1973-74, Secretary of State, $2,000,000; 1974-75, CIDA, $2,500,000; 1975-76, CIDA, $2,950,000. Estimated value of contributions by overseas governments in exchange coun-

tries-$600,000 per year. Estimated value of contributions by other Canadian governments, municipal administrations, agencies and private enterprises-$450,000 per year.
4.	(a) The provision of a grant to CWY for its planned program for a fiscal year does not include the guaranteed provision of funds to cover indebtedness incurred by the organization. CWY is expected to work within the income constraints of its budget as presented to and approved by CIDA; (b) The CWY budget for each fiscal year includes funds required to recruit, prepare, send, support and return all Canadian and overseas young people to their homes and CWY staff are responsible for the administration of these activities. In the past four years, there have been no volunteers stranded in foreign countries and appropriate health and accident insurance is provided in order to avoid undue personal financial loss.


PROCEDURAL CHANGES RELATING TO SALES TAX ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Is the Minister of Finance considering streamlining the complicated and time-consuming method of "proving end use" in respect to small parts and attachments, in particular, under the provisions of the Excise Tax Act as they relate to the application of federal sales tax on agricultural implements, parts and attachments?
2.	Will the Minister consider the advisability of accepting the proposal of the Prairie Implement Manufacturers Association to either implement a system of annual or semi-annual exemption certificates to replace the present requirement for an "end user certificate" upon the sale of each individual part or attachment, or provide that the parts and attachments be unconditionally exempt from federal sales tax, having in mind that they are designed for farm purposes only and that they are being sold for use on tax exempt whole machines?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. A number of officials of my department and the Department of Revenue Canada are currently involved in a review of the commodity tax
June 28, 1976

system, as announced by my predecessor in the budget of June 23, 1975. I would like to assure the honourable member that the use of conditional exemptions based on "end use" to provide sales tax exemption for agricultural implements, parts and attachments will be considered during this review exercise.
2.	The proposals of the Prairie Implement Manufacturers Association concerning the use of annual or semi-annual exemption certificates to replace "end user certificates" will receive careful consideration during the course of the commodity tax review.


CRTC-NON-ESSENTIAL TELEGRAMS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the policy of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission with respect to the sending of non-essential telegrams during a period of austerity?
2.	Did the CRTC send telegrams in 1975 and, if so (a) how many (b)
at what cost to the taxpayer?	[DOT]


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: 1. It is the policy of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to send telegrams and/or telex only in instances where mail service is not able to meet prescribed deadlines as set out in the Broadcasting Act for interventions, etc.
2. (a) 8,600; (b) $31,000.


INCREASE IN OIL PRICES
Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	How much has the government earned through the successive increases of oil prices, in each year, since 1972?
2.	What percentage of funds has been granted to oil companies for research and to which companies?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. This matter is dealt with in the second section of the report entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-Reliance" (especially page 39 in the English version; page 48 in the French version). This report was tabled in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources April 27, 1976.
2. The above report (page 145 of the English version and page 162 of the French) shows the federal energy research and development program expenditures for oil and gas were $10.5 million in 1975-76 and about $12.0 million in the current fiscal year. Some of these monies will be spent via grants to private industry for approved projects, but not necessarily by oil and gas firms.


ST. LAWRENCE ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK-ACQUISITION OF LAND
Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to negotiations presently under way by Parks Canada for the purchase of certain islands in the St. Lawrence River as additions to the St. Lawrence Islands National Park (a) are such purchases governed by the National Parks Act, Section 3(b) which states that such acquisitions can be made when "agreement has been
Order Paper Questions
reached with the Province in which the lands are situated that the lands are suitable for addition to a National Park" (b) in the case of each of the properties presently being acquired, on what dates was provincial approval received, from whom was it received and who received it?
2. If provincial approval has not been received for the acquisition of additional property for St. Lawrence Islands National Park, on what basis can the government legally proceed with acquisitions now in progress?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a) No; (b) Not required.
2.	Section 6(3) of the National Parks Act, R.S. c. N-13 amended by 1974 c. 11.


UIC-CHEQUES NOT PICKED UP DURING POSTAL STRIKE
Mr. Cossitt: What is the total number of unemployment insurance cheques that were cancelled, and claims closed, as a result of the fact that the cheques were not picked up personally during the last postal strike and (a) how is the total broken down by province (b) was any investigation conducted to determine how many of these might or might not have been fraudulent claims and, (i) if so, with what result (ii) if not, for what reason (c) did the Minister or any other senior official of the Unemployment Insurance Commission receive recommendations for an investigation into possible defrauding and, if so (i) on what date and from whom (ii) was no investigation carried out on the grounds of insufficient manpower to perform it?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned-Approximately* 1,520 warrants were cancelled as a result of the fact warrants were not picked up personally during the last postal strike and (a) total by province not available but by region is as follows: Atlantic Region (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland) ($7,679.00) or about 40* warrants; Quebec Region (Quebec) ($110,428.00) or about 600 warrants; Ontario Region (Ontario) ($109,967.00) or about 600 warrants; Prairies Region (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta) ($18,814.00) or about 100 warrants; Pacific Region (British Columbia) ($31,709.00) or about 180 warrants.
'Number estimated by dividing actual dollar value of cancelled warrants ($278,597) by average bi-weekly benefit payment of $178. Actual count of cancelled warrants not extractable from general statistics.
(b)	Yes; through the normal benefit control activity, (b) (i) Statistics resulting from subsequent investigation of those failing to report are not extractable from normal benefit control activity of the Commission and, therefore, specific activities in this regard cannot be reported. However, 3 possible prosecutions have been initiated, 1 in the Atlantic provinces where it is suspected that an employer posed as a claimant and 2 in the Pacific Region where two claimants did not report earnings while in receipt of benefits; (b) (ii) Not applicable, see (b) (i); (c) The Executive Committee of the UIC decided that all claimants who could not be contacted, or where there was a suspicion of fraud, should be investigated by Benefit Control and this was done; (c) (i) See (c); (c) (ii) Investigations were carried out; see (b) (i).
14890

June 28, 1976
Ways and Means


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,394 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


RETENTION OF LAWYERS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Crouse: 1.	What are the names of all lawyers in Lunenburg, Queens and Shelburne Counties who have been appointed by the government to handle all federal prosecution duties since 1968?
2.	What is the amount of the salary, commission or consultants' fees paid to these lawyers by the Department of Justice, or any other department during the years 1968 to 1975 inclusive?
3.	Since January 1, 1970, what lawyers in Nova Scotia were engaged by the Departments of Justice, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Transport and Treasury Board and what fees were paid to them?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


WAYS AND MEANS
Mitchell William Sharp: that ways and means motion No. 16, to amend the Customs Tariff, tabled May 25, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: that ways and means motion No. 17, to amend the Income Tax Act, tabled May 25, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: that ways and means motion No. 18, to amend the Income Tax Act application rules, 1971, tabled May 25, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: that ways and means motion No. 19, to amend the Excise Tax Act, tabled May 25, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-95, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 4).


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

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-96, to amend the Excise Tax Act (No. 2).


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


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 third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with respect to this matter. Last Friday, at the close of the day, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) rose in the House and indicated that the order of business for today would be Bill C-61 dealing with third reading stage of the maritime code. In the course of the discussion objection was taken to that by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). The discussion arose out of a matter raised in this House on May 31, 1976, when we were talking about the extension of hours of the sittings of this House. At that time the President of the Privy Council made a very definitive statement about the business of the House prior to the recess. I would quote from page 13976 of Hansard for May 31, where he said:
These six items, all except one of which has already been the subject of extensive debate, plus the budget resolutions and supply, constitute the government's program before adjournment. Unless some emergency arises-
June 28, 1976

I emphasize the word "emergency".
-the government has no other items which it considers essential to be disposed of before the adjournment. The parties may, of course, be ready to agree on the approval of minor housekeeping matters such as motions 33 and 34 under government business.
As I recall, the last two motions mentioned were concurred in. Reference has been made to Bills C-68, C-81, C-84, C-87, C-88 and S-35. Bill S-35 has been disposed of, and Bill C-87 withdrawn from consideration before the adjournment pursuant to a subsequent agreement. Bill C-84 is now before the committee, and we have agreed to vote on Bill C-68. But nowhere on this list of bills does Bill C-61 appear.
I know the minister may be in some difficulty with respect to calling bills on the order paper. Bill C-83 is before the committee and I suppose could be called. The President of the Privy Council had indicated, quite properly, that it would be unfair to call Bill C-83, which deals with peace and security, when Bill C-84 was still before the committee. It would have been particularly unfair to call it since members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs are considering Bill C-84 and, therefore, could not attend the House of Commons. I am not quarrelling about that. The government has put the House in a difficult position. We are asked to debate a bill which we had understood we would not deal with until later this year, perhaps in the new session.
There is also the matter of hours to consider. It was always the intention, when the agreement was made for extended hours of sitting, that we should deal with the package of legislation which had been mentioned. That package was arrived at as a result of careful negotiation carried out in the best faith on the part of House leaders. Yet at present we are asked to debate a bill which was not included in that package. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council has something to say to the House about further extended hours.
I feel that I must raise a point of order about the calling of Bill C-61. I regret very much that it is necessary to do so. It was the impression of the hon. member for Halifax on Friday, as reported on page 14872 of Hansard:
-that a list of certain bills was to be considered, and that Bill C-61 was not one of those.
His recollection was exactly right. It therefore appears that the government should reconsider the matter of extended hours and the matter of reinstituting private members' hours. I would not raise the matter if the government had forced extra hours on the House; but that is not the case. Exactly the opposite is true. Extended hours were arrived at by agreement on the part of all parties for the purpose of debating a particular package of legislation which did not include Bill C-61. Therefore, I wish to know what the government House leader proposes to do about the question of hours.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some of the comments made by the House leader of the official opposition, and some comments made the other day by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), have a good deal of merit. When laying down the business for the remainder of this session, I admit, frankly, that I did not anticipate the sorts of difficulties which have
Maritime Code
arisen in the last few days. However, I do not believe that the calling of Bill C-61 is contrary to any undertakings I gave. Nevertheless, the members of the opposition may feel from what I said that I did not intend to call the bill again. At one stage, I think it is fair to say, I did not think I would have the opportunity to call it again.
What I said in the statement which has been read by the official opposition House leader is not inconsistent with calling Bill C-61, because I have no intention of pressing Bill C-61 through to completion unless that is the wish of all parties in the House. There is no other way in which that can be done. I want to make a couple of points of emphasis and clarification. I do not intend to call Bill C-61 after today because I foresee no occasion when it will be possible to do so.
It is our intention, if the necessary consent is not given, to call Bill C-83 tomorrow and Wednesday. After that we shall get to Bill C-84, which is the last remaining item on the government's list of business which must be concluded before we adjourn. It may be that consent will be given, in which case we would devote the time available to Bill C-84 and not to Bill C-83, because I do not think it will be possible to dispose of Bill C-83 before we adjourn unless we were to keep the House sitting, contrary to the undertaking I gave in order to dispose of it.
As to the extended hours, the House leader of the official opposition is quite right. The extended hours were agreed on for the purpose of considering certain business. Bill C-61 is not one of the items we intend to dispose of unless there is agreement on both sides. I do not intend to use any of the extended hours for the purpose of debating Bill C-61. Since on this day there are no extended hours, that question does not arise. I see no opportunity to call Bill C-61 again because the House will be considering Bill C-84, which must be disposed of, and Bill C-83 which can be called when, as expected, the justice committee reports tonight.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister speaks now, will he not close the debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has just moved the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will be making the first speech on third reading.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I was opening the debate, rather than closing it, which I hope may be the case. I suggest that the exchanges between House leaders on the government and opposition sides challenge hon. members to see if they cannot pass Bill C-61 before the House rises for the summer. In the limited time available, I suggest it will be possible for hon. members to understand the purpose of the bill. Hon. members will recall that the bill had broad support on second reading. It was referred to committee without division, and apparently without dissent.
This bill is part of a large program for advancing and improving the law relating to seagoing vessels. Generally, it would institute a maritime code for Canada. It is but a
95 570-42%

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
part of a massive step of legislative change which has evolved from elaborate consultations between experts from the various departments of governments and many representatives of the shipping industry and interested shippers. It is, therefore, in its bulk a very importance piece of legislation in a practical sense.
I will not go over the second reading debate and recall to mind the very important changes in regulations which are involved in it, such advances as being able to deal with the sistership in connection with matters that are involved in appropriate legal process, matters which members from all sides of the House indicated they received well and warmly.
I will want to refer a bit to the broad principle involved in relation to the coasting trade. However, I must start by drawing the attention of hon. members to the importance of the whole of our maritime industry and the advantage in our being able to proceed with it into law now. What has happened, however, is that two matters of controversy have arisen in connection with the bill. One has been fairly satisfactorily settled as a result of the work in committee. That had to do with the issue of the central registry. Certain changes were made in the bill to deal with that.
The other area of controversy, and much the more important one, relates to the coasting trade provisions which are contained in clauses 8 to 15 of the bill. A number of individual problems with regard to the coasting trade were worked out in committee. However, three concerns remained outstanding at the time the bill was reported back to the House. Since that time representations have been made to me and my officials by interested parties. Our reaction to those concerns may be expressed by reference to three possible amendments to the bill which I draw to the attention of hon. members as we begin third reading. These are changes which I do not see as fundamental because the independent and basic purpose of the bill as it went through second reading and committee was really in accordance with these changes. Without doubt, however, these changes should allay some fears as to how the bill might be applied or whether it might cause some problem in its application.
I recognize the procedural problems that we will face in dealing with possible amendments. However, I wish to set out before hon. members the types of changes that may solve some problems we have had, and perhaps also to elicit suggestions and co-operation in order to deal with these changes procedurally. The first area of concern expressed was in relation to the intercoastal trade between the west and east coasts of Canada where there is a particular interest in maintaining lower transcontinental rail rates, and the fear that these might be adversely affected by changes in the law. It is based on the belief that while the quantity of goods moved by ship is small and is likely to remain so, the fact of its existence or potential existence creates a balancing effect on rail rates.
At the moment, both Canadian and British-built British flagships enter the trade freely. Foreign-built British flagships may enter the trade on a waiver system which is complex and poorly understood. It is not proposed materially to alter the cost of bringing non-Canadian ships into

this trade where necessary, but only to formalize it and to establish a tariff procedure which will be understood and easily accessible to shippers.
I have given assurances that the tariff charged will be fair, and will be seen to be fair by all interested parties through the formulation of the regulations before these sections of the bill are proclaimed. That the tariff will be reasonable is further assured by the legislation itself which, in section BI-13, provides for publication of proposed regulations and for inquiries. Under the provisions of that section I give the further guarantee that public hearings will form part of the inquiry.
The concerned interests have argued that there should be statutory exemption for non-Canadian ships in the intercoastal trade. There has never been such exemption in the past, and to give it now, when we are attempting to bring the coasting trade under general and reasonable control, would be a retrograde step. What there has been in the past has been an ability by order in council, under section 665 of the Canada Shipping Act, to suspend the coasting laws in specified waters. Such suspension has taken place in the past in crisis situations wich made it necessary to attract large amounts of foreign tonnage into the intercoastal trade for temporary purposes. The special problem of the intercoastal trade has always been borne in mind, and Bill C-61 makes specific reference to it in clause 8(5). This clause gives the same sort of power as was formerly contained in section 665 of the Canada Shiping Act, but with direct reference to the intercoastal trade.
In order, however, to give the fullest possible assurances to the intercoastal trade interests that the balancing effect of that trade will be maintained, and that the potential for specific exemption will remain, we are prepared to reinforce the provisions of clause 8(5) by removing by individual and specific orders in council, and to provide published regulations in the same manner as regulations under section 12. This will give the further assurance of the application of section BI-13 and, as with the section 12 regulations, I am prepared to state at this time that if objections to the regulations are raised, public hearings will from part of the inquiry.
By amending clause 8(5) and adding a further subclause (6), we will again be formalizing the procedure. That has certain implications with respect to the ability to react quickly in times of crisis, but I am assured that if such a crisis were to develop in future, the reaction to it could be accommodated under the emergency provisions of clause 11(4) at least until such time as formal regulations could be published and any necessary inquiry held. To accomplish this objective, clause 8(5) of the bill will be deleted and replaced with the following subclause:
(5)	The governor in council may make regulations exempting from the application of this section and sections 9 to 14, during such periods of time as are specified in the regulations, the carriage by water of such classes of goods as are specified in the regulations, and towage, in either direction, between,
(a)	ports or places on the east coast of Canada, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence River or the Great Lakes, and
(b)	ports or places on the west coast of Canada.
Clause 8(6) will be added as follows:
(6)	Section BI-13 of the maritime code applies with respect to any regulations that the governor in council proposes to make under subsec-
June 28, 1976

tion (5) as if those regulations were made under a provision of that code.
The second concern which has been expressed and to which we feel we must respond relates to the limitations of licences to .12 months. Although such licences would, of course, be renewable providing the initial circumstances remain the same, they could not be renewed as of right. The purpose of the limitation was, of course, to ensure that if in a particular case circumstances did alter and Canadian ships became available at reasonably competitive rates, we would not find that that particular segment of the coasting trade was locked in to the use of foreign ships. That principle should be maintained as the general rule.
We are increasingly aware, however, that special cases exist, particularly with respect to developing industries where the transportation is only part of a package which must be arranged to cover a term of years. We feel that allowance must be made for that possibility, but it should only be done where the licensing body is satisfied that no reasonable Canadian alternative exists. In addition, the licensing body must bear in mind the future possibilities of a Canadian alternative, but only if it can be accommodated within the terms of the applicant's current necessity. These are delicate problems which cannot be prejudged here, but for which allowance must be made. Such allowance can only be made by allowing the licensing body a considerable latitude of discretion. We propose to do this by amending section 11 as follows:
(1.1)	Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Canadian Transport Commission may issue a licence pursuant to that subsection for a period specified in the licence that exceeds twelve months from the day on which the licence is issued where it is satisfied that contractual arrangements with respect to the use of the ship in the aspect of the coasting trade of Canada in which the applicant for the licence proposes to use the ship cannot be made for a period of twelve months or less.
The third concern deals with the definition of coasting trade in section 8(3) of the bill as including the carriage of goods and passengers from one port in Canada to the same or another port in Canada whether directly or by way of a foreign port. Except for the reference to "the same port", which was included only to fill what appeared to be a technical gap, the words "whether directly or by way of a foreign port" also appear in the Canada Shipping Act and over a period of many years no problem has been caused by their use. In the past, these words have always been interpreted in the light of international practice with respect to the clearing of ships to a foreign destination.
In spite of that, their appearance in this bill did cause some fear that there would be interference with the extensive cruise trade which has developed over recent years on the west coast and which involves the use of non-Canadian ships. Because of the great variety of passenger cruises that are operated in Canadian waters, we feel it is necessary to retain the words from the Canada Shipping Act, but in order to establish clearly that no interference with the generally recognized international practice is intended, we propose to amend section 14 of the bill, which is the one dealing with offences under the coasting trade provisions, as follows:
(2.1)	Notwithstanding subsection 8(3), the master and owner of a ship are not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) where
Maritime Code
(a)	either of them has obtained a valid clearance in respect of the ship for a port outside Canada as the intended destination of the ship, whether or not it is intended that the ship will return to the port from which the clearance was obtained or another port in Canada, and
(b)	it can be established that an essential purpose of the voyage is to carry goods or passengers to a destination outside Canada.
This amendment will allow Canada to retain a measure of control without interfering with international practice. The whole section, the purpose of the change, was really to avoid the technical visit of a Canadian coastal ship in coastal service at a foreign port simply for the purpose of getting itself outside the rule pertaining to service in the coastal trade.
These amendments have been put before a certain number of interested members who took part in the work of the committee, and I hope they will answer most of the questions and criticisms which have surfaced during the course of the consideration of this bill.


Andrew Hogan: Would the minister allow one question for clarification? Can he tell us whether there has been a definitive cost-benefit study with regard to the impact of the proposed changes as they relate to coastal shipping in the Atlantic provinces?


Otto Emil Lang: A study of that kind has not been carried out because it would be very difficult to theorize the changes in shipping practice which might follow from these amendments. It is important to appreciate that when this bill received approval, in principle, on second reading it did so, I am sure, with the knowledge that we were making a change in the rules in relation to coastal shipping which involved a change in regard to Commonwealth vessels, it is true, and their particular position, but that the general approach of the law was meant to remain unchanged, by and large* In other words, we are making the same reasonable provision for Canadian shipping so that it will not be subject to predatory practices by vessels of other nations which might at a particular point in time make it impossible for a viable Canadian shipping industry to continue.
To this extent, protection is enjoyed both by those who might man the ships engaged in Canadian shipping and also by the industry as a whole. Canada benefits to the extent that a viable shipping industry is kept in being. Suppose, for example, there was no Canadian shipping industry. We would be at the mercy of foreign ships, and at a time when adequate shipping facilities were short we would find ourselves obliged to pay whatever rates were demanded, however high.
This is not meant to be a protective bill in the sense that it would allow for unduly high rates to be charged by Canadian shipping, but it is designed to protect shipping interests reasonably against predatory shipping practices so that a Canadian industry can exist for the greater good of this country. This is an important principle and one which in the formulation of the bill was well understood, though it may now have been lost sight of.
In order to reassure those in the Atlantic provinces and on the west coast who have worried what the regulations might be under this measure, I indicated to the Atlantic ministers and to the western ministers that the fullest consultation would take place concerning the regulations necessary under clauses 8 to 14, and that these consulta-

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
tions would take place prior to the proclamation of those clauses. I also indicated that I would not want those sections proclaimed until there was a high degree of satisfaction with the regulations. I mean, therefore, to attempt to give every assurance possible, in addition to suggesting these three amendments, that the bill will serve as intended and not be an instrument which needs to be feared by anyone who is interested in the shipment of goods between the coasts or in coastal water either of the Atlantic or of the west.
I have put before the House three possible amendments. I recognize the procedural difficulty in which we find ourselves. These amendments can only be dealt with at this stage by consent. We could revert to the report stage or, with a certain amount of trust and confidence, they could be dealt with in the other place, or I suppose they could be dealt with by sending the bill back to committee for the amendments to be put in there. I suspect that the latter course would delay the passage of the bill unduly in present circumstances, and that the middle course would be unacceptable to some members of the House for a variety of reasons, although I note that some hon. members who might hold such views are not present in the House. I refer to the absence-very temporary, I know-of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The proposal I would make, therefore, is that we find a way, by agreement, to consider these three amendments as being positive advances in the context of the legislation and of the debate. If, as the debate proceeds, we can agree to revert to committee or deal with the amendments by consent, I trust we will do so in the hope that this bill, upon which so much work has been done and upon which so much depends in terms of a great part of the regulations-and upon which, after all, even a continued sense of a Canadian coasting trade depends-might find its way into law.
I shall not make a formal proposal at this stage because I believe that consultation might be required to bring about an effective result. But I would commend those sentiments to hon. members: that we should try, before leaving the bill today, to incorporate these amendments so that some of the fears which have been expressed concerning the measure might be allayed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have just heard the minister make mention of three amendments. For purposes of wider dissemination of the nature of the amendments, I wonder whether they may either be appended to today's proceedings or be read into the record by the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have read them into the record carefully. However, in addition to that I will ask for extra copies so that hon. members present can have them at hand while the debate goes on.


Mr. Stanfield:: Would the minister accept a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister spoke of assurances, and I know his concern for transportation in the Atlantic prov-

inces. Has the minister received any statement from the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, or even from ministers purporting to speak for the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, to the effect that they were prepared to have the bill passed with the assurances given by the minister? What can the minister say in this House in regard to the position taken by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, in light of the assurances he gave this afternoon and having given those assurances to the ministers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have tried to have further meetings with the premiers or their representatives in recent days, but because of the transportation problem we were unable to accomplish this. However, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The maritime code was discussed at the last meeting of the transport ministers of the Atlantic region which I attended, and at that time the concerns of the Atlantic area were fully expressed. I gave the assurances that I have repeated today to the Atlantic ministers. The five ministers from the Atlantic region and myself then joined in issuing a communique that indicated approval of Bill C-61, these assurances having been received by the Atlantic transport ministers. I have since elaborated on those assurances because of the further comments made in other regions of the country.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister have similar discussions with the premiers of the western provinces, and did he receive similar approval from these ministers of transport such as he declares to have received from the eastern ministers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter was discussed at a western transportation ministers' meeting, but because it was more particularly of interest to one western minister- not alone, of course, but more directly of interest to one than to the others-it was not made the subject of a particular communique. I had the impression at that time that there was satisfaction. However, since that time communications from the British Columbia minister of transport have led me to reinforce the assurances and to indicate that there would indeed be no proclamation until the regulations had achieved a high degree of satisfaction in our consultations. I hope that, as a statement of assurance, that will be satisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to the choices that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) suggested a few moments ago. I understand that while I was out answering the phone he made an allusion to that fact, and he was absolutely right in what he said. It seems to me that it would be quite unfair to the members of this House who have studied the bill to expect these rather substantial amendments to be made in the Other place, which in effect allows for no possibility of discussion here.
Therefore, I urge the minister to have some member from his side move, as an amendment to third reading, that the bill be not now read the third time but that it be referred back to the standing committee so that the amendments can be made there. It seems to me that that is the fair and reasonable way of dealing with this matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will indeed be happy to do that as the debate on the bill proceeds if it appears that this will
June 28, 1976

have some real chance of allowing the bill to make progress.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased with the minister's answer to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He seemed to receive favourably the suggestion that an amendment be moved to refer the bill back to committee for further study, and that would be acceptable to me. We intend, I think, to make a motion to that effect later in the debate.
In days gone by this would probably have been considered a rather unique debate. The subject of a Canadian maritime code has been around parliament for a number of years. We are presently going through what is, I think, the longest session on record, yet this bill came before the House late last November, was passed on to committee on December 8, and we find ourselves at this late date being asked to give unanimous consent to three substantive amendments to the bill. I think this is an indication of poor handling of House business on the part of the government. I do not have the committee proceedings for December 8 with me, but it also appears that a certain practice is becoming widespread in the House and in committee. I refer to the fact that the committee was urged by government members not to call witnesses so as to speed the bill through. This was back on December 8, and the bill received rather rapid passage through committee.
I would not accuse committee members of not being diligent, but because not as many witnesses were called as possibly should have been called, the government argued throughout the winter months with a former colleague of theirs, now a minister of transport on the west coast, as a result of which we now have conflicting reports from the ministers of transport or premiers of the Atlantic provinces in regard to this legislation, and I include the province of Newfoundland.
At one time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said that the Atlantic provinces were in agreement with this bill. However, when we contacted them they said no, they would not agree to it without further changes. The minister has now told the House that he is prepared to give his utmost assurance that clauses 8 to 16 will not be approved until everyone is completely satisfied with the regulations that are to follow.
The minister's words have been severely questioned. It took him a great deal of time and negotiation with another body before he was able to give any assurance at all. It behooves every member of parliament to take his job seriously, to pass legislation and to serve his constituents well. Certainly, we are not going to turn over those responsibilities to the minister, and we will not leave it to him to decide when he has the complete assurance of the interested parties in this matter, the shippers and shipping companies.
In addition to improving perhaps the maritime code, the minister has said that over the winter there was lengthy consultation with the shippers and shippees. A rather simple check on how much consultation was held would readily indicate it was not nearly as much as we were led to believe by the minister today.
Maritime Code
We are told that this measure is important for the economy of Canada. The minister admitted a few minutes ago that at no time has there been a cost-benefit study carried out. We have also been told during other debates on transportation matters that the "user pay" concept is the new principle on which the minister is staking his reputation. Apparently he is going to make the user pay. Some days ago, during a debate in the House of Commons, I suggested that the user is deeply concerned about this new concept. The user believes this will cost him more money.
First of all, the bill tends to minimize competition. It suggests there may be a shortage of vessels and at times there may be an inefficient use of available vessels. The bill seems to suggest that Canadian raw materials or resource products may be moved by ocean liners to foreign countries for manufacture at cheaper rates than those applying to similar movements to Canadian ports. That seems to indicate an increased cost of finished goods. The bill also seems to point out that many foreign products will be in a favoured competitive position and may even replace some Canadian products because of the increased transportation cost to Canadian companies. All of these concerns have not been fully considered by the minister, his department or the transportation committee which studied this matter. I certainly agree with the suggestion that the whole matter be referred back to the committee where more witnesses can be called. Without having a net cost or net benefit study to determine whether Canada will benefit from this bill and the "user pay" concept, I think members would be derelict in their duty if they accepted the bill wholeheartedly.
The other aspect of the "user pay" concept is that we are led to believe this will develop a whole new Canadian merchant marine and increase shipbuilding in Canada. The minister suggests that the full implementation of the bill will not take place for perhaps five years. He says this will give some time for those Canadian ships to be built. I suggest that while some ships may be built by then-and I suspect that many others will still be in construction- losses to the industry, such as those that will take place through lack of improvements to the STELCO steel mills and the linerboard plant in Newfoundland, will be tremendous. The resulting loss in jobs, I suggest, will be greater than the increase in jobs in the Canadian shipbuilding industry and the coasting trade.
We must take a very close look at this bill. It is regrettable that we have reached this stage of the session having to go on the minister's assurances. Already he has had a number of amendments ratified by the committee. The committee ratified a whole host of amendments during its sittings, and we now have three more in respect of which there has been no consultation.
The minister suggested that the provisions contained in clauses 8 to 16 would not be implemented immediately. The whole question of passenger trade on the west coast has not been satisfactorily explained. We have not had a satisfactory explanation regarding the number of vessels in the coastal trade on the west coast of other than Canadian registry. A great number of these ships provide a service to many many Canadian centres along the west coast, and fears in this regard have to be considered as well.

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
For reasons best known to myself and a few others, I was not in attendance at the committee during its considerations following second reading. For that reason, I come to this debate with no bias of any kind. Not being from either the west coast or the east coast, I suppose I could go along with the passage of this bill. However, in view of the slipshod manner in which the government has handled legislation, with a heavy emphasis on transportation legislation geared for the next session, and in view of the determination of the minister to follow closely the concept of the user shall pay, there should be unanimous agreement to refer the subject matter of Bill C-61 back to the Committee on Transport and Communications. That committee should be empowered to call witnesses so that these many fears can be considered. Perhaps in this way we can have a new maritime code.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I want, first of all, to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to the extent that he agrees that the amendments proposed by the minister should be referred back to the committee. In the event we have unanimous consent to do so, I believe it important that the committee consider that we do not want the bill locked up in committee until we are faced with another throne speech, resulting in the measure dying on the order paper. Let me assure you that this is one party which wants to see the principle outlined in Bill C-61, which of course is the principle contained in the Darling report, put into law before this session concludes and we begin another with a new throne speech. This legislation has been a long time coming. We are now getting to the point of developing a Canadian coasting trade and a Canadian merchant marine. If we continue to listen to critics all the time, we will never get the bill through.
One can always pick holes in a legislative measure. Let us not kid ourselves about this bill. It will cost money to have a Canadian merchant service. We should not try to have the best of both worlds. Let me state, straightforwardly and honestly, that this party believes the small additional amount of money that might be required, in terms of transportation costs, would be well worth it to provide an additional 40,000 jobs with the creation of a new industry. That is a principle we have not been talking about this afternoon, and I think we should get back to it.
Let me refer to the Darling report and some of its recommendations. Incidentally, those recommendations are largely contained within the provisions of Bill C-61. The main principle is that the Canadian coastal trade should be reserved for Canadian flag vessels. This would result in the employment of an additional 40,000 seamen and a refurbishing of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. This would also ensure Canadian sovereignty in our coastal and Arctic waters. This has become especially important now that we are moving toward a 200-mile economic zone off both our coasts. If we are to be effective in terms of maintaining our jurisdiction in those zones, we must have Canadian presence. We cannot maintain a Canadian presence simply with a few military aircraft; we must have Canadian merchant service ships in the 200-mile zone.
If you support that principle, surely you support the principle of Bill C-61. The other advantage in terms of the Darling report is the development of Arctic and offshore

resources. Here again, the question of Canadian ships with Canadian men, which would certainly involve a price well worth paying in the event there are some additional transportation costs.
I wish to say a word about the coasting trade. The bill has always contained provisions for licensing in terms of the coasting trade. I was much surprised when I picked up the paper not too long ago to find that the Vancouver Province had a headline which said that the cruise ship business of British Columbia would be completely on the rocks in the event this bill is passed. I really think the editor of the Province has not looked at clause 11 of the bill. I am also wondering whether the members of the Vancouver Chamber of Commerce read the bill, or whether they just listened to Norman Hacking, the editor of the Vancouver Province. Perhaps they just had cocktails together and did not look at the bill.
Despite all the publicity surrounding clause 11, there is a provision that licensing can be provided in proper circumstances. I submit that in the bill there is no risk to the coasting trade of British Columbia. What has happened is that this kind of red herring has been floated, and everyone gets excited and loses sight of the principle behind the bill, which is to create a very substantial number of jobs for Canadians in a brand new shipping industry.
I notice that representatives of Burrard Drydock, which is interested in seeing a substantial increase in ship construction in Canada, were absent from the chamber of commerce. It is time we in this country started to act like a country and did things for ourselves, such as provide our own merchant shipping. It is all very well to use foreign bottoms in terms of our coasting trade, and to exploit cheap labour around the world in order to subsidize the multinational interests such as the Greek shipping interests and that small coterie of ship owners around the world who dominate freighter traffic, but we can do something in this country in terms of shipping. If we improve the working conditions in our own vessels so, also, will we improve the working conditions of men in vessels around the world. That, alone, is very important, because in a sense humanity is being exploited around the world because of the conditions which exist in international freighters. Surely, by doing something under Bill C-61, we could make a significant contribution in that way.
I note the complaints about the use of a central registry and the suggestion that the registration facilities be moved to Ottawa. What is being done as a result of the amendment is that, really, we are superimposing one level of bureaucracy over another. This is a difficult sort of Liberal compromise. They looked at the question in terms of the provision of services on the coast and listened to the complaints coming in: rather than discuss the matter with the people who know something about the question of registration, they left the registration in Vancouver and have created another office in Ottawa. The registration was perfectly satisfactory before they started tinkering with it.
I shall not take very long, Mr. Speaker, because our party is substantially in support of the bill. We have some concern, however, about the question of the referral back
June 28, 1976

to the committee to deal with the government's amendments. I would not be interested in giving unanimous consent if the bill was to be locked away in the committee. I do not want to see the bill referred to the committee and killed-because that could happen unless we are pretty careful.
I would hope that the amendments to be referred back to the committee would not be there for a long time. I do not see why that would be necessary, although I agree they require careful examination because they are not simple amendments. The consideration of the committee should be restricted to those amendments and should not include the entire bill. I hope, when we are giving consideration to the terms under which the bill would be referred to the committee, those terms do not include a general reference but merely a specific reference related to the amendments.
That being the case, I hope this House will see that the bill is reported back expeditiously, given third reading and passed, so that at long last we can give effect to the very worth-while, useful and intensive investigation carried out by Mr. Justice Darling on the coastal trade and so we can create a new industry for Canadians, some new employment and do something useful for the country in terms of nationalism as well.


Ralph Goodale: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a question asked by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) in connection with copies of the amendments which the minister indicated to the House earlier would be available. I now have copies of the amendments for members who may wish to look at them during the course of this afternoon.


Mr. McCain:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I presume these amendments will be distributed to all members who are here. If, by any chance, a copy of the speech is available, it would be nice to have it as well. The minister made a statement in his speech which indicated there was agreement among the transport ministers of Canada, Atlantic and federal, in respect of the principle of the bill. Was that meeting held after May 25 and 26, when the premiers met and expressed some objection to the bill?


Ralph Goodale: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the copies of the amendments, I have made copies available to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and I believe he will ensure that members of the official opposition will have copies available to them. Other copies are available at my desk for members who may not have them. Second, in connection with the minister's reference to discussions with the ministers of transport from the Atlantic provinces, I am not aware of the precise answer to the hon. gentleman's question, but I will determine that information for him later this afternoon.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join my colleagues who have spoken in expressing my concern over the fact that this bill is before the House today. There is no question in anyone's mind that the bill was not to be brought in before the recess of parliament. There were very specific reasons for this when we negotiated with the government to have the bill withdrawn from debate in the House of Commons
Maritime Code
until the fall. The minister, of course, enumerated these reasons. The first was that this would not provide sufficient time for consideration of the bill or its implications.

The minister is not surprised that there is further objection to this bill, and that is why he indicated today that he might be prepared to refer the bill back to committee. Of course, he knows exactly why. On the surface this looks like a very innocent bill. When we consider the geographic make-up of our great land, it is our natural desire to establish a maritime industry. We are surrounded by three oceans. We want to establish industry in our country to put the thousands of unemployed to work and to give us a greater variety of options with regard to self-determination.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said that a maritime code would be essential for the development of our Arctic resources, but at the same time he said that if we had a Canadian maritime industry, it would cost more. Is not cost exactly the component which is hindering the development of our frontier reserves? The hon. member proclaims that additional costs should be added. The whole thing does not make sense. There has not been a cost analysis of this bill; the minister knows that very well. Industrial expansion must obviously be our aim, but it should be attuned to our areas and industries of greatest potential. In the opinion of my colleagues on this side of the House, the expansion of the maritime industry at this stage of the game, particularly when we are working with significant advantages as a result of not having artificial barriers, is not in the greatest interest of any industrial expansion today.
We are asking ourselves: Why Bill C-61 at this time? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) says that this bill is a filler which he wants to get through today. It is poor planning that he should be caught like that at this stage. This has been the longest session in parliamentary history, and the minister brings in a bill of this magnitude to get it through as a filler. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was somewhat less than honest when he proclaimed in the House today that there has been general agreement between industry and governments throughout our country, particularly on the west and east coasts. He is even less honest when he says that he has the agreement of east and west coast officials. I would like to quote from a letter the minister wrote to the minister of transport in the province of British Columbia.


Ralph Goodale: That is a hopeless case.


Frank Oberle: The Minister of Transport to whom the letter is addressed sat across the House from us and received support for years, and now he turns out to be a hopeless case. The reason he is not sitting across the House from us is probably quite apparent, because people on the west and east coasts are sick and tired of the way this government deals with our industry and transportation system. In his letter to the minister of transport of British Columbia, the minister said:
General satisfaction and acceptance of the proposed legislation have been clearly indicated at these meetings by the provincial officials, including the representatives of your Department, subject only to the

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
development of suitable coasting trade regulations to be made under the legislation when enacted and proclaimed in force.
The minister of transport of the province of British Columbia replied as follows:
The western premiers expressed the strong view that pending legislation to change the Canada Shipping Act (which would remove the freedom to use foreign ships for inter-coastal trade) should be delayed until such time as the Hall commission has reported.
In response to the minister's saying that there has been consultation and agreement, the minister from British Columbia said this in a letter dated April 30:
It is not true. I have personally been present when four western ministers of transport told you personally that they objected to the legislation. Officials of the B.C. department of transport communications have been under instruction, since the change of Government in B.C., that the intercoastal provisions of Bill C-61 were objectionable from our point of view.


Ralph Goodale: You missed the reply to that reply.


Frank Oberle: Why the rush? The minister said on previous occasions that he would expect that all provisions of this bill would be declared by 1980. This country has traditionally been built on those two strands of steel which tie us together from east to west. Our east to west trade is the basic foundation of confederation. Were it not for these artificial barriers, Canadians certainly would have a legitimate interest in developing a maritime industry; but we do have these artificial barriers. We do have horrendous problems with regard to freight rates, which no one ever understands. Even the people who work them out do not understand them-and we create these artificial barriers to protect the centre from the west and the east, and so on.
The reason the minister agreed that the bill should go back to committee was that cost-benefit studies have not yet been made. We have pushed for such studies. Since this bill emerged from committee in December, many of my colleagues got together with industries and individuals who would be affected by the bill and, for our own purposes, conducted such a cost-benefit study. The results should be made known, not only here but in committee. Witnesses should be called and the bill should be discussed further.
Let us consider, for instance, what this maritime code would do to the lumber industry in British Columbia. We have access to foreign bottoms on the west coast of British Columbia. Most of the trade in the lumber industry is with eastern customers in the United States and eastern Canada. That is the main reason the lumber industry on the west coast has a competitive advantage over the lumber industry in the United States. The reason for that is that Canadian railways and American railways have to compete against ocean shipping through the Panama Canal. Whenever the freight rates in our rail systems get to a point where the industry can no longer remain competitive in the eastern parts of the United States, we revert to shipping through the Panama Canal. Canadian railways have always taken that into consideration and have adjusted their rates accordingly.
It is true that all the lumber, or most of it, still goes by rail, but the industry does have the safety valve that if the policy of "user pay" should ever be implemented-and that is the new, sexy phrase which has emerged in recent times-then we have that additional option. Bill C-61

would remove this option and render the forest industry in British Columbia no longer viable because freight rates would increase by at least 30 per cent, freight rates which are already the biggest component in cost to our customers in eastern Canada and the United States.
The United States railways also attune their rates to the competition of the Canadian railways. For that reason, the forest industry-which, incidentally, has a credit balance of $5 billion per year with regard to foreign trade-has this competitive advantage over that industry in the United States. The legislation in that country is similar to what is proposed here. When we consider the concerns of these industries, the "user pay" concept is simply not valid.
For the record, I would like to point out what has happened over the last five years whenever a shortage of ships was experienced at the west coast. Naturally, the railways have responded, when the rates on foreign ships have gone up, and have increased their rates over a five-year period by 22.2 per cent. Current rates for shipping via the Panama Canal, in Canadian vessels, are more than double the rates for foreign flag vessels. Our concern is exemplified by the fact that over the last five years lack of water competition has seen rail rates applicable to lumber and plywood to eastern Canada more than double, with particularly sharp increases in 1974, which reflect the railways' conviction that water competition for this business is not a factor.
Mr. Speaker, there is a shortage of foreign vessels and a shortage of business, and this has been demonstrated to me. I recall flying over the port of Vancouver last summer during the grain handlers' strike. There were many vessels lying there, charging $10,000 or $15,000 per day in demurrage to our wheat shippers. We have experienced a shortage of vessels on the west coast for shipping lumber products. This vacuum could be filled if we were to improve our capacity to build our own vessels which could compete against other shippers.
The hon. member for New Westminster would have us believe it is our responsibility to improve working conditions on foreign vessels, and that workingmen, no matter where they perform their duties, should have equal pay and working conditions. I agree that we have a responsibility in this regard, but I doubt whether this maritime industry would create the 40,000 new jobs hinted at in the Darling report. If we were to make it our responsibility to improve the working conditions of seamen in foreign vessels, I dare say we would price ourselves out of the market and lose more than 40,000 jobs in the lumber industry alone which are connected indirectly and directly to that important sector of our economy.
There is no way that we can allow this bill to proceed in light of the working conditions that exist in our country. That is what it will boil down to. We have already priced ourselves out of the market in lumber and wood fibre products, plywood and pulp throughout the world because of some of the extravagances we have practiced in regard to wages and social conditions without paying proper attention to increasing productivity. There have not been the technological advances in the last ten years or so that we saw in the early sixties, and as a result we have priced
June 28, 1976

ourselves out of the market because of extravagant schemes in the labour field for which we will pay dearly in due course.
There is no question in my mind that the United States will soon import lumber from other parts of the world. As we all know, there is a serious trade imbalance between the United States and the U.S.S.R. It is no secret that the U.S.S.R. and the East Block countries have developed a lumber and wood fibre industry as modern and efficient as ours, and it is no secret that some of our own technology which we exported there has helped. Anyone who has travelled in the United States and has talked to senators and other people who are concerned with this matter realize that they will react to our nationalistic and centralists approach with serious competition in the not too distant future. If Bill C-61 were to come in by 1980, we would face this competition without the United States pressing for any artificial barriers against our products.
This bill should be amended, Mr. Speaker, and it should be tabled for a number of years. We cannot establish any more artificial barriers than we already have, and that is what would happen: artificial barriers would be created to protect an industry which would yet have to be created. Do we not already have enough industries that need subsidies every year? Does our transportation industry not already need to be subsidized? I wonder if it is the intention of the government to use this bill to get away from the heavy subsidies paid to the railways at the present time.
In an attempt to get a cost analysis of Bill C-61, I corresponded with officials of the department of transport and communications of British Columbia. I would like to quote from a letter signed by the minister on April 15, 1976, as follows:
Obviously, Bill C-61 is a "protectionist" device which owes its origins, primarily, to pressures from the central provinces. It solves a problem on the Great Lakes vis-a-vis U.S. shipping. But it hurts in the mari-times and it is bad, bad news in B.C.
The letter continues:
-a senior official with the federal Minister of Transport states that "with regard to section 11, considerable concern was expressed that Canadian ships would lose out to foreign flag ships because they may be non-competitive due to higher operating costs.
The industry which we are artificially creating, and which we already know will need a subsidy, is thus identified. I ask my colleagues and the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker: Who is to make up this subsidy? Where is it to come from? There is nothing left in the bucket. The industry cannot afford any more artificial, any more intervention or constitutional conflicts between the provinces and the federal government. There is just nothing left to give. The letter further states:
-"Upper Lakes Shipping is extremely interested in becoming involved in this movement." ... Central Canada will build the ships, man the ships and own the ships. We, out on the west coast, will have to use them if they are offered at all. And the additional cost will be borne either by goods coming or going from British Columbia. The netback on our resources will be diminished accordingly.
That is the view of the minister in British Columbia who not too long ago sat in this House, across the floor. I suggest the reason he is not there now is that he recognized then what this government is trying to do. We do not wish to use the minister as an example; there has been a change in government and there has not been time to complete the
Maritime Code
analysis that was necessary for this bill to be seriously considered.
I have here a telegram that was sent to the Minister of Transport, who has said that he consulted the industry as a whole. The telegram, sent March 24, 1976, was signed by a number of coastal industries-the Council of the Forest Industries of B.C., the Mining Association of B.C., the B.C. Construction Association, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, and the Vancouver Board of Trade. I should like to know which of the coastal industries in British Columbia the minister consulted. If these are eliminated, not many are left. The telegram begins:
Representatives of major industrial organizations in British Columbia have met at short notice to consider implications of Bill C-61 for transcontinental shippers. Represented were-
The firms are named, and the telegram goes on:
The meeting was unanimous in its concern for the effects of Bill C-61 on the level of freight rates for transcontinental shipments. Bill C-61 will eliminate intercoastal shipping as an effective competitive alternate to other modes of transportation. Competitive intercoastal service is an important factor in maintaining a well balanced and economic domestic transportation system. The bill must be amended to exempt shipping between Canadian east and west coast ports ... organizations will make submissions to your special study committee when they visit Vancouver, urging that section 8 of the bill be amended to provide full exemption for intercoastal shipping.
The industry's position is clear, and the minister has promised study sessions. I suggest that the eastern maritime provinces and the province of British Columbia would like to be assured that this bill will be sent back to committee for the study it deserves. I hope that we can hear witnesses and evaluate the problem, which is not confined exclusively to our coastal trade.
The position of the associated chambers of commerce of Vancouver Island is clear. Incidentally, I think the hon. member for New Westminster will support me when I say that Bill C-61 does not say that Canadian ships should be built in Canada. The Jones Act of the United States requires commercial vessels used in trade between U.S. ports to be of U.S. construction. Even if this bill passes, there will be no assurance that Canadian ships plying our coastal trade must be built in Canada. We shall still be able to buy ships anywhere in the world and sail them under the Canadian flag. This is not the case in the United States. I suggest that the United States Jones Act has been of advantage to the United States shipbuilding industry. While the American maritime industry is protected, we have derived some advantage from using foreign bottoms. Actually, Canadian goods travel more cheaply on American railways than do some American goods, because American railways compete with Canadian railways and Canadian maritime shippers.
May I advance a proposal for the committee to study and on which, hopefully, it will report back? My proposal is that the federal government should alter this legislation to enable us to protect ourselves against countries like the United States which have passed restrictive legislation in this area. Because of the U.S. Jones Act, our shipbuilders cannot sell their ships to the United States. Therefore, restrictions in the legislation should apply only to maritime states which have enacted restrictive legislation.

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
As the associated chambers of commerce say, Bill C-61 seems to be an extremely ambitious piece of legislation which will require a tremendous expansion in the Canadian merchant marine in a very short time, by April, 1980. Even though the minister may have suggested this is possible, I say he is dreaming. I do not think it is possible. For one thing, Canadian shipyards lack the capacity for expansion beyond our present fleet of three ships. There is nothing in Bill C-61 requiring the construction in Canada of Canadian flag vessels. The Jones Act in the United States, as I said previously, requires commercial vessels used in trade between U.S. ports to be of U.S. construction. The associated chambers of commerce suggest the following alternative which, if accepted, would accomplish what the hon. member for New Westminster was talking about, namely:
That the federal government enact legislation that would permit vessels of foreign construction to be used for commercial purposes in Canadian waters only if the nation of origin extends the same privilege to vessels of Canadian construction operating in that nation's waters.
I suggest that such a position would meet the wishes of the hon. member for New Westminster and fortify the Canadian shipbuilding industry. We ought to enact legislation which will protect us against nations which have already adopted restrictive legislation in this field. The legislation ought to be aimed only at such countries and not against those which have not enacted restrictive legislation. As the associated chambers of commerce say, such a provision would permit the foreign construction of ships to lie used in Canada and would exert pressure on the U.S. for amendment to the Jones Act in so far as Canada is concerned. The associated chambers of commerce go on to say:
Prior to 1973, many Canadian craft, particularly in the fishing category, were sold in the U.S.-the closure, by the Jones Act, has hurt Canadian yards, while Canadians continue to purchase large numbers of U.S. boats (indeed the Canadian Coast Guard recently chartered the Lumba Lumba built in Erie, Pa., over Canadian built vessels). We feel that there should be some pressure exerted counteracting the protectionism inherent in the Jones Act.
Bill C-61 will exert no such counteracting pressure, a pressure which would protect our industry, expand our productive capacity and create jobs for Canadians. We could build ships and sell them to the United States, if the United States agreed to buy them. If they do not so agree, we could sell them to other countries. But we shall not sell to others if we continue following the nationalistic, isolationist path this government has laid down in areas such as communication, investment, and so on. Apparently we are determined to create artificial boundaries. After existence for 100 years we are determined, apparently, to be unlike any other nation. Our neighbour to the south will not look kindly to that approach; neither will any other country with whom we do business. Other countries will not look kindly on what we have done in the field of communications, foreign investment review and so on.
Canada is not alone in the world. Cartels are being formed, nations are banding together to exert greater pressures on commodities traded internationally. Trading blocs are being formed. Countries are co-operating together as large trading units in order to trade more effectively and compete. This is happening in developing and third world countries. Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to interfere with that process. We must find ways to ship our goods

more cheaply and produce them more cheaply. We must bring under control the management of our fiscal policy which is totally out of line internationally. If this means we must create artificial barriers to recapture what we have lost-


Iona Campagnolo: Whose artificial barriers?


Frank Oberle: Does the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), in whose constituency exists, potentially, the greatest coastal harbour in our country, not know what her constituents are saying?


Iona Campagnolo: At least my constituents are not taking orders from Aristotle Onassis' heirs.


Frank Oberle: Their message is, "For God's sake sit on this bill." Don't let them do this to us. This is the time for opening our doors. If we keep going the way we are, we will continue to be five to six percentage points of inflation behind the rest of the world. We will have a much slower rate of recovery with regard to economic matters than any other country. We must ask ourselves what we have done about opening our borders, improving our productive capacity and steamlining our capacity to ship and communicate with other parts of the world in an economic sense. We are not doing that now, and we must.
There is one example that I am sure other hon. members will probably quote. On the east coast there has been a recent development with regard to the Sydney Steel Corporation. It illustrates precisely what will happen if this kind of legislation is put in place to protect a non-existent Canadian maritime industry in a way that is artificial and cumbersome. I quote from the Chronicle-Herald of May 4, 1976. Had Bill C-61 been in effect, Sydney Steel Corporation would have been forced to pay more than double the rate now in effect for shipping ore to the Sysco plant. I quote:
The "Canadian flagship only" policy proposed in the Shipping Act amendments now before parliament would have prevented Sysco from entering into a contract with a foreign-operated shipping line, in this case of Bermudian registry under the British flag... When the time came to renew the contract, Upper Lakes Shipping wanted to increase the basic freight rate from $1.15 per gross ton to $3, plus the costs (of the day)-
The demurrage was also to be doubled. It was possible for that company to make a deal with a foreign shipping line at $2 per gross ton, without an increase in demurrage charges. Had the provisions of Bill C-61 been in effect, this company would have been trapped. It is no secret to anyone here that the proposal for the increase in rates would not have been limited to $3, but would have probably been closer to $5 or $6 had the protection been in place. I am sure my colleagues will cite other examples similar to those in the lumber and wood fibre industry in western Canada. Therefore, we would be ill-advised at this time, when we have so much catching up to do, to allow ourselves the luxury of creating yet another white elephant which we would have to support.
In closing, I wish to state that I share a desire and a dream. In my opening remarks I referred to the geographic make-up of this country, the three oceans that surround this great land and how it would be desirable for us in the
June 28, 1976

future to look closer at creating a maritime industry of which we could be proud. That, however, must be done in a way that is attuned to the industrial strategy of our country. It must be done as a vacuum occurs, and it must be done gradually. This must not be like the implementation of the Official Languages Act. What happened with regard to that program would happen again if we went along with the minister on this proposal. To say that by 1980 we would have a maritime industry would be just like when we said that by 1978 or 1980 everyone in Canada would be bilingual.


Roméo LeBlanc: We never said that.


Frank Oberle: The minister says they never said that. There was certainly an attempt to do it. In any event, it is probably a poor example. However, if we ever do become bilingual in this country, and that is certainly the desire of all members of this House, it must be over a period of 25 to 30 years. The process should not be started in the hierarchy of the civil service in Ottawa or in the regional offices. We should start with the educational system in our schools. It is probably a poor comparison to make.


Iona Campagnolo: We are talking about ships.


Frank Oberle: Hon. members are again aroused. Every time something like this comes up, the hon. member is reminded of the letters she receives from her constituency. Many people write to her saying, "For God's sake-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member is again skating at thin line. I suggest he get back to Bill C-61.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: That is probably because of my seatmate who is such a great Canadian skater. I was merely trying to demonstrate that we are always on solid ice. We have to make a commitment. I am sure that all hon. members are prepared to make that commitment. However, we have to know what are the costs. We must establish a proper time-frame and it must be in conformity with the aims and ambitions of other sectors of the economy as well as individual Canadians. We must know what the costs will be and who will bear them. We must also find out where the subsidies are to come from. I am at a loss to know what additional costs any of the industries I referred to are prepared or, indeed, able to pay. In that sense, we are not against the establishment of a maritime industry. There have been shortages of ships on the west coast to ship wood fibre products. Possibly we should stimulate shipbuilding in Canada. However, we must not do that in a way that rules out selling these ships to other nations, or rules out access to other vessels in our ports.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) referred to the poor seamen who travel on these foreign vessels and come into our ports. If every country did what this country intends to do, those poor seamen would not have any jobs at all. I wonder if the hon. member has considered that. It is time we in this country examined what is happening here and around the world.
Maritime Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member may only continue with unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Oberle: I appreciate the courtesy that has been extended to me. I was just making my closing remarks. I was pointing out that it is high time we examine what is going on in our country. Possibly we have been a little extravagant in according ourselves a standard of living that is out of tune with what other countries have accorded themselves. We may have priced ourselves out of the market with regard to foreign trade. We are faced with a trade deficit which will be very difficult, if not impossible, to correct. We are faced with a slow growth in the increase of our gross national product. We are not experiencing any real growth in the economy. Therefore, at this time we can ill afford to create another problem which will have to be paid for out of the public purse, or which someone else will have to subsidize.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles)-Finance-Proposal that capital gains tax not apply to sale of family farms; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Communications-Proposed use of balanced armature receiver by Bell Telephone- Request for delay; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-External Affairs-Allegation Israel has stockpile of nuclear weapons-Government action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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 third time and do pass.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this debate is probably most notable for the fact that among the ministers whose duty confines them to the House, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his parliamentary secretary are not included. This, in my opinion, is regrettable. It is perhaps indicative of the attitude which the government has taken toward this bill from the day of its presentation. It is most unfortunate that this should be the case.
I want to go back for just a minute to the committee meetings which were held in respect of this bill as the standing committee considered the subject matter. Several people appeared as witnesses, though a great many interested people did not appear. I think it is important that I should quote some of the things Mr. Gralewicz, for instance, said with respect to questions which were directed to him. He was asked what would be the effect upon other industries if this bill were to be made law in the form then before the committee. He said, in part:
As I said, I have never made this study. I would not know. However, the bulk carrier ocean-going vessel could not compete with lake carriers because the 730-foot lake carrier can carry umpteen million tons where the other one could not. So we would not be, we shall say, competitive.
I think we know that Mr. Gralewicz is the president of the Seafarers' International Union. With him that day was Mr. Nuss, who was counsel for the Seafarers' International Union of Canada. Some of the questions were referred to him. He said, with respect to the bill:
If there is to be a distribution of wealth in order to carry out the policy, that is what parliament is here for. That is what should be done. No matter what we do in Canada there are other places in the world where it can be done cheaper whether it be manufactured goods or transportation. We have to decide as a country that it is not merely a question of what can be done the cheapest which counts but also a question of policy that it should be done by Canadians.
I do not quarrel with the statement that it should be done by Canadians but, Mr. Speaker, what I would point out is that both Mr. Gralewicz and Mr. Nuss recognized that this is a program which cannot be introduced without government recognition of the total package. This is what the government has failed to do. I want to quote Mr. Gralewicz again:
Subsidies are given to the airlines and subsidies are given to the railroads. Why not a subsidy to the other mode of transportation which is water transportation?
But this is not being considered. He also said:
I could not compete if I were a shipowner with the airlines which are subsidized or the railroads which are subsidized unless there is some form of subsidy or some form of relaxation given, maybe on the Seaway tolls or whatever. I do not know what they need.
He asks, again, for recognition of the fact that government has a responsibility to bear in the form of assistance if this bill is to become law. It was suggested during that committee meeting that there were people whose jobs were going to become marginal as a result of the decrease in net returns which might accrue to certain coastal industries. It was in respect of this approach that Mr. Nicholson, the national vice-president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers' Union, said:
Yes, I think I agree, but actually no Canadian, whether he is a worker, in management or anyone else, should be required to make an unfair or disproportionate contribution to the economy. He should get some
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
realizable and beneficial gain from the economy. I think we are just talking about ways of doing that.
That is what we were talking about, Mr. Speaker-an opportunity to give to the Canadian seamen a part of that which is due to them from the Canadian economy. But again, there must be recognition of the fact that it cannot happen by itself, by legislation alone. In response to a question I put as follows:
As we transfer that movement of freight to the Canadian ownership under the Canadian tax structure does this not damage the competitive position of Canadian owners and seamen in the area?
Mr. Nicholson responded as follows:
That is what I meant when I said there should be a cost-benefit analysis in this particular field. And there has not been.
This is Mr. Nicholson, speaking for the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. I repeat his title because I think it imperative that the government and the people of this nation should understand that as the unions presented their case in connection with this bill, in every single instant they recognized that it could not happen by itself, that it might require study. To quote Mr. Nicholson again:
I think as a result of that cost-benefit study the government might well be in a better position to decide what financial arrangements have to be made and whether they are justified.
Now I would like to turn to the president of the Dominion Marine Association, as he appeared before the committee with his group of supporters. He was asked about the competitive costs of Canadian ownership of ships and the Canadian purchase of Canadian-manufactured ships in respect to cost to a Canadian purchaser or a foreign purchaser. This is what he said:
Oh yes, I see your point. You are speaking now of the STAP, the export plan, under which a foreign person can order a ship built in Canada, get our 17 per cent subsidy and get cheap money under the Export Development Corporation plan, which we cannot get. So you are right. That ship would cost the Canadian more than it would cost the foreigner.
It is, therefore, imperative that the government should recognize this additional cost to the owners and operators of ships who will take this position under this legislation. We have a certain class of Labour Code in Canada and it is not comparable to any other. Mr. Hurcomb, president of the Dominion Marine Association, said with respect to this: No, I think by and large the other nations did not fall into this pitfall. They recognized the special case of the seagoing industry, of the water borne industry. I know of no other country which has the same kind of legislation applicable to its shipping industry.
Mr. Speaker, here is another handicap which we must consider. Admiral Porter, who was also appearing before the committee, is executive director of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association. I put this question to him:
As a manufacturing structure, can you supply a Canadian shipping industry on a competitive basis at the moment or are there going to be subsidies and financial considerations required to make them competitive?
In reply, Admiral Porter said:
I think that a factor here is, of course, that every other country subsidizes its industry, and if Canada is to be competitive I suppose we have to do likewise. Perhaps I might just read you an excerpt from a study which was done by a European consulting firm. This was a study done in 1973 entitled "Shipbuilding Credits and Government Aid". This ia a quotation from it:
June 28, 1976

"Most countries today are providing financial assistance either directly for construction operating and interest subsidies or in the form of special taxation, depreciation and concessions or by financial guarantees. The OECD secretariat estimates that for 1970 the cost of government support for shipbuilding was about 12 to 15 per cent of the cost of ships or in the order of $650 million to $750 million. This is obviously only an estimate as the great variety of systems and the interconnections between the various forms of government intervention make it difficult to assess accurately the amount of government aid given to shipbuilding. Of the quoted amount, direct construction subsidies accounted for about $250 million. The various other forms of assistance, i.e., taxation relief, finance for investment, reorganization and research probably account for a similar amount."
We do not have the expertise developed here, but we have the opportunity to develop it, so that those who have been successful in Canada do not find it necessary to import certain of their requirements. The assistance given by Canada for exporting ships may amount to one or two percentage points of interest rate. On a boat costing anywhere from $20 million to $30 million, that one or two percentage points amounts to a lot of money. Should, then, the government continue in its present policy of giving a subsidy to those who purchase boats from abroad, giving them cheaper interest rates, which in turn puts the foreign-owned, Canadian-built vessel in a more competitive position than the Canadian-purchased, Canadian-owned and Canadian-operated vessel?
What I want to point out is that in every aspect of the presentations made to the committee on transportation, recognition of government subsidy was given. Whether it was the shippers, the seamens' union, the railroad union, the operators or the manufacturers of ships, all recognized that Canada had to be prepared to put money into the pot if the policy was to be successful. Let me repeat what I said when I spoke last on this matter in the House. When the unions made their presentation to the in-camera meeting at Halifax, they went so far as to say that if the government of Canada had to provide the boats to the operators, it should do so.
I am no less in favour of the principle of this legislation than was the hon. member of the New Democratic Party who spoke a few minutes ago, but I am concerned that we do not trade the devil for a witch. Some of the presentations made to the government never did get to the committee, and most of those who made representations came away dissatisfied with what they heard.
The minister has given us today an outline of certain permissive opportunities that enable the government to do certain things with this act. I wish it to be noted that in every instance, except only the one relating to a penalty clause, things are done at the discretion of the government, since in the second line of the amendment we find the word "may". This is what nearly every businessman has been complaining about in this legislation. The businessman has asked the government to spell out in its legislation precisely what will and shall be done under this act. It should not be put in permissive form, that a group of individuals within the structure of the Department of Transport "may" make decisions. These decisions will in the main be made by people who have never in their lives paid a freight bill, who never in their lives have run a business whose viability might hinge totally upon whether or not it could afford the transportation costs. That is why
Maritime Code
this must be given proper consideration, Mr. Speaker. No amendment to the bill to date has recognized that it may be necessary that the industry be viable both on the water and on the land.
I think it important to read into the record the press release issued by the Maritime Council of Premiers following their meeting on May 25 and 26 held at Charlottetown, P.E.I. They had this to say on national transportation policy:
The Premiers reaffirmed their position that transportation systems should be used by governments as positive tools for the attainment of national and regional objectives. They noted that over a year ago, the federal Minister of Transport had agreed with this policy, but they stated that despite the federal government's agreement with their position, there is an alarming lack of hard evidence that transportation is, in fact, being used as a positive development tool. Indeed, there are examples of just the opposite.
Bona fide consultation is required between governments to ensure that transportation is used to help rather than hinder economic developments. The premiers expressed concern that the federal government is increasing cost recovery within some transportation systems without considering the effects of this on the over-all economy. Consultation between governments should first establish regional economic objectives, they said. Then the undue reliance upon user pay concept should be replaced by the vigorous pursuit of cost effective solutions to these objectives.
They also commented on passenger service, but for the purpose of this debate I will skip that section. With regard to ports policy, which is an integral part, of course, of any maritime code that we might establish, the communique said this:
The Premiers expressed support in principle for the federal proposal to introduce a new port administration policy aimed at providing greater autonomy for our major ports. They commented that this is something they have been advocating for some time as they believe it will result in greater efficiency. However, the proposal put forward by federal officials lacks sufficient detail for them to draw definite conclusions as to its true merit. More specifically, the financial aspects must be better defined. For example, the financial performance of maritime ports will undoubtedly be compared with other ports when determining future investments. In making this comparison, consideration must be given to the cost of non-port activities required to keep ports operational. As an example, the fine natural harbours of the east coast require little of the expensive dredging and ice breaking that is required to keep the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes' ports operational. It may be felt that the development of inland ports is a desirable national goal, and that these substantial expenses should be undertaken in pursuit of such goals. However, Atlantic ports must not be penalized by defining artificial boundaries within which "cost recovery" is vigorously pursued, while ignoring real and substantial costs outside those boundaries.
I think the suggestions of the maritime premiers in these minutes of their news release are very pertinent. There are expenses not considered part of the cost of transportation in some areas of Canada, yet these expenses are in fact part of port expenses.
Let me come now to the coasting trade, and I again quote from these minutes:
The Premiers expressed concern that the safeguards required to protect regional industries against high transportation costs which would result from the removal of Commonwealth shipping in the coasting trade do not appear to have been adequately provided in either the new act or proposed regulations. The Premiers said that at a meeting of the Council of Maritime Premiers and the Premier of Newfoundland with the Honourable Jean Marchand in September, 1973, it was announced that Canada would withdraw from the British Commonwealth Shipping Agreement and reserve coastal shipping to Canadian flag vessels. At the same time, assurance was given by the federal minister that safeguards would be introduced to protect region-

Maritime Code
al industries against high transportation costs. The Premiers today are sending a telegram to the Honourable Otto Lang urging him to permit the use of non-Canadian vessels according to the dictates of availability and cost. This is essential to enable maritime industries to benefit from one of the region's natural advantages.
The minister has said that the ministers of the Atlantic provinces pertaining to transportation are satisfied with the principle of the bill. As I am satisfied with the principle, so are they. But they are not satisfied with the realities of the bill, not with the regulations which they have seen once and on which they have met once. They have requested further meetings, through members of that committee, when they were discussing other transportation problems in Ottawa. No second meeting has yet been called to consider those regulations, or if it has been called it has been very recently and they have not as yet met.
When the area heard that this bill was to come back on the agenda of the House of Commons, the phones began to ring, because we had assurances, which we extended to the various interested parties in the Atlantic area, that this would not be brought forward again until the fall. The Atlantic area felt it would have an opportunity to make presentations to the government during the summer, or some opportunity while it was before hearings of the Senate or if it should go back to the House committee. They did not have an opportunity to present their case at the committee hearings which were held before. Certain individuals or groups have made presentations to the government and have been unable to obtain satisfactory replies.
One industry which was very deeply concerned, for instance, was the linerboard plant in Newfoundland. It wished very sincerely to give the government the position in which it would find itself, and that position is very serious. Yet it has not been possible to negotiate a firm position for these people so they may be sure they can obtain foreign charters to hold the costs in line with what they can afford. They are transporting hundreds of thousands of tons along the coastal areas of Canada, and any change in the rate which may accrue as a result of this measure will put a very heavy burden of expense on that industry. The figure it used was $400,000 in one instance.
These people have expressed concern. They believe, for instance, that the bureaucracy of the Department of Transport will control the destinies of a large number of industries in respect of waivers; the shipping industry will not offer their ships for charter in Canadian waters if there is no certainty of a definite term or a reasonable time for charters. This is the type of boat they have been using. It is all right to make all kinds of aspersions, casting them at Onassis and other shipowners on a worldwide basis, but I do not think that will help the case of the coastal industry which depends upon international shipping markets.
They are also concerned about the effect of this permissive, or enabling type of legislation with the changes in policy that can take place. They are concerned that it will not be the minister, but members of the staff who may not be familiar with shipping costs of a particular industry, who will make the decisions in respect of what these industries will pay for the cost of transportation. These people expend approximately $20 million for coastal trans-

portation. That is a pretty large sum of money. If you spend $20 million for water transportation and your rates go up at all, you are then talking big money. A 1 per cent increase of $20 million is $200,000, and a 5 per cent or ten per cent increase, which is anticipated, might put these people completely out of business.
Their concern is that the apparent benefits of the bill to the whole of the Canadian economy might well be offset by the detriment to their companies. The government has not justified that the bill is in the public interest. Members of these industries have attended meetings of the in-camera committee held in Halifax. There have been several meetings along that line, and the same answers have been received. Their comment is that the bill has never been changed substantially as a result of these meetings, and that the most notable government concessions was given in the minister's letter to Jack Davis that the government will not restrict waivers to one year. We already know there are those who must plan for 20 years for the development of this country, and there is a need to have assurances that there will be specific guidelines. Certainly the linerboard plant is among those who must look a long way ahead in the future. That is just one industry.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed that it has been the choice of the leader of the government to bring this bill back. As I mentioned earlier, the people in the Atlantic area had been advised, as a result of the statement by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), that this bill would not be back before the fall. They had gone back to mend their fences and prepare their presentations to put before the government or, they hoped, before the committee which was to study this bill further, either in the House of Commons or in the Senate. It was with great consternation that they received the word that this bill would reappear at all.
I appeal to the government and to the minister that the cost-benefit study that was urged by the unions, by the shipbuilders, by ship charterers and by the coastal industry, be undertaken, and that under no circumstances should this bill be put before the House of Commons again until we can have a reasonable measure of its effect on the coastal industry of Canada. It should not return until the minister can lay upon the table of the House a document showing what effect it might have on any industry in Canada which has had the benefit of water competitive rates. It should not be returned until such time as a Canadian shipowner can buy a Canadian ship as cheaply as a foreign shipowner can buy a Canadian-manufactured ship. It should not be returned until such time as the minister can advise this House that the government is prepared to accept the responsibility, which belongs at the government level, to subsidize transportation by water to the degree that it will not disrupt basic coastal employment in Canada.
It is the fear of Canadians that these industries will no longer be viable if they have a severe increase in transportation costs. We need a definite answer. We cannot have more permissive legislation which will be interpreted, on a daily basis, as government policy on a particular day when a particular application appears before the government. This is what the industry fears. The industry wants spelled out a foundation on which to do business. This is not
June 28, 1976

present in this bill. It is not even present in the regulations which, again, have discretionary powers and which give the decision-making not necessarily to the ministry. This will give to other people the authority to decide at a given moment in time that there is an unemployed ship in Canada and the industry must employ it regardless of the cost. This decision can be made under such enabling legislation as we presently have before us. These are assurances for which the minister has plenty of time to obtain answers and to respond to those who are going to pay the bill.
Again I state, in an unqualified way, that I wish Canada had a Canadian merchant marine. However, in an equally unqualified way I say that this is an item of national concern which must be paid for by the nation. As the union members have stated, clearly it should not be paid for by any particular group of people such as those presently employed in the coastal industries. These items must be spelled out and answers must be given before Canada or any part of Canada should give favourable consideration to such a piece of legislation which could have such a tremendous impact upon employment in coastal areas as well as in areas which are not coastal.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I, along with some other members, am reluctant to have this bill pass at this time for reasons which have been stated. However, what is much more important, I am opposed to this bill because I do not think it would do the things that have been recommended in the Darling report and in the other two major maritime reports, namely, the building of a merchant navy in Canada for our coastal trade, or the building of a shipbuilding industry in Canada which has been neglected for a period of years.
When this bill was before the committee there was discussion to the effect that if we were to implement a Canadian shipbuilding industry and a totally Canadian flag coastal trade, considerable expense would be involved to the shippers in the maritime areas of Canada, particularly on the east coast. I think that is a fact. If in a short period of time we were to re-establish our shipbuilding industry to build the type of ships that are necessary for the coastal trade, there would have to be a considerable capital expenditure in that industry, particularly if we were to eliminate the cheap labour and the improperly equipped ships which are now plying our coastal trade, especially on the east coast. There should be a considerable increase in the cost of moving goods on that coast.
I think we should realistically look at the problem in a much broader sense than we have up to now. If we were to establish in the maritimes a shipbuilding industry which would meet our Canadian requirements, which would have a capacity, as well, to meet our liner trade which is a trade that would enable Canadians to ship Canadian goods on international waters, this would provide employment in the maritime areas where unemployment is exceedingly high and where I believe the ability exists to build that type of ship and to provide that type of employment.
In terms of employment and the capacity of people in the shipbuilding industry to buy goods and services in other parts of the country, I believe this would have a very large
Maritime Code
effect on the economy of Canada in general. Also, I believe in the maritime areas we have the type of people who would be able to man those ships, who would provide a large maritime core that could be employed on a long-term basis. This would eliminate much of the problem which exists on the coast at the present time in respect of the issuance of licences which enables any fly-by-night operator to move into that area, obtain a licence and compete unfairly with other carriers simply because he does not have to pay the wages or meet the standards we have in Canada.
I was very surprised when the Liberal members of the committee and also the minister paid little attention to the requirements of the Canada Labour Code in respect of any ships operating under either permit or licence in the coastal trade. It seems to me that in the Canadian coastal trade, where we move goods from one port to another, if we do not have the ships to carry that coastal trade and offer a licence to a foreign ship or a permit to a Commonwealth country engaged in that trade, we at least should insist on the Labour Code being applied in respect of those ships so that scab wages do not apply, so that our normal safety requirements apply, and so that Canadian standards apply in order that damages do not occur such as those which obviously have occurred in respect of foreign bottoms which are not sufficiently safe to ply in those waters. I could mention the accidents which have taken place. Probably the people in the maritmes are well aware of the fact that some of those disasters are still causing difficulty in respect of insurance and because the companies which own those ships are not able to meet their liabilities under Canadian law.
The government has said that in implementing the first section of the maritime code, and in fact the first two of a series of five studies which have been commissioned and undertaken, we are providing for the development of a Canadian flag in coastal trade and are eliminating many of the abuses which have taken place off our coasts in the last few years. They have not. I think the fact is that nothing will happen under this act which has not happened in the past.
We have agreed that the Commonwealth countries will be phased out over a period by means of a grandfather clause, and that those who were issued permits who previously were doing business in the coastal trade will have their permits extended for a period of five years under that clause. If a person goes to a maritime area and is unable to ship his goods at a reasonable price in any available Canadian ship or Commonwealth ship, and can prove that such a ship is not available to carry his goods at a price, then he will be able to apply for a licence which will enable him to use a foreign ship which would be exempt from any of the regulations we would normally apply to any of our own ships on that coast.
Unless the Canadian public is willing to see all the advantages of having a Canadian shipping industry, and all the advantages of having a Canadian shipbuilding industry, as well as the advantages which would accrue to the Canadian public, we will always find great reluctance by shippers on the coast of Canada to ship in Canadian bottoms when there are other bottoms they can obtain that will carry those goods at a cheaper price.

Maritime Code
There are few people who have said that they would like to establish a Canadian flag fleet on our coastal waters if it were going to mean that the communities there would have to pay the total price of having those ships and Canadian crews operating in competition with foreign vessels. Most people are well aware that if we in Canada are going to enjoy the advantages, we will have to pay the price. Obviously considering the moneys and benefits we would receive from having our own shipbuilding industry again, and from having the capacity to go into international shipping as the need arises, there has to be a price tag, but I think the Canadian people would be willing to pay.
I was very surprised that the government in this bill did not at least have the Canadian Labour Code attach to all ships. We are well aware of the fact that there are Koreans, Portuguese, those flying under the Panamanian flag, the Liberian flag and all the other flags of convenience who are receiving very low wages. By the standards of this country they are paid considerably less than our minimum standard. These people are working in conditions which are well below the standards demanded in Canadian ships, which include standards for the safety of the crew, the safety of the ship, navigation facilities, and all the other requirements. Yet the government was not willing to apply that section of the Labour Code which would have ensured that any ship operating under Canadian licence would have to meet the Canadian labour standards. That would have provided Canadian operators with the opportunity to compete on a more equitable basis with the foreign ships of convenience which are now often in the coastal trade of Canada.
There are problems which would develop from having a totally Canadian owned shipping industry. Restrictions often have odd effects, and one of those effects would be on the west coast where large cruise ships are going up and down the coast between the mainland of the United States and Alaska. They call at ports in British Columbia, mainly for convenience, and pick up passengers at one Canadian port and drop them off at another Canadian port, or pick them up at a Canadian port and drop them off at the destination of the ship. This service is operating and would obviously have to be an exception until we are able to develop a replacement coastal service.
No one objects to small exceptions, but I think it is a shame that we are going to operate on the basis of licences which will not be the exception but which will be the general rule for much of the shipping in the coastal area. We are going to issue those licences without demanding that any Canadian requirements attach to them. I think this is the weakness of this legislation. It has been hailed by many as a step in the right direction, and I think it is. By this legislation we will be able to overcome some of the problems we did not have when designations of terms were used. For instance the word "ship" has now been applied to things like floating derricks, oil drilling rigs, and other facilities which are now used off our coasts. They are not necessarily self-propelled and are not movable in the sense that the term "ship" had previously been used. I think this is really worth while.
In this legislation we have eliminated the very stringent requirements there were under the Arctic waters protec-

tion legislation in which we demanded that all shipping be totally under the control of Canadians, and also in which anyone operating in that area must do so by applying all the protection Canadians demand of themselves, and that things like Canadian standards must apply to crews in that area as well. It seems odd, in looking at the Arctic waters protection legislation, that we as members of parliament were faced with a new problem. We were faced with a problem that was very young in nature but was growing very rapidly and was of considerable importance to the economy of Canada. The. Arctic waters protection legislation was designed in such a way as to give maximum protection to Canadian interests in an area where Canadian interests are of primary importance and where already there were a number of other interests likely to have a continuing effect. I think that really is the direction we intend the new Maritime Code to go.
We want to protect a Canadian industry which, in effect, we do not have at the present time. We want to develop a capacity, which we do not have at the present time, for the building of merchant fleets, and at the same time we want to establish sovereignty and nationalistic aspirations. These are some of the considerations anticipated by the general public, but I am sorry to say that in my opinion these objectives have not been met. Many of them have been written in such a way that they will be considered at a later date, and many of them will be considered far into the future when the situation may have changed drastically.
We are often very dependent on the economic factor rather than on the Canadian sovereignty position most Canadians now want. I am thinking of one instance in which a ferry was going to Newfoundland. The ferry ran into difficulties, and we brought one in. We were able to operate it on a lease basis much more cheaply than we could operate our own because of the wage factor and other considerations. There was great reluctance to go back to the system we had before, and there was a great desire on the part of many people to retain that service which appeared to be cheaper to operate than our own Canadian service.
I think everyone will agree that we do not want to add to the cost of maritime transportation a large sum for developing Canadian Sovereignty, but I think there is a large benefit to be obtained from developing the maritime industry, the shipbuilding industry, and the coastal trade industry. That would provide us with the possibility of developing an international capacity, something which we gave up a long time ago.
It is interesting to consider what some other people have done. Most countries in the world have decided to have a capacity of their own to deliver their export goods, no matter where those goods may go. The Arabs have bought many tankers and have a capacity now which they did not have a few years ago. They decided to buy this capacity simply because they wanted a guarantee that deliveries would be continuous and that those operating the ships would not be able to hold them up for ransom. This was also true of the United States and of almost all other countries, and there is a great desire on the part of the newly developing countries, the Third World countries, to
June 28, 1976

develop for themselves the capacity to move their goods to market in their own ships.
Many countries signed a United Nations resolution; indeed about 80 per cent of the countries concerned with shipping signed it but Canada did not. One of the reasons was consideration of the economics of developing our own facility rather than buying it from those in the business of selling transportation. This has produced in Canada, as elsewhere, the large lobbies that I think have been very influential with our civil servants who were largely responsible for developing this legislation. The bill is really only a modernization of some existing legislation, and has not come to a legislative decision that we are to have a Canadian shipping industry and navy.
There are those who contend it is not possible for Canada to develop a maritime capability, but it should be remembered that during the last war Canada was able to handle about one third of the world's shipping mainly through the Liberty ship program. There was no other way to move our goods across the ocean. But it was surprising how the friends of C. D. Howe decided shortly after the war that there was no place for Canada in international shipping. The ships were sold to Onassis, and some of them are still plying the seas and coming into Canadian ports. We have the ability, Mr. Speaker. There is an immense amount of unemployment in the maritimes but I am sure people still have the skills and the facilities necessary to build ships that would be needed for a Canadian coastal trade if such were included in this bill.
While we are getting rid of the grandfather clause we are in effect eliminating the Commonwealth preference within a five year period but we have not done anything to get rid of the licence that would permit foreign ships, Commonwealth or otherwise, to ply the waters off our coasts. That is unfortunate because I think we are ready to go into that ourselves. We should also give consideration to the next step, international trade. We could buy tankers to move some of our oil. I see the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) in the House and I am sure he will remember the time when we faced a great shortage of oil and hired a tanker to bring oil from western Canada to eastern Canada. Nobody was too sure whether the ship could stay afloat, it was in such poor shape, but we had to take a chance because there was no alternative. I do not blame the government in that case, but I think it is a disgrace that a country with one of the largest coastlines in the world should not have one tanker.
About a year ago I spoke to the engineer of a tanker which was lying at Freeport. He indicated that it had not been to sea for six or seven months and was going into drydock for refit at a cost of $l'/2 million. He did not think there was any advantage in putting it in drydock because he did not see any future for that relatively small tanker. The tanker's last trip had been to Quebec City in winter, bringing oil from the Caribbean. The engineer was of the opinion that Canada could get a real bargain in that tanker and a number of others that were lying offshore. They could be used in emergencies if we needed them. There was nothing wrong with this particular tanker that $l'/2 million would not correct, but it was too small for international trade.
Maritime Code
Some members may be surprised to learn that Japan has on the drawing board a tanker capable of carrying a million tons o( oil, and already there are a number of ships on the high seas capable of carrying half a million tons of oil. This small tanker that came into Quebec City is available if our government should see fit to buy it. However, we have not made the decision to develop a merchant navy.
Workers in the area of maritime trade will be interested to see if we take the step of ensuring that the Canada Labour Code applies to every ship that is issued a licence to participate in our coastal trade. I do not know whether the government believes that Canadians can compete, but I believe they can and that they have proven it in the past. If people are employed at a dollar an hour on a foreign ship under a flag of convenience while Canadians demand $4 or $5 per hour for the same job, not many shipping companies would be willing to compete. We should demand that companies operating under licence comply with the Canadian Labour Code and I would suggest that they also carry the Canada Labour (Safety) Code.
I do not come from a coastal area, Mr. Speaker, but from inland-


Donald W. Munro: Land-locked.


William Arnold Peters: Not quite land-locked. When I have a new riding under my jurisdiction it will have the only salt water port in Ontario.
Most of the sailors who were part of the Canadian merchant navy during the last war and those who manned the naval ships, came from the prairies. They had never seen salt water in their lives.
This country has an extensive coastal area and most Canadians acknowledge that shipping is important to us if we are to be competitive in export trade. I think most Canadians would agree that it is desirable to establish a Canadian merchant navy and international fleet, and to do so we must start with our coastal areas. We have now established a 200-mile fishing limit and are talking about establishing the continental shelf as the edge of our fishing zone but, Mr. Speaker, we do not have ships that will go out that far. We have, under the Canadian flag, three or four ships registered which are capable of going to the edge of the continental shelf. We should develop additional capacity in this field.
I strongly urge the referral back to committee of this bill. We should require the Canadian Labour Code to apply not only to ships of Canadian registry flying the Canadian flag but to ships operating under permit in our waters. This provision should apply to Commonwealth ships and to foreign ships operating in Canada under the permit-system. Nothing less will satisfy Canadians who want to see the Canadian merchant navy flying on ships plying our coastal waters and the oceans of the world.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, one should not be surprised at the manner in which this bill has been sneaked back into the House, despite previous undertakings. I suppose that this sort of thing has become part of our way of life around here. Certainly it is par for the course for the government to

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
make an undertaking and then renege on it later. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), having raised this matter by way of a procedural point of order, I shall let the matter rest. However, I do wish to indicate that I was disconcerted and distressed by the sudden re-appearance of this bill since I had given certain undertakings on the basis of assurances given to me earlier this month that the bill would not come back. I gave an undertaking to a variety of interests on the west coast that the measure would not re-appear, would not be called again, before our rising for the summer.
With the coming of summer the tourist industry on the west coast became concerned in case the provisions of this bill should damage or disadvantage the tourist trade on the west coast. For example, there was the fear that under the terms of this legislation tourists would be unable to embark either at Vancouver or Victoria, proceed on a tourist cruise into the South Pacific or the Caribbean, return, and disembark at Victoria or Vancouver, or wherever they had embarked. I say this because the existing language of the bill made it seem that such cruises would be part of the coastal trade.
As well, another queer sort of procedure took place which I still do not understand properly. Certainly it went beyond any of the procedures of which I have been aware in the House. I am referring to three informal meetings to which members interested in this bill were invited. Actually they were notified of the meetings. The meetings were not in camera but there was no record kept of them. Members concerned about and interested in the provisions of this bill were given the texts of amendments which the government was planning to introduce to clarify ambiguities in the bill. I could not then understand why unanimous consent of the House was not sought for returning the matter to committee to permit the amendments to be made. However, the House has now heard the terms of certain amendments.
I do not know when the initial philosophy behind Bill C-61 was developed; perhaps it was before my time in the House, and I have been a member for about four years. As I recall, when we examined the bill in February and March, it was found that a number of amendments needed to be introduced to correct problems connected with translation, for example, and careless drafting.
Although this bill has been before the House for a long time, three more substantive amendments have been proposed in an unusual way. When we attended the meeting with officials in the West Block, we were handed copies of the amendments and of the regulations, and enjoined not to show them to anyone. Why they were offered to us I do not know. Why were they not brought forward in the House? Surely it was most unusual to propose the three substantive amendments in the manner followed this afternoon. The minister read them into the record. I am glad he did so, because he at least removed from them the aura of confidentiality with which they were clothed when they were first shown to us. Some who were more conversant than I am with the rules and practices of this House had wit enough to pass these amendments around to certain people. If I may call it six o'clock I shall continue later, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, when I called it six o'clock I was referring to the extraordinary practice of letting us have copies of these three amendments which were read into the record this afternoon by the minister, along with the injunction that they not be transmitted to the interested parties.
As I was also saying before six o'clock, there are those who are more familiar with the customs and practices of this House who sent these amendments to the trade in order to secure some reaction. I did not do that until this morning. On learning that the bill was coming forward, I felt it was high time that I had the opportunity to get some reaction from the provincial authorities and the shipping interests on the west coast who had expressed concern because these amendments deal with three matters: intercoastal trade, the licensing operation, and operations in the tourist trade.
Having had the text of the amendments passed to us and having been told not to circulate them, I intended to consult with the interested parties during the summer. However, as the bill was brought back very unexpectedly today, I felt I should get the amendments off, together with the regulations, because we have another draft of the regulations.
The regulations, of course, are another matter. If I am not mistaken, one copy of the regulations has already gone out to the provincial authorities. I am not sure whether the second set has gone out. Admitting that they are draft regulations, they are being fed out for reactions to see if they fit the need. This is being done because there is a tendency here, at the centre of things, to get a sort of tunnel vision. We sometimes cannot see some of the implications that are readily noticeable when the provinces, tourist trade, or shipping concerns look at the regulations and apply them to the jobs they have to do. Therefore I was going to consult the trade again when I went back to the west coast.
I believe that the matter of consultation is very important. In answer to a question put to him the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), I got the message, although I have not checked the blues to see if my impression is correct, that the minister is satisfied that the western provinces have agreed to these various amendments. I have had within recent date correspondence with the minister of transport of the province of British Columbia that suggests otherwise. He has suggested that there should be time to consider the whole matter, particularly the amendments that are brought forward.
June 28, 1976

In this connection I should like to read a letter, of which a copy was sent to me, from the minister of transport and communications of the province of British Columbia, dated April 30, indicating just how much consultation there has been between this government and those who are interested in this legislation. The provincial minister, Mr. Jack Davis, who of course is a former colleague of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), refers to a communique which was issued by the western premiers in April dealing with Bill C-61. In that communique the western premiers had this to say:
The Western Premiers expressed the strong view that pending legislation to change the Canada Shipping Act (which would remove the freedom to use foreign ships for inter-coastal trade) should be delayed-
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, "should be delayed".
-until such time as the Hall Commission has reported.
The Hall Commission, so far as I am aware, has not reported. To pick up the letter again:
This is in line with the views which the four western ministers of transport expressed to you-
Meaning the federal Minister of Transport.
-orally in Edmonton two months ago. It also reiterates in a very general way the concern expressed by a number of ministries in western Canada about the generality of Bill C-61 and the fact that exclusion of inter-coastal trade by regulation is simply not good enough.
This may be the purpose behind one of these amendments. I pick up the letter again:
I was surprised, of course, to receive your letter of April 14th, 1976 in which you-
That is the Minister of Transport's letter.
-say that "relevant clauses of the Bill have been reviewed at meetings between the federal and provincial governments. General satisfaction and acceptance of the proposed legislation have been clearly indicated at these meetings by the provincial officials, including the representative of your department.
That is a quotation from the letter of the Minister of Transport to the minister of transport for the province of British Columbia. To pick up the letter from the provincial minister once more, he says quite bluntly:
This is false. It is not true. I have personally been present when four western ministers of transport told you personally that they objected to the legislation. Officials of the B.C. Department of Transport and Communications have been under instruction, since the change of government in B.C., that the inter-coastal provisions of Bill C-61 were objectionable from our point of view.
They are pretty solid objections. Obviously there is some sort of foul-up in the consultations between the Minister of Transport and the provinces. I speak only for the west; the same may apply in the east for all I know. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport came back from the consultations with some misunderstanding, but there is certainly every need imaginable for referring this bill to the committee and for calling witnesses to speak to the substantive changes, if only to satisfy these well formulated objections.
For example, in one of the amendments-and this could cause concern-having to do with clause 8(5) of the bill, the governor in council "may make regulations exempting" certain classes of goods. The governor in council is given
Maritime Code
no mandatory power there. If there is good cause for these regulations to be made exempting from the application of this provision the carriage by water of certain classes of goods, I think that should be clear and the provincial ministers should be given the chance to come here to speak, or to send their representatives here to speak on their behalf, to these proposed amendments.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I personally want to see a Canadian merchant marine.
I have said this in the House on more than one occasion. I feel we need it, and the reasons are fully outlined in my intervention on second reading last March. They have also been outlined in my contributions in the twenty-ninth parliament. However, I cannot carry this wish to the point of failing to hear what problems are likely to arise if we are to establish a merchant marine without consulting those who are concerned. In view of the contradictions that are all too apparent in the correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the provincial minister of transport, I think this caveat on my part is well grounded. It is most important that these apparent differences be resolved; indeed it is essential that they be resolved. This can no longer be done on paper since obviously correspondence between the ministers leads to misunderstandings and absolute contradictions. Therefore it has to be done in committee, and I hope that my colleague from Capilano, who will next have the floor, will be able to move the required amendment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, as I enter the debate on third reading of Bill C-61 it is still a mystery to me why the government has not accepted the advice that has been given during the many hearings and presentations the bill has received over the past several years. It has been submitted that national policies aimed at developing a merchant marine and a shipbuilding industry should be kept separate from policies governing the transportation of goods. If we in the province of British Columbia have one serious reservation about the implications and aspects of Bill C-61 it is just this, that we are mixing the transportation of goods with our transportation policy, with potential spin-off effects which can be extremely detrimental to the economy of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and also the Atlantic provinces.
I listened with attention to the minister's presentation today and I compliment him on being calm, cool, and very rational. He made several points that we have understood from the many communications he has sent out across the land to people who have been studying this bill, but one of the matters that has caused a backlash in the province of British Columbia so far as Bill C-61 is concerned is this: various interested groups-I speak of the Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Shipping, the B.C. Council of Forest Industries and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce-groups that have a dedicated interest in the future of their business, have not received courteous attention from the staff of the minister or his parliamentary secretary as they were not invited before the committee during committee stage. Why this has happened I do not know. On going back into the files I find that all of these organizations in British Columbia submitted briefs to the former minister of transport, and resubmitted and supplemented them to the incumbent Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).

Maritime Code
There is a situation that has developed in British Columbia in which we do not trust the government in Ottawa any longer in its desire to rule by regulation. There are too many examples on the record of rule by regulation favouring some and not being applied uniformly across the land to all the interests competing in the same arena.
West coast interests have been on the record with the two ministers since 1973 in this regard and, as I said, not one of those interests has been invited to appear before the Committee on Transport and Communications during its deliberations and study of this bill. The minister has gone to a great deal of trouble to circulate a whole series of telegrams and letters he has received from various interested groups in Canada who are in favour of the passage of Bill C-61. It is very interesting to note that of all these letters and telegrams that have been circulated, fundamentally from the unions and the guilds in the Great Lakes region, none that I can see comes from anyone outside that group of unions and corporations in the Great Lakes region. This is the region that supports Bill C-61 as it is presently written.
I notice also, and I guess this adds to the feeling of distrust we have out west, that none of the other submissions have been circulated by the minister to give a fair view of our concern in British Columbia. This is the group of organizations and associations which co-ordinate the interests of the people and employees in British Columbia. They are concerned about the spin-off and detrimental effect to our markets and to the rising costs that we are facing in transport of goods to market, and in the transport costs of the goods we receive from the Atlantic provinces.
I might say that the B.C. Council of Forest Industries put in a specific request to meet with the committee. The committee was out in Vancouver studying the port of Vancouver. It sat three days there and visited the port and the airport at Seattle, yet at no time did the B.C. Forest Council receive an invitation to appear before the committee. Why is that when it has had briefs prepared and its concerns have been expressed most clearly in telegrams and letters? That council has not been given the chance to put its positions specifically on the record. I hope I am able, in the time allotted to me tonight, to do just that for that council.
That council was also advised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) in this regard, and I will read his letter into the record. This is a letter sent by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni on House of Commons letterhead to the Council of Forest Industries, British Columbia, under date of May 27, addressed to Mr. Lanskail:
As you may have heard it is the government's intent to recess on June 30 and for this reason it will be impossible to give third reading to Bill C-61 prior to this date.
It is still unclear as to whether a new session will be initiated upon members' return to parliament in September or October and therefore Bill C-61 may or may not be carried forth into the fall and winter session. For this reason the informal committee of which I was appointed co-chairman to study regulations dealing with Bill C-61 will not meet certainly before the end of June and possibly if the bill is not carried forth, ever.

Representations have been made to the minister by British Columbia Liberal caucus members and you can rest assured your interests will be considered in any new proposed legislation.
Just what is going on, Mr. Speaker? This is a letter to a very responsible organization which is overseeing an industry that provides 65 per cent of the income of British Columbia, and it received a letter such as this from a member who purports to be the co-chairman of the committee. He said the bill would not be brought forth in the fall. Then what are we doing here today? The government has brought the bill forth but did not even place it on the list of legislation to be discussed by parliament prior to the summer recess. This is another reason why there is a feeling of mistrust in the west concerning the attempts and the desires of the minister and his staff to cover key points concerning British Columbia and other maritime provinces by regulation.
If the government is really sincere it would be very easy for it to put these points of concern into the statute and not into regulation. The whole thing causing concern is the attitude on the part of the government. The feeling of mistrust is there, and if I were on the government benches I would be extremely concerned about that mistrust of the department and of Ottawa in general.
Added to this attitude, we have a member of the Department of Transport commenting in a newspaper column. He was being interviewed concerning the technical details of the cruising industry in British Columbia. It is reported in the newspaper that:
When representations were made to one Ottawa transport official, he replied: "Why don't they pick up their passengers at Seattle?"
The passenger cruising industry out in the port of Vancouver carries on between the months of May and September. Since I was born that very beautiful cruise along the coast of British Columbia up to Alaska has been run by Canadian ships; the CNR ran a vessel and the CPR ran a vessel, and for years that was one of the great experiences, travelling up the coast and back between May and September.
Our tastes have changed. That whole industry now depends on cruise ships that can carry 350 to 400 people during the short season from May to September. We were never able to cut the mustard with Canadian bottoms because of the short season, but now all of a sudden we want to destroy the industry that has a spin-off effect in these short months within the port of Vancouver, and the spin-off effect amounts to $29 million for victualling these ships, and the expenditures of passengers and the clientele of these ships. Yet we are here fooling around with this kind of input in my city.
I have been asked if there is any concern for this industry in my province, particularly in view of this type of interference and dogmatic attitude whereby this $29 million seasonal industry should be sloughed off to the city of Seattle. How are we going to keep our pay rolls going in order that our economy can help pay off the debts we have incurred in the past three years in the province of British Columbia unless we do something constructive?
There is a complete lack of trust and faith in the west regarding rule by regulation. There were two gentlemen, one from the CTC and one from MOT, out meeting with various interest groups in British Columbia recently, and I
June 28, 1976

believe this point was clearly made to them. I am very surprised that in light of the subject matter of these meetings this bill would be presented again now before June 30, and particularly in light of the correspondence received from a member on the other side.
West coast industries are completely opposed to rule by regulation when it is not necessary. There are all kinds of examples which show that this has caused nothing but trouble. One in particular that recently came to mind involved the Financial Arrangements Act as it applied to post-secondary education. This was a statute that the province of British Columbia agreed to, and as soon as it was agreed to and the statute was passed, officials started to work on regulations. The federal government wrote each of the ten provinces asking for a definition of post-secondary education. The government accepted three different definitions and did not advise the other provinces. The sum and substance of that kind of treatment in the west is that on a per capita basis in respect of that one transfer alone the province of British Columbia was short changed $290.8 million. Another eastern province gained $448 million through that hidden regulation or that definition that was not shared equally across Canada. You wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we do not trust them down here! How much do we have to take in order to feel a part of this country?
I have other examples of regulations here in Ottawa whereby fines are imposed unevenly. Fines are imposed on individuals and small organizations, while large organizations which should be fined for the same infraction are overlooked. As an example I speak of GELCO and its failure to file under CALURA. While the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is fining a bunch of little people it overlooks the fact that GELCO is guilty of the same thing. This is another example of the reason we mistrust rule by regulation. Where do we get assurance from rule by regulation that fines are not bestowed on those in political favour? This is something that has the backs up of people out west because they do not know how to play that game. What we are in the regulations-


An hon. Member:: Is a shafting.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -is a shafting. You bet it is. We are just building another bureaucracy, when we should give the industries operating on the west and east coasts a chance to plan for the future.
A few moments ago I spoke of the cruise industry. Those ships run for a short period of time. The charters must be arranged anywhere from two to four years in advance of the time the passengers go abroad. Who in his right mind would enter into commitments with the penalties involved in charters unless he knew exactly where he stands in this regard? Why not cover these regional needs in the act? This Bill C-61, as I read it and as I look at the telegrams and everything else that the Minister of Transport circulates, is a Great Lakes bill and an SOU bill. Very little consideration is being given to other interests.
In my area I have probably more shipyards than there are in any other riding on the west coast. I cannot count the number. They are large and small. They are extremely skilled, with a very high degree of technology. Those ship-
Maritime Code
yards today are in real difficulty. Their work forces are low. If the Burrard Shipyard did not have the two icebreakers it would not have work for its skilled workers.
The Vancouver Shipyard, thinking it was going operational, expanded the yard. The employees say they are the highest paid tradesmen there are, but there is no work for them. That yard today cannot build its own equipment. It can have that equipment built in Korea at 42 per cent less than it would cost them to build it themselves in their own yard. There is something seriously wrong with our priorities when we try to impose something on the citizens of Canada which has no relation to the cost involved with the same industry in other parts of the world.
We are very generous in respect of foreign aid; we are up to .7 per cent of our GNP, and some people would have us go as high 1 per cent. We are very generous through CIDA which is a soft loan organization giving aid to offshore countries. In EDC, the Export Development Corporation, we have a hard loan lending fact for the development and assistance of Nations less developed than Canada. Today in the House I have heard speeches in which we have been chastised for utilizing labour from Third World and less developed countries than Canada on ships which carry our goods. Surely that is a form of aid if we ourselves cannot compete.
I could tell stories about how we are building very technical high horsepower units to service the oil platforms in the North Sea. Those ships were built with Canadian technology and are of Canadian design. We have every right to be very proud of our ability to build and design equipment for coastal work, towing services, and offshore exploration rigs, but can we man those Canadian ships and vessels with Canadian crews to service the North Atlantic? No. Those Canadian ships of Canadian design are manned by crews from the Scandinavian countries. Not only is there a cost factor involved, but we have difficulty in Canada getting Canadians to serve, no matter at what level of pay, in that type of work.
I welcome the marine college, the expansion of our patrol vessels, and the expansion and need for expansion of our coastguard, but since the SIU has called for this bill can it assure us that it can man these vessels? We are now financing industrial sales to Algeria and Poland which have idealogies foreign to those of most Canadians. We now find that the greatest merchant marine in the world is that of the U.S.S.R. We think we can build a Canadian merchant marine and be competitive with that organization. They have one of the largest merchant fleets in the world. I guess it now surpasses that of the United States. The U.S.S.R. is a member of 30 of the 300 ocean conference tariff groups.
We must charge $52.75 per ton for carrying kraft wrapping paper from the U.S. west coast to the Far East while the Soviet price for the same commodity on the same route is $38 per ton. Russian ships are hauling coffee or sisal from Kenya to Europe for half the conference rate, machine tools from west Germany to Canada at 45 per cent reduction, or indeed any product at whatever discount will win the business. Should we not be expending our energies on that which we can do best?
How can we operate a Canadian merchant marine in competition with fleets like that of the Soviet Union which

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
has got itself in a real box in terms of international payments and is trying to earn foreign exchange in any way possible? How can we compete without massive subsidies from the public purse? I often wonder why this has not been said in any of the dialogue pertaining to this bill that is thrust upon us. The United States now has to subsidize the use of United States bottoms for the movement of goods throughout the world. When members of the Transport Committee were in Seattle we spoke to the U.S. officials on this subject. This subsidy is justified by way of a military need for ocean transport in the event of war. It is extremely hard to compete with the type of rates the Russians offer in the ocean movement of commodities.
Before the turn of the century one of our greatest wants will be capital. With the right work attitude, the right national attitude, and the right community attitude we could generate that capital. However, we keep killing our chances of national self-determination. Our desire for national ownership of everything has absolutely got our priorities all out of whack.
Clauses 8 to 14 serve Great Lakes interests and are impositions on the coastal maritime provinces and the industrial interests of our maritime provinces.
The two points I want to make-and I will repeat them- are that our priorities for coastal regions on the use of much needed capital are mixed up with a bill written for Great Lakes interests, and that the continuing man-year benefits for Canadians are just not there, because of uncompetitive wage costs and because of a lack of desire to serve on the high seas.
I listened with attention to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). He was saying that there is work for 44,000 people, and I have read elsewhere in the debates that we could have 175 ships on the high seas carrying Canadian goods. However, I see nothing but an increase in the cost of carrying those goods, and those costs will have to be borne either by the regions producing those goods and trying to market them in the world or by the Canadian treasury, and that means spreading it across the country.
I suggest that if we were to get back on the track with regard to the tremendous need for capital, we in Canada, between now and the end of the century, have to do more saving and more work, particularly with regard to energy from the north, for future generations. We must rebuild and modernize our transportation system, and in some areas the transportation system will have to be electrified. We should not be applying our much needed energy and tax resources to this area where there is world surplus and where there are labour forces in the world. In no way, shape or form can we compete with the end costs.
We can only add to the burden of those people responsible for the production and delivery of goods. In the Beaufort Sea we will have a need for underwater silos. We will have a need for a pipeline. These are the areas in which our dollars can be well spent.
I repeat what I said in my opening statement that national policies aimed at developing a merchant marine and shipbuilding industry should be kept separate from a

policy governing the transportation of goods. We cannot fight inflation-


An hon. Member:: On the backs of barnacles.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: On the backs of barnacles. Thank you very much.
We cannot fight inflation when we start to spend our dollars in a way which will create a burden for the future generations of this country. Why not spend our dollars where a benefit can be derived? Let us put money into the treasury and not keep taking it out.
We have heard from the NDP today to the effect that there is no cost-benefit study in terms of dollars and man-years on this subject. We have heard that there are 44,000 man-years of work to be created. I would like to know where these studies are and where these figures come from, because the straight logistics do not make any sense.
In view of the fact that the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, along with others from the west coast, have not had an opportunity to present their briefs and thoughts to the committee, I would like to put on the record their concerns with regard to Bill C-61. Their concerns apply to the inter-coastal trade, and they state that what causes significant damage to the forest products industry of British Columbia adds inflationary pressures to the eastern Canadian consumers of B.C. products, and adds to the cost of eastern manufactured goods consumed in British Columbia.
The Council further states that access to non Canadian vessels on a duty free basis for use in intercoastal service is an important factor in maintaining a well balanced and economic domestic transportation system. To a significant degree Canadian rail freight rates to eastern Canada are based on the availability of the competitive alternative, shipping via the Panama Canal on foreign flag vessels. Current rates for shipping via the Panama Canal on Canadian vessels are more than double the rates for foreign flag vessels. We have just recently seen an example of that in the movement of western coal into Hamilton for steel and hydro purposes.
The concern of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries is exemplified by the fact that, over the last five years, lack of water competition has seen rail rates applicable to lumber and plywood to eastern Canada more than double, with particularly sharp increases in 1974, which reflect the conviction of the railways that water competition for this business is not a factor.
In 1971 there was a 7.2 per cent increase in rail rates; in 1972 a 6.7 per cent increase; in 1973 a 6.6 per cent increase; in 1974 a 19.9 per cent increase, and in 1975 a whopping 22.2 per cent increase in rail freight rates for getting B.C. products to eastern Canadian markets. The effect of Bill C-61 would be to double the rail rates in the next five year period. It would eliminate British Columbia producers from the eastern Canadian market. The producers out in British Columbia would be replaced by producers in the United States southern pine producing territory who in 1975 double their shipments to eastern Canada over those of 1974, and by U.S. plywood producers who now enjoy in excess of 25 per cent of the Canadian plywood market.
June 28, 1976

Here we are adding to the cost of getting our goods to a market, and we have that market now buying from the United States causing further demand on our balance of international payments. The B.C. Council of Forest Industries goes on to say that water transportation is a vital factor if British Columbia lumber and plywood manufacturers are to maintain eastern Canada markets. The cost of that water transportation must reflect the competition of foreign flag vessels. To do otherwise is simply to place these markets in the hands of American producers. This is the kind of spin-off about which we in British Columbia are very frightened. We plead with the government and those on the staff of the department to understand this need.
The B.C. Council of Forest Industries is not convinced that regulations under the act will provide adequate provision for the use of foreign vessels in intercoastal trade. The proposed regulations are still classified confidential and therefore are not available for perusal and comment. That was true at the time of this brief, and the government has been good enough since to give us the draft of those regulations, which has helped us indeed.
It is interesting to note that at a meeting on the west Coast of all the organizations interested, the B.C. Chamber of Shipping, the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, the chambers of commerce, the Vancouver Board of Trade, and the Chamber of Mines, to an organization and to a man were against rule and interference by regulation, because of the past record of the government.
There is no reason at all why an area of Canada trying to provide jobs and get its product to world markets cannot work and have an improved decision making base. There is no reason at all why the key factors of concern in clauses 8 to 14 inclusive cannot be organized and be part of the statute so that our decision making base will be improved and so that we will not have to keep traipsing back to Ottawa-the act states "in writing"-to the minister. Mr. Speaker, have you any idea how long it takes for mail to come from British Columbia to Ottawa these days? It is unbelievable. The mail clears out of here and goes to British Columbia in about one third of the time it takes to move in the opposite direction.
The minister mentioned that the regulations would be made public, kept public, and that all changes would be public. This is one of the major concerns of the Council of Forest Industries, that changes in the regulations that are subsequent to the approval of the bill are not subject to the public procedures and public scrutiny that would prevail when a change in the act is proposed. They say that the only acceptable assurance is a specific amendment to the bill to exclude intercoastal trade, in clause 8.
On the west coast we are very edgy about rule by regulation and we are very edgy about the attempts of the bureaucracy down here to get this through. They seem to be more interested than does the minister. I would urge that our concerns be given full consideration. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That Bill C-61 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for the
Maritime Code
reconsideration of clauses 8 to 14 inclusive including any government amendments to be proposed thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale).


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully today to the debate in this Chamber on Bill C-61 and have been interested to hear the views expressed and the arguments in some quarters for changes in the legislation. This legislation has been before the House for a long time. Members of this Chamber who have sat in previous parliaments know that this subject has come before the House for consideration in the past, and that legislation has been presented to parliament which has not emerged in the final legislative process to become law.
The basic concepts we have been discussing today have been of interest to various groups in the country for many months and years. It is a subject which is not new to members nor to those who have an interest in it and have been looking at this particular concept and the proposals before the House for some long time.
The points of concern in regard to Bill C-61 were clearly and specifically identified earlier today in the comprehensive speech delivered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). With respect to those aspects of the objections and the concerns which lie outside the scope of the statute, the minister on many occasions in this House has given far-reaching undertakings not only to consult with all interested parties with respect to regulations but also to search conscientiously for a fundamental consensus about those regulations before moving the coasting trade provisions into law.


Frank Oberle: Why has he not done it before?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I heard a voice ask why it was not done before. As the hon. member would know if he had studied the debates of this House and the minutes of the standing committee, and the publications issued from time to time by the Department of Transport, this minister and his predecessor have made it very much their business to consult with interest all across the country. The consultations have gone on literally for years and are going on right at this time.
As the minister indicated this afternoon, if it had not been for the unfortunate disruption of air services this past week, officials of the Department of Transport would have been in in the maritime provinces on Monday of last week consulting with senior officials there to determine what further steps needed to be taken to satisfy the genuine needs of some interests across the country. To make a phony allegation that there have not been consultations or a commitment to further consultation is ridiculous.
With respect to the complaints about certain aspects of the statute itself, that is, the wording of the proposal which is before the House, the minister has clearly identified those specific clauses which might be subject to further amendment. This afternoon he placed before the House the substance of three amendments which would serve to meet the complaints raised about various clauses.
95S70-43

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
There has been thorough and lengthy discussion of all aspects of Bill C-61 in this Chamber and outside, and it has been going on for a number of years. There was an opportunity to consider the provisions of the bill in principle in the lengthy debate at second reading stage; it was considered again for weeks at the committee hearings, and finally it came back to this House some weeks ago for further analysis and discussion at report stage. If we refer the bill or part of it to the standing committee for further analysis at this stage, we should be very specific in our requirements. I do not believe it would be wise to make a general or broad reference back to the committee.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) in the wording of his amendment referred to clauses 8 to 14 inclusive, but I believe that phrasing is still too broad. The reference from this House should be more specific and direct the attention of the committee to those clauses of the bill which have been identified by interested groups and by the minister in the House today as requiring some modification. I refer to clause 8, clause 11, and clause 14.
There has been considerable discussion and certain representations about the bill in this House, and I think members have identified the areas about which they are concerned. I think it is clear that the areas that should be dealt with by further statutory amendment are those in clauses 8, 11, and 14, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the wise and proper course for this House to follow would be to ask the standing committee to consider generally the subject matter of the coasting trade which has been before the committee already and has been exhaustively examined.
I suggest that it would be more appropriate to ask for consideration of those portions of the statute which could be subject to further modification at this stage. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words 'clauses 8 to 14 inclusive' and substituting the following words therefor:
'clauses 8, 11 and 14'


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, amendments, and amendments to amendments are coming thick and fast tonight, as we debate this bill shortly before we are to return to our ridings. Bill C-61 is an attempt to implement government policy in certain maritime areas.
You know, as I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale), the minister having been involved in other activities for the last few days, I wondered if the minister and the parliamentary secretary who come from the heartland of this country, beautiful Saskatchewan-


Ralph Goodale: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -where the wheat grows as thick as seaweed grows on the east coast, would have shown the same cavalier attitude to changes affecting the east and west coasts if the Crowsnest Pass agreement were under scrutiny with a view to amendment. Yet there were the minister and the parliamentary secretary using professorial platitudes to describe the effect of Bill C-61. The parliamentary

secretary, whose experience is limited basically to the heartland of Saskatchewan, proposed an amendment. If he had felt the sea between his toes he would begin to appreciate what this bill means to maritimers.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Would he not have felt the salt?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The only thing the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) knows about the sea is that the St. Boniface River ultimately empties into the sea.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I was in the navy before you were born, son!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Joe, you are getting old.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not old, better.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As long as you keep the fire in your belly and not in your head, you'll be all right.
Bill C-61 is a measure fundamental to the east and west coasts of this land. We heard the minister speak today in a competent way. He is one of the competent fellows on the other side. At least he stands out in comparison to other cabinet ministers, something like a lightning rod to attract lightning. There are so few competent cabinet ministers opposite that when one is the least bit competent, he rather stands out like a lightning conductor for the lightning to strike. Unfortunately for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) he will get hit by a lightning bolt if he allows Bill C-61 to pass without amendment.
The minister gave assurances that, before certain regulations are proclaimed, there will be a committee hearing at which the impact of these regulations can be assessed.


Ralph Goodale: It is in the bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As the parliamentary secretary says, that is in the bill. We know what that means.


Donald W. Munro: It is as if the minister had a simulator.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He does not meet the expense of running a simulator. We know that once the government makes up its mind and regulations are defined, it is somewhat late in the day to hold public hearings. Perhaps I can use an analogy the parliamentary secretary can understand, because he does not understand much about the sea but understands something about barnyards. You know, it is a bit late to close the barn door after the sheep, cattle, and livestock have bolted out to the range. It is a bit late then to close the barn door. Mr. Speaker, I say this because you, I, and other hon. members have been involved perhaps in more situations requiring common sense than has our young parliamentary secretary from the heartland of Saskatchewan. Be that as it may, it is difficult for Canadians to listen to the Minister of Transport and believe what he says when he gives assurances about matters affecting transportation. They remember that we had an election a couple of years ago when, almost every day of the week, some announcement concerning transportation was made.


Walter David Baker: And it started in Cornwall.
June 28, 1976


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
I wish to quote another story, not from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald because I would not want hon. members to think I am prejudiced. This story, involving the St. Lawrence Seaway, appeared in that great paper, the Montreal Gazette.
Those of us in the deep east have always been glad to bring part of the sea into the heartland of Canada through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It has not helped us in terms of developing viable industries, but we are largely Canadian, notwithstanding some of the small Canadian talk we have heard in this parliament in the past few days.
The Seaway is a fact of life. If it ever starts paying its way, we will not begrudge it. However, we will begrudge it if it does not start to pay its way or forgive some of the debt that has accumulated.
I want to refer to a story on page 54 of the May 25 Gazette-I did not know it had that many pages-where it states, and I quote:
The federal government's shipping advisory board expects to make its first recommendations on federal support for a Canadian merchant marine by this summer, according to a board official.
This is dated little more than a month ago. In other words, a creature of the government, the Shipping Advisory Board, is expected to make its first recommendation by this summer concerning a merchant marine for Canada. The article goes on:
A key element in forming the recommendations will be a series of cost-benefit studies now under way, Roland Murray, a senior adviser to the federal transport ministry, told a meeting of the Naval Officers' Association of Canada, Montreal Branch.
Before the House leader gets us too far down the road beyond return, or to use nautical language, before he gets us into the locks and pulls the plug and leaves us high and dry, surely he has some responsibility or rather the government has some duty to let us know what the results of these cost-benefit studies show. It is obvious there is some work going on but the minister has completely omitted to tell us about it.
Further on in this article in the Gazette we read:
Murray, who heads the board's working committee, said there can be no policy recommendations to the transport minister until the board sees the conclusion of 20 studies it has commissioned covering such areas as international agreements, labour, shipping rates and shipping in the Arctic.
These studies are being carried on through an agency of the federal government yet we know nothing about what they tell us.
It really gives one cause for concern when knowledgeable people within the industry draw attention to these things. For example, Michael Bell, senior vice-president of Federal Commerce and Navigation Limited, has stated that Canadian registered ships can only be profitable in areas in which they have a special advantage which offsets high Canadian labour costs. One such area would be the operation of bulk carriers and tankers especially designed to operate in the Canadian Arctic.
I would call attention to the following paragraph in the article from which I have already quoted:

Bell estimated that a blanket policy of using Canadian ships for Canadian trade would drive up shipping costs by as much as $400 million requiring an annual government subsidy of that amount if rates for users were to remain unchanged.
Is it any wonder, when such views are expressed by people with more knowledge of the marine industry than I have, that any objective member on the opposition side would ask to see the conclusions of these cost-benefit studies which are presently being undertaken, or that the government should be urged at least to deal candidly with the taxpayers? In the absence of subsidies, shipping rates are bound to go up and those living in the extreme east and west of our country will be faced with costs which are even higher by comparison with those borne by central Canada.
I realize there are many others who wish to speak in this debate. There are many other aspects with which I should like to deal but I shall make no attempt to cover them all. I might point out that the concern I feel with respect to this bill is widely shared.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte earlier read into the record certain parts of the communique issued by the Atlantic premiers. I should like to read now a telegram dated May 26, 1976, again a little over a month ago, and addressed to the Minister of Transport. It was sent by the Chairman of the Council of Maritime Premiers, Premier A. B. Campbell of Prince Edward Island. Incidentally Premier Campbell is a great friend of mine-we went to law school at the same time-though he and I do not wear the same political stripe. I believe the parliamentary secretary was asked about the situation outlined here but I am not sure whether he gave a full answer as to whether there had been any meaningful consultation with the Atlantic premiers since their meeting. The telegram reads:
Further to our telex to you of December 16, 1975, and other representations made to you and your predecessor, we are still deeply concerned about Bill C-61. Recent representations from industry have heightened this concern, giving it a new dimension.
In view of this, we now urge you to take action which will retain for Atlantic industries their access to non-Canadian vessels for the coasting trade without serious impediment in the form of the necessity for either expensive or difficult-to-obtain waivers, licences or permits. Availability of suitable vessels and their cost should be the criteria for the selection of carriers, with the decision resting with the shipper.
Existing industry and future industrial development in the Atlantic provinces will be seriously affected if this bill, and those regulations of which we have been made aware to date, come into effect. This legislation would tend to transform the Atlantic provinces into inland provinces insofar as coastal shipping is concerned without their concomitant advantages. High transportation cost to and from markets is already one of the most serious obstacles restricting growth in this region. By restricting competition, Bill C-61 will increase these costs for water, rail or truck.
We urge you to withdraw or change this legislation as it pertains to coastal shipping and to permit the use of non-Canadian vessels according to the dictates of availability and cost, thereby enabling our industries to benefit from one of this region's natural advantages.
That is signed by the three Atlantic premiers, two of whom happen to be Liberal premiers. Political stripe means nothing whan something as fundamental as Bill C-61, the maritime code bill, is going through the House, a measure which is bound to affect Atlantic interests so directly. Those of us who come from Atlantic Canada, together with members from west coast constituencies who are familiar with marine traffic, are obviously among the most vociferous in expressing concern.
June 28, 1976

As I drove to parliament Hill tonight, knowing there might be a chance of speaking on Bill C-61, I found it whimsical to reflect that the last time Canada had a merchant marine was way back in the days of sail, if one excludes the Canadian National Steamship boats which plied the Atlantic coast just before they were stopped during the second world war. And here in this Chamber are members from the Atlantic coast and the west coast who have lived with the sea and who want a merchant marine. They are also well aware that at least in the days of sail-and I could get very rhapsodic and philosophical about all the little Newfoundland ports we come from, and the ports along my own coastline of the Annapolis Valley-these places were viable communities some 50 years ago. I know you cannot turn back the clock; the days of sail pass into the days of steam and the days of steam pass into the days of nuclear energy, I guess. The fact that this bill ignores is that the reason there was a vibrant Canadian merchant marine in the days of sail was that there was competition between the ports of Atlantic Canada and between the skippers in those ports.
I will now conclude since my illustrious colleague, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), is usually renowned for his brevity and conciseness and I want to exhibit those same qualities and let others speak. However, having had for the first time the opportunity to speak on Bill C-61, I cannot emphasize enough that unless changes are made to preserve the cost situation and provide access to other bottoms so there can be meaningful competition, be it on the east coast or in the central part of this beautiful land, the maritime industry will be done a disservice. As I have said, the bureaucrats here in Ottawa really do not know the sea, so I hope they will come down to the sea to see for themselves.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague who has just resumed his seat, this is the first opportunity that I have had of speaking in this debate. I was afraid that I was not going to get the opportunity to speak tonight, but since I do have a few minutes I should like to make some comments on the bill now before the House.
In concert with many of my colleagues I regret the fact that Bill C-61 has been brought forward again at this time. As stated by several hon. members, not only this House but the nation as a whole had the understanding that this bill would not be brought forward for third reading until the fall. Some of the individuals and organizations interested in the bill were instituting studies into various aspects of the legislation the results of which, I believe, would bring about a much better measure than that before the House at the present time.
I think the action of the government House leader has again raised the question of the credibility of the government and of the dependability of the assurances and promises that have been given. We have had quite a discussion today about the assurances or guarantees given by the government, or which the government is willing to give regarding various measures, but I wish there were some basis upon which we could accept those assurances. Certainly a study of past statements that have been made
Maritime Code
would not give one much hope that those assurances would be carried out.
I should like to refer, first of all, to a matter regarding which concern was expressed in earlier debates in this House. I refer to the change in location of the registry office. I realize that there have been some accommodations reached in this particular connection, but I believe that the policy in operation up until the present time is still the best one and that we should stand by that policy.
I think the government would be inconsistent in closing down the registry office and reducing its effectiveness by moving it to the city of Ottawa. This point was dealt with on second reading quite eloquently by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I believe my colleague from Grenville-Carleton also dwelt on that topic.
The government has made much of its policy to decentralize its departments and to bring government closer to the people. I understand too that a very large part of this decentralization is for the purpose of dealing with chronic unemployment areas. In this regard two or three announcements have been made. One was in connection with a certain branch of the Department of Supply and Services, and another was brought to light a few days ago when certain agencies were moved to the city of Moncton, New Brunswick. I am not raising any objection to those moves; I am just pointing out an inconsistency in government policy.
On the one hand the government is decentralizing, moving certain government operations to the regions to encourage employment and to bring government closer to the people. On the other hand the government is moving an operation that has been highly satisfactory from the west coast to Ottawa, a distance of 3,000 miles, expecting it to give the same service to the people that it gave on the west coast. I say the government is not being consistent and I think this policy will result in a lower standard of service for the people on the west coast.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver shipping registry office is the largest in Canada with more than 10,000 ships on file.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the parliamentary secretary rising for the purpose of asking a question, or on a point or order?


Ralph Goodale: To ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, time is running short. I think the hon. member had ample opportunity to make his contribution so I would prefer he waited till I had concluded my remarks. The Vancouver shipping registry office is run by a staff of only four and is a very effective and efficient operation. I would not want to guarantee that the same degree of efficiency will be maintained if the move that is presently contemplated is carried out. The port registry performs a valuable service for all boat owners, most of whom know from personal experience the courtesies extended by the staff there. The inconvenience to the general boating public will be incalculable. Those who want to register bills of sale or mortgages will run into additional red tape which will make things more difficult.

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
If I may speak on behalf of these people, even though some accommodation has been reached, I understand, I still maintain that a service that has been satisfactory and that has offered personalized service to the people should be left as it is, instead of being moved as is currently under consideration.
I should like to move on to another aspect of the bill. Having read the debate on second reading of this bill I was very impressed with the argument put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), regarding the necessity for developing a Canadian merchant marine. I think the time has come for Canadians to be made aware of our shortcomings in this area and for the government to get on with the job and encourage the growth and development of this particular industry. I know government supporters will probably say that this is what is being done by Bill C-61, but I cannot see how the bill will accomplish this.
I think much of Bill C-61 is essentially negative in nature and does little to encourage shipbuilding, which is really what we must start with in developing a merchant marine. I say it is negative because its provisions restrict the right of foreign ships to carry on the transportation of goods and people from one Canadian port to another. That is negative enough, Mr. Speaker, but in addition it contains no provisions to substitute or provide additional Canadian carriers for this purpose.
If I could draw an analogy in this respect-I realize it is not exact in every respect-it would be the government's policy on energy. We in Canada have a great resource and a great reserve of oil. I believe it would be sufficient for Canadian uses for many years to come if it were handled in the proper way. It is still in the ground or in the tar sands, and requires as well additions to our transportation system. We are running into this problem and we are now facing an emergency because of the lack of foresight and planning.
Now we have the government moving forward and placing restrictions on transportation before we have had an opportunity to provide for an adequate supply of Canadian carriers to transport our goods and our people from place to place. The situations are similar in respect of potential self-sufficiency in energy and potential self-sufficiency in the matter of transportation.
The measure before us calls attention to several important aspects, and I should like to comment on one or two of the statements made during the course of this debate. Let me also put on the record some facts taken from a study conducted by the government of British Columbia under the auspices of the Hon. Jack Davis, provincial minister of transport and communications. I know hon. members across the way groan whenever they hear this gentleman's name. Nevertheless he was held in fairly high regard when he was over there. We looked upon him as one who was earnestly endeavouring to fulfil the responsibilities that were his in that ministry.
Let me refer first of all to the minister's references to agreements with the maritime ministers of transport. This has been denied by some of the members taking part in this debate. They have pointed out that this was not so,

that they did not reach an agreement. They suggested there may have been an agreement is some particular respect, but there were so many ambiguities, so many things not above board and not on the table that there was no really effective agreement as far as the maritime ministers of transport were concerned. Certainly I do not think there was any as far as the transportation ministry of the province of British Columbia was concerned.
My colleague read from a document that pointed out just the contrary. The minister has given the assurance that all the guarantees necessary have been given and that there will be a high degree of acceptance before the implementation of these provisions.
Again I should like to refer to some statements made in the past. I am not going to take the time to document them, but we have had assurance after assurance and guarantee after guarantee, yet all of us in the House, at least those on this side, realize that the guarantees which have been given in many instances have not come to fruition, or have not been fulfilled. I think it is straining the intelligence of the people in the western part of this country to expect them to take the word of the minister that certain things are to be done and certain things will not be done. There must be more than that.
Let me now put on the record some conclusions which are drawn from the study that was conducted, as I already indicated, by the British Columbia government. I have not had time to check all these out, what amendments have been suggested or accommodations reached, but I will give some of the conclusions in order to pinpoint some of the concerns of the British Columbia government regarding Bill C-61. The conclusions drawn are:
1.	A very powerful competitive influence on transportation rates of other modes will be lost.
2.	Users of both intercoastal shipping and transcontinental transport services will be required to pay excessive and otherwise avoidable inflated freight rates when this competitive influence is lost.
3.	The policy will have a significant direct negative impact on major B.C. industries, particularly those in forestry, mining and construction.
My colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), and also my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), have mentioned these particular issues.
The conclusions then continue as follows:
4.	Virtually no Canadian-flag vessels exist for use in intercoastal movements, certainly not on the west coast.
5.	The past history of intercoastal traffic will do little to encourage the building of Canadian vessels for the service.
6.	The beneficiaries of the policy will overwhelmingly be in eastern Canada as a result of developments in off-shore and eastern Arctic resources where there is reason to give protection to Canadian interests.
7.	This is not sufficient reason to include intercoastal trade, which is a totally different economic activity, in a blanket application.
8.	No in depth cost-benefit analysis has been conducted to show where and to what degree these cost-benefits accrue.
This has been dealt with by a number of members and there is no need to enlarge upon it at the moment.
9.	The policy, as administered and controlled through the regulations, will be slow, unresponsive and costly to B.C. interests.
10.	Domestic products will become much more susceptible to substitution in the domestic market.
June 28, 1976

11.	The massive subsidies required to maintain the protectionist policy for the U. S. coasting trade have failed to prevent a steady decline in the U.S. coasting fleet.
It concludes:
The province of B.C. is therefore strongly opposed to intercoastal trade being restricted in any way from employing the services of a foreign-flag vessel if it is to the advantage of the shipper to do so. The intercoastal trade must be given permanent exemption from the restrictions proposed in Bill C-61 for other aspects of the domestic coasting trade.
There is just one additional thought I should like to add before concluding. There has been the argument that consultative efforts have been made, and have been made consistently. We think of the confrontations which have taken place between the federal and various provincial administrations. When there was supposed to be negotiation and consultation there was confrontation. I suggest the same argument could be made in respect of this particular matter. We have an amendment before us and a subamendment. While the subamendment goes to some extent in meeting the need, I do not believe it is adequate. It is my belief that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Capilano should receive the endorsation and entire support of the House.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would entertain a question before concluding his remarks?


An hon. Member:: There is a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has requested the right to ask a question of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson). I think we should put his request to the hon. member, who may accept or refuse it. Is the hon. member ready to entertain such a question?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to ask the hon. member if he is aware of the work done by the standing committee in relation to the registry to which he referred in the early part of his remarks. These provisions were substantially amended.


An hon. Member:: That is an insult.


Ralph Goodale: I refer particularly to that aspect dealing with regional deputy registers. His remarks might have referred to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I wouldn't even answer.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame on you. That is just an insult.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are looking for a ministry, that is what you want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the discussion that went on. I made the statement that while
Business of the House
there was a degree of accommodation, I still believe that the planning and the program that are in operation at the present time are far superior.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might raise two points of order about the business before the House. The first is to seek a change in an order of the House made earlier this day for the taking of the vote on Bill C-68. It was agreed at that time that the vote would be taken tomorrow evening at 9.30. We have had subsequent discussion because there is another event of some importance taking place which some members would like to attend. Therefore it is agreed that instead of being taken at 9.30 p.m. the vote will be taken shortly after 8 p.m. I say shortly after 8 p.m. because I think the bells ought to ring twice- once to summon the members and then, after a short interval, again to bring members to a vote. If that could be agreed I would come to the second point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister. We are very happy to accommodate him for the special event that is necessary. It will probably be the only happy occasion in that particular location for quite some time. We are very happy to agree.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this change is acceptable and we agree to it.


Léonel Beaudoin: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be agreement that the vote on Bill C-68 be taken shortly after eight o'clock tomorrow night. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I come to the second point of order. It relates to the business for the rest of the week. There has been some discussion among the House leaders, indeed going beyond the House leaders because the subject under consideration is Bill C-84 which is the subject of a free vote in which all members of the House have a special interest. I would therefore like to move, with unanimous consent:
That, notwithstanding any standing or special order:
1.	The House shall not sit from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1976;
2.	The House shall not sit on Friday, July 2, 1976;
3.	The House shall revert to Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees at 10:00 p.m. this day;

June 28, 1976
Maritime Code
4.	The report stage of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and other serious offences, shall be taken into consideration when the Orders of the Day are called on Tuesday, June 29, 1976;
5.	Notices of amendments to be proposed at the report stage of the said bill shall be considered to be properly given if received no later than 12:00 noon on Tuesday, June 29, 1976; and
6.	The Clerk shall be authorized to publish a supplementary notice paper before 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 1976 for the purposes of part 5 of this order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give consent to the President of the Privy Council to move the motion at the present time?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion and I am glad the hon. gentleman characterized the discussion in the way he did. Speaking for myself, and I hope for others in that context, there is consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the details set out in the motion read by the minister have been discussed. We agree to them and are prepared to support the motion.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, we had discussions with the leaders of the government with regard to the business of the House, and we agreed with them. On the other hand, I should like to point out that it is a pity we could not get the unanimous consent of the House to get the day off after St. John the Baptist Day as we will this Friday, that is the day following Dominion Day. I regret having to point this out, but I do think we should see to it that this does not happen again in coming years.


An hon. Member:: You'll have to convince the Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not note any objection so there would seem to be unanimous consent. Does the House wish to proceed by way of a motion or an order of the House? It might be simpler if the House considered the wording of the motion as a House order as accepted and implemented unanimously. Is it agreed and accepted unanimously that the terms of the motion as proposed by the House Leader be made an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent it is agreed and so ordered.


MARITIME CODE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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 third time and do pass.
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the remaining two minutes would only take away from the excellence of the remarks I wish to make, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. According to the order previously accepted the House will now revert to Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eighteenth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. MacGuigan.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight on the capital gains tax on farm property are based on the questions I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on June 17 as recorded at page 14611 of Hansard of that date. The first question
was:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to the capital gains tax on family farm property. A family farm operator, during his lifetime, directs all his profit to the improvement of his farm and equipment. When the farm is sold upon his retirement, the proceeds become his sole private pension fund. It is therefore grossly unfair to use capital gains tax to seriously reduce this pension. Will the minister consider amending the Income Tax Act to permit a once-in-a-lifetime sale of a family farm without attracting capital gains tax?
The minister's reply was simply this:
Well, Mr. Speaker, there are certain provisions now with regard to family farms but I do not see at this time the opportunity to be able to expand those.
The second question was a supplementary and along a similar line. It was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, since the capital gains taxes collected on family farm property amount to only 10 per cent of the total collected on property generally, would the minister weigh the appraisal and accounting costs, plus the major irritant effect of this tax, against the net revenue derived and hopefully remove this unfair and unjust tax altogether?
June 28, 1976

I felt that the minister's response was altogether too brief. He simply said:
... it of course has to be relevant also to the question of equity to other taxpayers.
I suggest that the answers were entirely unsatisfactory in the light of the importance of capital gains taxes and the way they affect farmers, particular family farmers, and also small businessmen.
The reason for this particular question relates to activity going on in the riding I represent, Norfolk-Haldimand. There has been expropriation or threat of expropriation of a very large section of farmland. This is to serve as the industrial sites for hydro, Stelco and Texaco, and also for the satellite city which is to be built in that area. The province has just completed a land assembly program there. This, of course, resulted in the forced sale of many farms. I think there has never been such a concentration of farmers paying capital gains tax in such a small area as the one I just described.
The farmers whose properties have been sold in the manner I described are having income tax returns reassessed, and a whopping capital gains tax is being imposed upon them. Tax paid, of course, is on one half of the capital gain derived from the valuation day value subtracted from the value at the time of the sale. The government land appraisers have assigned abnormally and unrealistically low valuation day values of something in the neighbourhood of $350 to $400 per acre. The sale value has been in the neighbourhood of $2,000 plus per acre. Therefore the capital gain is $1,600, and the tax on half of that is a tax on $800 per acre. On a 100 acre farm that is a capital gains tax assessed on an amount of $80,000, which is certainly drastic and exorbitant.
A $400 valuation day value is totally unrealistic. The government appraisers are not in touch with reality, and one wonders if any of them have ever operated a family farm.
The farmers are angry. They are pooling their resources to fight the assessment of capital gains in the manner described. They are going through the formal appeal procedures as laid down in the act. They are going through the courts, and if necessary, they will even go to the highest court in the land to see that justice is done.
The minister is aware of this situation because of previous letters from me to him on this matter, and I feel it is time to face up to this giant rip off which is being perpetrated against the farming community in Norfolk-Haldi-mand.
Let us examine the effects of this unconscionable action. As I said in my question, it destroys farmers' retirement funds. During his lifetime a farmer puts his profits back into improving his farm, his buildings, and his equipment. The value increases. Upon retirement he sells the farm. The proceeds become his pension fund; he has no other.
The bandits from National Revenue pounce upon this fund and wipe out this one opportunity to retire with dignity. The farmers have pride. In my opinion they are the last bastions of independence and free enterprise. The tradition of providing for their own retirement goes back for generations.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!
Adjournment Debate


William David Knowles: Surely it should be the responsibility of the government to foster and encourage this independence and the retention of self-esteem. Instead, the present system of taxation discourages and stifles initiative. The farmer is tempted to give up, to resign himself to allowing big brother to take his savings, and he reasons that he might as well take a handout from the welfare state, along with everybody else.
The second reason is that it removes the opportunity for the younger farmer who does not want to retire to purchase another farm. Such a farmer hopes to use the proceeds from his forced sale to purchase a new farm. Again the capital gains tax so erodes the net proceeds of his sale that sufficient funds do not remain to enable him to relocate. In this case he is also completely frustrated by this grossly unfair and iniquitous tax.
The case of the small family business enterprise is exactly parallel to what I have described. The profits of the small business are the only means by which it can amass capital for expansion, so the businessman ploughs the profits back into the business. Like the farmer he expects to sell the business at a profit, which is his retirement fund. He faces equally disastrous results at the hands of our present tax laws.
The solution that I suggest is simple. The family farm or small business could be sold once in a lifetime without attracting capital gains tax. It would need only a very simple amendment to the Income Tax Act, and the time is now opportune. Only today the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on behalf of the Minister of Finance introduced certain changes to the act.
Could I just have one more minute, Mr. Speaker, to finish my remarks? It should be noted that in the publication "Preliminary Taxation Statistics" issued by the Department of National Revenue, for the 1974 taxation year at page 47 in Table K under the subheading "Occupation Class" it is shown that the revenue received from capital gains on farm property is only 10 per cent of the total of the capital gains tax. The loss would be minimal, Mr. Speaker. Surely the government could forgo such an iniquitous tax.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) has reiterated the question he posed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on June 17. He went on to describe a situation which is quite different, however. I think I would agree with him that if it were the disposition of the farm and the accumulation of the capital, that perhaps it should be looked at closely. What he is talking about, however, is something entirely different. He talked about expropriation, and I believe he mentioned Stelco and Texaco. I think it is a different problem altogether. He spoke of a rollover once in a lifetime of the value accumulated. I have some sympathy with his view and I agree it should be looked at in that particular light, but not necessarily in the way he posed the problem.
What he has said, and what should be said is that farmers, having worked for many years and accumulated a particular amount of property, should not be penalized when they dispose of it. That is the point at issue; not the
14922

June 28, 1976
Adjournment Debate
expropriation aspect, but whether a farmer, having worked in some cases 25, 30 or 40 years to accumulate the property, should be penalized.
He talked about what this brings in to the national revenue, but that is not the question either. It is the aspect of whether the farmer who if he has not any sons or daughters who want to carry on, and he wants to dispose of the property, should be penalized. That is the question to which we should address ourselves. I have some sympathy with it and I shall make sure it is looked into-not to discriminate against any other taxpayer but to make sure that the farmers who contribute to the economic life of this country should not be penalized in our tax system.
I shall make sure that is not the case and that they are treated fairly.


COMMUNICATIONS-PROPOSED USE OF BALANCED ARMATURE RECEIVER BY BELL TELEPHONE-REQUEST FOR DELAY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I think most of the members of this House would agree that once a group of people in this country has established a right to a service it ought not to have that right unilaterally taken away.
I think we all agree that Canadians should not lose the right to health services, education, or any other service they now have. But unfortunately very soon one group of Canadians is going to be losing part of the rights it has to communication services. I am speaking of the hearing impaired in this country and the full rights they presently have to use telephones.
The Bell Telephone Company has decided it is going to save some money by installing a device in its telephones called a balanced armature receiver. The problem is that this balanced armature receiver does not produce a strong enough magnetic field to activate the hearing aids and teletype machines in the homes of the hearing impaired. The present telephones make this possible, but when the new technology is installed, starting this July, these persons with hearing disabilities will no longer be able to use the telephone for communication purposes; at least they will not be able to use the telephones of the Bell Telephone system.
A group of people, concerned about the loss to the hearing impaired of full access to our communications system, has approached both the Bell Telephone Company and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission over the last year to make its concerns known and to push for delays or changes in technology which would ensure equal right to communication by telephone for the hearing impaired. The Bell Telephone Company, however, has refused even to delay installation of these devices. Instead it has merely promised that it will begin to go to work researching hearing aid designs. It also promised that it would make pay telephones and telephones in the homes and work places of the hearing impaired compatible with present hearing aids. For use with other telephones Bell has offered to produce an adaptor, which is the size of a hockey puck and costs $8.

The steering committee on the telephone receiver and the hearing impaired has taken the position that this does not go far enough, and I agree with them. Why should the hearing impaired be forced to carry adaptors around with them when they do not have to do this now? And who is going to pay for these adaptors and their maintenance? Why should the hearing impaired be forced to have this additional nuisance and expense? For that matter, I am sure all hon. members who have children with hearing difficulties realize how absurd it is to ask active children always to carry an adaptor with them. Beyond that, this also means that in emergencies the hearing impaired will no longer be able to use the telephones of their friends and neighbours or even the phones of strangers, something which all of us take for granted.
If this is going to cause so much inconvenience for the hearing impaired, why is Bell going ahead with it? Does it want to save, relatively speaking, a paltry $7 million to $10 million over the next ten years? This might sound like a lot of money, but keep in mind that it comes to less than .04 per cent of Bell's budget. Keep also in mind that if Bell were to put a device called a fluxcoil in its phones the whole problem would be eliminated, because this device would create the necessary magnetic field. But Bell is unwilling to do it, because it would cut its savings by one third.
Many might think that not a lot of people are touched by this issue; but keep in mind that up to 10 per cent of our total population suffers from hearing handicaps. That group includes almost one third of our pensioners. Bell's action will affect all these handicapped people,- not to mention their families, friends and fellow workers, all of whom must communicate with the handicapped and whose telephones might be needed by the hearing handicapped.
Let us also keep in mind where this will hit the hearing handicapped hardest. With three quarters of a million people out of work now, the hearing handicapped already have a special disadvantage finding work. Now they will have to go to prospective employers and tell them they must go to the added inconvenience of adding special phones if they want to hire a hard of hearing person. And make no mistake, businesses will be the first to get these new devices.
The telephone company has said that this will not become a problem for some time because it will not have large numbers of the new telephones installed. But beginning next month it will start installing the new receivers; without doubt, the hearing handicapped will begin to feel the effects very quickly.
When I raised this question in the House on June 9 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fleming) said that the CRTC was trying to get the two sides to co-operate and that he would bring the matter of the fluxcoil to the attention of the CRTC. We see how much good that has done. Bell Canada has refused to delay the implementation of the new receiver and next month will begin use of its balanced armature receiver. The CRTC has not shown, a few days before the end of June, any indication that it intends to force Bell Canada to postpone the implementation of this technology.
I call on the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), who has ultimate responsibility in this matter, to inform
June 28, 1976

Bell Canada directly that it cannot change its receiver program until the large groups of impaired and defenceless Canadians are provided with equal access to telephone use within the Bell system.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members are aware, Bell Canada and the Steering Committee for the Hearing Impaired have been trying for some time to resolve their differences created by Bell's plans to upgrade the existing telephone receiver at a considerable saving which hopefully would be of benefit to consumers. While the two sides have not been able to reach an agreement, it should be noted that the matter is not easily resolved. While the concerns of the hearing impaired are very important, even the Consumers Association of Canada hesitated to support a resolution outlining the demands of the hearing impaired at the recent CAC meeting in Winnipeg.
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has now-if I can make that correction for the hon. member-at the senior staff level heard representatives from both Bell Canada and the hearing impaired. The executive committee of the CRTC will in the very near future be considering both sides of the issue in an effort to find a constructive course of action which will bear in mind the best interests of the hearing impaired and the consumer at large. I know that the CRTC will do its best to lead these two parties to a positive conclusion in the best interests of all Canadians, and particularly bearing in mind the needs of the hearing impaired.
My minister has asked me to assure the House that meanwhile she and her officials will continue to watch the situation closely and to encourage Bell and the steering committee to find a solution acceptable to both.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ALLEGATION ISRAEL HAS STOCK PILE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on June 16 I asked the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs:
In view of the government's posture of devout nuclear virginity and stern anti-proliferation of nuclear arms, may I ask if in the light of sustained and widespread reports of possession of substantial nuclear stock piles by the Republic of Israel, the minister can advise if the government of Canada has made any investigation of, or inquiry into, the serious allegations and, if so, has it cautioned the friendly government of Israel regarding the danger of adding further highly incendiary elements to the already explosive Middle East situation?
I was amazed that no reply was given to this question dealing as it did with nuclear weaponry, a matter I would think of some considerable importance. The minister was abroad and I am sure the parliamentary secretary was on official duty, but the system here provides for questions to be taken by an acting minister.
On March 23, under the provisions of Standing Order 58, this House had a full length debate on the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons. At that time the minister spoke at length about the issue and Canada's zealous devotion to non-proliferation; there were references to the Club of London, and a long narrative of our assertions and exertions on the noble side of this matter. But I am impressed by the lack of response to or visible concern about serious
Adjournment Debate
and recurring reports of the possession, by Israel, of a stockpile of nuclear bombs. The reports do not deal with peaceful uses of atomic energy but with weaponry.
It has been something of an "open secret" for some time that Israel has nuclear warlike capacity. As recently as April 12 Time magazine carried a chilling story about the possession of nuclear bombs by a country in the most dangerous and explosive area of the world today. It records:
At a briefing for a group of American space experts in Washington recently, an offical for the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that Israel had between ten and 20 nuclear weapons "available for use." In fact, Time has learned, Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal of 13 atomic bombs, assembled, stored and ready to be dropped on enemy forces from specially equipped Kfir and Phantom fighters or Jericho missiles. These weapons have a 20-kiloton yield, roughly as powerful as those that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The newsstory goes on to relate that in the face of Arab victories in the early days of the 1973 war, the then premier, Mrs. Meir, authorized the use of the Doomsday weapons. Actually no bombs were activated, the Israelis having reached a much more successful stage in the conventional warfare.
Most of us will recall that serious and mysterious red alert sent out by the U.S. in 1973. Time's explanation is worrisome to say the least:
Did Israel's nuclear capability play a part in the U.S. global military alert of Oct. 25, 1973? According to Time's sources, the Israelis were convinced that the Russians had learned of the newly acquired nuclear potential, possibly through a Soviet Cosmos spy satellite over the Middle East. What is certain is that on Oct. 13, the Russians dispatched nuclear warheads from Nikolaev-the naval base at Odessa-to Alexandria, to be fitted on Russian Scud missiles already based in Egypt. The U.S., in turn, detected the Soviet warheads as the ship carrying them passed through the Bosphorous on Oct. 15 and issued a warning to Moscow by means of a world military alert.
Many years may elapse before we will know how close we came to a dreadful nuclear confrontation. It is difficult to know how fully accurate is the Time story, although the account of the Dimona nuclear installation in the Negev seems authentic enough. I would not suggest that Canada ally itself to one or other of the Middle East protagonists. All I have ever sought is a policy of genuine objectivity. But surely there should be no failure to recognize the awful danger which the introduction of nuclear bombs would bring upon that region and indeed all of us.
I think we can be sure that the use of nuclear arms by one of the parties to the dispute would invite and assure intrusion by the great powers, and after that who can describe or delineate the range and extent of the chaos into which we should all be plunged?
One of the most astute Canadian observers of the Middle East is Reverend Dr. A. C. Forrest, Editor of the United Church Observer, who wrote a stirring, challenging editorial, "Israel and the Bomb: Why Doesn't Somebody Scream?" It is an article to which I invite the minister's attention. The following is an extract:
An astonishing silence followed in the wake of Time's disclosure of Israel's arsenal of atomic bombs and near use of them. Press and radio in Canada didn't seem to be surprised or alarmed. And the pulpits, church courts, editiorial writers and other would-be prophets and opinion-makers seemed to have nothing to say.
95 5 70-44%

June 28, 1976
Adjournment Debate
If it were revealed that some other world leader-a Russian or British prime minister or an American or French president-had given approval for the use of the bomb, we wonder what Would have been said. But when Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan decided it was time to press the button, well, that's Israel, and it seems impolite to say anything.
The world has been warned and warned again that the Middle East is the most threatening situation in the world. The Arabs have demonstrated that they can inflict economic disaster by withholding oil exports or sharply increasing the price. Israel is politically unstable, economically dependent, and divided about what to do about the West Bank. She is a threatened colonial island in a hostile sea and has demonstrated what we suspected-her ageing leaders would commit national suicide in fact of defeat.
Church leaders and others who have some responsibility for communicating information and creating public opinion should not ignore the Time revelation and what it means. If we can't agree on everything, we should at least agree that the postponed Geneva Conference should be held, and the Palestinians should be there. And soon. For the Middle East is moving inexorably towards Armageddon.
Mr. Speaker, to a Bible-reading Presbyterian, that word Armageddon is chilling and penetrating.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to say to the hon. member that I hope he was not criticizing the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and of his parliamentary secretary on June 16. The minister was attending the CIEC Conference of the group of industrialized nations in Paris and I was opening a photographic exposition called
"Between Friends"-"Entre Amis"-in the second biggest city of the United States, beautiful and hospitable Chicago, for the American bicentennial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I am sure all members of the House share this expression of friendship for our neighbour to the south.
When I returned to the House I read the question which had been asked by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and which had not received an answer. I thought that might have had something to do with the way in which his question had been formulated.
Without acknowledging the accuracy of these speculative reports to which the hon. member refers, I can assure the House that Canada has been active in all appropriate fora in warning the international community of the dangers of nuclear proliferation and has taken concrete initiatives to strengthen the international non-proliferation system.
With specific reference to Israel, it is not my practice to comment on media reports, especially those concerning important international issues. We are, of course, anxious to avoid the addition of any destabilizing or "incendiary" elements into the Middle East conflict. This Canadian view is frequently brought to the attention of the international community and is well known to all of the parties to the conflict, including Israel.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
June 28, 1976


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 23 June, 1976 The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, advise that, pursuant to Part I of the Inquiries Act,
the Honourable W. R. Sinclair of Edmonton, and the Honourable Julien Chouinard of Quebec City be appointed Co-Commissioners to inquire into the safety of the introduction of bilingual IFR Air Traffic Services in the Province of Quebec, and report upon the implications in relation to aviation safety and operational efficiency, upon the procedures (and methods of their development) being developed by the Department of Transport in conjunction with the aviation associations and the aviation industry, and upon such other matters as might influence the further introduction of bilingual Air Traffic Services in Quebec, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to consider, evaluate and report upon
(a)	the parameters of a procedural study to be conducted by the Department of Transport based on the use of an air traffic control electronic simulator;
(b)	the documentation required pertaining to the various procedures developed in order to facilitate evaluation of those procedures;
(c)	the detailed conduct of the Department of Transport's studies and participation therein of representatives of the aviation industry and associations by monitoring, as appropriate, through specially appointed professional advisers if considered necessary, and by means of interim recommendation to the Department of Transport, the aviation industry and associations;
(d)	the IFR procedures finally developed, and the VFR flight operations in Dorval and Mirabel Terminal Radar Service Areas, and St. Hubert Control Zone, in terms of the adequacy of the method used in developing and testing the procedures and the implications in relation to aviation safety and operational efficiency; and
(e)	relevant matters that may in the course of the inquiry arise or develop and that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, should be included in the report.
The Committee further advise that
(a)	the Commissioners be authorized to prescribe and adopt such practices and procedures for all purposes of the Commission, including hearings, as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and to vary those practices from time to time:
(b)	the officers of the Department of Transport and of Air Canada furnish to the Commissioners such information and assistance as they may require for their activities;
(c)	the Commissioners invite duly designated representatives of aviation associations and the aviation
industry to be present and to participate in the inquiry;
(d)	the Commissioners be authorized to engage the services of such accountants, engineers, technical advisers or other experts, clerks, reporters and assistants as they deem necessary or advisable and also the services of counsel to aid and assist the Commission in the inquiry, at such rates of remuneration including transportation and living expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board;
(e)	the Commissioners may submit interim reports promptly to the Minister of Transport on the results of particular aspects of the inquiry, and shall submit a final report with all reasonable dispatch and within ninety days of the receipt of the final results of the study based on the use of the air traffic control electronic simulator;
(f)	the Minister table any interim reports and the final report in Parliament and report in Parliament at an early date on the implementation of such reports; and
(g)	the administrative and related costs of the Commission shall be the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
The Committee further advise that Order in Council P.C. 1976-1143 of 13th May, 1976 be revoked.

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 28 June, 1976
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, advise that, pursuant to Part I of the Inquiries Act,
the Honourable W. R. Sinclair of Edmonton,
the Honourable Julien Chouinard of Quebec City, and
the Honourable D. V. Heald of Ottawa
be appointed Co-Commissioners to inquire into the safety of the introduction of bilingual IFR Air Traffic Services in the Province of Quebec, and report upon the implications in relation to aviation safety, implementation costs and operational efficiency, and upon the procedures (and methods of their development) being developed by the Department of Transport in conjunction with the aviation associations and the aviation industry, and also upon such other matters as might influence the further introduction of bilingual Air Traffic Services in Quebec, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, to consider, evaluate and report upon
(a)	the parameters of a procedural study to be conducted by the Department of Transport based on the use of an air traffic control electronic simulator;
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1976
(b)	the documentation required pertaining to the various procedures developed in order to facilitate evaluation of those procedures;
(c)	the detailed conduct of the Department of Transport's studies and participation therein of representatives of the aviation industry and associations by monitoring, as appropriate, through specially appointed professional advisers if considered necessary, and by means of interim recommendation to the Department of Transport, the aviation industry and associations;
(d)	the IFR procedures finally developed, and the VFR flight operations in Dorval and Mirabel Terminal Radar Service Areas, and St. Hubert Control Zone, in terms of the adequacy of the method used in developing and testing the procedures and the implications in relation to aviation safety, implementation costs and operational efficiency; and
(e)	relevant matters that may in the course of the inquiry arise or develop and that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, should be included in the report.
The Committee further advise that
(a)	The Commissioners shall be authorized to prescribe and adopt such practices and procedures for all purposes of the Commission, including hearings, as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct of the inquiry and to vary those practices from time to time;
(b)	the officers of the Department of Transport and of Air Canada shall furnish to the Commissioners such information and assistance as they may require for their activities;
(c)	the Commissioners shall invite duly designated representatives of aviation associations and the aviation air carrier industry to be present and to participate in the inquiry;
(d)	the Commissioners shall be authorized to engage the services of such accountants, engineers, technical advisers or other experts, clerks, reporters and assistants as they deem necessary or advisable and also the services of counsel to aid and assist the Commission in the inquiry, at such rates of remuneration including transportation and living expenses as may be approved by Treasury Board;
(e)	the Commissioners shall submit interim reports promptly to the Minister of Transport on the results of particular aspects of the inquiry, and shall submit a final report with all reasonable dispatch and within ninety days of the receipt of the final results of the study based on the use of the air traffic control electronic simulator;
(f)	the Commissioners shall append to their reports any statement on the aspects of the inquiry reported upon, received from CATCA or CALPA within a specified period of time designated by the Commission;
(g)	the Commissioners shall not in any of their reports indicate that safety has been demonstrated unless they can justify beyond a reasonable doubt why any contrary view expressed by CATCA or CALPA should not prevail;
(h)	the Minister shall table any interim reports and the final report in Parliament and report in Parliament at an early date on the implementation of such reports; and
(i)	the administrative and related costs of the Commission shall be the responsibility of the Department of Transport.
The Committee further advise that Order in Council
P.C. 1976-1576 of 23rd June, 1976 be revoked.
Certified to be a true copy P. M. Pitfield Clerk of the Privy Council

[Stage Direction]
BETWEEN:

[Stage Direction]
AND:

[Stage Direction]
AND:

[Stage Direction]
1.	THAT the public Commission of Inquiry which has been announced be composed of three (3) judicial appointees; the third being acceptable to CATCA before any public announcement of his appointment is made.
2.	THAT a prerequisite to the expansion or introduction of any bilingual air traffic service be a unanimous report of the Commission declaring the proposed expansion or introduction to be consistent with the maintenance of current safety standards in Canadian air operations.
3.	THAT the terms of reference now contained in Order in Council PC-1976-1576 should include a provision to the effect that "the Commissioners shall append to their reports any statement on the aspects of the inquiry reported upon, received from CATCA or CALPA within a specified period of time designated by the Commission".
4.	THAT the terms of reference should include a further provision to the effect that "the Commissioners shall not in any of their reports indicate that safety has been demonstrated unless they can justify beyond a reasonable doubt why any contrary view expressed by CATCA or CALPA should not prevail".
5.	THAT the terms of reference should be revised on page
1 thereof as follows:
(a)	In the preamble, by amending line 9 thereof to read as follows: "in relation to aviation safety, implementation costs and operational efficiency, and ...
(b)	Further in the preamble, by amending line 13 thereof to read as follows: " .. . industry, and also upon such other matters as might influence . . . ";
(c)	In paragraph (d), by amending line 7 thereof to read as follows: " . . . to aviation safety, implementation costs and operational efficiency; and . . .
June 28, 1976
[Stage Direction]
6.	THAT the terms of reference should be revised on page 2 thereof as follows:
(a)	In paragraph (a), by amending line 1 thereof to read as follows: " ... the Commissioners shall be authorized to prescribe .. .
(b)	In paragraph (b), by amending line 2 thereof to read as follows: " ... and of Air Canada shall furnish to the Commissioners . . .
(c)	In paragraph (c), by amending line 1 thereof to read as follows: " ... the Commissioners shall invite duly designated .. .
(d)	In paragraph (c), by amending line 3 thereof to read as follows: " ... the aviation air carrier industry to be present and to ...
(e)	In paragraph (d), by amending line 1 thereof to read as follows: " ... the Commissioners shall be authorized to engage the..";
(f)	In paragraph (e), by amending line 1 thereof to read as follows: " ... the Minister shall table any interim reports and . .. ";
(g)	In paragraph (f), by amending line 1 thereof to read as follows: " .. . the Minister shall table any interim reports and . .. ",
7.	With reference to the "specially appointed professional advisers" mentioned in paragraph (c) on page 1 of the terms of reference, Transport Canada and CATCA will submit a joint list of appropriate controller advisers to the Commission.
8.	THAT Transport Canada will submit before July 1 a recommendation to the Privy Council which the Government will process expeditiously and publish in the Canada Gazette at the earliest possible date as an air navigation order with regard to the use of language in the air, and Transport Canada undertakes to pursue the enforcement thereof.
9.	THAT, following the tabling of the final report of the Commission in Parliament, the Government will present a resolution to the House of Commons seeking concurrence therein in a free vote.
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING was signed at Ottawa, on the 28th day of June, 1976, subject to acceptance by the membership of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association.
The Honourable Otto Lang, Minister of Transport
J.	M. Livingston, President,
Canadian Air Traffic Control Association
K.	A. Maley, President,
Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 29, 1976