1976-12-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43 relating to the serious unemployment problem in Pictou county in northern Nova Scotia where over 2,000 people have recently lost their jobs, prompting a delegation representing the workers, municipal governments, and the province to come to Ottawa to impress upon the cabinet the gravity of this situation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House supports the efforts of this delegation which met with the Minister of Transport and various members of parliament this morning, and expresses on their behalf thanks to the Minister of Transport and the government House leader for their assistance and attention to this urgent problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require that the unanimous consent of the House be given for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises from the unfortunate report that the special assistant to the Minister of Supply and Services invited a reporter to take a free plane ride to western Canada on a government aircraft recently. As a result of this and the direct implication of the possibility of influence peddling-I stress the possibility and that is what conflict of interest is all about in this area-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport who is very familiar with this kind of activity, to present to the House guidelines for the use of ministerial aircraft, these to be presented not later than December 20.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that no opportunity was given to this House prior to the current first ministers' conference to examine the federal fiscal proposals, and since the conference is closed to members of parliament and the public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House enjoins the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions about the outcome of the conference immediately following its conclusion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE AND FUTURE POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my motion somewhat resembles the motion you just heard but is couched in such gentle and persuasive tones that it may be the House will accept it.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: They are already saying no.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I know they are hard to persuade. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of urgent and pressing necessity. It appears that the conference of the prime ministers taking place today is dealing with matters of urgent importance to the parliament and people of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Prime Minister be requested-

December 13, 1976
Northern Living Allowance
That is a little amendment of the word "enjoined" in the previous motion.
-to make a statement on motions as soon as possible stating his version of what was decided or not decided at the conference and where we go from here on this important matter so that parliament and the people of Canada fnay know the facts as to the conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 presentation of the motion cannot be made without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion.
Considering that several Crown corporations are not subject to the Auditor General's audit, the result of which is to deprive this House of the comments and recommendations of the Auditor General, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House recommend to the government to amend as needed the various statutes which govern those corporations, so that the Auditor General be responsible for their audit.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this 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.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED REVERSAL OF DECISION ON INCREASED LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR NURSES IN NORTHERN MANITOBA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 speaks for itself. I hope the House will be fair-minded enough to approve it. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House protests against the denial by the Anti-Inflation Board of an appropriate and necessary increase in the northern living allowance granted to

nurses in hospitals in northern Manitoba, and calls on the government to over-rule this harsh and arbitrary decision.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister may know, the CTV television network last night ran reports that Phillippe Rossillon and Xavier Daniau are working in Canada to promote the partition of this country. I wonder if the minister can report to the House whether he has caused an investigation to be made of this report, report upon its consequences and tell us if these two gentlemen are visiting Canada periodically and, if so, for what purpose and under what authority?
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition will appreciate that I have just returned from the NATO meetings and have not had an opportunity this morning for anything except a brief discussion with the Undersecretary. I requested some additional information to be provided for me; and if, in the circumstances, the Leader of the Opposition will agree, I will be glad to be more forthcoming tomorrow after I have had a chance to secure more information.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will be agreeable, as always. It was alleged that there is an association between those two gentlemen named and the government of France. Can the minister advise us whether he has discussed this matter with representatives of the government of France or intends to have such discussion and, if so, will he undertake to report to the House the results of those conversations?


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed this question, obviously, with any representatives of the government of France. As for the second part of the question, I will make it part of my over-all inquiry into this matter and whatever appears to be appropriate I will be more than pleased to do.
December 13, 1976


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN POLICY ON EXPORT OF URANIUM OR CONSTRUCTION OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANTS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell us if the Government of Canada is contemplating any change in its policy with respect to the export of uranium, or any change in its policy with respect to the construction of uranium enrichment plants in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is a separate question. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since more than 1,100 employees have been laid off by Hawker Siddeley in Nova Scotia, and since the production of even eight hopper cars a day would mean employment for more than 1,000 people on a continuous basis in that plant, will the minister assure the House that the government will take steps immediately to order additional hopper cars, which are also required elsewhere in Canada, in order to deal with the serious unemployment in that part of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I met this morning with Premier Regan and the delegation from the Trenton area. 1 indicated to them what 1 shall now tell the House, namely, that the government is taking a serious look at the issues involved and the usefulness of these additional cars at this time, and a decision is imminent.


POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT-ECONOMIC EFFECT OF CONTINUED HIGH LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, may I direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? Considering that lay-offs being announced every day in virtually every part of the country will result in more than 2.5 million Canadians being directly and indirectly affected by unemployment over the Christmas period, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the government will bring forward new programs before the recess for dealing with this serious unemployment situation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, general anti-unemployment measures have to be brought forward under the auspices of or within the framework of the budget. The hon. member knows that very well. In so far as special unemployment programs are concerned, the Minister of Manpower and Immi-
Oral Questions
gration has already announced a considerable increase in the amount of funds available for winter works projects. Presently these new projects are being brought forward. 1 cannot assure the hon. member that a new program or a budget will be presented before the Christmas recess, but I can assure him that the problem of unemployment and its consequences is before the government, and in various ways we are attempting to cope with it.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister also knows that the new program brought forward by the minister will only produce 40,000 jobs over the winter, not the 750,000 or so that are needed. Since the Manpower minister's own department has a document, a copy of which I have, which forecasts average unemployment for 1977 to be in the neighbourhood of IVi per cent, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has made estimates on what this will cost the economy in terms of lost production of goods and services, the loss in tax revenue and welfare and unemployment insurance pay-out costs.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government is aware that the loss of income does have a serious effect on the economy. It is for that reason we bring forward measures from time to time to assist in the resolution of such a problem. At the present time I have no projection at my disposal indicating what the loss is in terms of production or in terms of human suffering, but we have programs that attempt to mitigate both of these.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN POLICY ON EXPORT OF URANIUM OR CONSTRUCTION OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANTS- REPRESENTATIONS FROM QUEBEC
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the government contemplating or has it under discussion any change in its policies with regard to the export of uranium or in the construction of uranium enrichment plants in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We are not contemplating any changes, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: Has the minister or the government had any representations from the new government of Quebec with regard to changes in policy on the export of uranium or the construction of uranium enrichment plants?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker.
1914

December 13, 1976
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


TEXTILES-REACTION OF IMPORTERS AND MANUFACTURERS TO PROTECTIVE MEASURES
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Following the announcement of the measures advocated by the minister to control clothing imports, could he advise the House whether he has received representations from importers expressing dissatisfaction over these measures and, on the other hand, whether textiles firms have indicated their support and satisfaction for what has already been done to protect this industry?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I shall reply first to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker. The textile industry and the unions representing textile workers have advised me of their satisfaction about the new policy. On the other hand, importers are faced with a number of problems. Last week, I allowed the entry into Canada of some goods in transit. Concerning other readjustments, I shall try to make the necessary announcements as soon as possible; but we must keep in mind that the government's decision to protect our textile industry is very important now because the import level has reached 50 per cent in 1976, and we have indicated to the importers our intention to maintain imports at the 1975 level.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Was the measure announced by the minister taken further to the recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board which must necessarily report on a regular basis to the minister on this matter, and are these recommendations contained in the last report submitted by this board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I acted further to the report submitted to me by the Textile and Clothing Board and also with the advice of the Textile Advisory Board which includes representatives of the employers, the union workers and of the governments of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec.


TEXTILES-EFFECT OF IMPORT QUOTAS ON EXISTING CONTRACTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: My question arises from press reports following the minister's statement about textile import restrictions to the effect that certain countries, specifically Hong Kong, were under the impression that import levels under current agreements superseded the levels proposed by the minister. May I ask whether it is correct that the Textile Advisory Board feels that existing contracts allow for a volume of importation greater than that contemplated in the minister's restrictions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we decided to keep the same level as in 1975. Of course, I do not know exactly to which contract the hon. member is referring. I met the Korean ambassador to discuss this matter. Some contracts had not been ratified and, for that reason, the level of 1975 prevails.


William Herbert Jarvis: The contracts to which I refer are three contracts concerning sweaters, shirts and outerwear. Do we intend to honour those three contracts or is it the position of the government that we are abrogating these contracts on the basis of the statement made by the minister last week?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has any effort been made by the government to investigate the activities of Mr. Daniau and Mr. Rossillon and can he inform us whether any of their activities might be considered as being incompatible with the status of these two gentlemen as visitors to this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The
presence in Canada of these two gentlemen has been public knowledge. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that they have conducted any improper activities while in Canada nor is there any evidence that they brought to Canada any official mandate. Mr. Daniau, as the hon. member knows, is a prominent member of a party within the governing majority of the national assembly. That is all the information I have at the present time.


Donald W. Munro: My supplementary question arises from the comments made earlier by the Prime Minister concerning the activities of Mr. Rossillon. There is obviously some contradiction involved between those comments and the answer we have just received. On the basis of the report which must have been made and which must have predated the Prime Minister's observations, has there been any suggestion, since that time, that Mr. Rossillon might be expelled from the country because of the activities in which he was engaged?

December 13, 1976


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not fully informed as to the situation which prevailed on the previous occasion. I was referring to the visit to Canada last month, and to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence of any improper activities nor is there any evidence that these gentlemen had any official mandate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us how current are the investigations to which he referred in his response to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich? Can he also tell us more precisely what was the date of the last investigation into the activities of these two gentlemen undertaken by the government of Canada, to the knowledge of the Acting Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my interest in the matter was prompted by probably the same source as the Leader of the Opposition. I would not want to describe the efforts made to gather information as an investigation, but I did make some inquiries and to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence on the two points I have mentioned. No formal investigation has been conducted into the activities of these men.


INCENTIVES TO INDUCE GREATER SALES EFFORTS ABROAD FOR MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As this country had a trade deficit of $10 billion in manufactured goods last year and this is continuing well into this year and getting worse, and as we must greatly increase sales of manufactured products if any significant decrease in unemployment is to take place in this country, is the minister planning to introduce any incentives to induce greater sales efforts abroad for manufactured products, these incentives to be paid in direct proportion to the increased effort that is made? If so, when will the announcement be made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to hear of a $10 billion deficit. Last year there was a deficit in our balance of payments under our trades account.
However, this year we have gone back to a surplus position in our trade balance. Naturally, if there are changes in the Income Tax Act they will be announced in a budget brought down by the Minister of Finance and nothing, of course, should be divulged before that time. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I am very eager to foster greater export possibilities. We are taking steps in that direction in many ways. I am in the process of organizing a campaign designed to make our industries aware of the problem and encourage them to get markets abroad. I trust therefore that I shall have everyone's cooperation in that endeavour.
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister, of course, did not answer my question in any way. I asked him specifically about manufactured goods. There was a trade deficit of $10 billion in 1975 and he knows it, so let him not try to mislead the House. I would ask him this question. Does the minister not realize that these vague generalities which avoid the question do not either impress the business community or increase export sales? Why does he not get on with the job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton.


MANPOWER
Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but in his absence I will direct it to the House leader. Can the minister confirm that an operational memorandum has been issued by the acting director of the LIP program which sets this Friday, December 17, just two weeks to the day after the minister's original announcement, as the deadline for receiving recommendations from constituency advisory groups for the allocation of the additional $100 million in LIP funds for the present fiscal year?


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that any such memorandum exists. On the other hand, I am quite sure that in every riding a choice of LIP projects has already been made and that the moneys will be spent in the same way as the first $100 million assigned to that end. Should the hon. member wish to make representations, I feel he could address them directly to the minister.


ACCURACY OF ANSWERS TO ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. I address my question to him because I assume it is under his department that answers are reported to parliament in reply to questions on the order paper. A series of figures has been put out and presented to the House of Commons. It was believed that these figures were authentic. It is now widely reported that the Minister of Transport is putting out his own figures regarding his own costs. My question is this: Can we believe the figures that are tabled in the House and should we disregard the figures of the Minister of Transport?
80005-53i/2

December 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware which particular figures the hon. member has in mind but I would assure the hon. member for Crowfoot that when we put answers on the order paper we do our best to be accurate with respect to the information that is made available.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Transport would inform the House how he is going to account for his tax benefits derived through his wife, his children and his servants-his nannies-who have been flying around? How will he account for those tax benefits in filing his income tax?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While that may be a very interesting question, it has nothing to do with the minister's ministerial responsibilities.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding a press report from Buenos Aires which states that the Argentina government is calling for a meeting with Canadian officials and executives of Italim-pianti in respect of the sale of a CANDU reactor to Argentina? I should like to ask whether Canadian representatives will attend this meeting? Has the minister any information as to whether executives of Italimpianti will attend? Has the meeting been arranged and will the minister tell us whether he will be able to give to the Argentine government more information than he has been able to give to the House of Commons to date in respect of the $2.4 million which was paid in connection with the sale of a CANDU reactor to Argentina?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am told that AECL has received a telex from Mr. Madero who is head of CNEA, the Argentina government agency concerned with the contract. He has asked senior officials of AECL if they would come to a meeting to discuss and review some of the recent events that have been reported in the press. I believe that the Italian partner will be meeting with the Argentinians, but I am not sure that the Italian partner and the Canadian partner will be meeting at the same time. You will appreciate that the Canadian partner is very much involved in hearings before the Public Accounts Committee. I would expect the meeting to take place sometime within the next two weeks.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought this was important enough for representatives of his office to attend in addition to AECL representatives. Let me direct a question to the minister in respect of a report that a company known as Triangular Trading Company of Panama, to whom it is alleged that $1.25 million has been paid in connection with the sale of a CANDU reactor to Korea, has turned out to be a lawyer for United Development Company, a company owned by Mr. Shaul Eisenberg. In view of the fact that this information, if it is correct, would indicate a third dummy company to which money was paid in connection with Mr. Shaul Eisenberg's $ 15 million paid by AECL, has the minister any information regarding this matter, since up until now, the press seems to have been much more capable of getting information for the public than have either the minister or AECL officials?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the faintest notion, quite frankly, whether there is a dummy corporation involved here or not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: When are you going to find out?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants an answer to the question I am prepared to complete it. I should think the hon. member would understand and appreciate that it is not the role of the minister, certainly as I understand the role, to involve himself in investigative reporting of the kind the press does, and does very well. I do not see it as my major responsibility, everytime there is an allegation in a foreign newspaper, to get on the telephone myself and try to find out what are the answers. I see my responsibility, as the minister of a Crown corporation, to provide this information to officials of AECL and ask them as the independent agency to follow up. I have also, of course, made it my business to ensure that the Auditor General is aware of this sort of allegation. It seems to me that the Auditor General and AECL are the proper authorities to deal with this kind of question.



REASON FOR DELAY IN PROVIDING DETAILS OF PAYMENTS TO MR. SHAUL EISENBERG

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. In view of the fact we are not talking about press reports, but talking about the fact that the Auditor General of Canada has called into question the expenditure of over $8 million to Mr. Shaul Eisenberg, and the minister has had over three weeks in which to give this House of Commons some information regarding these sums of money which have been spent without proper
December 13, 1976

invoices, proper agreements or proper accounting, is the minister telling this House now he is not able to tell us to whom the money was paid or for what particular purpose? If that is the situation, then the minister has proved himself to be even more incompetent than we thought.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the wish of the hon. member to make just as much political gain as he can of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: I would invite him to come to the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee and try to get to the bottom of this. If the hon. member will reflect back, he will know he was not present at the last meeting. Surely that is the place where parliament should be dealing with this question in a specific way. The Auditor General is there, officers of AECL are there, and I am there, and we will do our best to answer your questions.



LOTO-CANADA ALLEGATIONS OF COMMISSIONS ON SALE OF SECURITY DEVICES TO TICKET DISTRIBUTORS

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. While awaiting further answers to order paper questions on Statistics Canada, I should like to ask the minister about another agency for which he is responsible, and that is Loto-Canada. Can the minister tell the House whether he has been fully briefed on any situations where employees or officers of Loto-Canada are making or have made arrangements designed or calculated to earn them commissions or kickbacks relating to the sale of alarm equipment or security devices to Loto-Canada franchise holders who sell or distribute tickets?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, all I know about Loto-Canada franchise holders is that an RCMP officer is working for Loto-Canada and investigating their character and operations. If the hon. member has any comment, he may make them to the RCMP officer who was originally given the responsibility to deal with these problems.
Oral Questions



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, two Toronto businessmen and their families have received serious threats which appear to be connected with a letter signed by an official of Loto-Canada involving an agreement whereby a commission or possible kickback is outlined in respect of the sale of security and alarm devices to Loto-Canada distributors or vendors. Can the Solicitor General indicate what the situation is, particularly in view of the fact that the RCMP have been investigating this situation since approximately the middle of October? Perhaps I could ask the minister as well whether he has yet been briefed on investigations concerning some aspects of the Olympic lottery, months ago, which were being investigated by municipal police of Montreal and also Sergeants Bergeron and Brodeur of the RCMP, and are these incidents in any way connected?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised questions concerning two different areas. As far as the Toronto question is concerned, I presume that the matter has also been brought to the attention of the Attorney General of the province of Ontario. If we are talking about the commission of a criminal act in that province, then that is the department to which this should be directed. As far as the Olympic lottery question is concerned, the hon. member knows full-well it is not the practice of the minister responsible for the RCMP to give day-to-day reports to the House on the conduct of these investigations.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question arising out of the statute respecting longshoremen of Halifax, providing for a certain period of time within which to reach a voluntary agreement on working regulations. Would the Minister of Labour indicate whether an agreement has been reached to date on those working regulations and, if not, what course of action does the minister intend to follow?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is no, unfortunately there has not been an agreement reached. That being the case, unless there are very recent developments today of which I am not aware, I will have to proceed to appoint an arbitrator under the statute. I would think the hon. member is aware of just who that arbitrator will be. It will be Nathan Green.

December 13, 1976
Oral Questions



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but observe that it is regrettable we have to proceed to binding arbitration.
My question to the Minister of Transport is supplementary to some questions asked of him earlier. Can the minister indicate whether or not, in conversations he held with the delegation from Nova Scotia this morning, the pending parallel program with the Hawker Siddeley-owned Halifax shipyards came up as a point of discussion, and whether or not the government might not be in a position in a general way to indicate to the House at an early time whether it would consider advance orders for various government departments requiring various types of shipping to alleviate on an interim basis the difficulties being faced by Canadian shipping?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the subject was brought up in a broad discussion of the economic situation, but no decision was taken.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder if the minister can indicate to the House in a general way whether or not the government is giving any consideration to advancing ship requirement orders so that the one year to two-and-one half year period of difficulty facing the majority of Canadian shipyards may be eased?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course I cannot answer that question with regard to all the various departments which have interests in that regard. I do not have any changes in our schedule in mind so far as transport vessels are concerned.



RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES-FUNDING FOR INSTITUTE OF MAN AND RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

['It may be, "Why not today?"']
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps it might be somewhat easier for him to answer as I am dealing with the domestic energy question. On November 4 the minister, in answer to a question from me, assured the House that his first priority for incremental funds would be research and development in renewable energy resources. In Prince Edward Island, the responsibility in this area rests with the Institute of Man and Resources whose innovative work is presently being hampered by a slow federal response to funding requests, as the minister is well aware. Can the minister indicate when he will announce his decision in this regard and some aspects of the purpose for which this fund will be allocated?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, much useful work has been done in recent weeks by my officials with the Institute of Man and Resources together with the premier's office. As the hon. member has indicated, it has to do with renewable energy resources for the province of Prince Edward Island, which I think is very important to the province, but equally important to the whole country because I think they have the opportunity to put into place very important demonstration projects. As to the detail of the projects, I am not yet in position to make an announcement, but I hope to do so sometime next week.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since for reasons of conservation the minister has indicated earlier he is unwilling to subsidize energy users and there has been an indication that some $75 million will be available to moderate the exorbitant rates paid in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. which are affecting very seriously existing and new industry, can the minister indicate what type of assistance the government is prepared to offer, and in particular whether consideration is being given to conversion to woodburning electrical generators in P.E.I. and possibly also Nova Scotia?


Mr, Gillespie:: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be making an announcement sometime next week on a program with respect to conservation which would complement the renewable energy program to which I have alluded.



Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister announced in his October 21 statement certain measures which the government decided to take to deal with the application of the Arab boycott in Canada. Have these measures been put into effect as yet and, if not, when will they be put into effect? I ask this because the minister told me on November 5 in the House when I inquired about this that he would get back to me on it. While I recognize that he has not yet done so because he has been away at the NATO meetings for part of the period, at the same time the lofty sentiments in his statement are of little meaning unless these measures, although not in my view completely adequate, are fully in place and operating without further delay.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the hon. member's question, and indeed before it was asked, work was under way within the government as to the best method of implementation. A decision was made, judging by such criteria as the relevant legislation that would be required, that this matter would become the responsibility of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and information relating to the implementation should be directed to that minister.
December 13, 1976


DATE OF ACTION ON SNAVELY COMMISSION REPORT
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Snavely Commission Report was tabled in the House last week and of the intense interest of western farmers in this report, has the government yet made up its mind as to its timetable when the report would be handled in the House?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not. Having received the very important report and having made it public last week, we will want to reflect very carefully on its contents and also on the relationship between that report and the report still to be received from the Hall Commission which also deals with grain handling and the transportation system in the west.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Are we to
understand that there will be no decision made on the Snavely Report until the House has received and has had time to study the Hall Report?


Otto Emil Lang: I would not make that sweeping a statement. However, the fact is that we will have to take the Hall Commission's Report into consideration and make sure that any steps we take or any action we propose will not in any way prejudge or prejudice the consideration of the later report.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture relating to the minister's opening remarks to the annual Agriculture Outlook Conference which was held this morning here in Ottawa. In view of the minister's less than courteous comments concerning the United States agricultural trade policy with Canada, and in view of the ongoing U.S.-Canada trade negotiations respecting beef quotas, will the minister explain why he did not comment more fairly and factually about our 1976 very favourable agricultural trade balance with the United States, especially with regard to livestock and livestock products?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The statement I made there was no different from the one I made here in the House and in several other places in Canada.


ALLEGATION LOW FOOD PRICES CAUSED BY FOREIGN IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I have a supplementary question for the same minister. In view of the minister's statement to the conference that Canadian food prices decreased by 2 per cent from September, 1975, to September,
Oral Questions
1976, compared to an increase in the United States of one per cent over the same period, will the minister now admit that it is the Canadian agricultural producer who has made this possible and that the Minister has been unable to get support from his cabinet colleagues to resolve our serious pricing problems caused by excessive foreign imports, a situation which is deliberately encouraged to continue the government's cheap food policy and to help hold down the cost of living?


Eugene Whelan: If I have neglected to say that the AIB is doing a good job, then I apologize for this because that is part of the reason for the input costs of farmers having decreased as a result of controls by AIB.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Get your head out of the sand, Whelan, will you?


USE OF ELEVATOR SPACE FOR DURUM OR RED SPRING WHEAT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the available storage space in Canadian government elevators in western Canada, for example, some four million to five million bushels in Moose Jaw, and in view of the fact that the utilization of this space for Durum or Red Spring wheat would inject some needed funds into the western economy, would the minister undertake to instruct the Canadian Wheat Board to take immediate steps to utilize this space to the advantage of the producers and businessmen in the communities?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not give that instruction to the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is fully aware of the existence of that space and also of the extra costs involved in using it and the advantage of using it. I am sure they weigh those factors and come to conclusions which are in the best interests of farmers.


SUGGESTED STUDY OF UTILIZATION OF ELEVATORS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise if a study is being made of the utilization of Canadian government elevators in western Canada so they can be used to the maximum advantage of producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure, but I do know we have tried to utilize them. From time to time before this I have instructed that they should be used to the very fullest, but I am sure the hon. member knows that these elevators cannot be used to the

December 13, 1976
Oral Questions
extent we would like them to be used unless the Canadian Wheat Board instructs that grain be delivered there. Full utilization has to be with the full co-operation of the Wheat Board and the trade in general.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Do the guidelines on the use of government aircraft by ministers of the Crown permit news reporters on flights free of charge?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is general rule which allows some space to be used when it is available, and I do not think newsmen are excluded from this rule.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact that some news agencies recognize the possibility of conflict of interest or influence peddling and hence pay their own way, 1 wonder if the minister will bring forward to the House soon new and strict guidelines which cover not only ministers and the use of airplanes but also assorted individuals from nannies to reporters to other hangers on.


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly be glad to see that that is done, and I suppose also that the Minister of National Defence and I will give consideration to the question of frequent travel in different directions of hon. members opposite and their families. I am sure that the question of the policy of newsmen is something their own newspapers can deal with. However, from time to time it may be very useful for newsmen who otherwise work here to get out into other parts of the country. It may not be a bad thing to see that that is done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEASIBILITY OF SASOL PROCESS FOR MANUFACTURING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM COAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Over a year ago, on December 10, 1975, I asked the minister if he was aware of the South African process known as SASOL, which manufactures gasoline, diesel oil and other petroleum products from coal. The minister stated he hoped to send an expert to South Africa to check the process.
In light of our high unemployment rate, the high level of our coal reserves and our need for new energy sources, has the minister had an opportunity to examine this process? If so, is it

feasible for Canada, and are there any plans to establish this type of project in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my recollection a number of officials and a number of people from Canadian private industry have been to South Africa to examine this particular process. They have also looked at similar processes in the United States. I believe there are a number of groups in Canada at the present time considering the feasibility of coal gasification and coal liquefaction. As I recall from the last information I received, which was some weeks ago, it does not appear at present, in view of prices of petroleum products, that the process would be economic when compared with some of the alternatives, but I would be very pleased to look into the most recent information on this and provide it to the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Two weeks ago today the minister stated that he would decide within two weeks whether he would authorize a fair and impartial hearing by an outside agency for William Biggs, who was charged and tried in a German court, found innocent of all wrongdoing but not reinstated in his employment. Can the minister advise the House of his decision?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the commitment was made in quite those terms. In any event, I have just returned from NATO, and I am not able to give a response at this time. I have to meet with my officials again on this matter, and then we will report to the hon. gentleman.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It was the minister's suggestion that it would take two weeks. Can he now give us a firm date as to when he will decide?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I would like to give a firm date. I would like it to be this week but I do not like to pin myself down to specific dates because I like to keep my promises. I will do the best I can to do it this week.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It is in reference to the Patching Commission report on mine safety in the coal
December 13, 1976

mines of Cape Breton. In light of the minister's visit of some days ago, which to my understanding was an interesting and worthwhile meeting with officials and members of the United Mines Workers of America, can the minister advise if in his opinion the recommendations of the Patching Commission are being carried out in order to improve the safety of the working conditions in these coal mines?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have to give a qualified answer to that. I think the ones that are feasible are being carried out progressively, and many of them are. We are endeavouring to do so by constantly revising the regulations to give them reality in terms of being applied at the mines. We are endeavouring to enter into discussions with the union and with DEVCO to facilitate this type of development. I think our communications process is improving, and the trip was helpful in that regard.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO IMPOSE QUOTAS ON BEEF IMPORTS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would like to ask him why it was that on November 29 he made an announcement respecting quotas on textiles coming from Taiwan and Hong Kong but has not seen fit to impose similar quotas with regard to the beef industry, which is now going into its fourth year of producing at below cost.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we already made statements a few weeks ago concerning beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. Negotiations in that respect are now under way with the U.S. government and we are waiting for the results of these negotiations. That is a completely different problem from that of textiles.


AGRICULTURE
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to ask him if he could make a projection for early 1977 and whether he anticipates a full cut off of quotas with regard to oceanic beef.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the oceanic countries he speaks of are members of the Commonwealth. They are parties to GATT, the same as we are and the same as the United States of America is, and if he thinks we can use them in a different
Oral Questions
way than any other country with which we trade, he is mistaken.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but he does not seem to be in the House at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to ask the minister what is the policy of the government on transferring dangerous prisoners between federal prisons on scheduled Air Canada flights, and could the minister explain the delay in departure of a recent Air Canada flight from Toronto bound for Vancouver caused by the captain's refusal to take off until a prisoner being transferred from eastern Canada to British Columbia and his plain clothes escorts had been removed from the aircraft by the RCMP?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific case to which the hon. member has referred, but I would be pleased to look into it and get back to him.


An hon. Member:: What is the policy?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government made a decision as to whether the regulations needed for the administration of Bill C-24, the immigration legislation, will be made public before second reading debate begins so that that debate can take into consideration not only the legislation, which establishes broad principles, but also the regulations needed for the administration of the legislation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no decision to produce the regulations before second reading of the bill has been made. That would be an unusual departure, and to my knowledge that decision has not been made, but I will check with the minister.
1922

December 13, 1976
Oral Questions ENERGY


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON PROPOSED DICKEY HYDRO DAM IN MAINE-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the ongoing environmental impact studies into the proposed Dickey Hydro dam project in Maine, which involves an international waterway, and in light of the tremendous downriver benefits such storage facilities would have for hydro production in New Brunswick, has the minister had any discussions with his United States counterparts about this much delayed project, and can he offer any encouragement to power authorities in New Brunswick?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I had discussions but only of the most general kind with certain United States officials early this summer. I checked that with my department this morning because the hon. member gave me notice of his question last Friday, as to an update of the situation. I regret I do not have that update with me now but I will be pleased to provide him with the information tomorrow.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Have customs clearance facilities for charter flights been re-established at Saskatoon and Regina airport terminals?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been some current discussions on the extent to which persons can be accommodated there generally in relation to the smaller number travelling but efforts are still being made to accommodate some larger groups, at least in Saskatoon.


OIL-EFFECT OF INTERNATIONAL PRICE ON DOMESTIC PRICEMONITORING OF OPEC TALKS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Mines and Resources and relates to the fact that the OPEC countries are meeting to consider new oil prices on the international scene. Could the minister indicate whether the energy policy of the government depends on projected high prices or low prices on the international scene and, second, what steps has he taken to monitor the talks the OPEC countries are now holding?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member must know our policy depends upon moving Canadian prices up toward world prices. That does not mean that Canada right now is supporting any increase in world prices; indeed, quite the contrary. We have made it very clear that we do not believe that an oil price increase, come January 1, would be appropriate either for Canada or for the industrialized western consuming nations. As to the question of monitoring the hearings of the OPEC nations, I have to admit that we do not have a bug in the meeting. I do not know if there is any other way of finding out what is going on inside those rooms other than to listen to the comments of OPEC ministers when they leave.


OIL-PRICE LEVEL AT WHICH DEVELOPMENT OF TAR SANDS POSSIBLE
Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to the House whether his support or enthusiasm for the development of the tar sands in northern Alberta hinges on a substantially higher international price than we now have and if so, at what level?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the present Syncrude project is going ahead on the basis of a guaranteed international price presently delivered to the east coast at around $13 per barrel. As to what will be required in terms of price for a future tar sands project, I am not in a position to give that figure. Work is going on not only in my department but of course with the Alberta government and with potential private participants. It may well be that in order to bring on those tar sand plants a higher price will be needed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is only Monday, not Thursday, but in view of the fact that the projection given last week with respect to House business only dealt with matters up to today and not further, could I ask the government House leader his intentions with regard to House business for the rest of the week? I can indicate to him that we anticipate debate on Bill C-9 would finish tomorrow if it were called tomorrow. I wonder if he could indicate whether it is his intention to call Bill C-9 tomorrow, and then what he intends to do until the end of the week. Also, could he perhaps give the projected date of recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, based upon the reassuring information given by the hon. member, it is my plan to call the James Bay bill tomorrow. Following that, I have in mind the Income Tax Act or the Immigration Act. My hon. friend will have noticed that I put a resolution on the order paper asking the House to approve the televising and broadcasting of our proceedings. It may be that it will at least want to commence discussion of that resolution before the Christmas recess.
December 13, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Further on the same point of order, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not the fact that I asked a question relating to that matter in a great degree that brought it on the order paper. 1 wonder if the government Elouse leader could confirm that it is his intention to bring the debate on that issue forward a week from today? If he could, it would be helpful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had toyed with the idea of calling that resolution this week, but 1 thought it might be too sudden for hon. members. Therefore, if it is to be called before the Christmas recess, it would be called on Monday. That is my working assessment, that it would come up for first discussion on Monday, and after one or two days we could put it over and deal with it finally after the Christmas break. Hon. members may know that it is proposed to seek adjournment on December 22. The date of return has not finally been determined.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the minister answered my question of last Thursday, I thought the implication was that he was going to file the holidays bill that day. What has happened to it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything has happened to it. It is still waiting to be given notice, and I will do so as soon as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may be, "Why not today?"



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I know there has been some interest in reconstituting the special committee on the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons. There is some suggestion this will be a timely thing to do, and if I have consent, and with the understanding that there will be no debate, I should like to move that a special committee be established.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang):
That a special committee of the House to consist of Mr. Speaker and seven other members, be appointed to review the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make;
That the committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such subcommittees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject in the first session be referred to the committee, and
That the members to act with Mr. Speaker on the said special committee be Messrs. Baldwin, Beaudoin, Fairweather, Gray, Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), Prud'homme and Reid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House, having given its consent to receive the motion, has heard the terms of the motion put forward by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by Mr. Lang. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committees on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker, and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 60, 213, 381 to 398 inclusive, 455 to 485 inclusive, 878 and 1,252.
80005-S4i/2

December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all Unemployment Insurance Commission offices, located at 180 Wellington Street, Toronto and, in each case, what is the (a) number of square feet occupied (b) number of employees (c) total annual salaries?
2.	(a) What facilities are located on the 10th and 11th floors (b) what is the cost of furnishings, fixtures, equipment and any other items?
3.	Is there an Executive Suite and, if so (a) where is it located (b) what is the entire cost of its furnishings (c) on what date was it completed and was Mr. James Donoghue the Regional Director of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for Ontario at the time (d) what part, if any, did Mr. Donoghue play in setting up or making use of the suite (e) has Mr. Donoghue used the suite personally and, if so, on what occasions and for what purposes?
4.	What annual rent is paid by the government for each facility at 180 Wellington Street, Toronto (a) who is the landlord (b) what are the expiry dates of any lease or leases and, in each case, do renewal options exist and, if so, on what terms?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. Toronto South district office; (a) 24,813 square feet; (b) 114 employees; (c) $1,226,400. Toronto Metro office; (a) 21,177 square feet; (b) 83 employees; (c) $899,209.
2.	(a) 11th floor-Public Relations, Receptionist, Personnel, Director of Metro Operations staff, Employee Counselling Services Advisor, Economists, Benefit Control Staff. 10th floor-Part of Toronto South District Office (4,855 sq. ft.) Repayment Section, Employment Marketing Analysts, Administrative Services, Data Processing, Credit Union, Cafeteria. (b) $140,399.53.
3.	Yes. (a) 11th floor; (b) $2,739.60; (c) Mr. Donoghue was Regional Director when the office was completed in January 1974; (d) Mr. Donoghue played a management role in setting up the office; (e) Mr. Donoghue used the office when in Toronto for meetings on government business. Records are not kept regarding frequency and purpose of usage.
4.	180 Wellington Street:
Facility	Annual Rent	Landlord	Expiry date	Options24,813 sq.ft. 9th floor plus part of ground and part of 10th floor	$182,241	Trizec Equities Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.	1978-05-14	One year option on the same terms and conditions and at the same rental rates. Six months prior notice required.21,177 sq. ft. part of 10th floor and part of 11 th floor	$161,366.36 to May 14/77 as at May 15/77 $141,844.16	Trizec Equities Ltd. Toronto, Ontario.	1978-05-14	One year option on the same terms and conditions but with the reduced rental of $141,844.16 per annum. Six months prior notice required.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the members of the Anti-Inflation Board?
2.	How many work full-time and what is the annual salary of each?
3.	How many work part-time and (a) how much time per week does each work (b) what is the rate of compensation for each?
4.	Are there guidelines as to the non-Board activities of part-time members with respect to possible conflict of interest?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, P.C., Chairman; Ms. J. Menzies, Vice-Chairman; Mr. J. Biddell, Toronto; Mr. C. Castonguay, Quebec; Mr. David H. Chapman, Vancouver; Mr. W. Ladyman, Winnipeg; Mr. H. Renouf, Halifax.
(2)	Two Board Members receive an annual salary as follows: Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, $47,500-$60,500; Ms. J. Menzies, $41,000-$54,000.
(3)	The five Regional Board Members are working full or nearly full-time and are compensated at the rate of $200 per day.
(4)	Yes. It has been the policy to require that all members of the Board take whatever action is necessary, including resignation of positions that they hold, to ensure that no conflict exists or arises between their private activities and their official responsibilities.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: 1970 and 1971: (a) and (b) Nil; Institution activated in 1972. 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 (a) See following statement, (b) Nil.
1972: Case 1, (i) MD, DPM, FRCPC, MPCP.; (ii) 15 years specialist in England, India and Ireland. President, Canadian Association of Physicians working in prisons. First Canadian Psychiatrist to be elected to the International Academy of Medical and Legal Sciences. Recipient of Merit Award in Psychiatry. Licences with B.C. College of Physician and Medical Association; (iii) Salary range-$26,800-$35,000.
1973: Case 1, (i) and (ii) See 1972; (iii) Salary range- $28,700-$37,500. Case 2, (i) MD, Certificate in Psychiatry; (ii) Hospital experience prior to joining. Penitentiary Service. All experience in Canada; (iii) Salary range-$26,300-$32,500. Case 3, (i) MB CH B. University of Liverpool. DPM-

December 13, 1976

Liverpool and London, U.K. MRC-Psychiatry. LMCC.; (ii) Ten years experience in psychiatry in the U.K. Experience gained in Liverpool and London hospitals prior to coming to Canada, (iii) Salary range-$26,300-532,500.
1974: Case 1, (i) and (ii) see 1972; (iii) Salary range- $32,000-541,600. Case 2, (i) and (ii) See 1973; (iii) Salary range-$29,300-538,700. Case 3, (i) and (ii) see 1973; (iii) Salary range-$29,300-$38,700. Case 4, (i) MD, PhD Neurology. Specialist Certificate-Royal College Physician, Canada; (ii) 10 years extensive hospital and ward teaching experience in Egypt and England and five years experience in Canada; (iii) Salary range-$29,300-538,700. Case 5, (i) MD, Holder, Special Certificate, Royal Canadian College Physicians and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology; (ii) Total experience 25 years in Canada with experience in India, England, Singapore. Was missionary in Vellore, India and Director of Vellore College of Psychiatry; (iii) Salary range- $29,300-538,700.
1975: Case 1, (i) and (ii) see 1972. (iii) Salary range- $34,500-544,900. Case 2, (i) and (ii) see 1973; (iii) Salary range-$31,700-541,700. Case 3, (i) and (ii) See 1973; (iii) Salary range-$31,700-$41,700, (resigned March 17, 1975). Case 4, (i) and (ii) See 1974; (iii) Salary range-$31,700-$41,700. Case 5, (i) and (ii) See 1974; (iii) Salary range- $31,700-541,700. Case 6, Psychiatrist, appointed October 1, 1975. (i) MD, Holder of Fellowship, Royal Canada College of Physicians; (ii) Experience in psychiatry: 10 years. Total medical experience: 12 years-all in Canada. Former Chief of Forensic Psychiatry, Royal Ottawa Hospital; (iii) Salary range-$34, 500-544,900.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: (a) One. (i) MD, CM, D. Psychiatry, CRCP; (ii) Master of Surgery; Hospitals in Prince Edward Island and psychiatric chief; (iii) Salary Range: 1970, $23,000-$34,000; 1971, $25,000-532,700. (b) Nil.
1972: (a) Nil. (b) One. (i) MD, DPM, MRC; (ii) Department of Health Saskatchewan 1967-73, General Practitioner India 1962-66. (iii) Salary contract-$2,638 per month.
Note: For the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 the Canadian Penitentiary Service contracted with the government of Saskatchewan for the provision of psychiatric services at a total cost of $2,638 per month. The government of Saskatchewan appointed two psychiatrists who worked on an alternating basis.
1973: (a) Nil. (b) Two. Case 1 (i) MD, MBBS, DPM; (ii) all in Canada, British Columbia Civil Service; (iii) In addition
Order Paper Questions
to the contract with the province of Saskatchewan, this psychiatrist received $70 for each three-hour session. Case 2 (i) MD, MBBS, DPM MRC. (ii) Department of Health Saskatchewan 1967-73; General Practitioner India 1962-66. (iii) Contract with province of Saskatchewan (See Note).
1974 and 1975: (a) Nil. Case 1 (i), (ii) and (iii)-see 1973; Case 2 (i), (ii) and (iii)-see 1973.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Stony Mountain Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: (a) None, (b) One. (i) MD, BA. (ii) Brandon Mental Hospital; (iii) 1970, $12,460 (contract); 1971, $13,332 (contract).
1972-1974: (a) One. (i) MBBS (Europe), MD. (ii) Private Practice, Winnipeg, Fort Logan Health Centre 1965-1972. (iii) Salary range, 1972, $24,600-532,500; 1973, $26,300-$34,-500; 1974, $29,300-538,700. (b) One. (i) MD, BA. (ii) Brandon Mental Hospital, (iii) Salary $13,332 (contract).
1975: (a) One. (i) MBBS, MD. (ii) Private Practice, Winnipeg, Fort Logan Health Centre, (iii) Salary range $31,700-$41,700. (b) None.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Joyceville Institution and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: (a) From 1970 to 1975 inclusive, there has been no full-time psychiatrist at Joyceville Institution, (b) From 1970 to 1973 inclusive, there has been no part-time psychiatrist at Joyceville Institution. Note: During the years 1970 to 1973 psychiatric services were provided to Joyceville Insitution by the Ontario Regional Headquarters. 1974 and 1975, One. (i) MD, DPM. (ii) Private practice, Kingston, Ontario, (iii) contract, $15,000.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of (a) full-time (b) part-time psychiatrists at Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre and, in each case, what were their (i) educational qualifications (ii) previous work experiences in Canada and abroad (iii) salaries?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970 and 1971: Nil. 1972: (a) three. Case 1, (i) MD, FAPA (Fellow American Psychiatric Association) FRCP (C) Psychiatry, (ii) Notre-Dame de l'Esperance Hospital, (iii) $26,800-535,000. Case 2, (i) MD Psychiatry, (ii) Chief, Psy-

December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
chiatric Services, Institut Albert Prevost. (iii) $24,600-532,500. Case 3, (i) MD, Member, Royal College of Psychiatrists. Fellow, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Psychiatry, (ii) Hopital St-Michel and Hopital Hotel-Dieu de Valleyfield, P.Q. (iii) $26,800-535,000. (b) Nil.
1973: (a) four. Case 1, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 1. (iii) Salary range, $28,700-537,500. Case 2, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 2. (iii) Salary range, $26,300-534,800. Resigned September 30, 1973. Case 3, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 3. (iii) Salary range, $28,700-537,500. Case 4, (i) MD, FRCP (C), Psychiatry. (ii) Philippe Pinel Institute, (iii) $28,700-537,500. (b) Nil.
1974: (a) Six. Case 1, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 1. (iii) Salary range, $32,000-541,600. Resigned April 23, 1974. Case 2, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 1. (ii) Salary range, $32,000-$41,600. Resigned April 23, 1974. Case 2, (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 3. (iii) Salary range, $32,000-$41,600. Case 3 (i) and (ii) See 1973, Case 4. (iii) Salary range, $32,000-541,600. Case 4, (i) MD, Psychiatry, (ii) Graduated University of Montreal in 1945, Staff Hospital St. Jean de Dieu. (iii) $29,300-538,700. Case 5, (i) MD, D. Psychiatry, (ii) Work experience gained in various Montreal Hospitals, (iii) $29,300-$38,700. Case 6, (i) MD, Psychiatry, FRCP, (ii) Hospital staff of St. Michel Hospital, Montreal, (iii) $32,000-541,600. (b) Nil.
1975: (a) six. Case 1 (i) and (ii) See 1972, Case 3. (iii) Salary range, $32,500-544,900. Case 2 (i) and (ii) See 1973, Case 4. (iii) Salary range, $34,500-544,900. Case 3, (i) MD, D. Psychiatry, (ii) Graduated University of Montreal in 1949, worked in various Montreal Hospitals, (iii) $31,700-541,700. Case 4 (i) and (ii) See 1974, Case 4. (iii) Salary range, $31,700-541,700. Case 5 (i) and (ii) See 1974, Case 6. (iii) Salary range, $34,500-544,900. Case 6, (i) MD, AM. BD, Psychiatry, (ii) Department of child and adolescent Psychiatry, Institut Albert Prevost. Teaching staff University of Montreal. (iii) $31,700-541,700. (b) Three. Case 1, (i) MD, MCFP. (ii) Medical Clinic in Montreal, (iii) $19,000 (contract). Case 2, (i) MD, FRCP(C) Psychiatry, (ii) Department of Psychiatry, University of Sherbrooke, (iii) $15,000 (contract). Case 3, (i) MD, Psychoanalysis diploma, Forensic Psychiatry, (ii) Consultant in Psychiatry, St. Luc Hospital and Marie Clarac Hospital, Montreal, (iii) $11,000 (contract).


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at LeClerc
(b)	how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12
(c)	some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. J. P. Dugas, (b) Since July 1, 1974. (c) Assistant Director of Supply and Services, Leclerc Institution, (d) $26,400-$33,000. Deputy Director: (a)

Mr. M. J. Page, (b) Since April 1, 1972. (c) Superintendent, Special Corrections Unit, (d) $21,041 -$23,911.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Cowansville (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. J. P. Lupien. (b) Since March 1, 1976. (c) Director, Socialization, Headquarters, Ottawa, (d) $26,400-533,000. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. J. Laverdiere. (b) Since June 2, 1975. (c) Psychologist, Cowansville Institution, (d) $21,041-523,911.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Ste. Anne des Plaines (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. R. Beaupre. (b) Since November 4, 1974. (c) Assistant to the Federal Minister of Environment, (d) $20,695-523,473. Deputy Director: None.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: Not applicable.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Frontenac Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) M. J. Reid, (b) Since April 25, 1961, (c) Administrative and Supply Officer at Frontenac Institution, (d) $17,241-519,459. Deputy Director:

(a)	Mr. M. F. Johnston, (b) Since October 12, 1973, (c) Clerk to Director, Frontenac Institution, (d) $ 12,762-$ 15,138.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) Grade 13. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Rockwood Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question "Warden is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director." 1. Director: (a) Mr. J. W. Keane, (b) Since April 1, 1974, (c) Classification officer, (d) $17,241-$19,549. Acting Director: (a) Mr. A. W. Crooks, (b) Since May 13, 1974, (c) Records Coordinator, (d) $ 12,762-$ 15,138.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes. Acting Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Joyceville Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. C. W. Chitty, (b) Since April 1, 1972, (c) Director, Beaver Creek Correctional Camp, (d) $26,400-$33,000. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. C. L. McQuade, (b) Since March 25, 1974, (c) Chief, Vocational Training, Headquarters, Ottawa, (d) $21,041 -$23,911.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Montee St. Francis (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. J. P. St-Cyr. (b) Since April 16, 1963. (c) Instructor, (d) $20,695-$23,473. Deputy
Order Paper Questions
Director: (a) Mr. J. Jacques, (b) Since July 1, 1975. (c) Laundry Supervisor, Leclerc Institution, (d) $16,432-$ 18,627.
2. Director: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a First university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. T. Van Petegem. (b) Since March 19, 1973. (c) Supervisor, Classification, Wark-worth Institution, (d) $17,241-$19,549. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. G. W. Whyte, (b) Since July 1, 1974. (c) Clerk to Director, Beaver Creek Correctional Camp, (d) $12,293-$ 15,138.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Pittsburgh Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purpose of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. J. R. Caird. (b) Since August 28, 1975. (c) Director, Dorchester Farm Annex, (d) $ 17,241 -$ 19,549. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. J. W. G. Morris,
(b)	Since October 1, 1975. (c) Clerk to Director, Pittsburgh Institution, (d) $12,762-$ 1 5,138.
2. (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Quebec Federal Training Centre (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is

December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. M. A. Lafleur. (b) Since September 9, 1975. (c) Chief, Living Unit, (d) $26,400-$33,000. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. L. St-Onge. (b) Since February 2, 1976. (c) Assistant Director, Socialization, (d) $21,041-$23,911.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Warkworth Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (Acting Director) (a) Mr. J.
S.	Brazeau. (b) Since July 2, 1976. (c) Assistant Director, Technical Services, Warkworth Institution, (d) $26,400-$33,-000. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. A. C. Boothroyd. (b) Since March 11, 1974. (c) Supervisor, Classification, Millhaven Institution, (d) $21,041-$23,911.
2. Director: (Acting Director) (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) No. (c) No. (d) Yes.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Bath Institution (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. M. C. Willard, (b) Since June 7, 1971. (c) Assistant Director, Dorchester Penitentiary. (d) $20,695-$23,473. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. T. M. Hicks, (b) Since December 29, 1975. (c) Clerk for Works, Regional Headquarters, Ontario, (d) $12,762-$ 15,138.
2. Director: (a) No. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) No. Deputy Director: (a) No. (b) Yes.(c) No. (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	(a) What is the name of the present warden and acting warden at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp (b) how long have they held the positions (c) what positions did they hold previously (d) what are their salary levels?
2.	Was their formal education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: For the purposes of this question, "Warden" is construed to mean "Director" and "Acting Warden" to mean "Deputy Director". 1. Director: (a) Mr. G. A. Irvine, (b) Since May 1, 1973, (c) Assistant Director of Training, Warkworth Institution, (d) $17,241-$ 19,549. Deputy Director: (a) Mr. R. A. Nelson, (b) Since July 1, 1966, (c) Storekeeper, Springhill Institution, (d) $12,762-$15,138.
2. Director: (a) No, (b) Yes, (c) No, (d) No, Deputy Director: (a) No, (b) Yes, (c) No, (d) No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Millhaven Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution opened in May, 1971.
1971: 1. One hundred twenty-nine. 2. (a) 79, (b) 50, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. One hundred nine, $6,481.30-$9,226.80; 13, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 5, $9,809.01-$10,438.85; 1, $10,467.55-$11,096.79; 1, $12,484.67-$13,804.72.
1972: 1. One hundred fifty. 2. (a) 88, (b) 61, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. One hundred ten, $6,870.01-$9,780.39; 32, $9,759.52-$10,-365.81; 6, $10,398.16-$11,064.96; 1, $11,095.75-$11,762.56; 1, $13,233.92-$14,633.28.
1973: 1. One hundred twenty-four. 2. (a) 73, (b) 51, (c) 0, (d)	0. 3. Eighty-four, 32, $7,213.33-$10,269.28; 32,
$10,247.27-$10,883.91;	6,	$ 10,917.83-$ 11,618.03;	1,
$11,650.38-$ 12,350.58; 1, $ 13,895.51-$ 15,364.78.
1974: 1. One hundred forty-eight. 2. (a) 45, (b) 100, (c) 3, (d) 0, 3. One hundred three, $8,638.78-$ 12,061.53; 37, $12,037.00-$ 12,749.73;	6,	$ 12,787.82-$ 13,572.02;	1,
SI3,608.02-$ 14,392.32; 1, $ 16,122.90-$ 17,768.53.
1975: 1. One hundred eighty-eight. 2. (a) 81, (b) 104, (c) 3, (d) 0, 3. One hundred thirty-nine, $9,330.11-$13,026.26; 37, $13,000.17-$13,769.77;	1,	$ 13,425.93-$ 14,273.27;	9,$13,810.99-$14,657.80;	1,	$ 14,696.41-$ 15,543.75;	1,


[Stage Direction]
NUMBER OF GUARDS-LeCLERC
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at LeClerc?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. One hundred six. 2. (a) 88. (b) 18. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Eighty-two, 14, $5,736.22-$8,127.97; 14, $8,110.23-$8,629.91;
December 13, 1976

8, $8,658.08-S9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-$9,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-$12,100.13.
1971: 1. One hundred six. 2. (a) 88. (b) 18. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Eighty-two, $6,309.64-$8,940.88; 14, $8,921.05-$9,492.90; 8, $9,523.69-$10,152.93;	1, $ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87;	1,$11,-
990.04-$13,310.09.
1972: 1. One hundred six. 2. (a) 88. (b) 18. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Eighty-two, $6,688.44-$9,477.25; 14, $9,456.38-$ 10,062.66; 8, $10,095.01-$10,762.34;	1,	$ 10,792.61-$ 11,459.41;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1973: 1. One hundred eight. 2. (a) 87. (b) 21. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Eighty-four, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 14, $9,929.09-$10,565.64; 8, $10,599.55-$l 1,300.28; 1, $11,332.11-$ 12,032.31; 1, $13,345.05-$14,814.33.
1974: 1. Eighty-seven. 2. (a) 71. (b) 16. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-five, $8,425.38-$l 1,705.16; 14, $8,638.78-$12,061,53; 6, $12,431.45-$13,216.18;	1,	$ 13,251.66-$ 14,035.87;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Eighty-five. 2. (a) 70. (b) 15. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-five, $9,099.49-$12,641.72; 12, $ 12,615.11-$13,384.71; 6, $13,425.93-$14,273.27; 1, $14,311.88-$15,158.69; 1, $16,746.93-$18,524.00.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Saskatchewan Penitentiary?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. One hundred twelve. 2. (a) 29. (b) 82. (c) 1. (d)
0.	3. Eighty, $5,892.23-$8,387.81; 21, $8,370,07-$8,889.74; 9, $8,917.92-$9,489.77; 1, $9,515.85-$ 10,088.22; 1, $11,349.84-$12,549.89.
1971: 1. One hundred ten. 2. (a) 27. (b) 82. (c) 1. (d) 0. 3. Seventy-eight, $6,481.30-$9,226.80; 21, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 9,	$9,809.61-$10,438.85;	1,	$ 10,467.55-$ 11,096.79;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1972: 1. One hundred nine. 2. (a) 23. (b) 84. (c) 2. (d) 0. 3. Seventy-seven, $6,870.01-$9,780.39;	21,	$9,759.52-$ 10,-
365.81; 9, $10,398.16-$11,064.96; 1, $11,095.75-$11,762.56;
1,	$13,233.92-$14,633.28.
1973: 1. One hundred thirteen. 2. (a) 19. (b) 93. (c) 1. (d) 0. 3. Eighty-one, $7,213.33-$ 10,269.28; 21, $ 10,247.37-$ 10,883.91; 9, $ 10,917.83-$ 11,618.03; 1, $11,650.38-$ 12,350.58; 1, $13,895.51-$15,364.78.
1974: 1. One hundred thirty-two. 2. (a) 19. (b) 111. (c) 2. (d) 0. 3. One hundred, $8,638.78-$ 12,061.53; 21, $12,037.00-$12,749.73; 9, $ 12,787.82-$ 13,572.02; 1, $ 13,608.02-$ 14,392.23; 1, $ 16,122.90-$ 17,768.53.
Order Paper Questions
1975: 1. One hundred fifty-three. 2. (a) 17. (b) 133. (c) 3. (d) 0. 3. One hundred and eighteen, $9,330.11 -$ 12,026.26; 23, $13,000.17-$13,769.77;	10,	$ 13,810.99-$ 14,657.80;	1,
$14,696.41-$15,543.75; 1, $17,412.69-$ 19,189.81.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Cowansville?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Ninety-six. 2. (a) 67. (b) 29. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-nine, $5,736.22-$8,127.97; 18, $8,110.23-$8,629.91; 7, $8,658.08-$9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-$9,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-$12,100.13.
1971: 1. Ninety-six. 2. (a) 67. (b) 29. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-nine, $6,309.64-$8,940.88; 18, $8,921.05-$9,492.90; 7, $9,523.69-$10,152.93;	1,	$ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1972: 1. Ninety-nine. 2. (a) 66. (b) 33. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Seventy-three, $6,688.44-$9,477.25; 17, $9,456.38-$10,662.66; 7,	$10,095.01-$10,762.34; 1, S10,792.61-$ 11,459.41; 1,
[Stage Direction]
1973: 1. Eighty-eight. 2. (a) 60. (b) 28. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-seven, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 12, $9,929.09-$10,565.64; 7, $10,599.55-$l 1,300.28;	1,	$11,332.11-$12,032.31;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. Ninety-four. 2. (a) 56. (b) 38. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Seventy, $8,425.38-$l 1,705.16; 16, $11,680.64-$12,393.37; 6, $12,431.45-$12,216.18;	1,	$ 13,251.66-$ 14,035.87;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Ninety-one. 2. (a) 54. (b) 37. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. Sixty-seven, $9,099.49-$12,641.72; 16, $12,615.11-$ 13,384.71; 6,	$13,425.93-$14,273.27;	1, $14,311.88-$15,158.69; 1,
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Ste. Anne des Plaines?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution opened in 1971. 1971: 1. Eleven. 2. (a) 8, (b) 3, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 11, $9,206.98-$9,778.83.
1972: 1. Eleven. 2. (a) 8, (b) 3, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 11, $9,759.52-$10,365.81.

December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1973:	1.	Eleven.	2.	(a)	8,	(b)	3,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	11,


[Stage Direction]
1974:	1.	Eleven.	2.	(a)	8,	(b)	3,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	11,
[Stage Direction]
1975:	1.	Sixteen.	2.	(a)	8,	(b)	8,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	11,
[Stage Direction]
1973:	1. Ten.	2.	(a) 4,	(b)	6,	(d)	0,	(d) 0.	3.	10,
[Stage Direction]
1974:	1. Ten.	2.	(a) 3,	(b)	7,	(d)	0,	(d) 0.	3.	10,
[Stage Direction]
1975: Note: In 1975, the 10 guards were reclassified as Living Unit officers.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Archambault?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Rockwood Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution opened in 1971. 1971: 1. One hundred twenty-four. 2. (a) 96, (b) 27, (c) 1, (d) 0. 3. 90, $6,481,30-$9,226.80; 24, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 8, $9,809.61-$10,438.85; 1, $ 10,467.55-$ 11,096.79; 1, $ 12,484.67-$ 13,804.72.
1972: 1. One hundred thirty-eight. 2. (a) 101, (b) 37, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 104, $6,870.01-$9,780.39; 24, $9,759.52-$ 10,365.81; 8, $10,398.16-$11,064.96;	1,	$11,095.75-$11,726.56;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1973: 1. One hundred fifty-six. 2. (a) 101, (b) 55, (c) 0, (d)
0.	3. 118, $7,213.33-$10,269.28; 28, $ 10,247.37-$ 10,883.91; 8,
$10,917.83-$11,618.03;	1,	$ 11,650.38-$ 12,350.58;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. One hundred sixty-nine. 2. (a) 100, (b) 69, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 129, $8,638.78-$l2,061.53; 30, $ 12,037.00-$ 12,749.73; 8, $ 12,787.82-$ 13,572.02; 1, $13,608.02-$14,392.23;
1,	$16,122.90-$17,768.53.
1975: 1. One hundred sixty-nine. 2. (a) 99, (b) 70, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 129, $9,330.11-$13,026.26; 30, $ 13,000.17-$ 13,769.77;8 $13,810.99-$14,657.80;	1,	$ 14,696.41-$ 15,543.75;	1,
Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Ten. 2. (a) 6 $8,370.07-$8,889.74.
1971: 1. Ten. 2. (a) 6, $9,206.98-$9,778.83.
1972:	1.	Ten.	2.	(a)	5,


[Stage Direction]
1973:	1.	Ten.	2.	(a)	4,
[Stage Direction]
1974:	1.	Ten.	2.	(a)	3,
[Stage Direction]
1975:	1.	Ten.	2.	(a)	2,
[Stage Direction]
(b)	4, (c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	10,(b)	4, (c) 0, (d).	3.	10,(b)	5, (c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	10,(b)	5, (c)	1,	(d)	0.	3.	10,(b)	6, (c)	1,	(d)	0.	3.	10,(b)	7, (c)	1,	(d)	0.	3.	10,
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Stony Mountain Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a First university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Frontenac Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a First university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Nine. 2. (a) 3, (b) 6, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 9, $8,370.07-$8,889.74.
1971:	1.	Nine.	2.	(a) 2,	(b)	7,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	9,


[Stage Direction]
1972:	1.	Nine.	2.	(a) 4,	(b)	5,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	9,
[Stage Direction]

Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Ninety-one. 2. (a) 40, (b) 44, (c) 7, (d) 0. 3. 67, $5,892.23-$8,387.81; 15, $8,370.07-$8,889.74; 2, $8,658.08-$9,229.93; 5, $8,917.92-$9,489.77; 1, $9,515.85-$ 10,088.22; 1, $11,349.84-$12,549.89.
1971: 1. Ninety-six. 2. (a) 37, (b) 52, (c) 7, (d) 0. 3. 67, $6,481.30-$9,226.80; 5, $8,921.05-$9,492.90; 15, $9,206.98-$9,778.83; 2, $9,523.69-$ 10,152.93; 5, $9,809.61-$ 10,438.85; 1, $10,467.55-$l 1,096.79; 1, $ 12,484.67-$ 13,804.72.
1972: 1. Eighty-nine. 2. (a) 23, (b) 56, (c) 6, (d) 4. 3. 59, $6,870.01-$9,780.39; 5, $9,456.38-$10,062.66; 14, $9,759.52-$10,365.81; 2, $10,095.01-$10,762.34; 7, $ 10,389.16-$ 11,064.96; 1, $11,095.75-$11,762.56; 1, $ 13,233.92-$ 14,633.28.
1973: 1. Eighty-six. 2. (a) 22, (b) 54, (c) 6, (d) 4. 3. 59, $7,213.33-$10,269.28;	5,	$9,929.09-$10,565.64;	12,
December 13, 1976

$10,247.37-$10,883.91;	2,	$10,599.55-511,300.28;	6,$10,917.83-511,618.03; $13,895.51-515,364.78.	1,	$11,650.38-512,350.58;	1,1974: 1. Ninety-eight.	2. (a)	18, (b) 74, (c) 3, (d) 3. 3.	70,$8,638.78-512,061.53;	5,	$11,680.64-512,393.37;	12,$12,037.00-512,749.73;	2,	$12,431.4-513,216.18;	7,$12,787.82-513,572.02; $16,122.90-517,768.53.	1,	$13,608.02-514,392.23;	1,1975: 1. Ninety-nine.	2. (a)	17, (b) 73, (c) 6, (d) 3. 3.	70,$9,330.11-513,026.26;	6,	$12,615.11-513,384.71;	15,$13,000.17-513,769.77;	1,	$13,425.93-514,273.27;	5,$13,810.99-514,657.80; $17,412.69-519,189.81.	1,	$14,696.41-515,543.75;	1,


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Joyceville Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Seventy-two. 2. (a) 47, (b) 25, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 49, $5,736.22-58,127.97; 15, $8,110.23-58,629.91; 6, $8,658.08-$9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-59,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-512,100.13.
1971: 1. Seventy-two. 2. (a) 46, (b) 26, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 49, $6,309.64-58,940.88; 15, $8,921.05-59,492.90; 6, $9,523.61-$10,152.93; 1, $ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87; 1, $11,990.04-$ 13,-
310.09.
1972: 1. Seventy-five. 2. (a) 45, (b) 30, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 52, $6,688.44-59,477,25; 15, $9,456.38-510,062.66; 6, $10,095.01-$10,762.34; 1, $10,792.61-511,459.41; 1, $12,709.55-514,108.91.
1973: 1. Ninety-three. 2. (a) 38, (b) 55, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 70, $7,022.89-59,951.01; 15, $9,929.09-510,565.64; 6, $10,599.55-$11,300.28; 1, $11,332.11-512,032.31; 1, $ 13,345.05-S 14,814.33.
1974: 1. Ninety-eight. 2. (a) 38, (b) 57, (c) 3, (d) 0. 3. 68, $8,425.38-511,705.16;	21,	$11,680.64-$12,393.37;	7,$12,431.45-513,216.18;	1,	$13,251.66-514,035.87;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Ninety-eight. 2. (a) 37, (b) 56, (c) 5, (d) 0. 3. 68, $9,099.49-$12,641.72;	21,	$12,615.11-513,384.71;	7,$13,425.93-$14,273.27;	1,	$14,311.88-$ 15,158.69;	1,
[Stage Direction]
NUMBER OF GUARDS-MONTfiE ST. FRANCIS
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Montee St. Francis?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
Order Paper Questions
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution was converted to a Living Unit operation during 1973. 1970: 1. Twenty-seven. 2. (a) 23, (b) 4,
(c)	0, (d) 0. 3. Nineteen, $5,892.23-58,387.81; 6, $8,370.07-$8,889.74; 2, $8,917.92-59,489.77.
1971: 1. Twenty-seven. 2. (a) 23, (b) 4, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Nineteen, $6,481.30-59,226.80; 6, $9,206.98-59,778.83; 2, $9,809,61-510,438.85.
1972: 1. Twenty-seven. 2. (a) 23, (b) 4, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Nineteen, $6,870.01-59,780.39; 6, $9,759.52-510,365.81; 2, $10,398.16-511,064.96.
1973: 1. Twenty-seven. 2. (a) 23, (b) 4, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Nineteen, $7,213,33-510,269.28; 6, $10,247.37-510,883.91; 2, $10,917.83-$! 1,618.13.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution was converted to a Living Unit operation in 1973. 1970: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 10, (b) 3, (c) 0,
(d). 3. Thirteen, $8,370.07-58,889.74.
1971: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 9, (b) 4, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Thirteen, $9,206.98-59,778.83.
1972: 1. Eleven. 2. (a) 7, (b) 4, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Eleven, $9,759.52-510,365.81.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Pittsburgh Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This institution was converted to a Living Unit operation in 1975. 1970: 1. Nine. 2. (a) 8, (b) 1, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Nine, $8,370.07-58,889.74.
1971:	1.	Nine.	2.	(a)	8,	(b)	1,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	Nine,


[Stage Direction]
1972:	1.	Nine.	2.	(a)	7,	(b)	2,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	Nine,
[Stage Direction]
1973:	1.	Nine.	2.	(a)	6,	(b)	3,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3.	Nine,
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
1974: 1. Ten. 2. (a) 5, (b) 5, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Ten, SI 2,037.00-$ 12,749.73.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Quebec Federal Training Centre?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. One hundred one. 2. (a) 78, (b) 23, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Seventy-one, $5,736.22-58,127.97; 21, $8,110.23-S8,629.91; 7, $8,658.08-S9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-S9,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-$12,100.13.
1971: 1. One hundred one. 2. (a) 77, (b) 24, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Seventy-one, $6,309.64-S8,940.88; 21, $8,921.05-S9,942.90; 7, $9,523.69-S10,152.93;	1,	$ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1972: 1. One hundred one. 2. (a) 77, (b) 24, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Seventy-one, $6,688.44-S9,477.25; 21, $9,456.38-S10,062.66; 7, $10,095.01-S10,762.34; 1, $ 10,792.61-$ 11,459.41;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1973: 1. One hundred one. 2. (a) 74, (b) 27, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Seventy-one, $7,022.89-59,951.01; 21, $9,929.09-$ 10,565.64; 7,	$10,599.55-S11,300.28; 1, $11,332.11-$ 12,032.31;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. Seventy. 2. (a) 42, (b) 28, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Fifty-two, $8,425.38-S11,705.16;	10,	$8,638.78-$ 12,061.53;	6,$ 12,431.45-$ 13,216.18;	1,	$13,251.66-$ 14,035.87;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Seventy. 2. (a) 40, (b) 30, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Fifty-two, $9,099.49-512,641.72;	10,	$12,615.11-513,384.71;	6,$13,425.93-514,273.27;	1,	$14,311.88-515,158.69;	1,
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Collins Bay Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Eighty-two. 2. (a) 46, (b) 36, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 59, $5,736.22-$8,127.97; 15, $8,110.23-$8,629.91; 6, $8,658.08-$9,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-59,827.87. 1, $10,900.08-512,100.13.
1971: 1. Eighty-two. 2. (a) 45, (b) 37, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 59. $6,309.64-58,940.88; 15, $8,921.05-59,492.90; 6, $9,523.69-$10,152.93; 1, $10,181.62-510,810.87; 1, $11,990.04 $ 13,-
310.09.
1972: 1. Eighty-seven. 2. (a) 44, (b) 43, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 64, $6,688.44-59,477.25; 15, $9,456.38-510,062.66; 6, $10,095.01-$11,762.34; 1, $10,729.61-511,459.41; 1, $12,709.55-$14,-108.91;
1973: 1. Ninety-seven. 2. (a) 45, (b) 52, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 74, $7,022.89-59,951.01; 15, $9,929.09-510,565.64; 6, $10,599.55-$11,300.28; 1, $11,332.11-512,032.31; 1, $13,345.05-$14,-814.33.
1974: 1. One hundred nineteen. 2. (a) 41, (b) 75, (c) 3, (d)
0.	3. 95, $8,425.38-511,705.16; 16, $11,680.64-512,393.37 6, $12,431.45-513,216.18;	1,	$13,251,66-514,035.87;	1,
$15,506.18-$17,151.81;
1975: 1. One hundred thirty-two. 2. (a) 41, (b) 86, (c) 5, (d)
0.	3. 95, $9,099.49-512,641.72; 24, $12,615.11-$ 13,384.71; 11, $13,425.93-514,273.27;	1,	$14,311.88-515,158.69;	1,


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Warkworth Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Fifty-four. 2. (a) 23, (b) 29, (c) 2, (d) 0. 3. 40, $5,736.22-58,127.97; 6, $8,110.23-58,629.91; 6, $8,658.00-59,229.93; 1, $9,256.02-59,827.87; 1, $10,900.08-512,100.13.
1971: 1. Fifty-four. 2. (a) 22, (b) 30, (c) 2, (d) 0. 3. Forty, $6,309.64-58,940.88; 6, $8,921.05-59,492.90; 6, $9,523.69-$10,152.93; 1, $ 10,181.62-$ 10,810.87; 1, $11,990.04-513,-
310.09.
1972: 1. Fifty-seven. 2. (a) 21, (b) 33, (c) 3, (d) 0. 3. Forty, $6,688.44-59,477.25; 9, $9,456.38-510,062.66; 6, $10,095.01-$10,762.34; 1, $10,792.61-511,459.41; 1, $ 12,709.55-$ 14,108.91.
1973: 1. Sixty-two. 2. (a) 19, (b) 39, (c) 3, (d) 1. 3. Forty-five, $7,022.89-$9,951.01; 9, $9,929.09-510,565.64; 6, $10,599.55-511,300.28;	1,	$11,332.11-512,032.31;	1,


[Stage Direction]
1974: 1. Ninety-five. 2. (a) 20, (b) 69, (c) 5, (d) 1. 3. 68, $8,425.38-511,705.16;	19,	$11,680.64-512,393.37;	6,$12,431.45-513,216.18;	1,	$13,251.66-514,035.87;	1,
[Stage Direction]
1975: 1. Ninety-five. 2. (a) 17, (b) 69, (c) 6, (d) 3. 3. Sixty-five, $9,099.49-512,641.72; 22, $12,615.11-513,384.71; 6,	$13,425.93-514,273.27;	1,	$14,311.88-515,158.69;	1,
$16,746.93-518,524.00.	.

December 13, 1976
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Bath Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution opened in 1972. 1972: 1. Eleven 2.
(a)	8, (b) 3, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Eleven. $9,759.52-510,365.81.
1973: 1. Eleven 2. (a) 6, (b) 5, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Eleven. $10,247.37-$ 10,883.91.
1974: 1. Twelve 2. (a) 5, (b) 7, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Twelve, $12,037.00-$ 1 2,749.73.
1975: 1. Thirteen 2. (a) 6, (b) 7, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. 13, $13,000.17-SI 3,769.77.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Saskatchewan Farm Annex?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university td) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1970: 1. Nine. 2. (a) 4, (b) 5, (c) 0, (d) 0. 3. Nine, $8,370.07-$8,889.74.
1971: 1. Nine. 2. (a) $9,206.98-59,778.23.	4.	(b)	5.	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3. Nine.1972: 1. Nine. 2. (a) $9.759.52-510,365.81.	4,	(b)	5,	(c)	0,	(d)	0.	3. Nine.1973: 1. Nine. 2. (a) J 10,247.37-$ 10.883.91.	4.	(b)	5,	(C)	0.	(d)	0.	3. Nine,1974: 1. Ten. 2. (a) $12,037.00-$ 12,749.73.	5,	(b)	5,	(c)	0.	(d)	0.	3. Ten,1975: 1. Ten. 2 (a) $13.000.17-$ 13,769.77.	5,	(b)	5,	(C)	0,	(d)	0.	3. Ten.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 473 -Mr. Hnatyshyn:
1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of guards, excluding living unit-officers, at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some university (d) a first university degree?
3.	For the same years, how many guards were at each level on the salary scale?
Arthur John (Art) Lee: Note: This Institution was converted to a Living Unit operation in 1973.
Order Paper Questions
1970: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 8. (b) 5. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. 13, $8,370.07-$8,889.74.
1971: 1. Thirteen. 2. (a) 8. (b) 5. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. 13, $9,206.98-$9.778.93.
1972: 1. Eleven. 2. (a) 6. (b) 5. (c) 0. (d) 0. 3. 11, $9,759.52-510,365.81.
LIVING UNIT OFFICERS-LeCLERC


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For ihe years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-offtcers at LeClerc?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number	Education	1970	-	-1971	-	-1972	-	-1973	56	(a)	20(b)	33(c)	3(d)	01974	57	(a)	21(b)	32(c)	3(d)	11975	60	(a)	22(b)	34(c)	3(d)	1


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Cowansville?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number	Education1970-1972	-	-1973	44	(a)	11 (b)	26 (c)	6 (d)	1
December 13, 1976
	Order Paper Questions		
Year	Number	Education	1974	48	(a)	12(b)	29(c)	6(d)	11975	49	(a)	13(b)	29(c)	6(d)	1


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Stony Mountain Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number	Education	1970-1973	-	-1974	44	(a)	2(b)	41(c)	1(d)	01975	53	(a)	2(b)	47(c)	2(d)	2


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Montee St. Francis?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number	Education	1970-1972	-	-1973	22	(a)	9(b)	13(c)	0(d)	01974	26	(a)	10(b)	16(c)	0(d)	01975	26	(a)	10(b)	16(c)	0(d)	0


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Beaver Creek Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Coverted to Living Unit April 1, 1972.
Year	Number Education
	1972	11	(a)	9
			(b)	2
LIVING UNIT OFFICERS-JOYCEVILLE INSTITUTION			(c)	0

Question No. 477-Mr. Hnatyshyn:	(d)	01. For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at	1973	42	(a)	8Joyceville Institution?	(b)	42. Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c)	(c)	0some college (d) beyond a first university degree?	(d)	0Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor Gener-	1974	12	(a)	7al): The Living Unit Program was started on April 1,1975.	(b) (c)	4 1Year Number Education	vv/ (d)	01975 56 (a) 0	1975	12	(a)	6(b) 54	(b)	6(c) 2	(c)	0(d) 0	(d)	0

December 13, 1976


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Pittsburgh Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: The living Unit Program started on April 1, 1975.
Year	Number Education
1975	11 (a)	4
	(b)	7
	(c)	0
	(d)	0


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Quebec Federal Training Centre?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number	Education	1970-1972	-	-1973	55	(a)	16(b)	39(c)	0(d)	01974	and 1975	60	(a)	17(b)	43(c)	0(d)	0


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Warkworth Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?
Order Paper Questions


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number Education
1972	52	(a)	0
		(b)	48
		(c)	4
		(d)	0
1973	and 1974	52	(a)	0
		(b)	48
		(c)	3
		(d)	1
1975	52	(a)	0
		(b)	47
		(c)	2
		(d)	3


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Bath Institution?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Nil as the Living Unit program only started in 1976.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1975, what was the number of living unit-officers at Landry Crossing Correctional Camp?
2.	Was their education (a) less than grade 10 (b) grade 10 to grade 12 (c) some college (d) beyond a first university degree?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Year	Number Education
1972	11	(a)	9
		(b)	2
		(c)	0
		(d)	0
1973	12	(a)	8
		(b)	4
		(c)	0
		(d)	0

December 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Year	Number	Education	1974	12	(a)	7(b)	5(c)	0(d)	01975	12	(a)	6(b)	6(c)	0(d)	0
Reviews of Dangerous Sexual Offenders
Quebec Region	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Federal Training Centre Regional Psychiatric Centre	3	3 1Regional Medical Centre Regional Reception Centre Archambault Institution Cowansville Institution	4	2	1	1 1 1	2 1	nLeclerc Institution	2	3	2	2	7	4* Philippe Pinel Institute Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Institution	5	6	4	4	4	4 1
* Reviews done at other than federal institutions


Mr. Hnatyshyn: For the years 1970 to 1975, by penitentiary, how many reviews of cases relating to dangerous sexual offenders have taken place by (a) the Parole Board (b) others and, were such reviews on (i) an annual (ii) a semi-annual basis?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Cases of dangerous sexual offenders are reviewed annually by members of the Parole Board. The attached table indicates the number of reviews relating to dangerous sexual offenders, by penitentiary, for the years 1970 to 1975. D.S.O.'s are reviewed annually in accordance with Section 694 of the Criminal Code but, in some cases, additional reviews are made for various reasons.
Reviews of Dangerous Sexual Offenders
Atlantic Region	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975Dorchester Institution	2	3	3	3	4	2Springhill Institution	1	1	1	1	2	2Ontario Region	Beaver Creek Correctional Camp	1	Collins Bay Institution	7	9	5	4	2	8Frontenac Institution	1	2	3	5	2Joyceville Institution	5	6	3	6	5	9Kingston Penitentiary	15	12	6	Millhaven Institution	4	1	2	1	Pittsburgh Institution	1	3	5	3	3	3Regional Psychiatric Centre	1	4	16	13Regional Reception Centre	1	1	* St. Leonard's Peel	1Pacific Region	Agassiz Correctional Camp	2	3	5	7	4Burrard Centre	3	B.C. Penitentiary	42	18	21	13	6	8Matsqui Institution	1	4	3	4	7	9Mountain Prison	17	13	13	17	19	45Regional Psychiatric Centre	1	13	14Regional Medical Centre	3	1	3	1Robson Centre	IWilliam Head Institution	1	1	1Prairies Region	Saskatchewan Penitentiary	5	3	3	6	3	4Stony Mountain Institution	4	6	5	4	7	3


Mr. Leggatt: Is the Department of the Environment and/or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of the SK-Diaccll process developed by the Kureha Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. of Japan, which employs diaphragm cells in the manufacture of chlorine and, if so, what steps have been taken to encourage the adoption of the process by Canadian manufacturers?


Ralph Goodale: The Department of the Environment is aware of the SK-Diacell process. The Chlor-Alkali Mercury Regulations published under the Fisheries Act, and the Chlor-Alkali Mercury Emission Standard Regulations to be published under the Clean Air Act, are based on, respectively, best practicable and best available control technology for existing chlor-alkali plants that use the mercury-cell process. To allow for the development of new technology, the control process is not specified in these regulations; individual chlor-alkali plants are left the freedom to comply in their own way. Notwithstanding the chlor-alkali regulations, however, and although no steps have been taken to encourage the adoption of any specific process by chlor-alkali producers, the adoption of processes that use no mercury has, in general, been encouraged. In a letter to chlor-alkali producers, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment requested that any expansion of existing, or construction of new chlor-alkali plants not result in increased use of the mercury-cell process, and stated that an ultimate goal of this industry should be the elimination of mercury losses to the environment. Moreover, the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance Program, designed to encourage firms to reduce pollution, may be applicable, and has been used, in converting from a mercury-cell process to a process that uses no mercury.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is aware of the SK-Diacell process developed by the Kureha Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. of Japan. The Canadian industry, generally, is aware of this process which is one of many competing technologies currently being developed and tested around the world for the production of chlorine. The use of diaphragm cells, which do not use mercury in the manufacture of chlorine, has increased substantially in Canada to the point that about

Scientific Activities of Government



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
70 per cent of capacity now uses this process. This trend is expected to continue. The choice of process to be used is left for the decision of Canadian manufacturers as long as environmental or other government regulations are met and no specific steps have been taken to encourage the adoption of the Kureha process.

Mr. Jones: 1.	What is the annual salary of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
2.	What amount for travelling expenses, etc. does he receive?
3.	How many times has he travelled on Air Canada at government expense and what was the cost of such trips?


Ralph Goodale: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 486 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should point out that the question seeks detailed information about the date and cost of the building of federal institutions, and therefore the reply is lengthy. That is why we are answering the question in this fashion.


COST OF MAJOR RENOVATIONS TO PSYCHIATRIC AND CORRECTION CENTRES
Mr. Hnatyshyn: For each (a) prison (b) regional psychiatric centre (c) community correction centre (d) regional reception centre, what was the (i) date it was built and at what cost (ii) date major renovations were made and at what cost (iii) amount of inmate labour used for such renovations (iv) number of inmate man-hours for each job?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES) ACT, 1976 MEASURE RESPECTING ORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-26, respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the government of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the bill on government organization concerning scientific activities to the House on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in whose name the bill stands. The bill is the culmination of a lengthy series of studies, reports, meetings and debates on the subject of science policy as it affects the university sector, the Science Council and certain government laboratories. Before discussing the bill, I first want to congratulate my predecessor, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), on the contribution he has made over the past ten years as the minister responsible for the National Research Council, and more recently as science minister, to our understanding of science policy. His vast experience has brought us closer to finding the most productive means of supporting and using science and technology in the national interest.
Let me now make a few remarks on the background to this science policy debate, because it is one which I believe hon. members will wish to keep in mind as they consider this bill. From time to time, governments are faced with problems which are unique in structure and conception and which, accordingly, place particular challenges on policy machinery. Science policy is one such problem. Since "science policy" emerged about ten years ago as an important and identifiable field of concern, Canada has supported a variety of science policy initiatives. I need only remind hon. members of the reports by the OECD, the Science Council, and the Senate committee-so ably chaired by Senator Lamontagne. These and similar publications, and the establishment of my ministry, have created much interest among some countries, particularly those within the OECD, in Canada's efforts to obtain well-balanced policy advice on how science and technology should be supported and used for our national benefit.
Such activity has also touched off within Canada an extensive discussion of goals and objectives for science and technology and of the appropriate mechanisms for achieving them. This discussion has involved scientists inside and outside government, learned societies and professional associations, industry, individual scholars and ministers, academic journals and the public press. The government has studied the reports and followed the dialogue. The debate has explored the role of government in supporting and stimulating science and technology in industry, in universities and in its own laboratories. It has looked at the broad range of ways in which our science

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
and technology effort influences, and is influenced by, public policies.
Many recommendations have been made for policy and institutional change. The government has already responded to many of these.


Paul Yewchuk: Where? Give us an example.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is precisely what I shall do, if the hon. member will be patient. I would mention, as an example, the Make or Buy policy which was recently extended to cover ongoing research programs, scientific data-gathering and information services in addition to research and development contracts for new programs. During the past three years, research projects totalling some $100 million have been contracted to the private sector. Much of the discussion has, however, centred on the mechanisms for federal support of university research and whether these mechanisms adequately serve the interests of the universities and the country as a whole. It is to that aspect of the national science effort that this bill is mainly directed. I will have more to say at another time about the support of industrial research and research in government laboratories.
The alternatives proposed for university research support have ranged from retention of the present system to a single granting council covering all disciplines. The government has pondered all the options. This bill reflects our carefully considered view, which I shall expand upon in a moment, that in view of future national needs an evolutionary change in the structure of the granting councils is the desirable course in order to create the balance in the support of the different disciplines which will bring the councils' and national objectives into closer harmony. The proposed changes do, I believe, incorporate the best advice the government has received with the least administrative cost and organizational disruption.
Let me, for a moment, further outline the philosophy underlying those parts of the bill dealing with university research support, before getting into its specific provisions. The government has a strong belief in the importance of a healthy and active university research community and I would like to emphasize that point. We recognize, first of all, that research, whether being done in universities or elsewhere, is the process by which new knowledge is created and is really the foundation of all scientific and technological achievement. In universities, the conduct of research by professors, research students and research assistants is important to us for other reasons as well. It adds to the quality of education given to our university students; it also contributes to the training of scientists and scholars who carry their knowledge and their approach to inquiry into all aspects of national life. It is through the support of university research that we have created a base in Canada of highly qualified people and a research capability in many disciplines. Canada must have this capability to ensure that we can tap into the world's output of new knowledge, be able to understand the significance of that knowledge and adapt it to the needs of industry, government and furthering research in the universities. The government must also have

access to advice on complex scientific and technical questions such as nuclear safety and pollutants in our environment. While the universities are not the only source of this advice, they are a most important one.
Canadian universities have accomplished much in research, some of it leading to applications of direct benefit to Canada. Professor Symons said in his recent report to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada:
Canada has established a worldwide reputation for leadership in a number of important scientific fields including, for example: fresh water biology research; nuclear physics; physical chemistry; aerial mapping and surveying; the development of geophysical methods and instrumentation; computer science; research into the upper atmosphere; and certain aspects of research in engineering, forestry, agriculture, and the health sciences. University scientists have contributed significantly to the country's achievements and international reputation in such fields.
I would add to that our high level of scholarship and research in certain fields of the social sciences and humanities. As examples, I could point to the publication of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and important studies on the special problems of the working environment in the maritimes, juvenile delinquency in Montreal, and the economics of Canada natural resource policy. There are many others.
We have kept very much in mind, during the preparation of this legislation, the environment of continuity and freedom which is required for the fullest exercise of creativity in research. That is why we are fully committed to retain the "peer review" system; we will not jeopardize the expertise and independence with which the councils support, and scholars perform, research. At the same time, we have sought to provide mechanisms by which eminent scholars in the disciplines being supported will oversee the granting process and will advise the government as to how university research may more effectively support national goals. I hasten to add that any approach which seeks arbitrarily to impose specific objectives or priorities on the research community from outside will not be a productive one and will not be instituted.
The government does, however, have a view of the goal the granting councils should pursue. Simply stated, it is "the support of a balanced development of knowledge and of research capability". In working towards this goal, we believe the councils should: (i) encourage excellence in research; (ii) provide a base of advanced knowledge in the universities; (iii) assist in the selective concentration of research activities; (iv) aim for a regional balance in scientific capability; (v) maintain a basic capacity for research training; (vi) encourage curiosity-oriented research; and (vii) encourage research with a potential contribution to national objectives. These are not seven commandments to be adhered to rigidly, but a framework within which to guide growth and evolution of council activities. Like the legislation, these objectives are intended, not as a basis for immediate and radical redirection but to ensure long-term coherence in the federal system of university research granting. The objectives should provide the context for improved communication between the government and the scholarly communities.
December 13, 1976

Now, what is it exactly that this bill provides for in the area of university research granting? First, the bill creates a social sciences and humanities research council. This will leave the Canada Council, which presently supports both the arts and research and scholarly activity in the social sciences and humanities, to focus its attention on the arts and permit the new council on social sciences and humanities to provide support for academic research in these disciplines. This reorganization reflects the growth in size and quality of the social sciences and humanities in this country and the new perception of their importance to the attack on socioeconomic problems, to national sovereignty, and to our cultural development. The Social Science Research Council of Canada and the Humanities Research Council of Canada, which are umbrella organizations for the learned societies, have indicated to me that they are very much behind the creation of this new council.
Second, the bill creates a natural sciences and engineering research council, leaving the National Research Council to give its full attention to the major task of running a large scientific research establishment, industrial research and development support programs, and a national program of scientific and technical information. The creation of the natural sciences and engineering research council recognizes the need for a separate agency to support university research in these disciplines and to foster improved dialogue between natural scientists and research engineers. Canada must remain in the forefront of appropriate areas of basic research and must create an environment in which university investigators will have the fullest opportunity to contribute to the solution of problems of a social, economic, and technological nature. We look to the natural sciences and engineering research council for an imaginative response to such expectations. I would emphasize, here, that the creation of these two new granting councils will require only a minimal increase in administrative costs since the same personnel and office space will be used as at present.
Third, this legislation alters the Medical Research Council Act to remove the restriction preventing its support of research in the public health field. The amendments will permit, in the future, increased involvement by the Medical Research Council in the support of research and training in the area of health care delivery. I need not remind hon. members of the importance of health care delivery to the well-being of Canadians. Other minor changes to the act will facilitate the administration of the council's business.
Before moving to the other parts of this bill, I would like to say a word about the co-ordination of council granting policies and council budgets. It is planned that the division of responsibility for university research support among the councils will be along the same general lines as that which has existed among the Medical Research Council and the university granting programs of the National Research Council and the Canada Council.
I intend to establish, with the cooperation of the new granting bodies, an intercouncil co-ordinating committee chaired by the secretary of the Ministry of State for Science
Scientific Activities of Government and Technology and including the presidents of the granting councils. Other officials will be asked to participate in the work of the committee from time to time, depending on the matters under discussion. The committee will report to me. As its name implies, the committee will have an advisory and co-ordinating role, rather than a directive role. It will be a forum for catalysing collective responses to problems of mutual interest to the granting councils. It will seek to ensure coverage of all recognized disciplines and that the needs of interdisciplinary research are met. It will harmonize granting practices. It will also make recommendations to me on the balance between the budgets of the councils, recognizing, of course, the responsibility of individual ministers for the budget and administration of each council.
It is not anticipated that the intercouncil co-ordinating committee will have a high-visibility public stance but it is certainly my intention that through the councils and by consultations, briefs, hearings or discussions, the academic community will have the opportunity to communicate their views to the committee. I might say here that I will be seeking the views of various groups and individuals in the universities and outside on the membership of the two new councils. We will be aiming for a membership broadly representative of all disciplines being supported and to include, together with the experts, a number of lay people interested in the development of scholarship and scientific research in this country.
I am not unaware of the criticism the government has been receiving about the lack of growth in the council budgets. The present pause in the growth rate, which my predecessor, the hon. member for Westmount, noted many times had followed years of high growth-over 20 per cent per year in the 1960s-has been necessary as a part of the over-all financial restraint in government expenditures. It has caused hardship among university researchers: we recognize this. The competition for limited funds has been tough, and worth-while projects have had to be cut. The government does not want to see the research competence of our universities eroded. The councils together now spend more than $160 million per year on university research, but we know that the costs of that research have been rising because of inflation and the increasing sophistication of scientific equipment. Accordingly, subject to overall fiscal constraints, consideration is being given, in arriving at the councils budgets for 1977-78, to providing appropriate amounts to cover these inflationary increases.
Further, we recognize that while the basis of university research support must continue to be the criterion of excellence, the goal the government has proposed for the councils covers more than this single objective. Therefore, upon passage of the bill I will be requesting additional amounts for council programs relating especially to a regional balance of scientific capability, national problem areas, and the support of interdisciplinary research. The way in which the councils choose to deal with these added objectives is, as I indicated earlier, a matter for the councils to decide. The complexity of many of the problems facing society need new and broadly-based solutions to which university scientists can contribute. I hope that

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
the councils will be able, with the additional funds, to more effectively encourage work on unique Canadian problems and develop interdisciplinary initiatives to help our resolution of these problems. I look forward to discussing with the councils the approaches they develop to this new dimension in council activities.
This bill, together with the intercouncil co-ordinating committee and the Canadian committee on financing university research, announced a few weeks ago, should establish a sound administrative framework for the federal granting system. We will not get back to the highly expansionary climate of the late sixties, but I feel confident that this new federal structure will ensure desirable stability and continuity in the years ahead in the government's support of university research. The importance which the universities attach to the federal system of grants for university research has been aptly stated in a paper from the Science Council:
What all must share, whether professors or prime ministers, is a concern for the future intellectual manpower requirements of Canada, which can only be secured by strong, positive, research granting policies. Research grants are essential to high quality university education. Research grants are investments in the future that may also pay short term dividends.
It is the government's intent in the new granting system to have such policies.
Now to the other parts of this bill. Being proposed are amendments to the Science Council Act, the National Research Council Act and the National Defence Act as it affects the Defence Research Board. The Science Council is to have its mandate restated to provide it with a greater national and public role. What do I mean by this? The council has over the years been attempting to prepare all of us to deal intelligently with national issues having important science and technology dimensions. It has commented on the energy question, northern development, health care and university research, among others. We may not agree with all its recommendations but I think, without doubt, the council has brought an enlightened point of view to these issues which has been extremely useful in the realm of both public and private decision-making across the country. The new mandate of the council will state clearly that the council is to act as a source of public information and to provide advice on the profound effects developments in science and technology will continue to have on our way of life. To cope with its broadened responsibilities and to permit the participation of additional social scientists in the work of the council, the membership of the council is to be expanded from 25 to 30.
I have already spoken of the separation of the granting and laboratory functions of the National Research Council. The amendments to the National Research Council Act are designed to give the council flexibility in its management structure so that it can more readily respond to their solution. Provision has also been made to transfer the responsibility for Canadian Patents and Development Limited from the National Research Council to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in order that the exploitation of inventions from

government laboratories and the university laboratories being supported by the federal government may be linked more closely to the promotion and development of Canadian industry. CPDL will become an even more important vehicle for the transfer of technology from government to industry. Following the publication of the Science Council's report on "Technology Transfer: Government Laboratories to Manufacturing Industry", improved ways are being sought, including new uses of CPDL, to transfer technology from the public to the private sector.
The role of the National Research Council will shift somewhat in emphasis as a result of the proposed changes. The council, without its granting function, will have less responsibility for the general development of science in Canada and more for using the demonstrated capability of its laboratories in tackling national problems. Let me emphasize, however, that there will continue to be room in the council's mandate for the high quality basic research for which it has deservedly attained an international reputation, both for NRC and Canada.
With regard to defence research, the National Defence Act is to be altered to bring the Defence Research Board into organizational integration with its primary customers, the Canadian forces. The board will continue as an advisory group to the Minister of National Defence, while the defence research establishments are consolidated within the department. The legislation serves to clarify the new role of DRB which is already in effect.
This, then, is a general outline of the bill which is before this House, and the background to it. I believe that if the changes recommended are accepted, we can expect science and technology to contribute even more fully than they have in the past to the long-term development of this country.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as presented, has been around for more than two years. Looking at the state of science and technology in the country today, any suggestion that it would find speedy passage through the House and committee, after two years of marking time, is day-dreaming. When I first heard that the bill was somewhere in the making, I thought it might answer some of the problems we face today in this field. After reading it through, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it is about as exciting as watching paint dry. One has to ask at the outset whether this bill is the first step of several which will eliminate the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. It might also be timely to ask why it is being introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and not by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner). There may be good explanations in answer to these questions, but I feel this is a first step toward dissolution or cancellation of MOSST.
One might really call it a "let's make some jobs for the boys" bill. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of State for Science and Technology can be cancelled at any time without reference to parliament: it can be done by order in council. I note that MOSST is not mentioned anywhere in the bill; the legislation states only that the various councils are
December 13, 1976

to report to a minister designated by the governor in council. When we note, too, that the present minister views MOSST as "a policy development ministry providing advice to clients within government" and when we note that the previous minister, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), devoted about four hours a week to the ministry, we begin to realize that research and development in the scientific field are low priority items in the government scheme of things.
1 suppose that in the last two years more has been written about science and research than about almost any other subjet. This is a reflection of the continuous decline in research and development funding. Between 1962 and 1967 the gross expenditure on research and development increased from 0.9 per cent of the GNP to 1.4 per cent. In 1972 a Senate committee recommended that national expenditure on research and development should increase to 2.5 per cent in the 1980s. In making this recommendation the Senate committee proposed an inflation rate of 3 per cent.
In spite of this recommendation, the percentage of the GNP allocated to research in 1972 slipped from 1.4 per cent to 1.19 per cent of the GNP. In 1973 we saw a further erosion to 1.12 per cent. The federal government led the way in this reduction. In the mid-sixties it contributed about one-half of the total R and D budget. By the seventies this contribution had shrunk to one-third of the total funds allocated. Couple this with the fact that inflation amounted to more than 10 per cent in 1975, and one begins to realize that the government has no idea what is required. There is no science policy. The supreme insult was delivered in the form of an AIB regulation which classified research and development in the same category as donations to charity, sales promotion and advertising. This regulation, which was withdrawn in the last budget, stated that funds spend on research and development could only be increased if there were a corresponding decrease in sales promotion and advertising or donations to charity.
Where were the strong voices of the ministry and of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce when these regulations were being drafted? MOSST was concentrating on its declared function of being a policy development ministry providing advice to clients within government. We also know that IT and C is in such an administrative muddle, with a giant trade deficit and a multiplicity of alphabet programs, that it was not even aware that the regulations had been put in place by the AIB.
What really does this bill do, Mr. Speaker? Well, it increases the granting councils from four to six. This means six sets of accounting, auditing and administrative people. At a time when the government is talking about restraint in spending, it is increasing its administrative staffs. It would have been much better if these funds had been used for research and development than for administration.
In addition to the six councils to oversee the allocation of grants to the various disciplines, we have the intercouncil co-ordinating committee under the general chairmanship of
Scientific Activities of Government the secretary of MOSST, but ICCC has no budgetary control. This is another layer of bureaucracy and staff inserted in between. It would be much better if the Privy Council, which I understand really drafted this bill, had taken the advice of the Senate committee and set up an over-all Canadian science foundation reporting to a full minister, with a multiplicity of divisions which could deal with the important scientific disciplines. Such a structure could facilitate inter-disciplinary activities; it could utilize common management and financial services, with substantial saving in administrative costs.
The way this bill is structured, Mr. Speaker, each granting council will report to a different minister to be designated by the governor in council. The councils will also report through the intercouncil co-ordinating committee to the secretary of MOSST, and thus to the minister. So, in effect, a council will be reporting to two ministers, if you read the bill and the press release from MOSST. But the bill does not refer to the ICCC in any of its provisions.
Let me look for a moment at some of these councils. I agree that the establishment of the sciences and humanities research council is a good move, but let me examine it in particular and see what is going to happen. It will report to a minister to be designated by the governor in council. The president and vice-president will be appointed by the governor in council or with the approval of the governor in council. It will have 21 other members including the vice-president. The members of the council nominally will be allowed travelling and other expenses while on council business. That is fair enough. Then they may be paid additional remuneration if required for duties assigned to them by the council. I assume members of the executive committee would qualify for the additional remuneration.
Then, because the council is authorized to receive funds, bequests, securities or other property they will have an investment committee consisting of the president, who is appointed by the governor in council, a council member and three other persons appointed by the governor in council. These three persons appointed by the governor in council, not being paid members of the council, can receive remuneration and expenses fixed by the governor in council. The council can have special and standing committees, as well as other committees beyond the executive committee and the investment committee. In addition to the president, vice-president, executive committee, investment committee, special committees and standing committees, the council can establish an advisory committee of persons other than members of the committee. Not being members of the committee, they may be paid remuneration and expenses as fixed by the governor in council.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the council may appoint officers and employees as necessary who in fact are paid salaries and expenses, again approved by the governor in council. In addition to this, the council may appoint persons to perform duties-this is really another way of saying that they will be able to appoint consultants-of a temporary nature.
I think we must take a look at the structure and ask ourselves how much it will all cost, Mr. Speaker. When all

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government these salaries and expenses are paid to staff, consultants, committees, and so forth, how much money will actually be spent to promote and assist research and scholarships in the social sciences and humanities? In fact, just reading the clause of the bill pertaining to the social sciences and humanities makes me wonder whether there is a better way to do it so that the funds to be allocated to the council can be used to better advantage. It begs the question: Will the people of Canada be well served? Will their tax dollars be properly spent or, as I have said, are we just making some jobs for the boys?
The function of the natural sciences and engineering research council is somewhat similar to the social sciences and humanities research council except that it does not have an investment committee. It is rather strange that the meaning of the title is not carried through in the functions to be performed by the council. In other words, there is no engineering function to be carried out; it merely describes the function of the natural sciences and engineering research council, which is "to promote and assist research in the natural sciences other than health sciences". It will also advise the minister, who has not been designated, on the matters he may refer to the council for its consideration. Again, it is rather fuzzy. A lot of people without too much direction as to function will be reporting to an unknown minister on projects to be assigned to them by another unknown minister.
The Science Council of Canada is stripped of most of its former duties as set forth in section 11 of the original act. It will now be required to assess the technological resources, requirements and potentialities of Canada and increase the public awareness of scientific and technological problems and opportunities. In other words, the Science Council of Canada will become a science and technology public relations corporation. It assesses potential and increases public awareness. I think this is a shame. I have always held the Science Council of Canada in very high regard and I think this is quite a comedown for the council.
The National Research Council, according to the bill, loses its granting function. It loses Canadian Patents and Development Limited and will now have charge of all matters affecting scientific and industrial research in Canada which may be assigned to it by the governor in council. Previously its duties were assigned to it by a committee. In short, the National Research Council now operates only laboratories and carries out research as directed by the governor in council. We can see from the addition of a new section that the council can undertake to spend moneys received by the council through its operations. We will want some explanations for this item, as it may run afoul of the Auditor General. I think we should try and head that off at the beginning. If I read that particular section correctly, it will be in conflict with the Auditor General. I agree that the National Research Council should be able to use any funds it receives for contracting work that it does to help offset its overhead, but by the same token clause 59(2)(e) of the bill provides:
(e) to expend, for the purposes of this act, any money appropriated by parliament for the work of the council or received by the council through the conduct of its operations-

We have had instances of that in the past. The Auditor General has always taken the position that funds so received should go to the general revenue fund. We would want to find some other mechanism and see whether we can arrange it in such a way that this will not be in conflict with the Auditor General.
The Defence Research Board change is merely an administrative clean-up. I understand the changes recommended have already been made, but we must question what has happened to the research facilities of the Defence Industrial Research Board. The minister stated in his remarks that this had been incorporated into the department. As I recall, it has a budget of $5 million and certain facilities. What is happening to these facilities today? These are the things we will want to discuss when this matter comes before the committee.
The transfer of Canadian Patents and Development Limited to Industry, Trade and Commerce is a logical move. However, I think we will want to hear from the minister just what he plans to do with this corporation. We want to be sure that it is not lost in the administrative gazebo of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This organization has a tremendous potential for transferring known technology to industry. Recent studies on productivity have indicated there is a tremendous lag in the transfer or the utilization of known technology in our secondary industries. It might be wise to consider retaining Canadian Patents and Development Limited as a full agency corporation. I think it has a very important role to play, and I would be very upset if we found, in fact, that Canadian Patents and Development Limited was shuffled off into a corner of Industry, Trade and Commerce and lost in the administrative mess we see in that department.
The information document released with Bill C-26 implies that there has been broad consultation and discussion with the scientific and research communities on the structure of this bill. We know in fact there was not. While there may have been discussions within the departments with a few select people, there has been little discussion outside government offices. In fact, it has been suggested-and I was rather surprised and shocked when I heard this-that the Minister of State for Science and Technology may have conveyed to some people in the research community that they should not oppose the recommendations in this bill. In other words: don't rock the boat, or else. Remember the sad state of research and-


Mr. MacFarlane:: The hon. member and I would rock any boat we were in.


An hon. Member:: The two of you would sink it.


William James Kempling: If the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) wants to get into this debate, he should put his name on the list. Remembering the sad state of research, the lack of firm science policy and the bland promises by the minister that he would be requesting additional funds for a council program to compensate for inflation, we have to say that this really is not such a program. We can see few
December 13, 1976

remedies in the proposed bill. In fact, by the time the expanded councils are staffed, I think we could have a net decrease in existing levels of research funding.
In many of our government research laboratories we find that the research staff is quite upset. The staff is required to reduce its operating budget to pay for salary increases. In other words, the top limit must be adhered to regardless of the research being carried on. If this regulation were carried to its conclusion, it would totally eliminate the operating budget or drastically reduce the amount of research that can be undertaken. One can only conclude that it would have been much better for Canada had the additional $100 million being allocated for LIP grants been channelled into research at all levels.
The state of industrial research in this country is at a very low ebb. Consider these facts. We have a balance of payments deficit for manufactured goods of $10 billion. In addition, 80 per cent of manufactured products in Canada are made by companies with less than 50 employees. Taking all the research carried on by companies in the private sector, and noting the number of researchers, the average is two per company and the bulk are in large corporations. Then considering that there is a low level of transfer of technology to small and medium-sized companies in Canada, the companies which produce 80 per cent of the goods manufactured in Canada, one would have to say that this bill certainly does not address itself to the problems.
Consider, as well, the proposed patent law legislation put forth by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). When putting the two together, one has to ask where all the misdirection is leading us. There is no co-ordination, plan or policy, but just a series of disjointed, unrelated moves that in total spell, to my mind, disaster to research and development in the private sector.
We know that the United States government is funding a national centre for corporate technology. A similar move has been made in Europe. We find, of course, that Japan has been a leader in this particular process. There is no recognition of this or the need for it, in spite of overwhelming evidence that such a structure is required. This bill, in fact, has so many flaws and weaknesses that we feel strongly we should have a series of intensive committee, hearings with witnesses from the academic community, from various scientific disciplines, including the engineering community, the small business sector and industry, so they may place their views before the committee in order that they may become part of the restructuring of scientific and industrial research in Canada.
I could go on, as the Chair has informed me I have unlimited time, but I think I have covered the major points 1 wanted to make. Of course, I will have more to say about the restructuring of scientific and industrial research in the committee. Just let me say I am very disappointed that this bill does not come to the central point we have been dealing with here. I am disappointed in the minister. He is a new minister, and I thought he might have been a little more gung-ho in looking at the problems facing the country, really getting with
Scientific Activities of Government them. As I read this bill, it is a shuffling of chairs and furniture. It is inserting another layer of bureaucracy into the system, and I really do not think it is going to solve the problems facing the country. We have some serious problems to be dealt with in research.
This afternoon my colleague asked the minister a question about coal gasification. Given the deposits we have in this country, and looking at the state of energy costs in the maritimes, one would think we would be a leader in this process. But, in fact, all I can find out about what is going on in that regard is that somebody is looking at it and some research is being carried on in the maritimes as to how to get excess levels of sulphur out of the coal so that we can perhaps make better use of it in some of our processes.
There are many other things to be considered. The spruce budworm problem in the maritimes has been with us for a number of years. In fact, if that is not dealt with severely in the very near future we may not have a forest to any extent in New Brunswick a few years down the road. So we can go, right across the country. We find that the medical research people have made their presence felt in Ottawa and have put forth a very strong lobby for their case. I have a great deal of understanding for their problems, and my colleague will be dealing with them as the debate continues. We can look at the problems that are facing us right across this country in technology and research development, whether it be at the university level or at the industrial level. There is nothing in this bill, as I see it, that deals with it, and I feel very regretful that having this opportunity to do something, nothing is being done. I hope that when the bill eventually goes to committee, whenever that may be, we can have extensive hearings, have people come here from various disciplines and, if possible, restructure the bill so that it will answer the problems facing Canada today.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-26 to reorganize the granting councils. I apologize for the absence of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who intended to speak on this bill but had a prior commitment in his riding.
The Bill before us proposes to reorganize the granting councils of Canada from the present three we have to five other major ones. We have the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, and the Canada Council. They will be reorganized into the National Research Council, which will look after laboratories but will not have a granding function, the Canada Council which will support the arts, the Medical Research Council which will support research into health sciences, a new council called the natural sciences and engineering research council, which will support research in those fields, and another new council, the social sciences and humanities research council, which will support research in those fields.

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
I was intrigued by the timing of this bill. It appears to me that whenever the Liberal government gets into trouble and has no real policy answers or a commitment to change things, it carries out the old double-shuffle; it reorganizes parts of its bureaucracy with great fanfare to make it appear that it is doing something, whereas in actuality it is just shuffling the cards and not changing anything. I think, for example, of the time in the past when they split unemployment insurance and the manpower departments, saying that this was a more efficient way of handling the manpower and unemployment policies. Then, in the intervening years, unemployment continued to increase, manpower was not successful in placing people, and there were abuses in the unemployment insurance program. So, with great fanfare, they came out with a new policy rejoining the two departments and it appeared that something of substance was being done, but we know otherwise. So I am rather suspicious when we think of the timing of this bill, because in the past few years what has been happening to the scientific and research community in Canada has been a shocking decrease in the funding in these important areas in our universities and elsewhere.
More recently, under the government's restraint program the freeze and cutbacks in the research grants have been even more telling. During the past year we witnessed a very intense lobby on Parliament Hill by the scientific and research communities who were very much alarmed at what was happening to their disciplines. Certainly we in this party share their concern. I still think, however, that despite that lobby the government will not come forward with adequate funding. So 1 am suspicious that this bill, as we see it today, is a sop to that lobbying effort and an attempt to make it appear that the government is interested in science and research and that it is doing something, but really what we see here is a reorganization of some of the councils but no commitment on the part of the government to maintain adequate funding.
I could support the concept of reorganization if we had some kind of iron-clad guarantee that this government was serious about funding, but we do not have that as yet. So I should like to develop that theme in my speech to try to illustrate the severity of the problem and to impress upon the government that, in addition to the reorganization of the councils, there must be a rethinking of funding for the councils and of the important activities supported by it. In the first area of science and scientific research and development, I think all hon. members, at least in the opposition parties, recognize the importance of scientific research and adequate funding.
We in Canada are confronted with many problems in resource management and energy development. I think of the new technology in the oil sands and the need to explore alternative energy to fossil fuels, such as sun and wind power, and the need for research in these areas. I think of the problems of food supply, climate and soil and how we need research in these areas. In my area of northern Ontario, forest management is a very important field and certainly diseases in the forest, such as the spruce budworm plague and other kinds of diseases, are very significant factors in the economy of an

area such as northern Ontario. We have not had enough scientific investigation into pollution problems which are unique or of prominence in Canada in terms of our industrial development. We could go on with new development in transportation, rapid transit and communications in this vast country, satellite communications and otherwise.
In all these areas we certainly recognize the need for adequate research, yet when we look at the budgeting and the kinds of programs that are now underway we find serious gaps in them. I reject outright the proposition put forward by the former minister of science and technology, now the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), that we can rely on foreign technology and research, that we can import this research, and that we do not have to put a priority on the development of Canadian research and scientific experiment.
I do not believe-and I do not think anyone in the scientific community in Canada believes-that we can rely on other countries to address themselves to problems facing Canadians, and that we can borrow their development, their research and new discoveries. 1 think, for example, of problems in northern Ontario such as mercury pollution into which we should have had some energetic investigation many years ago, instead of relying on the Swedes and the Japanese to come forward with scientific information. Mercury pollution is certainly affecting many Indian communities in northwestern Ontario and Quebec. So I reject the idea of the hon. member for West-mount that we can import our research and development. Intellectually, that would put us into a colonial status regarding research, which is totally unacceptable for a modern, industrialized country such as Canada. We cannot afford to waste the talent of our students in universities who, because of the absence of this government's commitment to science and research, in many cases are unable to pursue research in their special fields even during their university years, let alone after they graduate. We have seen far too many of our young university graduates-and we, as taxpayers, put money into university education-having to move to the United States to be employed in their respective fields of endeavour because Canada has not committed itself to such research. I think there is talent here in Canada, but we need funds so that we can develop sophisticated technology and so that we do not have to import it. We need funds so that Canadians in these very important fields-graduates, technicians and others-do not have to join unemployment lines or move out of the country.
So we can agree on the necessity of a vigorous, well funded science and research program. But what has been the record to date of the Liberal government in this field? I think the point can be made by looking at two aspects of this government's policy, or lack of it. First, I notice a lack of direction and, second, a lack of funding. The Senate committee which did a very thorough investigation of science policy in Canada defined science policy as, "The planned use of science in support of national goals." The words "national goals" are key here, because if we are going to help scientists and other
December 13, 1976

researchers it should be done within the framework of some national goals and some knowledge of where we are going as a country in various fields.
What are the goals of the federal government? Rather than goals, we see ad hoc reactions to situations or crises as they may come up. Where is an industrial strategy for Canada which will get us out of the bind of always relying on exporting our natural resources and, hence, getting into the dilemma of not having job-intensive manufacturing industries here, and as a result, high unemployment? Where is an industrial strategy to get more manufacturing industries to provide not only for researchers but also for general labourers?
Where is the industrial strategy to end the kind of stranglehold we have experienced as a result of being a branch plant economy? The branch plants in Canada are controlled by parent companies, usually in the United States, and 60 per cent of our manufacturing industries are foreign-owned. Research and development is carried out in the parent plants; they do not delegate it to the branch plants here in Canada. So if we have a goal of repatriating the Canadian economy, that would fit in with a goal of scientific development in terms of technology for manufacturing.
What is the goal of this government with regard to health care? Recently this parliament passed Bill C-68 to cut back funding commitments for medicare. That bill reversed a direction I thought this country was taking in terms of preserving universal health and medical care. What are the goals for housing and for a national education policy in co-operation with the provinces? What I am saying is that we will continue to lack direction unless this government gets serious about national goals. In many cases we see lack of direction in our science policies as well. However, the key area where there is lack of leadership is in funding. Anyone who looks at the record of the federal government over the past few years regarding funding of science and research cannot help but be shocked at the decline in funding in Canadian industry, in government laboratories and also in universities.
With regard to research and development in industry in relation to the gross national product, by 1975 the funds committed to industrial research were only 87 per cent of the level of 1969. For example, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce abolished its IRDIA program which amounted to some $32 million in fiscal year 1974-75. This was a program to back research. The department has also cut back its PAIT program. The effects of the cutbacks in these two programs have hampered attempts to improve foreign markets and technology, both of which are related to science research. In terms of our branch plant economy, which I mentioned earlier, we can see the results of the lack of development when we compare Canada with other countries. For example, in France, West Germany, Japan, The Netherlands and Sweden, research and development manpower engaged in industry on the average is about 25 people per 10,000 population; but in Canada it is only about 8 people per 10,000. That, again, is a shocking state of affairs in a country which is supposedly industrialized and well developed.
Scientific Activities of Government
We can also see the effects of cutbacks in funding at government laboratories. The level of funding for 1975-76 is only 83 per cent of that of 1969 in relation to the gross national product. In real terms there is a decline in what the dollar can buy for those research laboratories, compared with a few years ago. To illustrate what I mean by that, we find that between 1969 and 1974 the funding for the National Research Council increased by 6.2 per cent, but in the same period of time the consumer price index rose by over 24 per cent. To quote a few statistics which will illustrate what is happening, the cost of laboratory supplies and equipment rose by over 16 per cent during that period; glassware was up 21 per cent; organic chemicals rose in cost by anywhere from 30 per cent to 400 per cent; yet in its budget the government uses a common figure of 5 per cent as an over-all measure of cost increases. That is just unrelated to the actualities of the situation.
Research funding for universities has declined as well. The level of funding for science and engineering by 1975 was reduced to 67 per cent of the 1969 level. We found that the freezing of grants for 1976 brought the decline to an even lower figure of 60 per cent. When we think of the rising enrolment in some scientific fields and the demands on scientific budgets in universities, surely this is an intolerable situation. Yet we see a corresponding cut because of inflation. I can best sum it up by quoting from the brief submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 12, 1976, by the Royal Society of Canada. I think these experts in the field put the matter in perspective when they said, at page 2 of the brief:
Freezes and actual cutbacks in current dollars, together with inflation have so impoverished R and D in the three sectors that today we are facing the break-up of competent research groups that took many years to establish, the downgrading of the quality and scope of research, and some loss of morale among researchers. These consequences are in addition to the serious damage that has been done to the potential contributions of scientific R and D to the Canadian economy.
The evidence is there, Mr. Speaker. This government has deliberately allowed funding to decline to the point that our scientific community is very worried about the continued state of this important profession in the future of Canada. The trend is much the same in the social sciences. Until now they have been funded by the Canada Council and the federal government. Social sciences and humanities research have been neglected to the point of crisis. Some modest increases in funding have been made in the past, but they still do not meet the needs of this country.
We cannot rely on social sciences in other countries to do the investigations that we need so desperately here. We cannot rely on American or Italian social scientists to analyse what is happening in Quebec in terms of separation. We need Canadians to investigate this area and to put on paper the pros and cons of an independent Quebec vis-a-vis Canada in terms of economic survival, etc. That research has not been done in Canada because we do not have enough funding. There is need for more research on social welfare and how it affects the
1946

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
regions of Canada and the policies of this government. We cannot rely on foreign social scientists to do that.
On March 4, 1976, the Social Science Research Council of Canada presented a brief to the government outlining the problems faced by social scientists in this country. Anyone who reads that brief must worry about the state of the social sciences in Canada and the lack of research. On page 3, the brief points out:
Human science research and development performed by universities for the federal government has declined from 51.4 per cent of the federal extramural R and D dollar in 1971-72 to 34.7 per cent in 1975-76.
The brief concludes that the universities have not maintained their relative role as performers of extramural R and D in the human sciences and have not benefitted from the slight improvement made in the past. When you examined the role of the Canada Council in funding social scientists, it can be seen that there are areas of concern there as well. On page 4 of the same report we read:
If the Canada Council is the main supplier of funds for basic research in the humanities and social sciences and if the universities are the main performers of such research, basic research in the humanities and social sciences is in an even worse condition in 1976 than it was in 1972 when the Senate committee's recommendations were published. If, in addition, the annual rate of inflation is taken into account, the modest over-all gains did not even maintain levels of support and the Canada Council and the universities, and hence the community of humanities and social science scholars, have lost more ground relative to other suppliers and performers in the human science field.
In this field, as well, we see the problem of lack of funding and lack of serious commitment on the part of the government. The Canada Council is going to be affected by this bill. In 1975 the council gave over $24 million to the social sciences and humanities and over $23 million to the arts. In passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to note with some concern the rumour that in the 1977 budget Treasury Board is not going to increase the allotments to the Canada Council that would make up for increasing costs and inflation.
I have received, as I am sure other members of parliament have, representations from many artistic groups concerned about what will be happening to Canada Council funding next year. Symphony orchestras, for example, are concerned that the limits will mean they cannot operate, and this is certainly true of the symphony at Sault Ste. Marie, as well as those in smaller communities. Canada Council funds available for grants and scholarships were up 26 per cent in current dollars in the period 1969 to 1975, but in terms of real dollars, when you take into account the inflation rate, that has declined by 5 per cent. So the real dollars have not been forthcoming.
The Medical Research Council is also faced with problems. We all recognize the importance of research in medicine, pharmacy and dentistry, not only for prevention but also for the treatment of disease. Last spring the government announced a freeze on research grants and the council had to cancel its June grant competition. Many skilled technicians in the medical field did not receive a salary increase and others were laid off. At the University of Manitoba the medical faculty had to reduce the number of technicians from 15 to 8. There was, again, total lack of comprehension on the part of

the government of the need for adequate medical research funding.
A letter I received from the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research dated May 14, 1976, sums up the situation when it says:
With all the government's valid concern about strengthening the Canadian identity, there appear to be certain cabinet ministers who are unable to comprehend the advantages to Canada of strengthening its involvement not only in commerce and the arts, but in the sciences, including medical science, as well. They are reportedly content to "import" the benefits of medical research done elsewhere; in view of the wealth of this country, such a parasitic attitude is reprehensible. Of greater importance, these ministers fail to understand that the existence of a strong research program is an essential component in the development and sustenance of the coterie of physicians and medical scientists whose concern, curiosity and intellectual drive make them the leaders of the medical community. These are the men and women who evaluate and introduce new concepts and methods, who stimulate and teach both the practitioners of today and the medical students who will be the physicians of tomorrow. These are the men and women whose presence makes the difference in our community between good medical care and excellent medical care.
I have tried to illustrate, with examples relating to disciplines over which granting councils have authority, that the government is not concerned about funding. The bill before the House seeks to restructure the granting councils and, hence, the way funds are distributed. I, and I think most in the scientific community, welcome that proposed change but say that restructuring without adequate funding is nothing but a charade, a put-on. In my opinion, the government must give an iron-clad minimum commitment that it will not allow the level of funding to fall behind because of inflation. It must also commit itself to a long-range funding program so that on the basis of clearly stated goals, about which we have not heard so far, the scientific community can plan with confidence what is necessary, instead of worrying from year to year that a program will be cut off halfway through its life because of lack of funding. We must make a funding commitment with regard to research and science policy if the restructuring of the granting councils is to be meaningful.
We must scrutinize carefully the make-up of these granting councils. I shall say more about this in committee. We must make sure that people highly knowledgeable and qualified in their fields are appointed to these granting councils and that various interest groups as well as individuals have representation on such councils. Perhaps we ought to adhere to the formula of appointing two-thirds of the members from the academic, scientific and technical community and one-third from the public at large, which should include representatives of labour, the professions and other interest groups.
We must consider carefully the process by which members are appointed to such granting councils. The process should be much more open. Nominations should be submitted by a variety of interest groups. In other words, the number of groups submitting possible nominations to these councils should be as large as possible. Although the regional balance is important, I would not want to see the formula so rigidly applied as to deny highly skilled people the opportunity to
December 13, 1976

serve, particularly, say, in cases where an academic might be transferred to another part of the country.
I shall also want to ask questions about the allocation of grants. I suspect that in some cases there is a bias, perhaps even favouritism, in granting procedures. This is especially true in the arts. It is important to consider smaller artistic groups in the more remote regions of the country, in addition to the more notable artistic groups. These remarks also apply to individuals engaged in the arts and to those in the scientific community.
I am concerned in case bureaucrats in the appropriate ministries exercise undue influence on the funding recommendations of the various councils. We must watch this closely. We must make certain that advisory groups in research and science wield real influence and are not mere rubber-stamps in the eyes of the bureaucracy. I think the proposed intercouncil co-ordinating committee chaired by the Secretary of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology will need to be closely scrutinized. I want to know where the real power will lie. Will it be with the bureaucracy, or with the councils to be set up?
As I said in my opening remarks, I am worried because, although the government may give the appearance of acting in science and research policy by shuffling around the councils, in reality it will do very little unless it makes a serious funding commitment. Therefore, I and others who will speak in committee will seek assurances from the government that it will give a commitment for adequate funding in this vitally important field. As far as I am concerned, the bill shows no real change of attitude on the part of the government to science policy, especially in funding.
I want to see real advances forthcoming in the area of funding and I hope the minister and his cabinet colleagues will give us the necessary assurances. Otherwise we shall have created a new level of bureaucracy while the research and scientific activities in this country will continue to wither. I do not want to see this country becoming a colony again in relying on others to do its research and development work. While I support in principle the reorganization proposed by the bill, I say that unless such reorganization is accompanied with a new and larger commitment for funding, the scientific and research fields of this country will not be well served.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have awaited this day with great anticipation, because I knew that today the newly appointed Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) would make his first speech in his new capacity in this House. I cannot help saying that as 1 listened to him I experienced a sinking feeling. A few days ago, when I asked him in the House if he would follow the same general policy in science as his predecessor, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), the minister did not have the courage to respond. He simply sat there, as he is now sitting. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the same question and he, too, refused to reply.
Scientific Activities of Government
Today the minister provided some answers. We learned that the policy will remain the same, which means that there is to be no policy and that the government proposes to import scientific and technological knowledge from other countries. I am sorry the minister chose to waste the present opportunity. Instead of telling us something useful in terms of new policy directions, he put on a flim-flam show in typical Liberal fashion and announced he would make changes simply for the sake of change, without considering whether those changes will be useful for the country. While I will not make any firm commitment with regard to my position on the bill at this time, it is my first impression that this bill will not change significantly the science policy of this country. That policy will not change so long as the government opposite continues in power. The minister indicated that somehow he envisages these new councils and the newly proposed committee as lending stability and continuity to the government's support of university research. Frankly, I was confused when he said that, because from the viewpoint of the scientific community previous government programs have not led to stability. Yet, the minister suggested that there would be continuity of previous stability. If that is what he meant, if this new proposal will lead to the sort of stability which the scientific community experienced in the past, I can only say that I view with grave reservations what is to happen to this country's scientific community.
Based on its experience of the past couple of years, the scientific community feels that the government's policies have led to the opposite of stability. There has been little stability in funding and in the security of jobs in the general research field. We know that many ongoing research projects connected with all aspects of science have been cancelled. When we look at the make-up of the research community, we see that it is an aging population. That is largely a result of this government's action. I am not saying that they are all aged. However, the effect is that very few young people in this country are choosing scientific research as a career. They would be foolish to do so under the kinds of policies this government has been following.
We know that it takes a long time to train a researcher. Some have suggested it takes 12 years and perhaps more. If a researcher cannot be assured of a job upon completion of this training and, beyond that, if he cannot be assured of stable employment in this country for the rest of his career, why should he invest so many years of his life training himself just to come to the end of the training period and find that he has to drive a taxi or do some other job for which he was not trained? That is the very thing that is now happening in our scientific community.
Many researchers whose funding has been cut off found themselves in a position where they had to go to other countries to find employment which is in keeping with their training. Many have found it necessary to change careers. Indeed, they face the very painful prospect of having invested in years of training and now having to look for something else to do. Some have already done that. There are examples of MDs who
80005-551/2

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
have been in research and have decided to go into practice. There are a number still in research who are already rustling around to see what else they are suited to do which is perhaps not as menial as driving a taxi.


An hon. Member:: Some go into politics.


Paul Yewchuk: Yes, some come into politics and participate in the debates in this House. In my view, there are not enough of them here. If I can say anything to the research community, that might be one suggestion that will enable them to speak a little more forcibly and forcefully in terms of protection of science in this country.
If this government continues any longer with its policies, there will be another bird added to the endangered species list-science and the scientists in this country, I was hoping that the minister, who just recently took this job, would reassure me sufficiently that the scientist is not a vanishing breed. Unfortunately, he did not give me any reassurance along those lines.
The minister said there was going to be more stability in the scientific field as a result of this bill. However, he did not say how that will be achieved. He participated in a long harangue of vague generalities. The longer I listen to this debate, the more I think there will be less money for research after this bill passes, and I presume it will by virtue of the government majority. It may take a while to do so, but it will probably pass eventually.
We have a situation where the minister is not explaining how this legislation will benefit the country. Indeed, we are establishing a few new layers of administrative bureaucracy. Looking at the dollars available to the research area in general, what we have here is a redistribution of those dollars with the greater percentage going into administrative bodies and less going into the research field. The minister made some comment about budgeting. He said that for 1976-77 or 197778-in any event, the next year for which budgets will be allocated-there is going to be an increase at least in keeping with inflation. He did not say whether that would just catch up with the inflation of the past year, or of the past four or five years where the various funding agencies have not kept up with inflation.
I am a little nervous about the intercouncil co-ordinating committee. That is because there does not appear to be any input into this committee from the scientific community itself. The chairman is going to be a bureaucrat directly answerable to the minister. If one wanted" to be suspicious, one might construe this to be the first step by this government in an endeavour to place total and complete control over scientific research in this country, undermining the traditional academic freedom which scientists have enjoyed thus far.
If the minister is listening to what I am saying, I would suggest to him that he reconsider the position of chairman of the intercouncil co-ordinating committee and appoint a scientist who is directly engaged in scientific research. There are many good reasons for that. The primary one is that the individual would know the problem; he is most closely connect-

ed to the scientific community and he would be most suited to chair such a committee.


Mr. Ellis:: After the next election we will appoint the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine).


Paul Yewchuk: My colleague suggests that after the next election we will appoint a member from the other side. That is a question on which we shall have to defer a decision for the time being. I can think of no good reason for the minister wanting one of his bureaucrats chairing the intercouncil coordinating committee, unless he thinks he can control the actions of that committee better if one of his underlings is in charge of it. The rest of the members of the committee will be bureaucrats, as well. I am not saying they should all be changed, but perhaps that is another thought one should consider. The chairman should certainly be changed. I do not want to sound as though I am reflecting on a particular individual because I, personally, do not know the bureaucrat involved here: I do not know his name or what he is doing at the moment. Suffice it to say I would rather see an active scientist taking this position. It would be of greater benefit to the scientific community in general.
I was interested in and concerned about the fact that the minister chose to use some, perhaps not forceful but at least some pressure tactics on the scientific community not to object to this legislation. He did not state during his comments why he did that, whether he had something to hide or whether it was part of his apparent desire to speed this bill through the House with virtually no debate. My impression is that the minister thought the bill would get through the House today with minimal debate. Every time a minister wants to sneak something through the House very quickly, I immediately start to wonder why. Perhaps if we can keep this going for a long time, we will get some answers as to why the minister is in such a big hurry, particularly when the bill has been lying around for a couple of years and could have been considered in the past.
I have already stated that nowhere in this bill, nor in the minister's speech, has it been outlined what this government's science policy is or is going to be. The minister totally neglected this very important area. It is important that we know, and it is important that the scientific community know.
We have some facts that we know. One is that Canada is very far behind in its funding policies for scientific research. We are somewhere at about 40 per cent of the level of funding of other western developed nations in so far as general scientific research is concerned. We are funding much less than that on a per capita basis, in terms of medical research. If the minister wants to make a useful contribution to this debate, he will tell us that Canada will take steps at least to catch up to other countries of the western industrialized world in terms of our commitment of funding to research. That is not to say we are not doing good work in some areas. I think we are. Everyone acknowledges that Canada has many good scientists and that we are doing many good works. But when we compare our commitment by way of funding to that of other
December 13, 1976

nations in the developed world, we have to admit we are far behind and should be taking corrective action to ensure that we do not remain far behind for very long. If we, as a nation, want to have a great future, we must see that the scientific community flourishes.
I was most concerned, when I held some meetings with representatives of the Canada's Research Organizations, to find a strong feeling existing among them that we were adopting a "banana republic" attitude toward scientific research, taking the attitude that it was not particularly beneficial to us as a nation and scarcely worth undertaking. Indeed, it does appear as though the government is basing its policies on political expendiency, and even from that point of view its actions are shortsighted: it is still more sensible to spend money on scientific research, because the more we invest now, the more the nation will save in the future. To take the field of industrial research alone, the more we invest in research, the greater will be the profits in the long run.
The minister told us, somewhat apologetically, that funding has been somewhat low in the past couple of years, and the reason he suggested was the existence of the restraint program. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is the reason, I am afraid I cannot accept it. All we need to do is look at the Auditor General's report and compare the hundreds of millions of dollars totally wasted with the $160 million total budget for all the scientific research to which the government is committed.
In a situation like this, it is altogether illogical to say that cutting the research budget is exercising restraint. It seems more logical to insist that the areas to be attacked should be the areas to which the Auditor General drew attention in his report. I should like to hear the minister explain why he is agreeing with his colleagues to pay so little attention to the claims of scientific research when an opportunity so plainly exists to put an end to wasteful expenditures of the kind to which the Auditor General referred. In my view, a grea t deal more effort could be made to show restraint in that area, and the funds so saved could be channelled into research of one kind or another.
Bill C-26 increases the number of councils from four to six and four of these will be directly engaged in providing research grants. In the case of the National Research Council, the segregation of the granting function from laboratory operations seems reasonably and in accordance with the recommendations of the Macdonald report. This will enable NRC to concentrate on its primary function of performing research in support of industrial needs and encourage a shift in emphasis from basic to applied research.
However, while there is a superficial rationale for the segregation of the granting function by scientific fields, the proliferation of administering agencies would appear to be neither effective nor efficient. As an alternative, consideration should be given to the possibility of an integrated granting agency as represented by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The NSF model offers the advantage of a multiplicity of divisions
Adjournment Motion
dealing individually with the important scientific disciplines and at the same time facilitating interdisciplinary activities. It also utilizes common management and financial services with substantial savings in administrative costs.
This legislation apparently provides for each of the granting councils to report to a different "designated minister". As a corollary, the funding requirements of the individual councils will have to be considered in isolation within the different departmental budgets. For reasons I shall outline, this will create problems with co-ordination and priorities. On these grounds, the Senate committee recommended that a single minister, the Secretary of State, carry responsibility for all of the research councils. In the U.K. this responsibility is borne by the minister of education and science. The ambiguity of Bill C-26 on this score raises the obvious question as to why this responsibility has not been assigned to the Minister of State for Science and Technology, who otherwise has no legislative status or function.
With the multiplicity of granting councils involved, a very real problem will occur in ensuring consistency of policies and operating practices in the awarding of grants. An equally critical problem will arise in determining the allocation of grant funds between the competing claims of the several councils. In other words, Bill C-26 does not provide for the central direction of university research grants envisaged in the report of the Senate committee. In the United Kingdom, where a similar pattern of research activities exist, this function is performed by an advisory board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please.



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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social Security; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Government Administration; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Transport.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.

Public Service Employment Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1976

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a general disposition to proceed with notice of motion No. 19 today. It might save the House the time spent in going through a lengthy list if this could be agreed to. Of course, all the other intervening motions, in the iterim, would stand at the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a special task force to review the Public Service Employment Act and the role of the commission in personnel management and employer-employee relations in the public service and that the review include an examination of the role assigned the Public Service Commission and its relationship to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Staff Relations Board; and
That the review entail a study of the relationship of the Public Service Commission and the departments and agencies; and consider the development of an audit system for performance accountability with respect to matters delegated to departments and agencies under the Public Service Employment Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1973, the then president of the privy council wrote to Mr. Jacob Finkelman, Q.C., who was chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, asking him to examine the Public Service Staff Relations Act and its administration and to make recommendations as to how the act should be amended or reviewed. The terms of reference given to Mr. Finkelman did not mention the Public Service Employment Act, though the letter from the then president of the privy council states that Mr. Finkelman was not precluded from making recommendations with respect to those sections of the Public Service Employment Act which were affected by recommendations which may be made regarding the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The three-volume document prepared by Mr. Jacob Finkelman, Q.C., is dated March, 1974. in accordance with an order of reference of the House of Commons of Tuesday, October 22, 1974, and of the Senate of October 23, 1974, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons considered Parts I, II, and III of the documents entitled "Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service of Canada". This joint committee was duly organized on November 13, 1974. Thirty-one briefs were received and considered. Witnesses from 19 groups appeared before the committee until July of 1975, after which the committee continued evaluation of the evidence. On Thursday, February 26 of this year, I tabled in this House, in my capacity as joint chairman, the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
sixth and final report of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service.
Motion No. 19 which is now before us is composed of the first three recommendations of the special joint committee. It calls for the establishment of a special task force to review the Public Service Employment Act. The task force would also look at the role of the Public Service Commission in personnel management. The major responsibility under the Public Service Employment Act of staffing, including recruitment, selection, appointment and appeal, was entrusted to the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission derives its authority and responsibility from the Public Service Employment Act.
On December 4, 1974, Mr. Carson, chairman of the Public Service Commission, had urged the special joint committee to review the entire Public Service Employment Act rather than only those sections relating to Mr. Finkelman's recommendations. Over the course of the committee hearings the mood of the bargaining agents, realizing the scope and implications of their demands, changed. The Public Service Alliance of Canada at its appearance before the special joint committee requested the establishment by the government of a committee to study the Public Service Employment Act and make recommendations within two years.
In May of 1975 the Public Service Commission appeared again before the committee and supported the altered Alliance view. The Public Service Commission had modified its approach and, in its second submission to the special joint committee, recommended that a review of the Public Service Employment Act and the role of the commission be undertaken by a special task force, and immediate amendments to the Public Service Employment Act should be limited in the meantime to necessary technical adjustments. The committee concluded that the comprehensive re-evaluation of personnel management in the public service of Canada implicit in a review of the Public Service Employment Act was beyond its scope and resources.
Because of these representations and of the consensus reached as to the need for a comprehensive study of the issues and the alternatives which must be thoroughly assessed before parliament can deal with the Public Service Employment Act, the special joint committee recommended as follows:
1.	That a special task force be established to review the Public Service Employment Act and the role of the Commission in personnel management and employer-employee relations in the public service; and
2.	That the review include an examination of the role assigned the Public Service Commission and its relationship to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
3.	That the review entail a study of the relationship of the Public Service Commission and the departments and agencies; and consider the development of an audit system for performance accountability with respect to matters delegated to departments and agencies under the Public Service Employment Act.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) drew considerable attention, when he spoke in this House on Thursday of last week, to management in the public service. He made direct reference to the Public Service Commission when he said, as reported at page 1849 of Hansard:
December 13, 1976

The situation calls for a review of hiring practices ...
The situation calls for a meeting with the Public Service Commission to learn what measures the chairman of the Public Service Commission would like to see enacted in order that he can do his job. I believe that... the chairman of the Public Service Commission is saying... that he is hamstrung when he cannot know where vacancies are, when delegated authority has gone too far, when he has breaches of regulations on a scale admitted by the annual report of the Public Service Commission.
The hon. member for Ottawa West called upon the government to review the operation and to implement corrective measures. Four weeks ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced a drive to improve performance in the public service. When the use of a performance measurement system for the public service was first introduced by a former president of the treasury board a couple of years ago, I expressed my concern that it was being internally conceived and constructed. I expressed my doubts then, and I reiterate them today, that no matter how high the standard of efficiency developed within the public service, a question will remain in the minds of the general public if it seems that the very persons that are being measured are also those responsible for the system of measurement.
I should say here that there is obviously considerable concern in the public service itself that the criticisms which are being openly expressed today about hiring practices within the public service are reflecting upon the whole of the public service. Where there is abuse-and we have talked so much of abuse in other areas-there is always a reflection on the rest of the persons involved. This is unfair, and it is why these practices should be brought out into the open. This could easily be done if a committee were formed to study the question.
It is now almost four years since the start of the examination of the Public Service Staff Relations Act by Mr. Jacob Finkelman. We still have to see the introduction of legislation based on the recommendations which followed the study. It will be 1977, at best, before a task force is formed, if such a task force is to be formed, to examine the Public Service Employment Act. It was felt that the work of such a task force would take up to two years to complete. If previous procedure is followed, the report would go a committee which might deliberate for another year. Then the House would await the introduction of amending legislation. Thus, it could be 1980 before worth-while action is taken.
Since the tabling of the report of the special joint committee in February of this year, there has been little opportunity to debate in this House the many recommendations of the committee. I am aware that many members of the opposition would like to express their opinion of this subject, and I believe some of our own members who were on the Finkelman committee also desire to speak. This motion, which is based on the first three recommendations, has been introduced for the purpose of discussion, and I hope it will receive the support of members of all parties.
Public Service Employment Act


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is customary to commend hon. members when they introduce good motions. This is generally done when the members are on our side of the House. It is more than courtesy and more than customary in respect of this motion to commend it most highly, having been brought to our attention by a member on the government side of the House.
I am delighted, through this motion, to have an opportunity to speak to this particular matter. Like the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), I was a member of the Joint House and Senate Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service when we examined together, more often in harmony than in disharmony, the problems we were confronted with on that occasion. The initiative the hon. member took on October 20 in formulating this particular motion was most timely, and our discussion today is even more timely in light of the discussions that have taken place in this House over the last three or four days, particularly on Thursday and Friday of last week.
Like the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), who was likewise on that committee and has a deep interest in the public service, an interest which I share for reasons we have in common, both of us having been in the public service, I have a deep and abiding interest that the public service should continue to be a highly professional service providing to the Canadian people, in the best form possible, the service they require. When I joined what is now called the public service, it was known as the civil service. I felt at that time its role was to be civil and to serve. Now that it has gone public, I think it still should be civil and it still should serve. They are confronted, nonetheless, with tremendous difficulties. They have been facing great odds in the last four, five or six years, and the comments made in the debate on Thursday of last week by the hon. member for Ottawa West highlight and bring to our attention some of the odds faced by the public service today.
The morale in the public service, to my way of thinking, has dropped drastically and tragically, and a demoralized public service cannot offer the service it was once able to provide and be civil at the same time. This is most unfortunate. Perhaps I would not be out of place in saying that to a considerable extent the hon. member for Ottawa West shares my view that a lot of the blame can be related to the manner of implementing the recommendations of the Glassco report. Having served in the public service during those days, to my way of thinking there were too many changes imposed on the public service at the same time. Any large body of people can absorb one or two, preferably only one but at most two, changes at any one time, but to have thrust upon it a series of dramatic changes causes needless uncertainty about the future of careers. I submit this lies at the bottom of the demoralization within the public service and makes even more necessary the implementation of the suggestion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil of a task force to look into the Public Service Employment Act.
There were numerous changes imposed during the 1960s, and I suppose they are still going on. First of all, there was the

December 13, 1976
Public Service Employment Act management by objective notion, a complete change in the manner of preparing departmental budgets. On top of that, there were career futures involved in accepting, applying and learning a second language. This also required, in many instances, the departure from a position of a civil servant, some of them senior, from Ottawa to be immersed in the other language for about a year. The lack of contact with the department was in itself unsettling, and the relative ability to learn a second language, along with the difficulties and frustrations encountered as mature men and women in their 40s and 50s was distressing. This discovery on the part of mature men and women that, while they were capable administratively, they might not be capable at that age of picking up with ease a second language, caused needless distress.
Then there were the time studies undertaken in the departments at that time, and interdepartmental mobility, the ability of managers to shift members from one department to another or to claim members from other departments. These four serious and profound changes, being imposed upon the public service at one time, were the cause of a great deal of demoralization which, unfortunately, is noticeable.
The reorganization and the examination of the departments by management consultants, which in many instances resulted in the implantation of some of those who made the examination into the departments, had a tremendous effect. Management consultants found that there was a role for them in the departments and they made recommendations to that end. I have heard it said that there is one tower in the Lester B. Pearson Building for administration and another where the external policy is done.
This was not the situation as I knew it in External Affairs, where those of us who were foreign service officers still had administration work to do. On occasion we had administration to do abroad and when we were at home. Now a division has been made and people have been brought in laterally, at senior levels, and this, too, has caused considerable dissatisfaction and demoralization. There have been other incidents that one could quote. In CIDA, for example, the degree of demoralization was actually tabulated by a report requested by CIDA because of a rapid change of personnel. This report was never made public. An attempt was made to have it made public, but it was impossible to overcome the resistance in that particular instance. It is quite obvious that CIDA does not stand alone in the demoralization. There are in CIDA a number of dedicated officers. I could say that the majority of officers in CIDA are dedicated to the work they are doing, but the conditions under which they are obliged to work cause demoralization and frustration to the extent that many are retiring and seeking employment elsewhere. It is obvious, therefore, that we do need to have an examination of employment practices, whether they be departmental employment practices or the relationship between the Public Service Commission and the departments to ensure that this part of the demoralization at least can be eradicated.

It is my understanding that the public service commission's jurisdiction extends to deciding upon procedures for employment, hiring and firing, and promotions within the service whereas it is between Treasury Board and the management of departments and agencies to determine classification and selection. These three units of government have an interacting role which has not been clearly defined. They are the Public Service Commission on the one hand, Treasury Board and individual departments on the other, added to which must be, of course, the Public Service Staff Relations Board. There is needless conflict between the four agencies of government, and the reconciliation of their respective needs and their respective roles must take place. I suggest that it could well be done by the special task force requested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil.
Appeals are normally heard before the Public Service Commission, with representation on the board of appeal by the departmental officers concerned. I have had many complaints about the manner in which appeals on promotion have been rejected out of hand without taking account of, in any way, the representations made by the individual concerned. There could well be complaint, and it will not be easy to find-as the hon. member for Ottawa West would be the first to admit-the source and reality of the complaint. If nepotism or patronage exist, it will not be documented, and when those who might have been responsible, or who are thought to be responsible, are charged with it, they are bound to back away and completely disown responsibility. Yet if those problems exist, they must be examined.
I was heartened to hear that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes these charges very seriously. On the other hand, I was distressed to hear that he will do no more than find some way to inform the House. He refused to say that he would report to the House on these findings. I think this is a matter which not only parliament, but the Canadian public, should know about. If these practices exist, they should be made public; they should be open to those who pay for those services and who are not getting them in the manner that they require.
It is evident to me, therefore, that there is a great need to establish the interrelationship between the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board and the Public Service Staff Relations Board so as to redefine the roles of each and the interrelationship that one has with the other. I recall mentioning to the former president of the treasury board, on one occasion when we were rushing to a committee, that his department, the treasury board, was a monster. He resented it. I maintain that it still deserves that appellation. It is a hydra-headed monster. It has been charged with too many roles, and if the task force can be established, it is the task force which could perhaps sever one or two of the hydra heads and produce a more meaningful Treasury Board and a more meaningful role for each of the agencies concerned with the employment, promotion and firing of public servants.
December 13, 1976

One other argument in favour of the task force is that it would offer the opportunity to many more members of the House to familiarize themselves with problems related to the public service. We must not forget that we are the largest employer in Canada. It is a large public service, and as a large public service it has many and large problems with which too few of us in the House are familiar.
Those of us who sat on the joint committee studying the Finkelman report found how many problems there were on the Public Service Staff Relations Board. I would venture to say that there are just as many in the Public Service Commission with which we should become familiar. I urge upon the House, therefore, to approve the motion that has been put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, and I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to make these points.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two points of emphasis that have not yet been made and which I should like to lay before the House, but before I do so I want to join the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) in commending the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this motion before us this afternoon. Indeed, in spite of the tradition around here that private members' motions are talked out, I express the hope that this one might be allowed to pass.
After all, all that we would be doing by passing this motion this afternoon would be to express the opinion of the House that action should be taken along the lines already recommended by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Employer-Employee relations in the Public Service which met for about a year and a half and placed its very considered proposals before the House. The report as a whole was not passed unanimously. When it came to a vote in the committee, I denied unanimity by disagreeing with some of the harsh recommendations with respect to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. However, we were unanimous with respect to the points which are before us this afternoon, namely, a call for a task force and a general review of the Public Service Employment Act and of the activities of the Public Service Commission and its relation to various other bodies. So I hope we can say this afternoon that we want this action to be taken.
I thought the hon. member for Vaudreuil used particularly good judgment in making a short speech, but in that short speech he said what needed to be said, namely, that time has been flitting by while the problems remain.
Our committee sat for about a year and a half. It took a year and a half or two years to get the committee started. Now we are well into the second session, and there is no sign yet either of the bills which were recommended in that report or of this task force, so I hope some action will be taken very soon. That has been said by the two previous speakers. I endorse it, so I need not spell it out; I need not add anything further to that part of the argument.
The two things I want to say in the context of this debate have been alluded to in part by previous speakers, but only
Public Service Employment Act
indirectly. First, every time a discussion of this kind gets going, the horror stories start to appear in the press about incompetence, dishonesty, and lazy public servants. That is not true. There are some in the public service, there are some in industry, and there are some in parliament, if you please-


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: On a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cyr:: Names?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If my hon. friend feels that the cap fits, that is his problem. I know that persons like the hon. member opposite and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) do not wish to tar the whole group of public servants, but this kind of thing develops, and I simply want to take a moment or two to say again that, as far as I am concerned, the public servants who work for the government and the people of Canada are workers just like workers in the CPR and CNR shops in my riding, or workers in any shop, plant or industry across the country.
Public servants are doing their best under the directions they are given and under the conditions which are created for them, and they deserve our defence. They deserve not to be the subject of an attack in this place or in the press. They are a good lot and, as I say, we could not do our work as members of parliament if we did not have public servants to back us up in the things we are called upon to do.
The other thing I want to say is that I get the feeling that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was almost happy the other day to pick up the issue which had been raised, and other ministers have done the same, because the suggestion is that perhaps the troubles the government has are not of the government's own making. It is easy to say that public servants have created the problems, easy to blame the mandarins in the bureaucracy. In the final analysis the persons at the top have responsibility, and the blame for the poor conditions, the lack of morale, the feeling that the government and other things are falling apart, rests not with the middle or lower public servants, and not even with some who are up the ladder a bit, but with the government itself. The final responsibility rests with the cabinet ministers opposite, and I have no use for any attempt on the part of the government to avoid that responsibility by finding a scapegoat in the public service.
I support the motion. I hope the House will pass it this afternoon, but I wanted to say those two things. I defend the public servants of this country, and I refuse to let the government get off the hook for the trouble in which it finds itself.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I too would like to see the House approve this motion. However, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already pointed out, it is only a recommendation put forward for government consideration.
I am one of those who served on the joint committee. The result of a lot of very useful work is sitting, waiting to be dealt
1954

December 13, 1976
Public Service Employment Act
with, and I often wonder who "they" are, for whom all this work is waiting. The point is that nothing seems to have happened, and time is going by. There was a degree of urgency, and it is quite correct that there was unanimity with respect to the recommendations which led to the basis for the hon. member's presentation to us.
I would like to point out to hon. members that this motion should be approved, and I hope hon. members who speak will speak briefly. It should be approved, if for no other reason than to indicate to the government that there is growing concern in the public service.
There is a growing recognition of the need for amendments not only to the Public Service Staff Relations Act but also for a review of the Public Service Commission. As did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have two reasons for wanting to see this motion passed. While I share the concern of the previous speaker that we should not tar people in the public service of Canada with thoughtless acts or words, nevertheless problems do arise. One of those which concerns me is the growing proliferation of personnel service contracts in the public service of Canada. I recall the chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Carson, indicating to us that he did not know how many there were, he did not know what they were doing, he did not know what they were being paid, and he was uncertain of their relationship to the personnel administration system. In short, there was very little evidence he could give us except to indicate clearly to us that he was afraid he did not have control over them, and that a continuation of this as a widespread practice could lead to an impairment of the usefulness of the Public Service Commission. That is my first reason.
My second reason can be expressed more briefly. We were pressured to complete our work. There was a great sense of urgency about completing the study of employer-employee relations in the public service. Some of us wanted to stretch it out a bit longer to make sure it was fully understood, fully tested, probed and scrutinized by those people involved, but no, we had to finish our work, and in late May we completed our report. Now it sits there. If there was such urgency to complete the report, why has there been such foot dragging and delay in the establishment of the task force? The joint committee felt it was of sufficient importance and urgency that it formed the first three or four recommendations of that committee to this House. I pose this as a question.
Having said that, I will sit down, and I hope that government backbenchers will not talk this matter out. There is a sense of urgency. I think it is clear to most of us, certainly to people outside Ottawa, that there is a growing withdrawal of 100 per cent total moral support for the administration of Canada if it is to be by senior public servants. I think it is incumbent upon us to recognize our responsibility and to take initiatives and steps which can correct and reverse this.
With that I again commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and indicate to him that I am very pleased to stand here and lend him what support I can on this particular matter.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make a lengthy speech today in this House. I would, however, like to make two or three points in the debate.
I was pleased with the remarks of the two previous speakers, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who indicated that they are concerned, as we all are, about the possible effects of poor morale in the Public Service of Canada.
I hope that nothing I have said in this place or elsewhere will be construed as a reflection upon the public service itself. I believe the Canadian public service has one of the highest standards in the world. Having said that, however, I think it is in the interests of the public service and the public-in fact it is our duty according to our conscience-to expose those situations which have come to our attention.
I have endeavoured to call attention to the lack of review of hiring practices and the very serious consequences of this. It was with no little concern that I read in the press over the week end some examples of horror stories. Of course in every large organization which employs hundreds of thousands of people there will be some irregularities, but to suggest that all senior civil servants are corrupt or that there is a widespread practice of female employees gaining advancement by sex and favouritism is wrong. I have used the expression "bureaucratic patronage"; I want to make it abundantly clear that we are talking about a small minority situation. If these situations exist at all, however, it is of the most serious importance to the people of Canada.
The second point I should like to make is that there is unanimity of this matter. Every member who has spoken, and all of us who have served on the committee-I served for over a year on the joint committee of the House and the other place reviewing employer-employee relations in the public service- all of us without exception were impressed by the pleas made by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission who appeared personally before the committee. He said in the strongest possible terms that there should be consequential amendments to the Public Service Employment Act as a result of what has to be done with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. He said that he hoped the government would take the opportunity to set up a task force with broad terms of reference to review the entire operation of the Public Service Employment Act. I know that the individual concerned, and his successor in this post, are greatly concerned that such a task force or something equivalent to it should be appointed. I urge the government in the strongest terms to pay heed to these recommendations. I am confident that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is taking them seriously and I look forward to an announcement before very long in this place or somewhere else of the steps that will be taken. I hope they will be along the lines of the recommendations put before us today.
I cannot leave the subject without taking the opportunity to say a word or two about the operation of Data Stream in the
December 13, 1976

public service. The attempt to computerize hiring, promotion, and other operations within the Public Service of Canada, in my opinion has had some very unfortunate side effects. As a member of this House I am in no position to pass final judgment on the operation of data streaming, but I have heard so many complaints about the rewards going to those who learn the Data Stream language. Senior civil servants have told me that the best thing young persons entering the public service can do is spend a week learning all about the coded data that goes into the Data Strean and make sure their files are coded according to the most recent jargon. Then their files will be pulled out when all the bright opportunities turn up. If that is the case then the matter has to be examined.
If it is the case that the recruiting officers who go to the universities really do not know where the vacancies are, and their operation consists of interviewing bright young men and women coming out of our universities each year, drawing up their case histories and feeding them into the data stream, then there is something greatly wrong with the process. I do not believe that recruiting officers with this kind of inadequate information can give proper advice and serve the recruiting function which is their responsibility in the proper way if their information is limited.
I would hope that the task force, or whatever is established-perhaps a special committee-would look at the side effects, the undesirable effects that are the object of so many complaints about the computerizing of the hiring process and the promotion process.
I commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I think he has done a service by picking out this particular aspect of the committee's report and bringing about a debate in this place. There are those who say that the private members' hour is a useless exercise. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will smile at this because he has heard me rise in this place on many occasions and say I did not think it served very much of a useful purpose. I do not think he has heard me do that in this parliament, however.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have learned your lesson.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: We all learn a little. I think the purpose of private members' hour is very well served today. A report was laid before this House many months ago. We are awaiting the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act promised by the government and I am confident they will be introduced shortly.
Those of us who have looked at this problem are unanimously of the opinion that an overhaul and thorough review of employment practices in the public service-particularly looking at the Public Service Commission, looking at the role of Treasury Board and the procedures that have been adopted and looking at the whole personnel function-are long overdue.
I cannot help but take this opportunity to repeat something I have said many times, and I am not alone in this. I hope the government will look at employment practices. I hope the
Public Service Employment Act
government will look at the structure of Treasury Board itself which has grown very large. I hope it will be possible to take those functions which relate to personnel administration and management of the public service out of Treasury Board and create a ministry with direct responsibility for them. I know in speaking of a ministry of the public service I am repeating myself; I am like the soap salesman who hopes that by repetition the message will get home, but I believe sincerely that this is part of the larger picture.
If the government takes the step recommended in this motion, that will be a positive thing-a move to rectify something which has been requested by those who have the responsibility and know intimately what is involved, and which members of this House who have examined the question are unanimously of the opinion should be done. I hope the motion will be adopted, Mr. Speaker.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, we still have a few minutes before the supper hour and I should like to put a few thoughts on the record. My riding of Hastings takes in the city of Belleville which has a fairly extensive force of public servants in various fields. The Ontario regional office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is in Belleville, and I am sure the problems that we went through with that institution about the time I first came here are fresh in everybody's mind. I should like to report that by and large they have diminished. We have a very conscientious, hard-working group of individuals now in the various public offices in Belleville.
Members who spoke earlier were all on the special committee that considered the Finkelman report. I did not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but our caucus was well informed of what was taking place.
From time to time I receive requests, as I am sure other hon. members do, for assistance in securing government jobs. In the past when I felt that such requests merited support, I have referred such persons to the Public Service Commission. You can imagine my chagrin at discovering from facts made public recently that if you have a brother or sister, cousin, or good friend in the public service who can pull strings for you, you need not go through the Public Service Commission. I was made aware of this situation applying in the Belleville area after the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) recently made his charges in public.
Before I sit down allow me to point out that on a couple of occasions recently the opposition made it a point to allow proposals made in private members' hour, proposals which we felt had merit, to pass. We went out of our way to accommodate hon. members. We did so for the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) who had presented a proposal concerning the railways. We have done it on other occasions as well. I say to hon. members on both sides of the House that I shall sit down at five minutes to six in order to allow the House to adopt the motion now before it. This matter has been raised in the form of a motion. It does not bind the government. If passed, the motion would merely
80005-56%

December 13, 1976
Public Service Employment Act express the will of the House for action to be taken in this fundamental area.
I am about to sit down. If any speakers on the government side rise to their feet, they will rise expressly to stop this motion from passing. Much has been said on the subject; it has been well covered. I think if hon. members were to stop speaking and let the matter pass, we should do the House and the government a service.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I share many of the opinions expressed by hon. members opposite on this subject-


Donald W. Munro: Then why are you talking it out?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: -but I am more in sympathy with the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I personally feel that if we were to adopt this motion we might be perceived as having prejudged people in the civil service. I do not think we should make any special recommendations at this particular time. Ultimately, when the Finkleman report comes forward, a report which will have many ramifications, the seemingly unobjectionable recommendations of the hon. member's motion can be dealt with. However, I do not think that at this time we should pass a motion suggesting that the civil service ought to be studied in the way the motion suggests.


An hon. Member:: I think so.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Well, I do not believe so at all. I think the hon. member opposite put his finger on the important point when he said that the people in the government are responsible in this area. The government has been given the mandate to show responsibility and government members should ask deputy ministers questions, the answers to which might reveal certain difficulties in the civil service. For example, it could be ascertained how many man-hours of work are necessary in this or that department, how many positions have disappeared through attrition, how many promotions have occurred in this or that department, and how many people have been released this year in this or that department.


Donald W. Munro: Just try to find out.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Questions should be asked about hirings. Deputy ministers should be asked, "Have there been any grievances in this department? Have any raised objections to advertisements for new positions?" The answers to such questions would quickly test morale. Such questions should be asked now, at this instant, instead of having some outside committee look at each department.
It is important for the government to discover if deputy ministers and those in management firmly understand what is happening among those in lower management positions, and even among ordinary working people. Mr. Speaker, the sort of

thing complained of in the government also happens in ordinary business. One hears that even in such well known companies as Bell Telephone serious difficulties have occurred. At one time an operator used to be able to call up a telephone subscriber and say, "Your telephone bill is overdue." Now the operator must get permission from the supervisor to make that call; the supervisor in turn must get permission from the supervisor of unpaid bills, and the manager must O.K. that call. Only then may the call be made by the operator. Even so, sometimes some other manager will not allow that call to be made and the subscriber is allowed to retain his telephone. Therefore the person in the front line of the business, so to speak, does not have the opportunity to serve properly.
I venture to suggest that people working behind desks in the Unemployment Insurance Commission and other branches of the civil service are not allowed to make decisions. Sometimes hon. members opposite go to bat with the minister on behalf of some person who has been dealt with unjustly. In that case the member of parliament will get the credit for helping some poor soul. Yet if it were not for some foolish regulation, the person behind the desk could have dealt with the matter and might have been given credit for being a true civil servant. And this should be happening. We should allow our civil servants once again to be servants of the public and not the servants of the management above them. This is the great problem we face. It can best be solved by the people responsible, the people I will hold responsible and who will ultimately have to pay for any indiscretions which occur in that area.


John Raymond Ellis: They will not listen to you, Gus.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, my computer watch, which was given to me by a civil servant, tells me that it is 5.59 p.m. I see that the clocks in the House, which are not as accurate as my watch, show the time as being two minutes past six. Perhaps you will allow me to use my own judgment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


John Raymond Ellis: You are really on our side, Gus.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I do not think that we should act in a piecemeal fashion. For that reason I do not favour adaption of the hon. member's suggestion and prefer to await the report which will be handed down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m. this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-26, respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the Government of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before recognizing the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), I would like to inform hon. members that we are experiencing a problem with our clocks. This is being investigated. We will do our utmost to ensure that hon. members have the proper time for their speeches.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have achieved many things in my speeches, but I have never before stopped the clock. I suppose that can be interpreted that I can go on forever and the clock will remain as it is.
Perhaps I might be permitted to recap before I get into the conclusion of my remarks. I had suggested that this bill is no more than a show of the usual flim-flam for which the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) is well known. I said that I do not believe the bill as it stands or in its proposals will do anything of any great significance in terms of improving the ability of our scientists to do research in this country. It will not increase the funding which is required as a very fundamental step if science and technology in Canada are to progress at the rate we are hoping to see.
The government's policy has not changed from one science minister to the next and the latest edition does not seem to be pursuing matters very much differently. With this particular government, the situation has been created in Canada whereby the scientist is becoming a vanishing species. Perhaps the minister should be placing the research scientists of Canada on the endangered list, along with a number of other creatures that have been disappearing very quickly from the Canadian scene. An example of this is medical research. Some years ago the tradition was that about 5 per cent, or one out of every 20 medical graduates, went into the research field. Today the number is almost zero. Virtually none of them are choosing research as a career because of the severe instability and insecurity that surround the research community as a result of no policies being introduced by this government.
To get back to the specifics, before the evening break I was making some comment on the structures being proposed, and making some other suggestions. The news releases of the Ministry of Science and Technology refer to the establishment of an inter-council co-ordinating committee. I discussed this a little, but want to make a few more comments about it. It appears that this particular structure will have no status
Scientific Activities of Government whatsoever in the legislation and will therefore be unable to exert any authority over the activities of the responsible "designated ministers". Without exercising budgetary control, the proposed inter-council co-ordinating committee can hardly be expected to perform any useful function effectively.
The proposed terms of reference for the two new research councils are highly imprecise with regard both to their objectives and the functions which they are expected to perform. At least these should be elaborated on to the same extent as for the Science Council or the Canada Council. More particularly there appears to be nothing to prevent them from establishing research laboratories in their own right, which would be highly redundant. Accordingly it seems desirable to explicitly limit their activities to the provision of grants and scholarships.
Something that everyone involved in research feels we need is a science policy. We need a science policy from the short term as well as the long term point of view. From the short term point of view it appears the government has opted to cut research spending, using the excuse that this is somehow in harmony with the restraint program. But while cutting expenditures on research might be politically advantageous in the short run, it will produce tremendous disadvantages in the long run since the country will be losing a great opportunity to benefit from advances in industrial technology. Either we invest in scientific research now and reap substantial benefits later, or we cut spending on research and become a deteriorating society with little hope of achieving such substantial gains in the industrial area.
The minister might be of the opinion that research funds could be better spent on humanitarian projects such as those favoured by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who wants everyone to have a guaranteed annual income. But it seems to me this would be a backward step because in order to sustain a humanitarian society in modern times there must be a sound economy based on modern technology. We are obviously lagging behind the efforts of other countries in the western world in this field.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to Japan not long ago, and to Europe somewhat earlier, he implied that we in Canada have a great deal of scientific technology to market. Yet we are winding down expenditure on research while doing business with the Japanese who have a great deal of expertise behind them. To represent Canada as making a similar effort suggests a lack of sincerity on the part of the right hon. gentleman. In any case, his statements in Japan, as far as they concern our scientific commitment, are not in keeping with the actions he is taking back home.
There are one or two matters I wish to deal with specifically. One of them has to do with tariff charges affecting goods which are used in research-chemicals and so on. Tariff item 69605-1 relates to such material, also used in teaching at the universities and elsewhere. Formerly these products were exempt from tariff, but the federal government apparently decided it did not wish to subsidize this aspect of teaching and

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government withdrew the concession. The direct result has been an increase of 10 per cent in the cost of chemistry research and a 5 or 6 per cent increase in the cost of medical research. This is surely an example of the government taking a step without thinking it through. A directive has been issued to customs officers by a senior bureaucrat to the effect that if the user (or the researcher) personally orders chemicals he may be able to get around this charge. But in order to do so he would be obliged to indicate specifically how the material was to be used and describe the research project in some detail. A procedure of that kind is totally unworkable, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has given the impression that he is thinking of revising the estimate for 1977-78. It would appear he has not let anybody know about this except those of us who sit in the House. He is either unaware of the way in which the council operates or he is being dishonest. I say this because although the grants are made in April they reflect decisions which are being made today or which will be made shortly. I suggest that if there is to be an increase he should inform the councils concerned, letting them know what the increase is to be, 6 per cent, 8 per cent or 20 per cent-so that proper planning can be undertaken.
I would also remind the minister-if he is listening-that should he be planning to increase grants in keeping with the rise in the consumer price index, the consumer price index has been increasing at a much slower rate in the past few months than has the index reflecting the cost of research and research materials. I am told that inflation in this area averages out to 15 per cent. Thus, simply to keep purchasing power at last year's level he would need to announce an increase of 15 per cent as a minimum. But the hon. gentleman has not done this. He has restricted himself to a generalization which may raise people's hopes, but so far he has not said anything worth while.
I wish to make one more point in the area of scientific research. It concerns the equipment used. I am told by representatives of the various research organizations that as far as equipment is concerned we are living on borrowed time. The average lifetime of research equipment is a decade or so, and most of our machinery is six or seven years old. We are getting ourselves into a situation where everything will need to be replaced at the same time, just as is happening in the field of national defence. If the minister does not want to be faced with a call for exceptionally heavy capital outlay for equipment all at once he should make it possible for a certain amount of our equipment to be renewed every year.
With regard to the Medical Research Council, the suggestion is that its terms of reference be broadened to include public health research while otherwise remaining essentially the same. I am not objecting to that. The public health function has been carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare itself in the past, but it is not clear from the bill whether the responsibility will be taken over by the Medical Research Council. If so, will there be a similar transfer of funds to the Medical Research Council? In other words, can the minister assure the House, or can he assure me if not everybody else, that responsibility for research into

public health will not simply put additional pressure and strain on funds for research, which are already in short supply, in the budget of the Medical Research Council? If there is going to be this added responsibility, we must have a commitment from the minister that additional funds will be made available. Of course the minister did not make any mention of that in his comments.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is presently responsible for the Medical Research Council, but who is the minister responsible for each of the other research councils? I have already touched once on this matter. I should like to know why there is reluctance to tell us. Rather than say it will be under some designated minister, why not tell the House who will be responsible?
I see my time has more or less expired, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: No, carry on.


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: -by urging the minister to live up to at least certain minimum expectations. I hear the minister responsible for attendance in the House wanting me to keep going, so I will do my best.
The Minister of Science Technology might still redeem himself if he really wants to, and some time during the course of this debate, if he wants to do a service to the country, he should tell the House that the government does have a policy for science. Secondly, he should tell us what it is, in the hope that it is a policy that will enable the country to catch up in scientific research and activity, at least to the level of other countries of the western world.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate the government on the speed with which it has brought forward this legislation. It arose out of the recommendations of the special Senate committee on science policy eight or nine years ago, and was followed very quickly by a promise in the throne speech of 1974 by the present Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), the twice removed Minister of State for Science and Technology. There was going to be an important reorganization which would enable this ministry to look after science and technology in this country which would ensure us all a great and glorious future. Considering the fanfare that introduced this ministry in 1971, and considering the statements made from time to time by the four, now five, ministers who have filled this portfolio since its inception-


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Partly filled it.


Harvie Andre: Partly filled it in some cases-about examining this first piece of external evidence of some production from the 100 or so individuals who have peopled this department, it merely serves to confirm what those of us on this side, and indeed some members opposite, have said in the past, namely,
December 13, 1976

that the government considers science and technology an extremely low priority; that the government has no understanding of the necessity for a science policy for this country and for Canada having technological competence.
It is very difficult to look at this piece of primary evidence or production from the Department of State for Science and Technology, Bill C-26, as giving us any idea about what is the government's overall direction in science and technology matters. Perhaps that is in keeping with what the immediate past minister of science and technology said last June, namely, that MOSST:
-is a low profile organization whose influence will not be detected in individual issues so much as in the general trend of government policy and action in science.
That is another way of saying that government has no comprehensive science policy. In fact MOSST has been so low profile that the ministry has basically conceded defeat in detailing a comprehensive science policy, confining its actions to restructuring already existing institutions.
In Bill C-26 we see provisions that cannot serve as any reasonable facsimile of a science policy. It is-


Allan Bruce McKinnon: -science fiction.


Harvie Andre: Yes, science fiction, as my colleague from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) says, I think very appropriately. This simply is not enough. We in Canada have not only an opportunity but a tremendous need at this time to create an economic future for the country, and in order to achieve that goal a good technological base is absolutely essential. That is not one man's opinion; that is the opinion of such learned groups as the Science Council of Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and indeed the opinion of every individual or group of individuals or organization that has looked at science and technology in Canada over the recent past. There have been literally scores of investigations, and without exception each has led to a criticism of Canada's performance in this area and to recommendations for more emphasis to be placed by the government on science and technology. This has been met with silence by the government. There has been no initiative or movement whatsoever.
It is obvious that the government simply has no understanding or appreciation of science and technology. If it were not so important in terms of its long-term consequences to the country, it would almost be laughable, Mr. Speaker. The previous minister described it as a low profile organization, which is another way of saying a non-productive, do nothing organization. I think the description of the Minister of State for Science and Technology is a pretty accurate one. If in fact science and technology are to continue to be given the same level of priority by the government, the Canadian public would be far better off disbanding the department. It is supposedly responsible for science and technology, but this is a facade, a deception.
The Canadian people are being deceived into believing that the government has a minister and a ministry examining and
Scientific Activities of Government recommending policies, helping to implement programs to ensure that we remain in the twentieth century at the forefront of technology, which is so necessary in this highly competitive world. But that has not been the case, and this sort of deception of the Canadian public is most inappropriate in our system.
When I say deception, what do I mean? Let me examine the history of this department. It was established in 1971, and finally in the summer of 1972, after some period of gestation, it brought forward a new policy called the policy of contracting out to industry. In one of the background papers produced by the then minister, who is now Mnister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), the government stated as follows:
The policy of intensified contracting-out of R & D to the private sector was developed when the federal government came to the conclusion that more R & D in industry offered a means of creating new technologies which, in turn, would help stimulate the economy and provide jobs.
Other factors in the government's decision:
(1)	That industry in Canada invested a much smaller share of the gross national product in research and development than most industrialized nations, less than half the proportion invested in Britain, in the United States and Japan.
(2)	That the federal government has contributed less proportionately to R & D performed in the business sector than some other industrialized countries but not all. For instance, Britain, France and Germany have underwritten a larger portion of the R & D performed in industry than has Canada. On the other hand, the Japanese government has contributed less.
(3)	Canada ranks far below Sweden, the U.S., Germany, Belgium, Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and France in percentage of R & D carried out by business on its own behalf.
(4)	Only 30 per cent of industrial R & D establishments employ more than five scientists or engineers. Thus 70 per cent employ five or fewer graduates. Only 17 of roughly 700 such establishments employ 50 professionals or more.
It goes on in the same vein up to nine points castigating Canada's performance in research and development in science and technology, and this is a background paper put out by the Department of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. This was all to be changed by the policy of contracting out.
That policy was introduced in August 1972, and between then and 1976 the percentage of in-house government spending on R and D actually increased. This contracting out program was designed to decrease the persentage of in-house research and development expenditure by this government, but in fact it increased. The government's performance was exactly contrary to the one statement of policy it had made.
The government and the minister were complaining about the fact that Canada spent so much less on research and development than other countries. What has happened since that time? At the time the policy was announced the government spent 1.22 per cent of its gross national product on research and development, one of the worst records in the western world. The government was aware of this and said so in this document. It brought out a new policy and a new ministry, and great things were to happen. In 1974 that percentage had dropped to 0.84 per cent. It had declined, as pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), who immediately preceded me in this debate,

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government in all areas of medical research, scientific research and so on, and our performance has deteriorated steadily since then. I do not have those figures to make that comparison, but it is obvious the performance has deteriorated. This problem the government expressed such concern about in 1972 has grown worse.
To add insult to injury, if you like, the second time the minister ventured forth on this subject was in the throne speech of 1974. It talks about how important this ministry is going to be and all the great new authority it is to have, and how science and technology will take off because of this important new role that the Minister of State for Science and Technology was going to play within the Government of Canada. That was in the throne speech of 1974. Anyone who examines the speech made by the then minister, now the Minister of Communications, and compares the promises with performance has to be a little bit disgusted.
Then the third big piece of action by this ministry was last August 5 in the form of a news release sent out by the immediate predecessor to the present minister. It states that C. M. Drury, Minister of State for Science and Technology, announced that the government had reaffirmed its policy to encourage industrial participation to the fullest extent in its scientific program. That was the great new declaration of intent of August 5, 1976.
If we examine the document produced by the department which demonstrates this contracting out program, and we look at the latest figures available up to August 31, 1976, we see that as of October 31, 1975, the government had contracted out for $67 million worth of research; and up to August 31, 1976, it had contracted out for $38.7 million. That is 58 per cent of what it had done last year, a reduction of 42 per cent. This comes after the press release of August 5 telling us about this great new program. If the government was not using our money and if there were not 23 million Canadians out there depending on this government to show some semblance of knowledge about what is taking place, this really would be laughable. Here we have this great Ministry of State for Science and Technology which is supposed to .look after our future in this area. By my count, and I have kept track of everything done since it started, this ministry has made three statements of intent in five years. I have not figured out how much this has cost us in total, but I would guess around $20 million in terms of salaries. The department has made three statements of intent and in every single case the promises and the performance have gone in exactly opposite directions. In baseball after three strikes you are out. The most generous and humane thing that could happen to this department would be to send it out as well because it is a terrible waste of the taxpayers' money and is a totally useless department.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Harvie Andre: That is not to say the job the department is supposed to perform is in the same category. Quite the opposite is true.

My party has gone on record on many occasions calling for cuts and reductions in government spending in every area except science and technology. If members opposite had bothered to examine statements by my leader and by spokesmen for our party, they would have seen that we consider science and technology vitally important to Canada's future. We are committed to dramatically expanding expenditures in this important area. We encourage a dramatic increase in expenditures in this area within the private sector. It is obvious that the government feels just the opposite. A moment ago one hon. member opposite shouted out "rubbish" when I suggested that perhaps the kindest thing we could do is wind up this department. Let me quote back to the hon. member words from the speech on June 9 of this year as follows:
First, on a per capita basis Canada is among the world's leading net exporters of raw materials and among the leading net importers of manufactured products.
Then it went on to describe the situation in Canada, and said:
.. . among OECD countries only Ireland has a smaller proportion than Canada of its work force employed in the secondary sector.
.. . among ten countries compared by the OECD for their performance in technological innovation, Canada ranked in the tenth and last position.
.. . Canada has a huge trade deficit in the category of management and technological services. Our deficit of trade in business services in engineering oriented industries is over $1 billion per year .. .
In addition, recent trends in industrial research and development expenditures indicate that our industrial technological capability may be declining. Since 1969 research and development expenditures in Canadian industry have remained essentially constant at about $400 million per year, resulting in a substantial decline in the research and development to sales ratio.
These are the remarks not of a member of an opposition party, but of a member of the Liberal party describing how the government he supports has developed science and technology in this country. I challenge any hon. member opposite to examine Canada's performance in this area, and I challenge any hon. member opposite who can read to read the proceedings of the Senate Science Committee, the members of which are supporters of the government party, to read these debates and to read what their own Senators have been saying about the science policy of the government they support. I challenge them to do so and then, in all honesty, to stand up here and say that this government deserves a pat on the back for the great things it is doing for science and technology. Perhaps, on the other hand, I should not offer this challenge because it is pretty easy for a Liberal to take it up in spite of what the true facts really are, just as they do every day in all sorts of areas.
This bill hardly warrants the time of the House. It is like moving furniture, shifting chairs or putting a new coat of paint on an old wall. It accomplishes nothing, and since we already have a ministry of state perpetrating a fraud on the Canadian people by claiming to act responsibly in terms of science and technology in this country, to perpetrate another fraud by claiming this bill will do great things is not something that should make us as legislators proud because it is a nothing bill.
This is tragic because there are so many areas in terms of the quality of life, the value and importance of science, and so on, which should be commented upon and have been comment-
December 13, 1976

ed upon by some of my colleagues. The simple fact is that last year our trade deficit in high technology goods amounted to $8.5 billion, and the prediction for this year is that it will amount to $10 billion. This should cause a responsible government to take some action to reverse that. Science and technology are not the total answer, but they are at the foundation of any long-term solution, and the failure of the government to appreciate and understand that is tragic and is a source of great concern to any thinking Canadian.
I should like to say in conclusion that it must be recognized by the government that science and technology, and therefore the science policy, are far too important to Canada's future to allow for a continuation of the ad hoc approaches of the government. If history can teach us anything, it is that in the twentieth century a country's technological competence more than any other factor determines that nation's role and position in the world. A subject of this import deserves more attention from and concern of those establishing public policy than is shown in this legislation or than has been shown by this government since the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has been established.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that I welcome the opportunity to make a few brief comments on Bill C-26, an act respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the Government of Canada. Initially I would like to make a few observations regarding the reorganization of the scientific activities as they are outlined in the bill before us. Secondly, I would like to comment on what I would interpret as three unanswered questions which, in my view, are germane to this debate and to the legislation before us.
The first question is: what is the future of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology? That is particularly germane, not only in terms of what has happened in the past but, as I noticed, the bill was introduced today in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, if my memory serves me correctly, the bill is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Frankly, I believe there is a message even in the small comment made by the minister at the outset of his remarks.
The second question that is germane to this debate is: what is the government's immediate and long-term financial commitment to medical research and development?
The third question that must be asked and explored is: what is the government's science and research policy in Canada? I think it is obvious to anyone who has looked at this area that without specific answers to these three questions that I have raised the legislation before us is meaningless. It offers no reassurance to the scientific community that stability will exist in the future. It offers no reassurance that the government is aware of the importance of research and development in Canada and that it has established research and development as a priority item.
The major recommendation in the bill is the creation of a new granting council, the so-called social sciences and humani-
Scientific Activities of Government ties research council. The establishment of this council is in keeping with the changes that were suggested in the throne speech of 1974, with one major exception. In the bill before us the minister has not been named. I want to emphasize again that the minister for that most important council has not been named. In 1974 it was the intention of the government to separate social sciences and humanities from the Canada Council which is responsible to the Secretary of State, and to place them under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Notwithstanding the arguments for or against separating the social sciences and humanities from the arts, I suggest that it is extremely critical to know the minister responsible for the granting policies of that particular council. If, for example, the granting policy regarding humanities and social sciences is placed under the Minister of State for Science and Technology and removed from the responsibility of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), where it was associated with a context of cultural policy, that would be a very major shift which I suggest may prove to be disadvantageous. Frankly, I do not see the logic of leaving the designation of the minister in limbo, or what may prove to be more disastrous in the future, the prospect of shifting the ministry from time to time at the whim of the government. I suggest to the minister in all sincerity the importance, for two reasons, of naming the minister responsible for this new granting council, the social sciences and humanities council. First, it would ensure greater stability in the future with respect to that granting council and, more important, it would provide not only to members of parliament but also to Canadians the opportunity to assess objectively the future granting policies of this particular council which is anticipated.
A second recommendation in the bill is the formation of a natural sciences and engineering research council, and I want to say to the minister that in my view this is a distinct improvement over the announcement in the throne speech of 1974 in which there was to be the formation of a natural science research council. It was apparent at the time of that announcement that the entire field of engineering research and development had been almost ignored and relegated to an insignificant role. Of course this view was reinforced by a letter I received from a Mr. C. A. Campbell, president of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, in May of 1974. The same letter was probably received by other hon. members of this House and probably by the minister. In that letter the concerns of the membership, which totals approximately 35,000 engineers who are active in a variety of fields in various areas of the province, were expressed. However, I want to draw to the attention of the minister that in that letter from Mr. Campbell it is stated:
It is recommended that the importance of engineering be appropriately recognized by renaming the first of the proposed granting councils as "The Natural Science and Engineering Research Council" and by ensuring that the terms of reference of that council require it to give as strong emphasis to engineering research as it does to natural sciences research, with commensurate allocation of resources.

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
As I indicated previously, the naming of the council is a distinct improvement over what was announced in the throne speech of 1974. However, the functions of the newly formed council as defined in the legislation, and certainly as I understand it, are to promote and assist research in the natural sciences other than the health services. There is no mention of engineering research and development. Obviously the name is meaningless with respect to the new council unless the terms of reference recognize the importance of engineering research, a component of the new council, and I hope that before the termination of this debate the minister will clarify this apparent discrepancy between the name of the council and the functions of the council as they relate to the field of engineering and as defined in the bill which is before us.
Perhaps when the minister responds to that particular point, he might also address himself to another proposal which was raised by the engineering association from Ontario. In that same letter to which I previously referred it is also stated:
The proposal to vest in the Royal Society of Canada full responsibility for the maintenance of relationships between Canadian and international engineering organizations is of particular concern to all engineers. It is suggested most forcibly that such activities, if they are to be appropriately productive, must be assigned to an organization properly representative of the engineering community in Canada. The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, in whose constituent licensing bodies 75,000 engineers are registered, is such a body.
I think that is a most important proposal which is made by that particular professional body, and perhaps the minister will respond to that recommendation.
The minister responsible for this new granting agency has not been designated, and as I described previously with regard to the other granting council, I view this with some degree of skepticism because of the instability and uncertainty which I believe may be fostered in the granting policies of that council without some stability from a designated minister.
A third feature of the bill before us is the proposed changes to the Medical Research Council Act. As I understand the proposed amendments, the present restrictions preventing the Medical Research Council from supporting research in the public health field will be removed. This will effectively permit the Medical Research Council to fund research activities in the area of health care delivery.
As I have indicated in the past on numerous occasions in the House in various debates and questions, research in the area of health care delivery should be an important component of medical research, provided that we sustain and build a strong research base. Indeed it is my firm belief that if we are to attain scientific excellence in the area of health care delivery research, a very significant number of such scientists will have demonstrated previous success in basic research activities. Again, however, there is a new amendment to the Medical Research Council Act which I view with some concern and a good deal of skepticism. It is the part which deals with the minister responsible for the act. The present bill indicates that the minister will be designated by the Governor in Council, which I suggest could possibly be a major change in terms of future policy.

If the Medical Research Council is to continue under the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), that is an entirely different matter than relating to the government, say, through the portfolio of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The latter would be a very significant change which would probably result in substantive changes in the function of the Medical Research Council over a period of time.
While I am dealing with the Medical Research Council, I should point out that on numerous occasions in the past we have shown in very clear terms the government's lack of interest in the Medical Research Council, and the government's lack of leadership in providing a medical research base across Canada which would ensure the quality of medical education and the quality of health care to which Canadians are entitled.
To much of the material which has been presented to this House in the past I want to add a new caveat. Recent events have indicated to me that the government is not interested in establishing national medical research standards, which I believe are very important. In response to the disregard of the federal government, if I may use that word, for the future of medical research, the province of Ontario has indicated that it is planning to provide through the provincial lottery approximately $50 million per year to be devoted to health research and health related research programs, including environmental health, occupational medicine, et cetera. It is obvious that Ontario has realized that scientific activities in Canada, and certainly in that province, are substandard, are deteriorating, and the province of Ontario is prepared to take the necessary action to reverse that particular trend.
I want to point out that it is readily apparent that with the infusion of a minimum of at least $50 million into the medical research area in Ontario, which I must emphasize is roughly equivalent to the Medical Research Council budget, there will be an interference with the federal presence in research and a potential for the balkanization of research activities in Canada.
Of major concern is the fact that the federal government has not viewed the matter in the national public interest and is prepared to abdicate its responsibility rather than promote federal-provincial discussions to ensure that research activity and over-all national standards will be maintained in this most important area.
The fourth feature of the bill is related to the Science Council of Canada. When the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) issued a news release on December 2, he indicated that the science council is to have its mandate restated to provide it with a clear national and public information role. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker-to have its mandate restated to provide it with a clear national public information role. Frankly, I do not grasp the significance of that statement. I must say in all sincerity it has been my
December 13, 1976

personal view that the Science Council of Canada has been performing that function in the past.
Perhaps the minister envisages a new role for the science council in terms of public information. I could give two examples that I think the minister should examine. Perhaps this is what he is referring to and he will enlighten the House on this subject later in the debate. I would refer him to an article that appeared in the Montreal Gazette of September 30, 1976, under the heading "Public Information Act Urged by Science Head". I think it is pertinent and something we should look at in terms of public information and perhaps the role of the science council. The article reads as follows:
The executive director of the Science Council of Canada came out here yesterday in support of a freedom of information act.
"This increasingly public process is vital to the health of a system which otherwise might tend to become technocratic and centralist," John Shepherd told the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada.
"From an industrial point of view, the overriding mandatory requirement is that we accept this 'fish-bowl' concept and that we plunge into the public debate with energy."
In the future, issues will be greatly influenced-if not decided-in the public forum, he added.
"Whatever the hesitancies, and whatever the actual level of skepticism, the process is extremely positive, and we should move to it rather than either withdraw or comply at minimum levels," Shepherd said, adding: "But it does pose problems."
The tone of the debate is frequently negative and reactive, he said, adding that this could perhaps be attributed to the fact that the public often does not receive adequate information about projects.
The desire to attract attention causes protesters to cast decision makers as villains, committed to a project which those opposed characterize as completely alien to the public interest.
In such a process, the motives of major participants in a project may be brought under question and scrutiny "by groups which are becoming more and more professional in the arts of public dialogue."
Enormous benefits would accrue if the government sent working papers on policy positions to affected groups for comment.
The sense of participation in the decision process "would in my view be revolutionary in its possible impact on government business relations," said Shepherd.
If the minister is visualizing information in that context then I think it is a positive step. I would remind the minister, however, that on May 13 this year, in an opposition day debate concerned with science, I addressed myself to the specific problem of the important challenges of our generation in terms of the immensity of the technological revolution and its relationship to people in our institutions. In all sincerity I would ask the minister to refer to page 13493 of Hansard for May 13, 1976, and read that part of the speech I gave at that time. I say that because I think it is an important element that the government has ignored in the past, and it may well serve as an important component in an important area for the science council in the future.
As I indicated at the outset, the present legislation may prove meaningless unless three specific questions are answered. The first question is related to the future role of the Ministry of Science and Technology. I must say that although significant changes are proposed in the legislation which has the potential for sweeping alterations in science in Canada, in my view there are too many unanswered questions which make it
Scientific Activities of Government
impossible at this time to determine the direction that science will take in Canada. Frankly, and I say this with all due respect to the minister, I am not convinced that the recent cabinet shuffle and the return to a full time minister of science and technology will give rise to a ministry that will be able or that will have the will to influence effectively science and technology in government.
As I interpret the legislation before the House, and notwithstanding the formation of the inter-council co-ordinating committee, the general thrust is substantially altered from that proposed by the two former ministers who held this portfolio since my arrival in Ottawa in 1972, and is more in keeping with the policies enunciated by this minister's immediate predecessor. If subsequent events confirm my impression that the present minister will be a toothless adviser to the cabinet, we may well be seeing the dismantling of the ministry if not in name then in terms of its effectiveness. I believe that would be tragic because I believe there is need for a positive, dynamic leadership on questions of science and technology. In my view the legislation does not provide the minister with such a mandate, and the prospects for the continuance of a fragmented approach to research and development in my view would persist in Canada.
The second question that is critical to the future of research and development is the government's medium and long term financial commitment. This has been covered by many other speakers during the debate today, Mr. Speaker. I want to indicate that in the past I have emphasized the necessity not only for medium financing, which is essential to bring the scientific community up to the standards we have known in the past, but also the necessity for a long term financial commitment on the part of the government. In my view this legislation is irrelevant unless that type of commitment is made.
All sorts of information has been brought to the attention of the minister and was referred to in the debate today. I would simply refer to additional information which was presented to parliamentarians in December when the research community visited Ottawa and met with members of parliament. I have no intention of reading their entire material into the record, but I should like to quote one or two points as follows:
In order to foster a healthy productivity and to encourage the innovative elements in Canadian research a measure of predictability must be incorporated in the budgeting of the granting councils. This is crucial, especially since two of them give three-year grants to particularly stable and established researchers and projects; thus any unexpected shortfalls in budgets result in a catastrophic compression of resources available for the new or annual renewal grants normally sought by our younger, developing investigators, or by those who seek to launch any new research projects.
Along with the need for a stable long-range financial commitment, Canadian research awaits a national science and research policy, including the long-sought modification of the NRC and Canada Council.
As one reviews the briefs and evidence submitted by the scientific community, it becomes abundantly clear that the government must make a financial commitment which will restore the strength of our scientific community to the level of the 1960's. The government must make long-term financial

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
commitments which will allow the scientific community to arrange its priorities and establish that research base to which we can look forward in future.
My third point, which is most pertinent and has been mentioned by people involved in research, is that we must know the government's science and research policy for the future. This is absolutely essential. The scientific community, when we met with them in the first part of December mentioned some aspects which it is essential the government should enunciate. They include, for example, the government's concept of or commitment to maintaining research capability; its concept of minimum capabilities to be maintained in each major field and the target date for meeting that capability; the elements of economic and social goals of the government which would assist research communities in assessing and planning research and training priorities; and methods proposed for routine consultation within the research community.
In this regard I have been deeply shocked because, although there are excellent personnel on some of the granting councils, we do not yet have necessary feedback from the scientific community actually in the field and doing day to day research. I am impressed by the lack of input and disturbed because the minister does not have that type of dialogue at his disposal, dialogue which would be most helpful in assessing the work of the research community and the direction of future research in Canada.
In conclusion let me say that the reorganization of scientific endeavours as proposed by this bill raises far more questions than it answers. I am concerned because the bill does not define the future role of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, a role which could be most important. I say to the minister that this bill gives him no mandate, and therefore I am greatly apprehensive about the future of his particular ministry. In addition, the bill makes no medium and long-term financial commitment for ensuring the stability of the scientific community. As I said previously, it does not define the science policy of Canada. Certainly, the last three ingredients are absolutely essential if the legislation is to have any meaning and reorganize effectively scientific activities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Although we have not yet pinpointed the difficulty with the timing devices in the Chamber, perhaps for the benefit of hon. members I can say that it is 9.18 p.m.


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad for the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-26, dealing with the reorganization of granting councils. It is not a bill dealing with science policy, the reorganization of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, industrial strategy, or any of the other subjects to which various hon. members alluded today.
This reorganization of the granting councils provides us with an excellent opportunity to profit by our experience with such organizations as the National Research Council, the Canada Council, the Science Council of Canada and others which have

operated effectively in the past and in most cases performed their functions admirably according to their mandates.
Over the years, however, there has been a continuous evolution taking place and there is now a different perception of present and future needs to be fulfilled by such councils. They will be able, under this new structuring, to pursue more effectively the objective of a science policy which supports the planned use of science in order to achieve or further national goals.
We now have an opportunity to re-assess the direction in which science is leading us. We can plan more positively a second direction which will be of the greatest possible benefit to Canadians. My main concern is that, when the government is deciding on the make-up of the councils, the scientific community should have a significant input into the decisionmaking process so that there will be a just reflection of the various component disciplines which make up the spectrum of science, as well as a high level of expertise among members of the councils and geographical representation. I wish to say a few words about each of the proposed councils in turn.
The National Research Council has a well-deserved reputation for excellence both in Canada and abroad. NRC has made major contributions to scientific knowledge in the past and continues to focus its attention on problems with which we will be faced in the future such as, for example, alternative energy forms. That type of activity will continue, and I sincerely hope that the proposed reorganization will not be seen by NRC personnel as a downgrading of their role or as suggesting that their work until now has been anything short of excellent. Although restricting its work to the laboratories, the National Research Council will continue to play an important national role in the conduct of pure research as well as specific mission-oriented projects which have as their goal the solution to particular national problems.
The reorganization of the Medical Research Council will be minimal, merely providing for an expanded field of responsibility, namely, the public health field. Under its present mandate the Medical Research Council supports pure, applied, and clinical research in the health sciences. The expansion of its mandate to cover the whole area of health sciences is a logical progression which will enable the council to coordinate research among the different disciplines involved in that field. The change to allow the MRC to support public health research will not necessarily result in increased expenditures at this time, as from time to time priorities can be adjusted to reflect changing needs in the health sciences.
The need for a strong research capability in the social sciences may not be as apparent as that for medical research, which most people will agree is very important, or scientific research which can be translated into dollars earned and an expanded economy, but it is clearly an area which deserves much more support than it has received in the past. As the late John J. Duetsch told the National Social Science conference in November, 1975:
The human condition is to make choices with certain degrees of freedom but under various constraints. It is the role of the social scientists to enlarge the
December 13, 1976

degrees of freedom for all who must make choices, the politicians and the citizens, by exploring new options or different ways of reaching objectives and with varying benefits and costs. In order to do this social scientists have the responsibility to increase their knowledge of the issues and of the phenomena with which they deal. They have a responsibility to reduce the babble of confusing voices and to narrow the ranges of uncertainty by means of rational analysis and research.
We need sound social science research in order to have that fundamental self-knowledge without which sound social policies cannot be developed. Increasingly the social sciences are becoming essential to the successful translation of the pure sciences into practice. The social implications of modern technology cannot be ignored, and for proof we have only to look to the nuclear energy debate and the problems associated with the proposed northern oil and gas pipeline. The study of the social sciences is not a luxury which we can do without. The decision to divorce this research function from the Canada Council and establish a separate social sciences and humanities research council, with status equal to that of the other councils, demonstrates the recognition by the government of the important and useful work now being done by those studying social behaviour, and testifies to its enhanced importance in the future. The decision to increase the membership on the Science Council of Canada from 25 to 30 in order to make room for more social scientists is further evidence of this trend.
The Science Council is being given a new mandate which will involve educating the Canadian people about significant areas of science which will affect our way of life in the future. This has already been started, as demonstrated by, for example, the Science Council report on "Canada's Energy Opportunities". I feel that this role should be performed by a body such as the Science Council which is, in effect, at arm's length from the government, connected to it but not a part of it. Increasingly the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has been taking over some of the original responsibilities of the Science Council, and therefore this bill will remove some of the overlapping of responsibilities which have developed. I look forward to a Science Council which keeps in close contact with parliament so as to best fulfill its new role.
With regard to the Defence Research Board, this legislation reflects what is actually a fait accompli. My only criticism of the relationship of the DRB with the government is that I would prefer to see R&D being responsible at a higher level within the Department of National Defence. R&D reports to the chief, research and development, in the department. He, along with the chiefs of engineering and maintenance and of supply reports to the assistant deputy minister (materiel). This situation does not do justice to the important role research and development play in satisfying Canada's defence requirements. In the Department of Agriculture, there is an ADM responsible solely for research. It should be that way also in the Department of National Defence. Certainly this has been a cause of dissatisfaction and lowered morale among those working in the defence research establishments.
Scientific Activities of Government
The transfer of responsibility for Canadian Patents and Development Limited from the National Research Council to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is to be applauded, as it demonstrates recognition of the fact that the best technology in the world is of no practical use unless it can be translated into practice and become marketable. Because Industry, Trade and Commerce has an intimate knowledge of Canadian industry as well as contacts throughout the world which will facilitate the marketing of technology developed in Canada, this transfer is, again, extremely logical and praiseworthy, and I will be expecting an increased number of CP and DL patents being reduced to practice in industry as a result of ITC's involvement.
I am happy to give my support to Bill C-26 and look forward to the benefits for Canadian science which will be the result of its implementation.
I would now like to address a few remarks to the questions raised in this debate. This bill is in essence trying to build on the best tradition of the past. It is an evolutionary approach with a minimum of bureaucracy.
The opposition, primarily the Progressive Conservatives, have been trying to saddle this bill with everything having anything at all to do with science. This has been completely unrealistic. They are trying to say it should be responsible for industrial strategy, that it should be dealing with funding. Funding is a budgetary item and comes in, either in the blue book of estimates or in budget bills. It would not be encompassed at all in Bill C-26.
Bill C-26 is just one portion of the science problem area. It is an organization one relating primarily to university funding and allows universities to reassess their contribution in relation to national goals.
There has been talk of a government science policy from the opposition. There is no single science policy per se. This bill is part of an administrative framework for the various policies involved in a science strategy.
A total science policy takes on several forms. There is a policy for energy R&D. There is one being evolved for food R&D, one for space R&D which is primarily in the communications technology area, as well as an oceans policy. All these policies in these various areas are part of a total science policy. There is no one single all encompassing science policy.
Several comments have been made about the inter-council co-ordinating committee, the ICCC. Several comments which were made are very misleading. First, this committee, as it is proposed, is made up of the secretary of MOSST plus the three presidents of the three granting councils-the National Science and Engineering Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council. Others can be invited to meetings in connection with the subject under discussion, but basically the ICCC is a committee of four people. Therefore there is a small efficient group which can deal with the funding applications of borderline cases with respect to the areas of jurisdiction they fall into, and not a large layer of bureaucracy as stated by the

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government
hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).
The criticism that funding is suffering because of so much being spent on administration is another comment that is not valid. NRC spends roughly 2 per cent of its budget on administration for operating expenses. This level of the past is the same level that will be used in the future. Surely that is not an overly high level of spending for administration.
The hon. member for Athabasca criticized the proposal for the secretary of MOSST being the chairman of the ICCC. He was concerned about scientists being on the committee and not bureaucrats. First of all, there will be scientists on the ICCC. The president of the National Research Council and the president of the Medical Research Council are scientists. They have outstanding records of accomplishments. I am sure this past tradition will be continued with the appointments of the new presidents of the granting councils.
The secretary of MOSST is the best possible person to be the chairman of the ICCC. He has first hand knowledge of all R & D going on in the country, whether it be in government, university or industry. In government this includes not only the work in the National Research Council laboratories, but all departments involved in R & D Agriculture; Energy, Mines and Resources; Communications; Environment and Fisheries; National Health and Welfare, and CIDA.
The secretary of MOSST is in frequent contact with the Science Council, the Royal Society of Canada and SCITEC. As such, he is in an unusual and unique position. There is virtually no other person in this country who is so involved with all aspects of science and technology and its funding, hence my strong support for his being the chairman of the ICCC.
The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth says that perhaps MOSST is going out of business. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) says it should go out, that it is useless. Rubbish, I say. It is essential that we have planning and priority setting in the area of the spectrum of science and technology. If MOSST were disbanded, the work would have to be done elsewhere. It must be done; the question is where and how.
The opposition want instant answers and instant solutions. That is not only unrealistic, it is an injustice being perpetrated on the ignorance of the public by the PC's. It is typical of the PC's. There was an understanding with the opposition parties that only one day was needed for second reading of Bill C-26. The NDP and Creditiste have kept their word; the Tories, no. They do not really care about science and technology or the country. They only care about power, and obstructing any progress in this House.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth asked why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is introducing this bill and not the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner). This is a government organizational bill. It is not
[Mr. Maine.)
designed to deal with MOSST or solely the areas of jurisdiction of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. Surely the hon. member realizes this. It is indicative of how little he and his colleagues understand this bill.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a good speech when he was discussing the content of the bill but he got a little excited at the end. Surely there can be no objection to the fact that five years after Senator Lamontagne's committee reported, and more than two years after the Speech from the Throne included the promise that a bill such as this would be introduced, we should take a day, or a day and a half to give the minister and the government the benefit of some comments about it. It is true there has been a wide-ranging debate, but the hon. member from Guelph knows that this is the whole object-


An hon. Member:: Wellington.


Mr. Fairweather:: Wellington, is it? The hon. member lives in Guelph and his constituency is Wellington. In any event, why should he object to a day or two being taken up in debate when the legislation has been so long aborning? There is a grave issue facing Canada about the funding of research in all the aspects alluded to by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), and I think it is proper we should take time to discuss it.
There is one other comment I should like to make about the last speech. It concerns a reference to the late Dr. John Deutsch. I was at the conference at which he made the comments about the "confusing voices", if I took him down correctly. This echoes one of my pet beefs about the social scientists. The voices in which they discuss their discipline are so obscure that often the public cannot understand them and often, I think, they cannot understand one another. This is a serious indictment to make of social scientists and it is time scientists generally cleared up the nature of their language.
There is absolutely no reason why medicine, science, or any of the disciplines, including my own in law, should not be able to address the issues or matters they are undertaking on behalf of all of us in plain language, language which is easily understood. I have often wondered whether scientists sometimes prefer to be obscure simply as a tactic to keep their own domain untroubled by any public interest. This is an indictment I have made of them in their presence. It is really a plea for plain language.
As I have said, the bill has been a long time aborning. Of course the overhaul which is contained in Bill C-26 really has its origins in Senator Lamontagne's committee report. I should like to take a minute now to discuss what I think are a couple of the implications. Other members have drawn attention to their particular pets. Mine happens to be the Canada Council and, whether the hon. member for Wellington likes it or not, it is time we discussed funding and the implications of the spin-off from the Canada Council. As I understand it, there will be the same public servants and perhaps new officers, but

very little addition to the staff. I have personally no serious objection to this.
I,	and many others, have received representations in increasing numbers about the serious shortfall in funding for many of the artistic components, for instance, the various orchestras across the country. We are told by postcard, letter and telegram that the Treasury Board is proposing to keep budgetary increases in 1977 to within some 5 per cent, and this raises serious implications. As I understand Bill C-26, it is not a budget bill, as the hon. member for Wellington said, but it is a bill setting out the way in which the pie is to be sliced, so I do not expect to be taken to task by the Chair or anyone else for raising here the implications of the fact that there will, as I understand it, be very little more money despite the fact that the new councils are to be set up.
The other thing I should like to say is that I am troubled by the concept that just within a block or two of this building, probably not tonight, but certainly today or tomorrow it could happen-of course, the public is not intended to know, yet; these things are too obscure and complex for us to comprehend and therefore the meetings are behind closed doors-that there will be a further erosion, as 1 see it-I hope I am proved wrong and I will be delighted to apologise if I am proved wrong-of the national underpinning of post-secondary education by a mere transfer of tax points from the national government to the provinces. I am not making this comment just because I happen to come from one of the smaller, have-not, provinces. I am an unreconstructed Corryire, believing, like J. A. Corry, that there is a federal obligation based very soundly in the constitution, although like all constitutions perhaps it was not as clearly stated in 1867 as we would wish in 1976. However, any look at the Blue Book will show the dollar involvement of the national government in post-secondary education or, for that matter, in education in general.
Public people down through the ages, since this country was founded, have been using all kinds of euphemisms for education. We have set up councils of ministers of education for the provinces although, as I understand it, there is no federal presence there. There is, perhaps, an observer, but certainly no federal minister attends. At any rate, not since the days of the Pearson government have we had under the Prime Minister's own sponsorship an advisory group dealing with post-secondary education at the ministerial level. It is my understanding that a middle-rank official is now undertaking this advisory role for the Department of the Secretary of State.
I believe national responsibility for post-secondary education is one of the aspects of what we might call the new federalism, or the new constitutional arrangements which might be necessary if, as we all devoutly hope, we are to have new arrangements in order to persuade one of our provinces at least to stay within the Canadian family. It is time for those of us who believe this-and I do not believe it is a particularly partisan view-who believe in the national responsibility of postsecondary education, to stand up. For example, it seems to me I read the other day a speech by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to the Canadian Tax Foundation in which he said
Scientific Activities of Government the federal government wanted to sit at the table, that is, the table of education. Certainly I think that is justified.
It seems to me almost incomprehensible, in a country of two official languages that spends massive federal funding on post-secondary education, that there is still no possibility, I understand at least up to this point, for the federal government to require any qualification for university entrance. It seems to me totally wrong, for example, that any university in this country would not as a matter of course expect facility in the French language and in the English language for university entrance. I do not care if a student is going to be a doctor or is going to pursue courses of a more general nature not in a particular discipline; this in 1976 is, it seems to me, not an outrageous request.
I do not think we should make such a request on the basis of money, although I suppose money can tell a tale and can also be a persuasive element. In other words, the national government has a responsibility in post-secondary education, and there follows from it certain requirements for national dollars which universities should accept as a matter of course in participating in the citizenship of this country. Perhaps some people would think this is a simple-minded suggestion. I hope not, but to me it is a rather obvious one.
I have not seen very much press on Bill C-26, so I hope that the minister, with his usual modesty, will not be overly sensitive at that fact. Perhaps my research on Bill C-26 is not very good, or perhaps the reason is that this bill has been promised for so long. Nevertheless I did find an interesting editorial in the Montreal Gazette a week ago which explained the bill and suggested that the new councils might support research, first of all, into discovering why it has taken the government so long to get to the place we have arrived at today. This might be a very interesting research project for an M.A. thesis. After all, it has taken three years to bring about something that the government decided to do that many years ago. Perhaps that says something about the arrangements we have here in parliament.
I do feel some sympathy with the government. I do not know whether this bill has been prepared for some time and the government just keeps changing the date each year, or changing it as ministers change. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not yet changed, though that is an inevitable consequence and will indeed happen. Anyway, perhaps it would be a good idea to have a research paper into why a rather modest proposal involving no extra expenditure should take so long to get to this stage.
If I may just spend a few further minutes, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something further. I agree that the clock situation does make things difficult. I keep looking at the clock, and although I think I have spoken for a long time, I find I really have not.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is still only eight o'clock.

December 13, 1976
Scientific Activities of Government


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: It is still only eight o'clock. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay) reminds me that my speech is of such a high degree of intelligence that he thinks it is going more quickly than I do. In any event, may I refer to the Canada Council part of the bill for a moment.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Wellington, or whoever on the government side is going to make the next speech, would like to reflect on the fact that it has been, after all, some 25 years since the Massey report which ultimately was responsible for setting up the Canada Council. Perhaps it would be a fairly good time for the government to consider taking another look at the question. I am not persuaded that it is a good idea to have another royal commission. I am rather cynical about contemporary royal commissions. I think the public is commissioned, task forced, and researched to death. Surely the advisers to the government could assemble themselves into a group to take a look at the Canada Council, at where it has been, and what contribution it has made to the reinforcement of the arts in our country.
Some of us are old enough to remember the days before the Canada Council. If anyone wants an example of what it was like before the Canada Council was set up, they should look at the operating budgets of some of the great national orchestras of our country. They should look at the number of artists, authors, poets and so on and see what these creative people have been doing. What I am really saying is that perhaps it is time for a stocktaking of the last 25 years; then, if it is not too dangerous an idea, perhaps we should then look ahead. It is my understanding that if the present day budget projections are accurate, many of the creative and artistic aspects of Canadian life will be in very great jeopardy, not only in the decade ahead but during the next four or five years.
It may be that such a look, Mr. Speaker, could devise a system for making more generous tax arrangements so that the private sector could participate more actively in this field. I, as the representative of a small province, have been an enthusiastic supporter in general terms of state intervention. People get knee jerky about state intervention, but the intervention of the state is really nothing very different from the intervention of the prince in earlier days, and personally I am more comfortable with the state and the Canada Council than I am with the patronage of princes. Perhaps we should look not only at the catalogue of achievements of the Canada Council but also at some projections as to where what we call the humanities and the artistic aspects of our life are going to be in the next few years.
I think that is about all that hon. members will want to hear from me on this topic. I should like, at some time or other, to have an opportunity to discuss, in terms that will not offend the hon. member for Wellington as to relevance, the whole subject of the student in university and what I see as the mean spirited view-and in saying that I set myself up to be shot down-on the part of many provincial governments today in that there is a toll at our provincial gate, a separation possibly in domestic terms of those who come from New Brunswick

and Nova Scotia to attend some of the great institutions of Ontario and Quebec.
Certainly there is a toll at the gate of Canada for those who seek to come to these institutions to study. I think this is a mean-spirited concept, and I regret to see it is most manifest in the two richest provinces in our country. There are national implications to having higher fees for foreign students. I regret the fact that Canada, the country we serve, has had little to say about this, although the higher fees for foreign students obviously affects the international posture of this country.
I think for example of the Prime Minister, who obviously when he was at the Sorbonne did not pay an extra fee because he was a Canadian student, and nor did he presumably when he went to Harvard. There are many members who have had similar experiences and, of course, there are hundreds of thousands of people around the world who have benefited from the generosity of respective national states. I believe very firmly that this sort of "scholars for dollars," surely one of the most demeaning slogans of the last two or three years, could have serious implications for Canada.
I hope it never happens within our own country, although it obviously happens with quotas. There are quotas-so many New Brunswick people can go here and so many Prince Edward Island people can go there. Canada was not founded on quotas. Some of our great international universities which speak really to the world surely would never have gained such undoubted reputations if they had a sliding scale that affects people from all over the world.
The hon. member for Wellington and others may suggest that I am well beyond the scope of a second reading debate, but this includes the Canadian Committee on Financing University Research, and that is the hook on which I am hanging this plea. Really this is a plea that the provinces in this country not take what I think is a retrograde step of having different requirements in money terms for people who come from outside Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in commencing my speech tonight I should like to make a few general comments. I see that it is getting rather close to ten o'clock, so perhaps when the bill comes back for further consideration I can continue.
The first point I should like to make concerning Bill C-26 is that, quite unlike the reaction of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), I believe it is very important that this House be informed of the total picture the government sees in respect of research and development in Canada. It is unfortunate that we are being asked to consider a bill such as C-26, which really changes the form of the government's activity, without having a clear picture as to how in fact the government intends to right a tendency in Canada to have less and less research and development in relation to our gross national product.
December 13, 1976

Contrary to what may have been said on the other side, this is one of the most serious issues facing this country at the present time. For reasons I totally do not understand the government has chosen to take Canada literally out of step with the rest of the industrialized nations regarding research and development.
My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), has indicated that at the present time there is a deficit in our trade of high technology goods of $8.5 billion. In that connection I should like to refer hon. members to comments by the President of the United States in his economic report of March, 1976. I would emphasize that this is our main trading partner, and this is its view about research and development as expressed by the president at page 120 in that report as follows:
U.S. trade in technology-intensive products has long been the mainstay of a favorable U.S. trade position in manufactures; however, the decline in this balance from $8.3 billion in 1971 to $6.7 billion in 1972 leads to some concern that the United States was losing its ability to compete effectively in this commodity group and faced the prospect of increasingly large trade deficits in manufactured goods.
This has not occurred, however. In fact, the balance has quadrupled in the last 3 years and reached a record high of $27.2 billion in 1975.
Let us get the correct perspective. The United States had a trade surplus in respect of high technology goods of $27.2 billion in 1975, and we had a deficit of $8.5 billion. The report continues:
While part of this improvement undoubtedly can be attributed to the recession in the United States, which reduced the rate of growth in import demand, U.S. exports of technology-intensive manufactures competed very favorably over this period, growing at an annual-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but, although the clocks say eight, I must inform him it is ten.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 7, as reported in Hansard at page 1730,1 put this question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau):
In light of the discussions the Prime Minister and his colleagues had yesterday with representatives of the National Council of Women and in view of the many ways in which pension plans under the aegis of the government discriminate against women, will the government consider establishing a review of all pension
Adjournment Debate
plans that come under the responsibility of the government with a view to ending discrimination against women?
I went on to give four examples. The first point I want to make in raising the question again tonight is that I directed my question to the Prime Minister because I am concerned not just about something in one department, but about something that raises its ugly head in a number of departments. However, because the subject was pensions the Prime Minister passed the question back to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I see by the process of elimination it is his parliamentary secretary who will be answering me tonight.
Although I gave four examples of discrimination against women so far as pensions are concerned, and I will come back to those examples in a moment, the key portion of the reply of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was in these words:
-I want to deny that allegation most vigorously. What the hon. member sees as discrimination is not directed against one sex in particular; it is merely a matter of dealing differently with people according to the conditions in which they find themselves, be they male or female. That has nothing to do with the status of women as such.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will not give us the same line tonight that his minister gave us the other day. What the minister tried to say was that perhaps women are not getting pension equality with men but it is not because they are women but because they are not in the labour market and therefore do not qualify for the pension plan, or for a number of other reasons. What I sought through my question the other day was a review with a particular interest. I asked that all pension plans be looked at to determine whether there is discrimination against women and whether something can be done about it.
Let us take a few of the examples. I cited the Canada Pension Plan which does not cover housewives. The minister says that is not discrimination against them because they are women; they are just denied it because they are not in the labour market. Put any name you want on it, the largest group of people who are left out of the Canada Pension Plan is women. Mostly they are housewives. I suggest that no matter what appellation you give it, that is discrimination.
Next I go on to the spouse's allowance. The spouse's allowance is set up nominally on an equal basis, male or female, but in terms of statistics the persons who suffer the most because they cannot qualify for a pension under the spouse's allowance are spinsters and widows between the ages of 60 and 65. Statistics already show that the persons who, for the most part, are cut off the spouse's allowance before they are 65, are women whose older husbands have died.
I move on to veterans' pensions. There again there is discrimination which the minister might say is not because of the fact that they are women but because they are widows. Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing. I note in particular that the widow of a veteran who received a 48 per cent pension or more gets the full widow's pension, but the widow of a veteran whose pension was less than 48 per cent does not get a pension

December 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate
as a right but must fall back on the war veteran's allowance. So the persons who are discriminated against most in terms of pensions that come under the Department of Veterans Affairs are, in my view, women.
Then there is the largest group of all, women who survived their husbands and, at best, get a 50 per cent pension. This applies, I admit, not just in pensions that come under the government, but it applies across the board. There are some 60 per cent pensions but, for the most part, the pension is 50 per cent. Here you have a man and wife who live and work together. They produce a certain estate, certain pension rights. Let us say they both live until the breadwinner goes on pension, and that pension is a certain amount. If the man dies first, the woman's pension is 50 per cent; if the woman dies first, the surviving husband's pension is 100 per cent. No matter how thin you slice it, no matter how you describe it, that is discrimination against women.
This government did not create it; it is something we have inherited after decades of a double standard.


Miss Campbell:: I am glad you do not blame us for that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I blame this government for continuing it, and I blame the Minister of National Health and Welfare for not even being willing to review this matter with this particular point of view in mind.
That is my request. I do not expect the problem to be solved tonight, but I ask that this question be looked at very seriously, particularly in view of the concern that the government is supposed to have for equal rights for women.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, let me first repeat what the minister previously stated in response to this question. He said that the hon. member sees sex discrimination where in fact none exists. I would say the hon. member has probably cleared some of that up this evening. He agrees that most of these plans are set up on the basis of equality to each sex. It is just that more of one sex get caught in some of these problems.
I would like to deal first with the question of the spouse's allowance.
The spouse's allowance was introduced to provide additional income in situations where a couple is living on a single pension and the pensioner's spouse is between 60 and 65 years of age. The hon. member may not agree with the provisions of the spouse's allowance, but nonetheless there is no discrimination in that the same benefits are provided to male and female alike. The hon. member should not try to confuse the public on this point, and I think he has cleared it up at this stage.
With respect to the Canada Pension Plan, I point out that the plan was amended in 1975 to provide equal treatment for women and men. As this House knows, the government also intends to introduce in this session two further amendments to the plan to give recognition to the economic contribution of both partners in a marriage.

The first amendment will propose that pension credits earned by spouses during marriage may be divided equally between them if the marriage is dissolved. The second provision will enable any Canada Pension Plan contributor who leaves the labour force to raise children under age seven to drop out those months of low or zero earnings in the calculation of pension entitlement.
The hon. member mentioned allowances for widows and widowers of public servants. It should be noted that here too the formula for benefits is identical whether the surviving spouse is male or female, and therefore it cannot be construed to be discriminatory.
The hon. member spoke of benefits paid to surviving spouses of veterans and would have us believe that benefits are denied to veterans' widows. This is simply not the case. Pensions are provided on the same basis to both sexes. Again, the hon. member may disagree with the terms of the pension, but he cannot say that it is on the basis of sex discrimination that he disagrees.
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that Bill C-25, the Canadian human rights legislation, proscribes discrimination in pensions and fringe benefits in all establishments under federal jurisdiction. As the hon. member is no doubt aware, a wide range of establishments come under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. For this reason during the last year and a half a federal-provincial committee has been examining how best to eliminate sex discrimination in pensions and benefits. The federal government has made provision within its own statutes relating to pensions to ensure equitable treatment for women and men, and Bill C-25 extends such provisions to all establishments under federal jurisdiction.
It should be noted that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) recently announced that an inter-departmental committee has been engaged in a comprehensive review of the whole area of pensions of Canadians with a view to assessing whether any significant changes in policy should be considered. This certainly would include any possible sex discrimination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Stanley Howard Knowles: The parliamentary secretary missed the whole point.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION-APPOINTMENT OF COMPTROLLER GENERAL-REASON FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATION OF AUDITOR GENERAL
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1976, I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) a question with respect to the basis upon which the government was avoiding the call by the Auditor General of Canada for the appointment of a chief financial
December 13, 1976

officer. My question was based on the fact that in a previous statement the minister had said that such an appointment could possibly challenge the whole structure of parliamentary responsibility, ministerial responsibility to parliament, and the rights of members of this House. Quite frankly, there must be a better reason than that because that reason has no force or validity whatsoever, in my respectful opinion, and I say to my colleagues in this House that if there was a challenge to hon. members of this House, I would be the first one to raise the matter.
I presumed in the question that the financial officer would be basically dealing with senior levels of the public service on accounting and financial matters of the ministry. I presumed his annual report would be tabled in parliament in the normal course. I further presumed that the work of the Public Accounts Committee would be facilitated because many of the things which the Auditor General would normally deal with would be caught at the outset, and therefore the work would be lighter. The minister tended to agree with me, but still he evaded the point, and although he has moved in the direction of appointing departmental financial officers, the main thrust of the report of the Auditor General is still clouded by some spurious desire for a royal commission, which is really unnecessary in view of the work that was done by the Auditor General.
The problem is a serious one. In his report the Auditor General said this:
Based on the study of the systems of departments, agencies and Crown Corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control in the Government of Canada is grossly inadequate.
Not just inadequate, but grossly inadequate.
Furthermore, it is likely to remain so until the Government takes a strong, appropriate and effective measure to rectify this critically serious situation.
Those are the strongest words which have ever been used by the Auditor General, not with respect to an isolated instance or a series of them, but with respect to a course of conduct. He has said that the system is wrong. He also said that the Government of Canada cannot produce accurate accounts of its spending.
What is going on when the Auditor General tells us that this vast bureaucracy is so fumble-fingered with the money it holds in trust and spends on our behalf that he is not sure how much is being wasted, how much is non productive, and that he cannot assure us that fraud has not been committed? Given the dimensions of the problem, which Treasury Board officials concede, what is to be done?
The Auditor General, supported by his independent advisory committee consisting of accountants from Canada's top firms, wants a comptroller general of Canada and wants the government to make sure that whoever fills this position comes from an outstanding financial background.
This is a position similar to that of the comptroller of a company, assuming Treasury Board's responsibility in this
Adjournment Debate
field, and reporting as a deputy minister to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), and supported by a senior financial officer in each department to advise the deputy head. That first little step has now been taken.
So that no one could sit on him, the departmental financial officer would either rank equal or above everyone but the deputy minister, or he could not do his job. This the government has failed to see, or has refused to see the significance of the recommendations. Take your pick-except maybe the eyes are opening slightly. I hope they will open all the way. In fact the Treasury Board's response has been extremely negative where the key recommendation of the Auditor General's report are concerned.
I will not go into the complex push and pull between the Auditor General and the President of the Treasury Board. As I see it, the response of Treasury Board has been threefold. First, it has agreed to tinker extensively with the existing system following some of the secondary recommendations of the Auditor General. Second, it has rejected as constitutionally inappropriate the heart of the Auditor General's report-the need for a comptroller general-but now it has moved toward having financial officers in the departments. This is something new, and I hope it is the first of many steps to be taken by the government. I urge it to do so. Third, it has appointed a royal commission composed of career public servants who probably will lobby for the status quo, on the one hand, and accountants who will probably agree with their colleagues on the other. I think the government has really said, "Yes, we agree some horses have run away, but we think it would be inappropriate to close the barn door. However, we will repaint it."
The royal commission is a patent attempt to forestall any criticisms the Auditor General might make before the Public Accounts Committee or in the next year's report. No doubt it is also designed, just in case the same diagnosis is made again, to delay further serious criticism or action until after the next federal election. For Heaven's sakes-let us forget such an evasion and get on with implementing the Auditor General's recommendation. Let me state unequivocally that such a move by the government to create that office would have the support of our party.
We utterly reject this phony constitutional argument which is being tried on the people of Canada. More than that, the people of Canada reject it as well. I am sure that they regard the cynicism behind this move as simply breathtaking, as I do.
I fail to see where the constitutional responsibility of departmental officials, their ministers or ministry to the House of Commons, is interfered with by the Auditor General's recommendations. There is no reason why that Auditor General's report ought not to be implemented in the fullest. It is one of the finest reports ever brought to this House by someone who has weighed his words like a diplomat, with great care, and who in subdued language has painted a picture which has brought the Canadian taxpayer to despair. The government owes a duty to the Canadian taxpayer to lift that burden of despair and to ensure some recommendation is implemented, providing something new in terms of the public accounts of

December 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Canada so that people can not only understand that their money is well spent, but that it is being spent wisely and that the accounting is carried out with accuracy.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Trudel) I am pleased to make a brief reply to the important question which has been raised this evening by the House leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
The hon. member will of course recall the forthright way in which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) responded to his inquiry on November 24 with reference to the recommendation of the Auditor General for a chief financial officer of the government. The minister said that there could be patterns where this could be done. He went on to say that he found a certain appeal and attraction for the proposition, so much so that he wanted to be quite sure about those other matters. Those other matters to which he referred concerned ministerial responsibility, the structure of parliament, and the rights of members. All these questions must be considered. As the President of the Treasury Board said, all these questions have to be answered. In the meantime there are many things we are going to do. We are not going to wait.
Therefore when the hon. member opposite suggests that there has been a negative response, he is not being fair to the President of the Treasury Board. The government has always approached positively the reports of the Auditor General. For example, I remind the House again that when the Auditor General presented his report one year ago, he proposed 34 recommendations. The former president of the treasury board who is now Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) accepted 32 of those recommendations.


Donald W. Munro: Accepted?


B. Keith Penner: Accepted and implemented. Exactly the same dedicated, determined approach is being followed by the present President of the Treasury Board in fulfilling his onerous responsibilities to this House and country.
Lengthy and important discussions have taken place between the Auditor General and the President of the Treasury Board, both of whom are concerned and honourable servants of this House. The purpose of these talks is to allow each of these gentlemen to explain carefully their relative positions and concerns. This has been done in a spirit of amicable consideration and co-operation, so as to assure a solution to the problem at hand.
I remind the hon. member that we, on my side of the House, have an obligation not to accept blindly all recommendations which come our way; we have an obligation to consider them carefully, to discover their merits. This, of course, takes time. Therefore I ask the hon. member to exercise some degree of patience and understanding, because progress is being made with respect to the report.


TRANSPORT-USE OF FOREIGN NAVAL ARCHITECTS TO DESIGN EAST COAST FERRY REPLACEMENTS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) of October 22 expressed concern about the government's ship construction program and contained a criticism about its ship chartering policy. This is the matter to which I address my remarks this evening.
In a brief presented to the government on April 26 of this year, the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association submitted an elaborate and detailed plan to keep the Canadian shipbuilding industry afloat. The government has largely ignored such plan. Among other things, the industry took exception, with just cause, to the present government policy of chartering foreign ships to provide ferry services to Canada. This policy, apparently to be continued indefinitely in future, is all the more objectionable since there are expert technology, manpower and slipways in this country and we are ready at any time to design and lay down keels to meet Canadian requirements. Moreover, our shipyards need the contracts. The Abegweit, for example, is due to be replaced by a ship designed by a Danish firm or built in Scandinavian yards. Possibly it will be both designed and built in Scandinavia, and chartered.
The ships serving the Sydney-Port Aux Basques route are now on charter from a Swedish firm and there seems to be no attempt to have them replaced by ships built in Canadian yards. One can only wonder why the government and the department seem to distrust Canadian expertise. Five of these ships are at present on the CN's east coast service. Such foreign ships are described in the trade as bare boat charters, which means, I assume, that basically the bottom is chartered but that the ship is crewed by Canadians. Whether such ships are refitted to meet Canadian safety standards is a matter at issue. In this connection may I quote part of the letter sent to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association. It said in part:
. ..ships under bare-boat charter need only meet the 1960 Safety of Life at Sea ... IMCO requirements whereas the Canadian built ships are required to adhere to the 1974 SOLAS requirements which are much more stringent and entail greater building costs. Hence, the chartered ships have a cost advantage but are comparatively less safe than would the Canadian new buildings that must adhere to the 1974 SOLAS requirements.
The Shipping Association is of the view that this method of meeting the east coast shipping need, in addition to being comparatively less safe is likely to be not only more expensive over the long run, but will also mean that the expenditures are lost to Canadian shipyards and the Canadian economy. I have it on the best authority, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary who will be replying will carry this to the minister, that if the Department of Transport wants to continue in this way, at least one replacement ferry could be designed and built in Canada and put out to bare boat charter at no capital cost to the federal treasury and at a comparative figure. If it could be done for one, I suspect it could be done for others.
December 13, 1976

Another practice to which the industry takes exception is having designs vetted offshore by a foreign firm. We are almost back in the foreign agent business. Does the minister not trust our own native ship design competence? Elas he not seen what it can produce and set afloat, on Lake Huron for example, and in many other instances? Who is to get the final design contract? This is what has happened. The Canadian plans have been drawn and sent offshore to be vetted. However, who is to get the final design contract once these Canadian plans have been approved by the Danish consultants-the Canadian designer or the Danish designer-and who is to build the ferry? Has the minister really investigated this matter carefully and has he had it costed in terms of the Canadian economy, the Canadian industry, and of Canadian ability to meet our own needs in the future in this area?
We are going to need a good many sturdy patrol ships designed for Canadian waters, preferably by Canadians, to meet our fisheries patrol needs. Has the minister taken this into account in refusing to keep our shipyards alive until Fisheries makes up its mind as to when it is going to build its patrol vessels?
Our shipyards are laying men off by the tens and by the hundreds. They will not be around to build the fisheries patrol vessels nor the naval patrol vessels needed to strengthen our patrol facilities with the approaching day of the 200 mile limit. When will the minister see this? Why is he not taking action now? Why is he not trusting Canadian industry?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy), I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), regarding the use by the Department of Transport of foreign naval architects to design east coast ferries, which could in the future serve as replacements for such east coast ferries as the Abegweit,
Adjournment Debate
Nautica, Atlantic and Nordica vessels, and I am pleased to provide the following information.
In March, 1975, the contract for the design of a vessel, suitable for ferry service to the east coast, was awarded through competitive tender to Case Existological Laboratories Limited (CELL) of Victoria, B.C. The hon. member will understand that because of the rapid advances in the design of ferries of this type which have been made in Europe in recent years, the design contract provided for the association of the Canadian naval architect, CELL, with a European designer.
He will also understand the advantages which Canada would derive from such an association, first, the promotion and development of Canadian expertise in ferry design and, second, the development of the best and most economical design, one which would incorporate the latest advances in technology and concept.
Upon completion of the preliminary design phase, in view of the indefinite timing of construction of these ferry vessels, the Department of Transport requested the Department of Supply and Services on April 15, 1976 to initiate action which would terminate the contract with CELL-Case Existological Laboratories Limited. The Department of Supply and Services is processing the termination of the contract at the present time.
I am pleased to add, in summary, that on October 13, 1976, the Department of Transport confirmed that the preliminary design data provided by CELL would be acceptable as base documentation should it be decided at a later date to proceed with the project to construct new ferry vessels. I know the hon. gentleman will greet this news with Christian cheer and positive joy, qualities which so often reside in his charitable heart.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Tuesday, December 14, 1976